Opinions King James Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter amazingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

amazingcatholic

Guest
What is your opinion on The KJV Bible? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
I think most scholars would admit it is a superb achievement. Though it isn’t Catholic, to be sure, and has some wonky bits (like any translation), the KJV is still my favourite version of Scripture to read, though admittedly it’s sometimes a temptation to be swept away by the majesty of its language and forget what the text is actually saying.

But then I was raised as a high church Anglican, so that may have a lot to do with it! I believe the KJV is Father Rutler’s preferred translation also, for the same reason.
 
I like the 1611 one which had all of the Catholic deuterocanonical books in between the Old and New Testament ( plus a few others).
I bought a reproduction of it for the 400th anniversary. Nice Bible.
 
Last edited:
I’ve said it before: because the King James includes the Deuterocanonical books, I am of the belief that the King James can be approved for Catholic devotional use without changing a single word. All it takes is a bishop’s conference issuing an approval for such an edition.

It does not have to be in Vulgate order (i.e. Deuterocanonicals can be “sandwiched”).

The much-vaunted Luke 1:28 does not need to be changed to “full of grace”. It can stay as is and still be approved for Catholic use.

It does not comply with Liturgiam authenticam, and so cannot be used as a Lectionary basis for Mass or for the Divine Office. But with approval, it can be used for private Catholic use.

The King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer are masterpieces of English religious language.
 
What would you say though to the fact the KJV also includes 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh in it among the deuterocanonicals though without making any distinction?
The Clementine Vulgate and Douay Rheims Bible(until 1752) had them in an appendix but it was clearly stated they were outside of the canon following the Clementine Vulgate release in 1592.
The KJV makes no distinction. To a Protestant, 2 Maccabees is no more authoratative than 2(4) Esdras.
 
Prodigal1984 said:
What would you say though to the fact the KJV also includes 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh in it among the deuterocanonicals though without making any distinction?
The Clementine Vulgate and Douay Rheims Bible(until 1752) had them in an appendix but it was clearly stated they were outside of the canon following the Clementine Vulgate release in 1592.
The KJV makes no distinction. To a Protestant, 2 Maccabees is no more authoratative than 2(4) Esdras.
Click to expand...
The same thing I would say to the fact that the RSV and NRSV has those exact same books and remain approved for Catholic use. It doesn’t matter. The RSV and NRSV Catholic editions simply arrange the books in Vulgate order and omit the apocrypha.

All it takes is one publisher to put together a King James in Vulgate or sandwiched order, with or without the OT Apocrypha (like the RSV-CE), and submit it for approval by an episcopal conference.
 
That’s true.
Actually don’t RSV and NRSV since the 70s also include like Orthodox only books like 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151?
I think I own one of those NRSV Bibles.
I think common Bibles are cool.

To be honest, I wouldn’t mind Catholic Bibles reinstating those three in the appendix either.
 
Last edited:
Don’t really know who King James was or why he gets top billing on the Bible … but I admit I kind of like the impression of Jesus as a Shakesperian character speaking with that Elizabethan era gravitas the KJV puts forth.

One version, in which Jesus supposedly said you can’t put new wine in old wine BOTTLES, (instead of skins), made me laugh.

Old wineskins with new wine, unrefrigerated, will burst old wineSKINS.

People could put new wine in old wine bottles without fear
of breakage … but should relabel to prevent new wine from being passed off as an older (presumably better) vintage.

Perhaps the KJV translator, knowing that Jesus could turn well water to wine, could probably easily confect a bottle shattering new wine, so what would be the difference (as proper English people from the Church of England would blanche at the thought of wine from an animal skin). 🤯😱
 
CaptFun said:
Don’t really know who King James was or why he gets top billing on the Bible … but I admit I kind of like the impression of Jesus as a Shakesperian character speaking with that Elizabethan era gravitas the KJV puts forth.

One version, in which Jesus supposedly said you can’t put new wine in old wine BOTTLES, (instead of skins), made me laugh.

Old wineskins with new wine, unrefrigerated, will burst old wineSKINS.

People could put new wine in old wine bottles without fear
of breakage … but should relabel to prevent new wine from being passed off as an older (presumably better) vintage.

Perhaps the KJV translator, knowing that Jesus could turn well water to wine, could probably easily confect a bottle shattering new wine, so what would be the difference (as proper English people from the Church of England would blanche at the thought of wine from an animal skin). 🤯😱
Click to expand...
That is not a problem for the English of 1611, when “bottles” used to be made of leather as well. Of course the use is more restrictive now, but the King James Bible is written in Early Modern English, not contemporary English and so must be evaluated on its own terms. “Bottles” here have carry the older, broader, archaic meaning.

King James I of England (VI of Scotland) was no one special. He succeeded to the English throne on the death of Queen Elizabeth. All he did was commission a new translation of the Bible for use in the Church of England, but he didn’t actually do the translation himself.
 
Last edited:
I was a KJV only Christian right before I converted to the Catholic Church. I owned a facsimile 1611 KJV. It was huge and the Old English script and even spelling was a delight to read. Sadly it was toppled from my bookshelf and my dog got to it. Either way I liked it and still reference it from time to time. There is something about it’s form that is very precise in it’s use of the English language. I even prefer it to modern English which seems so much more fluid in meaning.
 
Personally, I have never been a huge admirer of the KJV. While I agree it was a significant milestone in the process of translation and transmission of Sacred Scripture, we can also point to other translations that came before that were just as significant like the Geneva Bible or more important to us Catholics, the Douay-Rheims. But, I have had some really bad experiences with the Independent Fundamental Baptist KJV only folks that it has left a sour taste in my mouth to the KJV. Personally, I still think that modern day translation are always going to more accurate due to the abundance of manuscripts we have today in comparison to 1611. If one wishes to use the KJV though, I would care. Would probably recommend the Douay-Rheims out of habit though 😄
 
And King James and his lackeys led to a massive string of murders and persecution of Catholics in England. He truly was no one special.
 
I own two 1611 KJVs; one was a gift from my mother when I was in my (agnostic) teens, and the other I purchased at the age of 20 after my baptism in a Protestant church. I’ll admit, I’m a bit prejudiced towards the KJV today due to its idolaters, most copies of it today missing the deuterocanonical books, and King James himself living a seemingly immoral lifestyle, however the translation itself isn’t bad in my opinion.

Still, I don’t plan on using it again for daily reading since it’s a Protestant Bible. For converts to Catholicism like myself who like(d) the KJV, the Douay-Rheims Version seems like a fine replacement.
 
I grew up on the KJV, and there are verses that I still prefer in that version. While I have a number of Catholic Bibles, and read primarily from them, I will always have a KJV.
 
It’s the only version I used for almost 60 years. All of my scripture memorization is from KJV. The language is beautiful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top