Kjv

[muledog]

Montie,

I wouldn’t recommend it for bible study or exegesis, but if you are using it for sentimental purposes, I don’t see a huge problem.

As Kage said, the Psalms are beautiful (even more so than the Duoay IMHO) and even in the old English is pretty readable.

Besides omitting the deuterocanon, the KJV also has a few “faulty” translations based on the anti-catholic biases of it’s translators. It also doesn’t have any helpful footnotes as most Catholic bibles do.

Lastly, the KJV is based on the so-called Textus Receptus, a very faulty greek translation based on only a handful of late greek manuscripts. All of the modern English versions are based on a more accurate greek text that has been in use for several decades.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Muledog,

What greek text do we use in our translations? Do you know of anywhere I can go to with some apologetics on this? Thanks and God bless.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I like to keep the KJV handy, because it corresponds so well with the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. And, I have not seen anything better than Strong’s as far as connecting me with the dictionaries that appear in my edition of Strong’s.

One of the most recommended Catholic versions is the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition. I read the introduction maybe too fast. If I’m not mistaken, the KJV had a big influence on the ASV, American Standard Version. That, in turn, had a big influence on the RSV-CE. In this latter, you still have a strong feeling that you’re looking at the KJV.

If I knew before what I know now, I would have tried to study Greek and Hebrew early in my life. The reason being, we’re all dependent on translations which always seem to have some bias or other. And, so, we may very well be served by carefully comparing some of the more credited translations.

My dream Bible (which doesn’t exist, as far as I know) is the RSV-CE with cross-references and commentary by Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins and Mike Aquilina and those guys. I would like the study edition in large print, with accompanying concordance and cross-references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compendium volumes of early church fathers and documents of the ecumenical councils.

 

[Kristina_P]

BayCityRickL:

My dream Bible (which doesn’t exist, as far as I know) is the RSV-CE with cross-references and commentary by Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins and Mike Aquilina and those guys. I would like the study edition in large print, with accompanying concordance and cross-references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compendium volumes of early church fathers and documents of the ecumenical councils.

Wow. That would be cool.

 

[rayne89]

DaveBj:

Get yourself a replica 1611 KJV, and you’ll have one with the deuterocanonicals. $25-ish from Barnes and Noble or Amazon.

DaveBj

They have one for $19.77 on Amazon. Thanks for the great christmas gift idea for my pentecostal MIL, who only believe in KJV.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Montie Claunch:

Muledog,

What greek text do we use in our translations? Do you know of anywhere I can go to with some apologetics on this? Thanks and God bless.

Montie Claunch:

From what I gather, there are two primary textx that were ort have been used - There’s the Byzantine Text which is the one accepted and used (in their liturgies) by the Greek Orthodox Church and from which the KJV, Jerome’s Vulgate (and the Duoay-Rheims) and numerous other translations from the 16th Century were translated, and then there’s the Codex Sinaiticus (UBS) from which most of the modern translations are translated.

The Byzantine texts tend to be newer and more used, while the UBS texts tend to be older, less used and better preserved (because of the dry climate). The Byzantine texts tend to sound more like 1st Century Greek than the Sinai texts, but modern scholars like the Sinai texts…

I know someone who swears by the Byzantine text and someone else who swears by the UBS.

In Christ, Michael

 

[m134e5]

It’s beautiful to read. I bear in mind that there are flaws with it, so if I come across anything that contradicts the Faith, I disregard it. I wouldn’t reccommend anyone reading it unless they know their faith pretty well.

 

[Kristina_P]

m134e5:

It’s beautiful to read. I bear in mind that there are flaws with it, so if I come across anything that contradicts the Faith, I disregard it. I wouldn’t reccommend anyone reading it unless they know their faith pretty well.

I’m not sure I know of any examples where the KJV or any other translation of Scripture actually contradicts the faith, barring obvious mistranslations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible or bad paraphrase Bibles. There might be a bias in wording (e.g., “teaching” v. “tradition”), but I wouldn’t worry about actual contradiction. At the beginning of my conversion to Catholicism, I was reading a New International Version. A thorough and balanced reading of that translation led me to acknowledge the truth of the Catholic position on the relationship between salvation and works. It’s usually the filter of interpretation that one gets from Protestant teaching that’s the problem, more than the translation itself.

 

[DaveBj]

Kristina P.:

This is actually almost a valid argument, even though Jesus didn’t speak English. Most ancient languages, like many modern languages, have both formal and informal words for “you.” (Many people, incidentally, don’t know that “thee” and “thou” were actually informal.) “King James English” shares this trait, and modern English doesn’t. Of course, to use this to imply that the KJV gives an exact sense of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, or even that it gives a more exact sense of those languages than modern translations, is bunk. The languages and the cultures surrounding the languages are much better understood by today’s translators, and that results in more precise translation.

Actually, the “thee-you” difference was the difference between the singular (the th- pronouns) and the plural (the y- pronouns). This can be seen in a passage like where Jesus tells Peter, “Satan has desired to have you (“y’all disciples”) to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for thee (Pete)…”

The formal-informal interpretation was something that sprang up in Shakespeare’s time and was still too much of a novelty to have influenced the KJV, which drew its interpretations from much older translations.

(From my History of the English Language class)

DaveBj

 

[Kristina_P]

DaveBj:

Actually, the “thee-you” difference was the difference between the singular (the th- pronouns) and the plural (the y- pronouns). This can be seen in a passage like where Jesus tells Peter, “Satan has desired to have you (“y’all disciples”) to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for thee (Pete)…”

The formal-informal interpretation was something that sprang up in Shakespeare’s time and was still too much of a novelty to have influenced the KJV, which drew its interpretations from much older translations.

(From my History of the English Language class)

DaveBj

Wow. Thanks for the correction. I’ve studied Middle English and a bit of its history, but I’ve never studied the evolution of the language between Chaucer and Shakespeare. I guess the thee-you thing never came up in my Middle English class.

 

[muledog]

Montie Claunch:

Muledog,

What greek text do we use in our translations? Do you know of anywhere I can go to with some apologetics on this? Thanks and God bless.

Sorry it to me so long to respond. A good article at Catholic Answers discusses several translations and the guidelines used to translate them. It speaks briefly on the greek texts used in the Duoay-Rheims and King James versions. It can be found here.

An article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia regarding early greek manuscripts can be found here.

Articles written from a Protestant perspective - but very useful - can be found here, here, and here, and a fairly descriptive article regarding textual criticism can be found at Wikipedia.