Should I, as a Catholic, not read the King James translation of the Bible?

[Silyosha]

I’m 15 and am going to be confirmed in September. (A little late, I know, but I attended a non-Catholic Christian school for a few months last school year and was given a King James translation Bible, which was the accepted version at the school.) I’ve read in a religious booklet that the King James version of the Bible isn’t used in the Catholic Church. Is this true? If so, can someone tell me why, please? Sorry if it’s a really obvious question!
Thanks!

 

[bpbasilphx]

The KJV isn’t used in the Catholic Church for much the same reason that the Jerusalem and New American Bibles aren’t used in Protestant Churches, and the ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE (which has the OT translated from the LXX) isn’t used in either.

No problem with reading the KJV in my opinion. But remember that yours is probably a mutilated version that doesn’t include the Apocrphya/Deuterocanonical Books. The KJV was originally published WITH them.

And all translations of the Bible are going to be the works of mere mortals, and therefore will have some mistakes, or at least debatable translations.

 

[ricko]

The KJV was written back about 1611 and was authorized by King James. First of all he was a king, a ruler. No more authority than Bill Clinton has to write a bible. Also, it is written in the old English which to some may sound beautiful but can be hard to understand. Heck, we have a hard time understanding the English today.

Since the KJV was written many manuscriptures have come to light (Dead Sea Scrolls for one) and bible scholars have a better understanding of the ancient languages. I would stick with a modern version and one used or approved by the Church.

 

[Adonia]

The King James version is not used by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Bible has a few more books in it. That is not to say that you shouldn’t read the King James version… As a Catholic I read it along with my Catholic Bible. I like the old time verse, and I like to compare the modern day language in my Catholic Bible with it. Also, when I discuss Scripture with my non-Catholic brothers and sisters, I can use the King James version as a reference. Hold fast to your faith!

 

[Della]

Congratulations on your upcoming confirmation! It’s never too late for any sacrament. And it’s great you are asking sensible questions and wanting to know what’s good for you as a Catholic.

Here’s an article from the Online Catholic Encyclopedia about the KJV: newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm.

While it’s not an approved version for Catholics, the language is lovely and it is probably the most quoted version. It is fine to read it for devotional purposes, but I wouldn’t use it for Scripture study. The Catholic Revised Standard (not the New RSV) is much better. Or the New American currently used for Catholic liturgies.

 

[Religio71]

i use the KJV when discussing/debating with evangelicals or others that exclusively use it. You should also get a version accepted as Catholic, since the KJV is incomplete, and has removed some of the written word of God.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’m 15 and am going to be confirmed in September. (A little late, I know, but I attended a non-Catholic Christian school for a few months last school year and was given a King James translation Bible, which was the accepted version at the school.) I’ve read in a religious booklet that the King James version of the Bible isn’t used in the Catholic Church. Is this true? If so, can someone tell me why, please? Sorry if it’s a really obvious question!
Thanks!

I would keep your KJV and use it for reference in debating KJVonlyist. If you do like the KJV style I suggest the Douay-Rheims. This is about the only Bible I can recommend really. It’s not a perfect Bible but it is accurate and there are a lot of passages in the NAB and other Catholics Bibles that keep me from recommending them. If you aren’t a fan of the KJV and want a different Bible the RSV-CE may be your best bet. This is the best modern Catholic version. Catholic answers does provide a track on this catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp I however wouldn’t waste my time with this tract. It is too biased. The Douay-Rheims is very literal, RSV-CE, 2CE are fairly literal and very reliable, NAB omits verses like Matthew 18:11 and 1991 Revised Psalms were rejected by the Vatican for Liturgical use. The Jerusalem Bible is ok accept Luke 1:28 and Matthew 6:9-13. Awful translations of the Annunciation and the Lord’s prayer. The New Jerusalem Bible and NRSV are filled with inclusive language (bad thing). All these bear an imprimatur or nihil obstat or approval from a bishops committee that it is acceptable for Catholics to read.

 

[PJM]

=Silyosha;5616718]I’m 15 and am going to be confirmed in September. (A little late, I know, but I attended a non-Catholic Christian school for a few months last school year and was given a King James translation Bible, which was the accepted version at the school.) I’ve read in a religious booklet that the King James version of the Bible isn’t used in the Catholic Church. Is this true? If so, can someone tell me why, please? Sorry if it’s a really obvious question!
Thanks!

***Great and timely question. At your age as a novice Catholic you should NOT be reading the King James.

It has only 66 books not the 77 intended by God. And numerous changes have been made in it to support the sinfully errant positions of fallen away catholics like Luter and Calvin. The Catholic Bible is the Orginal Bibe and was the ONLY Bible in existence until about the year 1660. The Catholic bible has already been in existence for some 1,350 years!

When you grow in Wisdom and Understanding [which you should pray for] then for reasons of debate and education, you may reference the KJV, BUT not before.***

Do alot of praying and studying. Do read the Catholic Bible. Either the New American which is used at Mass, or the RSV versions are my recommendation. Start with the New Testament because you’ll get to know Jesus very well

If you have any other questions, please ask. The Holy Spirit uses us to help you!
Love and prayers
Pat

 

[Della]

With all due respect to PJM, I don’t think you have to fear reading the KJV. It’s not a complete version and it’s not as reliable in matters of doctrine as a Catholic version, but it can be instructional, especially if you have an interest in Elizabethan English.

A good way to read the Bible is to read the daily Mass readings. These are often printed in parish bulletins or diocesan newspapers. They are also available online. A quick Google search will bring up several sources.

 

[tobinatorstark]

With all due respect to PJM, I don’t think you have to fear reading the KJV. It’s not a complete version and it’s not as reliable in matters of doctrine as a Catholic version, but it can be instructional, especially if you have an interest in Elizabethan English.

A good way to read the Bible is to read the daily Mass readings. These are often printed in parish bulletins or diocesan newspapers. They are also available online. A quick Google search will bring up several sources.

Why should a Catholic read a Protestant Bible anyway?? There is no imprimatur or nihil obstat. He already has a King James due to the school he went to. There is no wrong with keeping it for reference in when debating the KJVonlyist, but it isn’t an acceptable Bible to read because it bares no declaration from the Church that it is acceptable to read. I have a couple of KJVs myself and one had belonged to my Grandfather as he was convert to Pentecostalism. The Thompson Chain Reference Bible KJV edition that belonged to my grandfather says flat out that the Douay-Rheims “contains controversial notes” and also says that the our deutrocanonical books are inspired, not quoted by Jesus, the early Church rejected them, and they are not inspired in addition to saying that the 7 books were added to the Bible by the Catholic Church in 1546 during the Council of Trent. This young man needs to know the difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles and know how to defend the Catholic faith. Keeping a KJV handy along with Catholic Bible he can distinguish the errors in the KJV and mark them for reference when debating a KJVonlyist. My Uncle is a staunch KJVonlyist and also a Pentecostal minister. He too converted to Pentecostalism the same time my grandfather and grandmother did. My dad remained Catholic btw. The Douay-Rheims allows me to know the truth and helps me accurately point out the errors in the KJV.

 

[Reuben_J]

With all due respect to PJM, I don’t think you have to fear reading the KJV. It’s not a complete version and it’s not as reliable in matters of doctrine as a Catholic version, but it can be instructional, especially if you have an interest in Elizabethan English.

A good way to read the Bible is to read the daily Mass readings. These are often printed in parish bulletins or diocesan newspapers. They are also available online. A quick Google search will bring up several sources.

I concur with that. If one uses the Bible for guidance in our daily life most common translations will serve the purpose. We can never have enough of the Bible it seems. But if one is going into deep theological study then of course approved Catholic Bibles are appropriate because of the nature of translation and also you will get to have the Deutero-canonicals.

About the Mass readings, it is really beautiful. If one follows it in two years you would cover all the Bible. Better still, and why not, attend the daily mass. It is easy to get a copy of the daily Missal or booklets of the Mass readings.

God bless.

 

[zach_dunn]

Catholic answers does provide a track on this catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp I however wouldn’t waste my time with this tract. It is too biased.

**I honestly do not mean any offense here, tobinator, but I think the only reason you think the tract is biased is because it doesn’t advocate “Douay-Rheims-onlyism” like you do. If it is too biased, it’s too biased towards Catholicism seeing as the tract has a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.

OP, you should definitely check out this tract, it helped me quite a bit in deciding on my translation of choice, the RSV-2CE. I do use the D-R and other Catholic versions but regularly I will appeal to the RSV-2CE for my answer.**

It has only 66 books not the 77 intended by God.

**As a little side note to keep the OP from being confused, I would like to say that the Catholic Bible has 73 books, not 77. These 7 books are called the Deutero-Canon by Catholics and Apocrypha (“not authentic”) by Protestants.

These books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (also known as “Ecclesiasticus”), Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees. There are also additions to Esther and Daniel.

The modern KJV does not (usually) include these books. For someone of your (or our I should say, I’m only 17) would probably want to go with a version with more readability. This is because at this age we are just beginning to become familiar with the Bible and it’s important that we understand what we’re reading! Later on, once you’re familiar with what the Bible says, you can move on to more literal translations like the D-R. I, personally, only appeal to Protestant Bibles when I am talking to non-Catholics.

I would recommend the RSV-2CE highly, it has a pretty good balance of literal accuracy without compromising readability. **

 

[Omyo12]

I’m 15 and am going to be confirmed in September. (A little late, I know, but I attended a non-Catholic Christian school for a few months last school year and was given a King James translation Bible, which was the accepted version at the school.) I’ve read in a religious booklet that the King James version of the Bible isn’t used in the Catholic Church. Is this true? If so, can someone tell me why, please? Sorry if it’s a really obvious question!
Thanks!

As others have posted, I wouldn’t use the KJV as my primary Bible

There are, however, some good Catholic options!

I’d recommend the Revised Standard Version- Second Catholic Edition the most

I really like the NRSV-CE translation but the inclusive language gets a little extreme. I rather don’t mind some inclusive language since certain words such as “men” would be taken as inclusive by the culture of the time anyways. In modern English “men” really means “men.” So it seems those who really hate even minor inclusive language are IMHO on the fringe of supporting exclusive language…

I can understand not preferring it, but saying minor use corrupts the text is unwarranted
People who are extremely angered by something like:
John 1:5 "In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind."
are really overreacting…

However, the NRSV changes some from the third person singular “he” to the third person plural “they” :tsktsk:

The New Jerusalem Bible has minor inclusive language and its good at not changing the meaning of the text. The translation itself isn’t all that bad and pretty easy to understand.

I like the New American Bible better than the NJB in terms of the translation, however the inclusive language in the NT is a little more common and kinda bleh a view times…
Also, the Psalms are pretty bad… Thankfully the complete OT was revised and will be published next year… I pray it’s a good translation

Seeing as you’re a little familiar with the KJV, I recommend the RSV-2CE since the sentence style is similar (except in modern English! and Catholic!!! )

The RSV-2CE is a minor update to the RSV-CE,
the RSV-CE is a minor revision of the RSV,
the RSV is a major revision of the American Standard Version,
the ASV is a minor revision of the Revised Version for an American audience,
the RV is a major revision of the Authorized Version (aka KJV)

When you get more familiar with the Bible, I recommend the Douay-Rheims for devotional reading. Its such a beautiful translation!!

Depending on if you view modern scholarship favorably, I highly recommend the RSV-2CE for serious study.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I honestly do not mean any offense here, tobinator, but I think the only reason you think the tract is biased is because it doesn’t advocate “Douay-Rheims-onlyism” like you do. If it is too biased, it’s too biased towards Catholicism seeing as the tract has a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.

OP, you should definitely check out this tract, it helped me quite a bit in deciding on my translation of choice, the RSV-2CE. I do use the D-R and other Catholic versions but regularly I will appeal to the RSV-2CE for my answer.

As a little side note to keep the OP from being confused, I would like to say that the Catholic Bible has 73 books, not 77. These 7 books are called the Deutero-Canon by Catholics and Apocrypha (“not authentic”) by Protestants.

These books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (also known as “Ecclesiasticus”), Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees. There are also additions to Esther and Daniel.

The modern KJV does not (usually) include these books. For someone of your (or our I should say, I’m only 17) would probably want to go with a version with more readability. This is because at this age we are just beginning to become familiar with the Bible and it’s important that we understand what we’re reading! Later on, once you’re familiar with what the Bible says, you can move on to more literal translations like the D-R. I, personally, only appeal to Protestant Bibles when I am talking to non-Catholics.

I would recommend the RSV-2CE highly, it has a pretty good balance of literal accuracy without compromising readability.

The tract shouldn’t advocate Douay-Rheimsonlyism nor should it promote RSV-CEism. This tract does not give enough analysis on the other Bibles as it should be. The audience needs to know the facts about a certain translation. Honestly do want a Bible that omits verses like 18:11 or even just relegates the verse to a footnote??? I sure don’t. Do you want a Bible that chops off the end or mistranslates Luke 1:28?? I sure don’t. I believe in having a good quality Bible that will point out the errors in Protestant Bibles. We must always know how to defend ourselves when Protestants state a falsehood. We use a Catholic Bible and not their Bible to quote from. We show them the error in theirs. We shouldn’t be Douay-Rheims onlyist or RSV-CE onlyist. That is just stooping right down to KJVonlyism.

 

[wmscott]

I think that what is going on here is splitting hairs. The KJV is incomplete and does have some “Interpretations” not supported by the Catholic Church, however in general it does contain the Word of God and there are truths to be found in it far greater than the few “Interpretations” found within.

My sister, who is a Pentecostal, gave me a KJV as a wedding gift knowing I was marrying a Catholic Lady. I can only speculate at her motivations because of her hatred for the Catholic Church. However, as a Catholic I have the Ignatius RSV-CE, NAB, and a Scepter RSV-CE family Bible and Scepter RSV-CE personal Bible. This is enough for me now, although I may purchase a Douay-Rheims sometime soon.

As for the KJV, I plan to donate it to the local Bibles for Missions. I would never think of just discarding it.

 

[PJM]

=Della;5617212]With all due respect to PJM, I don’t think you have to fear reading the KJV. It’s not a complete version and it’s not as reliable in matters of doctrine as a Catholic version, but it can be instructional, especially if you have an interest in Elizabethan English.

A good way to read the Bible is to read the daily Mass readings. These are often printed in parish bulletins or diocesan newspapers. They are also available online. A quick Google search will bring up several sources.

***Thanks for your advice.

The advice I gave was specific to a 15 year old new Catholic, who most likely would be unable [yet] to discern the differences in theology. One is less like to encounter trouble when ones does not go out of ones way to discover it

For mature Catholics, by all means read it and weep! I have in sitting next to my Catholic Bible and also on my computer.***

 

[Della]

Thanks for your advice.

I don’t know why you’re thanking me for advise. My advise was for the OP.

The advice I gave was specific to a 15 year old new Catholic, who most likely would be unable [yet] to discern the differences in theology. One is less like to encounter trouble when ones does not go out of ones way to discover it

For mature Catholics, by all means read it and weep! I have in sitting next to my Catholic Bible and also on my computer.

You are, of course, entitled to give any advise you think good. I agree that many a 15 year old may not be able to discern the differences between the KJV and Catholic versions. However, since the OP had the good sense to ask in the first place, I believe we are advising someone with more than average common sense who can be trusted to make lucid and valid decisions.

As to others citing the imprimatur and nil obstat as approbation, that is incorrect. All the imprimatur and nil obstat mean is that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching in the material. It is NOT an endorsement of that material. I learned this the practical way when I published a Rosary devotional through Our Sunday Visitor (no longer in print) and sought the imprimatur and nil obstat from my diocese.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t know why you’re thanking me for advise. My advise was for the OP.

You are, of course, entitled to give any advise you think good. I agree that many a 15 year old may not be able to discern the differences between the KJV and Catholic versions. However, since the OP had the good sense to ask in the first place, I believe we are advising someone with more than average common sense who can be trusted to make lucid and valid decisions.

As to others citing the imprimatur and nil obstat as approbation, that is incorrect. All the imprimatur and nil obstat mean is that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching in the material. It is NOT an endorsement of that material. I learned this the practical way when I published a Rosary devotional through Our Sunday Visitor (no longer in print) and sought the imprimatur and nil obstat from my diocese.

I agree with your statement about the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. That still doesn’t mean that the material is err free in moral or doctrinal matters. Only one Bible has that distinction and that is the Vulgate. The imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is required for most printed material I believe. It does reassure us that the material is safe. Yes there is nothing contrary to Church teaching. However, non Catholic Bibles do have material that contradicts Catholic teaching. I see problem reading the KJV instead of Catholic Bibles as problematic if a person doesn’t know what in the KJV contradicts the Catholic BIble. BTW is there any chance I could see your Rosary devotional. I would like to pray it some time.

 

[Della]

I agree with your statement about the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. That still doesn’t mean that the material is err free in moral or doctrinal matters. Only one Bible has that distinction and that is the Vulgate. The imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is required for most printed material I believe. It does reassure us that the material is safe. Yes there is nothing contrary to Church teaching. However, non Catholic Bibles do have material that contradicts Catholic teaching. I see problem reading the KJV instead of Catholic Bibles as problematic if a person doesn’t know what in the KJV contradicts the Catholic BIble.

Absolutely! The KJV has it’s charms–language and historical value, etc., but it’s no substitute for a solid Catholic translation. And you’re totally right that the imprimatur and nil obstat do not guarantee the material is free from error. Some folks have the distinct impression it means it’s infallible, but that’s not at all what it means.

BTW is there any chance I could see your Rosary devotional. I would like to pray it some time.

There’s a link in my post to my website where I offer two Rosary devotionals. One is a seven-day Rosary with Scripture and the other is the traditional scriptural Rosary with the Luminous Mysteries added by John Paul II. My dh and I put them together and sell them now.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Absolutely! The KJV has it’s charms–language and historical value, etc., but it’s no substitute for a solid Catholic translation. And you’re totally right that the imprimatur and nil obstat do not guarantee the material is free from error. Some folks have the distinct impression it means it’s infallible, but that’s not at all what it means.

There’s a link in my post to my website where I offer two Rosary devotionals. One is a seven-day Rosary with Scripture and the other is the traditional scriptural Rosary with the Luminous Mysteries added by John Paul II. My dh and I put them together and sell them now.

Thank you!!!