Opinions King James Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter amazingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think anything of it. I don’t read the Bible in English. 😁
 
It is easier to defend Catholic doctrine from the KJV than it is from the NAB or NAB/RE.

Having said that, while the OT in the KJV is praised, I find the NT is stilted and does not flow nearly so well.

It is super long in the tooth - especially in a language which evolves so quickly that it is almost undefinable.
 
amazingcatholic said:
What is your opinion on The KJV Bible? Just curious.
Click to expand...
That there are a lot better English translations out there. The KJV was great for its time and a few hundred years afterwards (if you were a Protestant). But if you’re a Catholic, I would stick to a Catholic Bible that’s been approved by a Catholic bishop.
 
I don’t know the specific differences between the Catholic Bible and the KJV. Ours has more in it, and for the basic purposes of being R. Catholic, I don’t think I need to know more that that.

However, notwithstanding my aforementioned ignorance, I nonetheless have an opinion.

The KJV is for Protestants, and it makes me think of how most Americans probably consider it the regular “American” Bible, given the influences of our WASP heritage. When Facebook people spout off about how “we need the Bible back in school, consarnit!” I’m sure they mean the KJV, and not our version. So I always ask, “Which version?” and they never answer.
 
porthos11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And actually, the concept of vintaged wine is relatively modern. In Jesus’ day, you wouldn’t store wine that long simply because it would go off. You wouldn’t re-use a wooden barrel or a leather pouch because you would risk contaminating the new wine with the old and hence it going off more quickly.

Etymologically, the English word bottle probably traces its roots to the (pig) Latin butis or buttis meaning a (wooden) cask. A less likely etymology traces it to an old Persian word that actually means both leather pouch and wine. So there is nothing wrong with calling any wine container a bottle.
 
Last edited:
amazingcatholic said:
What is your opinion on The KJV Bible? Just curious.
Click to expand...
The original 1615 version or the revised edition from 1762?
Note that prior to KJV was the Rheims NT published in 1582 and the Douay OT 1609–1610. We know from first hand statements of KJV translator John Bois that the KJV was influenced by and borrowed from the Rheims NT.
 
I like it, but I use the ESV more. Whenever I come across a verse that’s difficult to understand, I use my KJV to see what it says, thereby clarifying the verse. The KJV also has some bathroom humor in it. For example, 1 Kings 14:10 in the KJV says: “Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone”.

I love bathroom humor. I can’t get over the fact that God mentions both urine and feces in the same verse. 🤣 Most modern translations try to sanitize it by changing “him that pisseth against the wall” into “every male”.

It’s a good translation, overall. God has used the KJV in mighty ways. It’s gotten more people saved than any other English translation.
 
I hope that the Church will approve a slightly altered version of the King James Version. Needless to say, until that day, avoid it. It is not acceptable for a Christian to use it in good conscience, as it is very Protestantised. May I please recommend the Douay-Rheims version, or the New American Bible?
 
The language employed is glorious and often offers a more memorable rendition. Same with the Book of Common Prayer.
 
The KJV bible seams to be much more popular in the United States than here in the UK. There are a number of KJV only churches here but they are fairly few in numbers. In the Church of England (Anglican) you are more likely to find the NIV or NRSV in regular use.

As for a daily translation I guess the appeal of the KJV is that its pretty much timeless. There are so many English language translations that it can be confusing. People can become focused on how the NIV, ESV, NRSV etc translate a verse rather than what that verse actually says.

Personally as a Brit I often find the language of the KJV too confusing and wonder how Americans deal with sayings and phrases that many Brits don’t understand these days.

Alex
 
I use it in apologetics when talking to Protestants. Back when I started apologetics on the internet, about 15 years ago, I felt forced to do so, because so many Protestants objected to my use of the NAB. They claimed it had been twisted intentionally to fit Catholic Doctrine.

Amazingly, it turns out, that the King James Bible fits Catholic Doctrine pretty well compared to other Protestant Bibles. For example:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 New International Version (NIV)
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In this example, the NIV avoids the word “tradition”. The KJV, does not. And there are other examples like that, where the KJV has more “Catholic” language than the other Protestant versions.

Nowadays, though, I get more complaints from Protestants because I use the KJV in my discussions with them. Apparently, they no longer like the antiquated language.
But all Bibles support Catholic Doctrine. The Bible is a Catholic book and try as they might, they can’t remove Catholic Teaching from the Bible.
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
…
Amazingly, it turns out, that the King James Bible fits Catholic Doctrine pretty well compared to other Protestant Bibles. For example:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 New International Version (NIV)
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In this example, the NIV avoids the word “tradition”. The KJV, does not. And there are other examples like that, where the KJV has more “Catholic” language than the other Protestant versions.

…
Click to expand...
Yep, and that’s because the King James Bible was translated with the express intent to limit Puritan influence and renderings. Outside of Puritanism, the practice and beliefs of the Church of England were still pretty much compatible with Catholicism, although by that time, Apostolic Succession had already been broken.

That is why you will still words like “bishopric” and “church” in the King James; it was meant to preserve the teaching of episcopal church polity vs. presbyterianism or congregationalism.
 
I’m not Christian but I have read and studied several bible translations. The KJV uses beautiful English and has many memorable lines, however the translation itself is poor. They had very few good copies when the did it and newer translations use much better MSS’s. It wasn’t their fault, they were working with what they had it’s just that we have so many better copies now!

English has also moved on. Many original words don’t mean the same as they used to. * Prov. 22:29 speaks of a “mean man” which means a “common man”
  • Lev. 14:10, the “meat offering” actually means a “grain offering”
  • 1 Sam 17:6 indicates that Goliath carried a “target” on his shoulder, meaning a javelin
  • Ps. 88:13 “In the morning shall my prayer prevent thee” means “…shall come before you.”
  • 1 Cor. 10;24, “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” Wealth then means “welfare” to us today
  • Acts 10:11 Peter sees a sheet from heaven “knit at the four corners,” meaning “let down from four corners”
  • Phil 4:6, “Be careful for nothing,” means “don’t worry about anything.”
  • Ps. 124:3 “Then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us.” Quick means “alive”
There was a version now called the Adulterous Version that stated …The Adulterous Bible of 1631, left the “not” out of the seventh commandment, so the command now is “Thou shalt commit adultery”. I like that one!

There is absolutely a lot of beauty in it. I would never trust it for correct translation however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top