St. James Bible vs Catholic Bible

[benstor]

My Baptist friends are disputing our Catholic Bible. They say we have changed it and the only true Bible is the St. James version. Any ideas how to answer them? Help.

 

[brotherhrolf]

First, it is the King James version published when Shakespeare was still alive. Second, you will probably get more help over in the Apologetics section where they have some real heavy hitters. The moderators, I’m sure, will move the thread for you. But if you want to have some fun, ask them about the Anglo-Saxon version which was written in Old English.

 

[puzzleannie]

welcome to the forums, you will have more fun and get more out of them if you first do your homework on the CA homepage library and tracts on FAQ like this one, also check out the stickies, I thing there is one on bible versions. also do a search, this topic is discussed frequently. Since the King James version was not published until the 1600s you might ask your Baptist friends what they think was being used for the first 16 centuries of the Church. Have they proof that the English of Shakespeare’s day was the original language of the Bible?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

ask them if the “wicked bible” was inspired?

The 1631 Edition of the King James Version,
"Thou shall commit adultery" [Exodus 20:14]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

benstor:

My Baptist friends are disputing our Catholic Bible. They say we have changed it and the only true Bible is the St. James version. Any ideas how to answer them? Help.

Hmmmm…the KJV is probably what you meant, which is not St. James, but KING James. It was an Anglican Bible published first in 1611 by translators who taught many things contrary to Baptist beliefs, so it is ironic that they should deify an Anglican translation.

Perhaps you should discuss the original KJV of 1611 with your friend.

Original Preface from the Translator of the original 1611 KJV:
jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

**On the inspiration of the Septuagint [LXX]…

… it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince***…***to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.

… This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters [LXX, or Septuagint], commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles

… Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick,

… which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures

… Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews. … For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus …

… These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. …
**
Oh yeah…the LXX contained the Catholic Bible.

Theodotion, by the way, was a 2nd century Jew who translated the longer Hebrew version of Daniel that he had into Greek. It is the longer Greek Theodotion version and the longer LXX version of Daniel and Esther that Catholics and Orthodox accept, but Protestants reject.

Oh yeah… original 1611 KJV had the same 70 books as the Latin Vulgate that came before it. It was the Protestants that removed these books, not the Catholics.

From a Protestant source, the preface to the 1611 KJV states:
ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/tabkal.htm

                                              The Table and Kalender, expressing the order of Psalmes and Lessons to be said at Morning and Euening prayer throughout the yeere, except certaine proper feasts, as the rules following more plainely declare.

[Psalter reading calendar described] …

The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to bee read.

THe old Testament is appointed for the first Lessons at Morning and Euening prayer, and shalbe read through euery yeere once, except certaine Bookes and Chapters, which be least edifying, and might best be spared, and therfore are left vnread.

Notice that the first lessons at Morning and Evening prayer is dedicated to reading the Old Testament

The 1611 KJV schedule of “the rest of Holy Scripture” readings includes passages from Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18.

The 1611 KJV also contains many marginal cross-references to other Scripture. Here are some interesting cross-references…

Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 6:9,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees

Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, “Ecclus. 7:16,” a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus

Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, “Wisd. 2:15,16,” a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom

Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, “4 Esd. 1:30,” a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra

Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, “Tob. 4:7,” a cross-reference to a book of Tobit

John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, “1 Macc. 4:59,” a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees

Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 7:7,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees

Kinda makes you think, huh?

 

[kleary]

benstor:

My Baptist friends are disputing our Catholic Bible. They say we have changed it and the only true Bible is the St. James version. Any ideas how to answer them? Help.

“St. James” you mean “King James Version” - as per the Baptists- at least those who dress nicely and who’s pastors are still full of fire and brimstone sermons these days-

Anyway, The Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate was put together in the fourth century. It is utmost superior to the King James version.

Ken

 

[Psalm45_9]

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmm…the KJV is probably what you meant, which is not St. James, but KING James. It was an Anglican Bible published first in 1611 by translators who taught many things contrary to Baptist beliefs, so it is ironic that they should deify an Anglican translation.

Perhaps you should discuss the original KJV of 1611 with your friend.

Original Preface from the Translator of the original 1611 KJV:
jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

On the inspiration of the Septuagint [LXX]…

Oh yeah…the LXX contained the Catholic Bible.

Theodotion, by the way, was a 2nd century Jew who translated the longer Hebrew version of Daniel that he had into Greek. It is the longer Greek Theodotion version and the longer LXX version of Daniel and Esther that Catholics and Orthodox accept, but Protestants reject.

Oh yeah… original 1611 KJV had the same 70 books as the Latin Vulgate that came before it. It was the Protestants that removed these books, not the Catholics.

From a Protestant source, the preface to the 1611 KJV states:
ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/tabkal.htm

Notice that the first lessons at Morning and Evening prayer is dedicated to reading the Old Testament

The 1611 KJV schedule of "the rest of Holy Scripture" readings includes passages from Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18.

The 1611 KJV also contains many marginal cross-references to other Scripture. Here are some interesting cross-references…

Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 6:9,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees

Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, “Ecclus. 7:16,” a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus

Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, “Wisd. 2:15,16,” a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom

Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, “4 Esd. 1:30,” a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra

Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, “Tob. 4:7,” a cross-reference to a book of Tobit

John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, “1 Macc. 4:59,” a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees

Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, “2 Macc. 7:7,” a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees

Kinda makes you think, huh?

I am often puzzled by the fact that the Anglican Church does not believe in the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, but in the 1611 King James Bible, they were still printed and had cross references. Why not let everyone read them and ask for the Holy Spirit for guidance to see if they’re inspired or not. I see that those who deny their inspiration are following the tradition of the reformers. For example, the reformers say 2 Maccabees can’t be inspired because King Antiochus is shown dieing in different ways. However, 1 and 2 Samuel also show Saul dieing differently.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Psalm45:9:

I am often puzzled by the fact that the Anglican Church does not believe in the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, but in the 1611 King James Bible, they were still printed and had cross references. Why not let everyone read them and ask for the Holy Spirit for guidance to see if they’re inspired or not. I see that those who deny their inspiration are following the tradition of the reformers. For example, the reformers say 2 Maccabees can’t be inspired because King Antiochus is shown dieing in different ways. However, 1 and 2 Samuel also show Saul dieing differently.

Rather, pray for Wisdom

What is the burning in the bosom that Mormons refer to?
Mormonism teaches that if a person prays about the Book of Mormon “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it (the Book of Mormon) unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4, insert added) If this is done, “your bosom shall burn within you” to show that it is true (Doctrine and Covenants, 9:8)

When a Mormon says that, he will generally pat his chest and say he received a burning of the bosom to know that it is true. It would be agreed that the bosom contains the heart. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” In other words, we are not to rely on feelings because they are notoriously unreliable. Feelings change about as often as the direction of the winds.

The Bereans knew nothing of a “burning bosom” to determine if God’s word is true. In fact, they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things [Paul taught] were so.” (Acts 17:11, insert added) Paul commended them for doing this, saying that they were “more noble than those in Thessalonica” for testing his teachings. We are to “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) If Paul commended those who tested him, how much more should we test others who claim to be prophets?

concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_bom7.php

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Psalm45:9:

I am often puzzled by the fact that the Anglican Church does not believe in the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals, but in the 1611 King James Bible, they were still printed and had cross references. …

I believe the Anglican Church is purposefully ambiguous about whether the deuterocanonicals are inspired Scripture. Anglicanism is teeming with compromise.

From one Anglican author:

“Anglicanism holds an ambiguous or even contradictory attitude towards the Apocrypha”
– Owen Thomas, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, MA in Introduction to Theology

From another Anglican author…"The Canon of Holy Scripture: An Anglican Note”, by Christopher Bryan

                Article VI of the Articles of Religion (Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation) notes that “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.” Following this, under the subheading, “Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books,” the article lists not only the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also “other” books, namely 1 and 2 Esdras (referred to as “third” and “fourth”), Tobit, Judith, Esther, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, The Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, noting that they are read “as Hierome [Jerome] saith... for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it [the church] doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.” **In other words, the framers of the article shared antiquity’s reservations over the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books yet remained committed to retaining them within the general category of Holy Scripture, that is, as both sacred and canonical.

**

By the way, Hierome [Jerome] did in fact apply the deuterocanonicals along side other Holy Scriptures to defend doctrine.

 

[asteroid]

I feel very sorry for anyone alive before 1611. Since the 1611 KJV is the only true Bible, these people didn’t have a true Bible to use. Poor them.