Project Idea: King James Study Bible, Cathodox/Ortholic Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter 7MessRobHackOpen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
7

7MessRobHackOpen

Guest
I am proposing an idea to start a project to put together an edition of the King James Bible that has the deuterocanonical books interspersed throughout the Old Testament rather than separated into a section between the Old and New Testaments and called “the Apocrypha.”

It will also contain study notes explaining the text from a perspective that both Catholics and Orthodox Christians can agree with.

Thus, it will be an ecumenical project.

I’m just not sure if it should be called “Cathodox” or “Ortholic” =)

Why the KJV?

Because many Protestants are not willing to listen to us (Orthodox and Catholic Christians) until we are able to prove our doctrines using the KJV.

Also, the KJV has been called “the most influential version of the most influential book in the world, in what is now its most influential language” by Geddes MacGregor (1968) an Episcopalian priest and professor of philosophy.

Moreover, the KJV includes the Doxology at the end of the Our Father in Matthew 6.

As far as I am aware, not a single one of the currently Catholic-approved Bibles does this.

Thus, it would be helpful, especially for Byzantine Catholics, to have an English Bible where the New Testament is based on Byzantine manuscripts.

Another historical irony happens to be that the KJV New Testament was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, which was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, a Roman Catholic monk.
 
An ambitious project for sure. How do you propose to get that off the ground?
7MessRobHackOpen said:
Why the KJV?

Because many Protestants are not willing to listen to us (Orthodox and Catholic Christians) until we are able to prove our doctrines using the KJV.
Click to expand...
We have to get people out of their “KJV-onlyism” before we have any chance of successfully proving our doctrines. That in and of itself is a very serious error among fundamentalist Protestants.
 
CTBcin said:
We have to get people out of their “KJV-onlyism” before we have any chance of successfully proving our doctrines.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is the case. Plenty of Catholic doctrines can be proved through the KJV. First you need to use the KJV to get folks open to your positions, then once they’re more open to what you have to say you try to convince them to consider other translations.
 
I agree that KJV-Onlyism is a serious error.

However, I fail to see why we can’t engage in dialogue with fundamentalist Protestants the other way around.

I mean, by first proving our doctrines using the King James Bible, and then, once they are convinced that our doctrines are Biblical, proving that KJV-Onlyism is unbiblical.

This is why I think that my project idea would be helpful.
 
Exactly. That is why I think my project idea would be such a helpful resource.
 
I’m looking at things the other way around. Of course do agree that plenty of doctrines can be proved through the KJV. My argument is that fundamentalist Christian notions about scripture and the KJV are so fundamentally flawed (excuse the pun), that we need to start with those problems before we get to higher level Catholic doctrine.
 
7MessRobHackOpen said:
I mean, by first proving our doctrines using the King James Bible, and then, once they are convinced that our doctrines are Biblical, proving that KJV-Onlyism is unbiblical.
Click to expand...
I suppose that can work. I think we’re arguing from opposite ends haha.
 
CTBcin said:
I’m looking at things the other way around. Of course do agree that plenty of doctrines can be proved through the KJV. My argument is that fundamentalist Christian notions about scripture and the KJV are so fundamentally flawed (excuse the pun), that we need to start with those problems before we get to higher level Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
But that’s their base assumptions. You can’t argue directly against them; it’s like arguing that gravity pushes things away from the earth. No, you start by showing that the tradition they’ve learned from doesn’t hold up by its own internal logic. For example, find a Catholic doctrine that is not just Biblical but obviously Biblical. Say, the use of incense (I’d say justification by faith, hope, and works, but that’s back to the base assumptions part). That’s just something that dirty papists do; that’s not in the Bible.

But it is. And then show them in the KJV that it says that in heaven God is worshiped with incense.

Put them on shaky ground: the people who have taught them Christianity under the mantra “Scripture alone” actually reject parts of scripture. Get your foot in the door by showing the contradictions.

Then, once they have come to accept that they have to seriously reconsider their view, then you start talking about the fundamentals. But you have to demonstrate that the boat they’re in is sinking before you suggest they get a whole new boat.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Of course, they might argue (with regard to the use in incense in worship) “Well yeah, but that’s the Old Testament, that part don’t count no more”

Then you show them Luke 1:9-11 and Revelation 8:3-4, from their own KJV New Testament

9 According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

Then you ask them, “Do some books of the New Testament, like Luke and Revelation, not count no more? If so, how do you know which ones?”
 
7MessRobHackOpen said:
I’m just not sure if it should be called “Cathodox” or “Ortholic” =)
Click to expand...
If you want the fundamentalist Protestants to take it seriously, you would want to call it something like: King James - Universal Version, Common Version, or something like that.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
7MessRobHackOpen:
I’m just not sure if it should be called “Cathodox” or “Ortholic” =)
Click to expand...
If you want the fundamentalist Protestants to take it seriously, you would want to call it something like: King James - Universal Version, Common Version, or something like that.
Click to expand...
Ecumenical Version?
 
Good point. “Catholic” means “Universal” and “Orthodox” means “True Way”

I guess you could call it the “King James Study Bible - Universal Edition” or the “King James Study Bible - True Way Edition”
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
Ecumenical Version?
Click to expand...
I think that term unfortunately has a “liberal” connotation. Not just for traditional Catholics, but also for evangelical protestants.
Click to expand...
“Papist Vatican II New Evangelization of the Heretics Version”

There we go – I’ve managed to drive away the trads, liberals, and Protestants all at once 😁
 
Last edited:
New Oxford Annotated Study Bible is the closest thing to what you want. No need to attempt to use the KJV when it was written with the intent to undermine Catholic doctrine
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
New Oxford Annotated Study Bible is the closest thing to what you want. No need to attempt to use the KJV when it was written with the intent to undermine Catholic doctrine
Click to expand...
And how is that going to convince a KJV-only person?
 
You may find that your intended readers will repudiate the very idea of a Study Bible. In the view of many Protestants, a Bible should contain nothing but the word of God. The instructions given to the translators of the KJV included this one:

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/kjv-instructions.html
 
I’m saying there are some things that we can’t make “good” for Catholics, Orthodox, and KJV-only Protestants. You are trying to cram a square into a round hole
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
I’m saying there are some things that we can’t make “good” for Catholics, Orthodox, and KJV-only Protestants. You are trying to cram a square into a round hole
Click to expand...
I think that’s a secondary point; the primary point is to have a Bible with references and commentary supporting a Catholic interpretation of Scripture. And it’s very easy to get a Catholic interpretation out of the KJV if you know where to look and what verses to compare to one another, and that has to be the starting point for winning over people from a KJV-only background.

Plus, the language is beautiful. It has aesthetic value, if nothing else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top