The KJV (Authorized Version) - Worth a Second Look?

[boomerang]

the Confraternity Edition is basically impossible to obtain (and will be even harder as the years go by ). We need a readily available bible. And even if they are available, will cost a fortune.

Oh noooo! There’s a ton of them on Ebay right now, starting at five dollars!!! I’ve seen several at thrift stores for $2.50!

 

[Nan_S]

No actually my concerns were very clear and directed at two issues - poor translations AND poor editions.

Do you prefer to attend Mass in a nice Church that’s aesthetically pleasing or would you prefer to attend Mass in a barn? And please don’t say it wouldn’t matter because that would be intellectually dishonest. Is the preference for an inspiring Church just ‘eye candy’ or does it lend to a sense of awe?

I prefer to attend Mass where God’s word is taught and the precepts of the church are obeyed. You want wonder? Quit staring at the artwork. Start paying attention to the content of the character employed by the ministers and the lay leaders.

St. Peter’s Basilica is quite possibly the most visually awe-inspiring church in all of Christendom, but its 16th century reconstruction and expansion was funded by simony and the sale of indulgences. Any mass I attended at the Basilica during that period would have been rich with eye-candy and licit in form, but corrupt in the implementation of its teaching. I’m sure there are quite a few people burning in Hell over that.

Is it so wrong to want my Bible to illicit the same sense of wonder for God’s written word?

For someone so well versed in Proper Language, you made a big mistake here.
Illicit means unlawful, forbidden, disapproved.
The word you want is Elicit, which means to bring forth.

If your bible inspires illicit wonder, you’d better burn it. Fast.

An old, tired argument. Is it so hard to LOOK UP ‘archaic’ words? Should we update Shakespeare or learn to read it properly??

Shakespeare is entertainment. If we misunderstand some of his language, so what?

The bible is God’s Truth. If we misunderstand some of THAT language, we have a genuine problem.

Looking up archaic words would be no problem if there were only a few, and they were recognizable as being archaic. But (depending on the source cited) there are between three hundred and four hundred significant archaic terms in the KJV, many of them being words still in use today with completely different meanings than they had in 1611. Since these words do not appear archaic, modern bible readers who are not students of 17th century English are readily confused by the terms and completely misunderstand scripture without even knowing it.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s what God wants.

Very faulty logic… We’ve had Jerome’s Vulgate for over 1500 years. He had access to texts that no one has access to anymore… and certainly those texts were ‘older and more complete’. Since Erasmus had the Vulgate AND ancient manuscripts to refer to, he had all the tools necessary at his disposal to produce a fine Greek text. Anyone who says the RSV is more accurate than the KJV is simply deluding themselves.

Mmm hmm. I’ve been reading about Erasmus: how in the late 15th and early 16th centuries he didn’t have some Greek texts so he reverse-translated the Latin in a rather significant hurry, and significantly missed the mark in some embarrassing places. But you go right ahead; I won’t try to stop you from relying on him.

Incorrect. There is only ONE edition of the RSVCE-2nd Edition and it’s put out by Ignatius Press. There is the red hardcover and the red ‘leather’ cover. That’s it.

Funny. I just looked on Amazon. Not including the “New” RSV, I found no fewer than five different editions of the RSV-CE. I also found the red-covered edition of the RSV-2CE (you’re wrong about the cover artwork being ugly), and two different editions of the RSV-2CE Catholic Study Bible, one of which I own.

I must say I noticed you did not respond to ANY of my translation concerns with the Catholic Bibles out there. You did not address the JB, NJB, NABRE, NRSV, or DR. Anyone who can say any of those are better translations than the KJV is again, delusional at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. I am NOT saying the KJV is perfect. But what I AM saying is that it (along with other translations) are FAR superior than any of the current Catholic offerings.

Delusional? Intellectually dishonest? Pretty quick to condemn without all the facts, aren’t you? Your libel is a poor defense for your weak scholarship.

I didn’t go into more detail because I didn’t want to sit here all day typing. However I did reference your objections to them. I also pointed out that my response to your other objections would have been similar to what I had already written. But you weren’t paying attention.

 

[thistle]

the Confraternity Edition is basically impossible to obtain (and will be even harder as the years go by ). We need a readily available bible. And even if they are available, will cost a fortune.

My favourite Bible is the Douey-Rheims with the Haydock Commentary.
Great translation and great commentary.

 

[ddgarcianj]

Learn them! That’s what I did. Bottom line: we are not protestants, even though we are surrounded by them. And, a plus is that those odd-sounding names are often much closer to the Hebrew/Aramaic originals. Paralipomenon? Greek for “That which was omitted” Tells more of the story and thinking of the sacred authors than does “Chronicles.”

We are not Protestants and yet we continue to use Protestant translations? RSV/NRSV? If we can ‘Catholicize’ those translations, why not the KJV (which is a better translation than the RSV/NRSV)??? I agree we should try and learn them, but truly as far as people’s names in the DR/Knox there are just SO many that are so different from what most of us are accustomed to that it’s hard to labor through them.

In any event, the KJV is incomplete, even if you have a rare version which contains the Deuterocanon, because portions of Daniel and Esther have been omitted.

Totally incorrect. Cambridge has their famous Cameo edition WITH ‘apocrypha’ as well as their New Paragraph Bible readily available. Both are BEAUTIFUL editions through and through and contains ALL the Deuterocanonicals, including the portions of Daniel and Esther.

 

[ddgarcianj]

Yes, I have read the Douay-Rheims. It is the only physical bible that I own, though I do have several other ones on my computer. I find it to be the best English translation, but that’s just my opinion.

As for the Douay-Rheims ‘borrowing’ from the KJV, I find that highly unlikely. The KJV was published in 1611. The New Testament of the Douay-Rheims was published in 1582 and the Old Testament in 1609. Perhaps, you can tell me how this ‘borrowing’ was accomplished.

The Douay Rheims we read today is NOT the 1609 version but rather the 1749-1752 Bishop Challoner revision of the DR. And it is well documented that he borrowed quite liberally from the KJV for his revisions.

 

[JM3]

The Douay Rheims we read today is NOT the 1609 version

realdouayrheims.com/

The Original & True Rheims New Testament of 1582 is Now Available!

The Original & True Douay Old Testament, Vol. 1, of 1609 is Now Available!

The Original & True Douay Old Testament, Vol. 2, of 1610 is Now Available!

but rather the 1749-1752 Bishop Challoner revision of the DR. And it is well documented that he borrowed quite liberally from the KJV for his revisions.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300

Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. “We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full” (“The Translators to the Reader,” King James Version, 1611 ed.).

But while the King James translators rejected some specific translations in the Douay, they emulated others. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Rheims New Testament and adopted many of its readings in preference to those of other English editions. The KJV in many places thus bears a Douay-Rheims “slant” absent from prior translations.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh noooo! There’s a ton of them on Ebay right now, starting at five dollars!!! I’ve seen several at thrift stores for $2.50!

Thanks for the warning. I was ready to put mine out there for $500. Mint condition, though.

 

[JRRTFAN]

The Douay Rheims we read today is NOT the 1609 version but rather the 1749-1752 Bishop Challoner revision of the DR. And it is well documented that he borrowed quite liberally from the KJV for his revisions.

I’ve got them all. I don’t know which is the “best” translation because I can’t read or understand the original language to make that judgment. I do think the KJV is easier to read than the DR-C.

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh noooo! There’s a ton of them on Ebay right now, starting at five dollars!!! I’ve seen several at thrift stores for $2.50!

Yeah, there seems to be a bunch on Amazon as well.

BTW, I disagree with the OP. Catholic Bibles do not stink at all. Mine are all very nice and have all manner of good paper, bindings and the translations that I read (RSV-CE 2 and others) are as good or better than anything from outside the church.

You can always find someone to rebind one if it bugs you so much…

 

[JohnR77]

And I don’t know ANYONE who ever refers to “First Paralipomenon”. Sorry, these names are outdated and confusing. I don’t have a problem with ‘archaic’ language, but I DO have a problem with names that NO ONE in the Christian world uses.

Actually, if you are wanting to read the Early Church Fathers, all the translations that I see use those older names. Here is a list identifying the names.

defendingthebride.com/bb/fathers.html#title

But you know, most Catholics don’t seem to have an issue with Catholic flavor being stripped from their Bibles (Luke 1:28) as the NRSV, NABRE, JB do NOT have ‘full of grace’. So why should it be an issue in the KJV? But regardless, I am ALL FOR a KJV-CE!!!

So … You want and are defending a translation that does not yet exist.
You obviously will be satisfied, assuming the translation goes as you desire.
How do you know that a good number of other people will agree with you, assuming it does get translated as you wish ?

As for “full of grace” the Vatican has restored that title for Mary as it is read in Mass.

usccb.org/bible/readings/032514.cfm

It was a long time waiting, but finally we got it restored. “Highly favored daughter”
just did not cut it.

Bad Translation of KJV

Matthew 16:13
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
: King James Version.

I don’t like this translation from the KJV. It translates what should be “region” and instead uses “coasts.”
This causes some to confuse “Caesarea Philippi” with the Caesarea that is on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

judeministries.org/revisedfinalbook/palestine.gif

The topological significance of “Caesarea Philippi” in regards to the Papacy cannot be overstated.
See

defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html

More on KJV

web.archive.org/web/20060116164033/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/0002kjv.htm

A 1716 edition of the King James Bible has Jesus say ‘sin on more’ in John 8:11, rather than ‘sin no more’.

A 1795 edition had Jesus say in Mark 7:27 ‘Let the children first be killed’ instead of ‘Let the children first be filled’.

One funny example of a printers error is Psalm 119:161 in the 1702 edition of the King James Version,. In that edition, instead of saying “princes have persecuted me without a cause” , David complains that “printers” have persecuted me without a cause."

Probably the worst mistakes, however, were made in the 1631 and 1653 ‘Wicked Bibles’.
In the 1653 edition, 1 Corinthians 6:9 read ‘the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God’ and the

1631 edition had the seventh commandment in Exodus 20:14 as ‘Thou shalt commit adultery.’

http://www.theologynetwork.org/Images/Layout/mt4.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X_mU8dgJT...s320/www.VirtualHolyBible.com_bible_typos.jpg

.

 

[CalCatholic]

Here is an interesting debate between two Protestants for and against KJV onlyism.
It is between James White who defends modern translations and Jack Moorman who defends the KJV as the definitive English translation. If you can’t watch the whole thing, watch each presenter’s opening 20 minute statements (particularly James White’s who is the second).

I am not a James White fan (because of his debates against Catholicism), but he does a good job here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4