What to do with a King James Bible

[comfort1st]

The simple answer is “Read it.”

Contrary to some assertions the KJV is not a Protestant bible, and it doesn’t tell you anything about Protestant religions. The defining characteristic of a Christian is not following the Pope’s teaching but following Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church is no more holder of all the truth than we are made of green cheese and from Mars.

The KJV was faithfully translated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic of what was, at the time, considered the most reliable set of texts, given that we don’t have anything “original” even from NT times. True, it does have elements of Anglican ecclesiology of the 16th century, but the message in the text is the same as you will find in the Jerusalem Bible or the Revised Standard Version. There are places where the text is in a different order, but that’s what happens when people piece together bits of manuscripts collected over hundreds of years, and there is no definitive order for some items, as any serious biblical scholar will attest.

What is missing from the KJV but in “Catholic” bibles is material which was not included in the canon as agreed upon more than 1500 years ago. Those denominations which reject the Apocrypha on the basis that the material wasn’t in the canon should be shown the respect they deserve, even if we think that approach is short-sighted. The first step in making disciples of other people is finding out what they believe and why.

Steven

 

[crazzeto]

I am a Roman Catholic. Some may not want to agree with me.
While I would never advise a fellow Catholic to use the KJV as their primary Bible, I do think the King James is a wonderful book and a classic of English Literature. There is a richness in the language and simplicity of in the translation of ideas that is lost in many other translations. While there are some inaccuracies and very archaic language, I have found that reading key passages in the Elizabethan style has helped me to focus on a particular concept or prayer. I know that some language in it can be unclear to some modern readers, however many passages are clear, concise and easily understandable without the additional verbiage so common I in many modern translations.
I had 12 years of catholic education which included Catholic Bible studies so I am well grounded in my faith. I see no threat to it from occasionally enjoying the beauty contained in passages from the KJV. I dare say there are some passages I prefer outright over any others.

Agrange,

If you want basically the same thing, only with good Catholic study notes, all the books of the bible and an Impramatur I would recommend the Douay-Rheims bible instead of the KJV. In fact it’s worth noting the 1611 KJV was based in part upon the work done for the 1609 Douay-Rheims bible.

If you want to test drive the translation, I would point you to this website:

drbo.org/

I frequently use this website as a reference since it has a built in google search. If you search back in this thread you’ll find a very nice Douay Bible which I frequently (very frequently, twice in this thread alone lol) I recommend.

 

[IAGladfelter]

Hi Bernadette.

Keep it. It’s good for reference especially about Protestant theology. You may also learn the difference between Catholic and Protestant translationss. Sometimes Bible are translated to fit into their theology. I have two copies of KJV in my collection and they always come in handy when quoting Biblical verses for Protestants.

God bless.

The KJV is a classic of the English Language, but as a translation the Hebrew and Greek, regardless of what its preface says, it is one of the worst.

Keep it as a classic of the English language if you must, but as nothing more than that. Don’t look to it for doctrine. Stay with the New American Bible, its Catholic predecessors, and subsequent Catholic Bibles.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[Saved_Lady]

My daughter was given a King James Bible several years ago by a protestant who was trying to convert her.

I just found it and would like to know who I could give it to. It is not the complete Bible and I really have no need to keep it.

I would like to give it to some protestant organization, but don’t know who that would be.

It is the word of God although incomplete and I surely can’t just toss it out.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

I suggest you give it back to your daughter, after all it was given to her, not you!
Some are acting as if it were a book to worship satan. We can and do worship God with our Bible just as you can worship with your Bible.

 

[crazzeto]

The KJV is a classic of the English Language, but as a translation the Hebrew and Greek, regardless of what its preface says, it is one of the worst.

Keep it as a classic of the English language if you must, but as nothing more than that. Don’t look to it for doctrine. Stay with the New American Bible, its Catholic predecessors, and subsequent Catholic Bibles.

Blessings,
Irl

It’s handy to have a NAB since it’s used at Mass (so if you want to bring a bible with you, that’s the one to bring). But I wouldn’t recommend it as a study bible, instead (as with Anne) I recommend the Douay first (that’s what I used) or if you don’t like the language the New Jerusalem, RSV-CE or someother bible. It’s not that there is anything inhernatly wrong with the NAB, but the notes can be problematic.

As with the KJV it’s self, there’s no reason to get your self stuck on any particular version of a Catholic Bible. Some are better study bibles than others, but at the end of the day all Catholic Bibles have an Impramatur.

This however doesn’t apply to the KJV, this isn’t to suggest it’s a bad bible but it’s at best incomplete unless you happen to have a 1611 version (and even that version as I understand it put the Deutro-Canon at the end of the bible).

 

[IAGladfelter]

The KJV is a classic of the English Language, but as a translation the Hebrew and Greek, regardless of what its preface says, it is one of the worst.

Keep it as a classic of the English language if you must, but as nothing more than that. Don’t look to it for doctrine. Stay with the New American Bible, its Catholic predecessors, and subsequent Catholic Bibles.

Blessings,
Irl

The translation of the Hebrew and Koine Greek in the KJV is so bad that even the major Evangelical Seminaries (like those of the Southern Baptist Convention - I took my Greek and Hebrew from one of them.) They all use the New American Standard Bible, which is their current standard - until the students have acquired a reading knowledge of the Koine Greek and Hebrew, upon which they use the Koine Greek and Hebrew editions backed up with an interlinear Bible, perhaps which has the Koine Greek and Hebrew, a literal translation below that, and the regular text (NASB, NKJV, whatever) in very small type in the margins.

But that is for scholars and clergy, not the laity.

Intrestingly, there are a small number of ultra fundamentalist denominations which consider the KJV to be superior to the Koine Greek and Hebrew text. They freely acknowledge the big differences between the biblical language versions and the KJV, but say that is because the KJV was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who corrected the Greek and Hebrew so it is a higher (new) revalation which the Holy Spirit inspired to fit with Protestantism . . .

Blessings,
Irl

 

[crazzeto]

but say that is because the KJV was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who corrected the Greek and Hebrew so it is a higher (new) revalation which the Holy Spirit inspired to fit with Protestantism . . .

Blessings,
Irl

Are you sure they aren’t momons?

 

[IAGladfelter]

The translation of the Hebrew and Koine Greek in the KJV is so bad that even the major Evangelical Seminaries (like those of the Southern Baptist Convention - I took my Greek and Hebrew from one of them.) They all use the New American Standard Bible, which is their current standard - until the students have acquired a reading knowledge of the Koine Greek and Hebrew, . .

The first sentence above is incomplete and I neglected to correct it: it should read: "The translation of the Hebrew and Koine Greek in the KJV is so bad that even the major Evangelical Seminaries (like those of the Southern Baptist Convention - I took my Greek and Hebrew from one of them) do not use it in any of their classes. They all use the New American Standard Bible, which is the current standard for their students - until the students have acquired a reading knowledge of the Koine Greek and Hebrew, . .

Sorry about that. Proofreading is not my long suit.

Mea culpa . . .
Irl

 

[greggy53]

I am a Roman Catholic. Some may not want to agree with me.
While I would never advise a fellow Catholic to use the KJV as their primary Bible, I do think the King James is a wonderful book and a classic of English Literature. There is a richness in the language and simplicity of in the translation of ideas that is lost in many other translations. While there are some inaccuracies and very archaic language, I have found that reading key passages in the Elizabethan style has helped me to focus on a particular concept or prayer. I know that some language in it can be unclear to some modern readers, however many passages are clear, concise and easily understandable without the additional verbiage so common I in many modern translations.
I had 12 years of catholic education which included Catholic Bible studies so I am well grounded in my faith. I see no threat to it from occasionally enjoying the beauty contained in passages from the KJV. I dare say there are some passages I prefer outright over any others.

I agree, the beauty of the language of KJV is unsurpassed, but I have heard that newer editions have been edited to lean more toward a Protestant view. At any rate I hve not used any Bible except the Douay-Rhiems for a number of years. It is I believe the purest version of scripture Christians have.

 

[crazzeto]

I agree, the beauty of the language of KJV is unsurpassed, but I have heard that newer editions have been edited to lean more toward a Protestant view. At any rate I hve not used any Bible except the Douay-Rhiems for a number of years. It is I believe the purest version of scripture Christians have.

More so the Jerome’s Vulgate?

 

[greggy53]

More so the Jerome’s Vulgate?

True, but my latin is not nearly good enough.

 

[crazzeto]

True, but my latin is not nearly good enough.

Just trying to check “bible elitism”

 

[greggy53]

Just trying to check “bible elitism”

Does having a preference make me an elitist?

 

[crazzeto]

Does having a preference make me an elitist?

Nope, I also prefer the Douay for study particularly (and just for every day reading). I find I get more out of it personally. But that isn’t to suggest that something like a NAB might be better for someone else, or an RSV-CE etc, etc… There’s a lot of choice in translations for a reason, different translatinos work for different people for different reasons.

 

[IAGladfelter]

Are you sure they aren’t momons?

No (though the Mormons do use the KJV exclusively, as does the Christian Science Church. The term they use is “Fundamental Baptist” or that they are “A King James (Bible) Only Church” which is used by some Pentecostal Churches, some “Holiness” Churches and some of the “Church of God denominations as well as the Fundamental Baptists.”

The major gripe some of those guys have is that the later translations are “soft on sin,” or “water down the hard sayings.” To them, the KJV “calls a spade a spade” in no uncertain terms, and “calls an abomination an abomination.” Many of them are of the opinion that “Authorized Version” means "authorized by God / the Holy Spirit rather than by the Church of England, and so are a newer, a higher revelation than the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the English versions were translated.

As for some later English translations, the New Revised Standard Version changed the text so that it would be more “gender neutral,” hence more politically correct. The problem is that (1) in so doing they departed from the Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts, ignoring the fact that in those "pre-scientific and so very un-enlightened times, the default gender was male. In some cases, the effort to make the NRSV gender neutral, some of the changes in the text also changed the doctrinal implications of the text.

The New International Version’s translation committee had a “litmus test” for admission: They had to accept on at least some level, Reformed (Calvinist - think Presbyterian and Congregationalist) theology, though many ecclesial communities were represented. The NIV version also combines “word for word” translations with “thought for thought” translations in a way which can be confusing and occasionally misleading, but it is very easy to understand. Personally I do not use it.

A new version of the Bible in Contemporary English I saw recently, completely eliminated all passages that condemn homosexuality in both the O.T. and N.T., and re-wrote the passages about David and Jonathan so that it was clear that they were “in a gay relationship.” I believe the new revisionist offshoot of the Southern Baptists (the Cooperative Baptist Convention) uses that Bible.

As for Catholic Bibles, Douay-Reims English translation is a good Bible, except St. Jerome used a Byzantine Greek lexicon that is all there was back then, and we now know that Koine Greek (1st Century Greek) differed significantly, affecting his translation into Latin. And the Douay-Reims has some errors you would expect in a translation of a translation.

The New English Version and the New American Standard Versions are good from the standpoint of someone like me for whom the accuracy of the translation is important. I especially like the current Catholic Bible, the New American Bible and use it along with the O.T> and N.T. in Hebrew and Koine Greek .

On balance the New Jerusalem Bible is good, though not without its translation problems; but as noted, I really like the New American Bible, and there is a good study version, the New American Catholic Answer Bible which I really like for the laity.

Ignatius Press is in the process of publishing a really great Catholic study bible in several volumes, some of which are already available.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks for that rather complete post, just out of curiosity (due to your usage of Catholic) are you actually in communion with Rome or do you belong to a Traditional Anglo/Lutheran communion?

 

[Anna_Scott]

The study of the transmission of Scripture includes study regarding the history of each translation. I really do not see this as a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Every translation, accurate or inaccurate, holds a place in history.

I believe we should watch for the discovery of manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls were an incredible find, and have given us a glimpse into the world around the time of Christ.

The transmission of Scripture continues to evolve and change over time. Some groups support one translation and look no further. Though I think there are risks in doing this, it is their choice to do so.

There is an interesting article under the “Faith” Tab on this website that might be helpful to this discussion. It is helpful to me, and I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector.

Link: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
Partial quote from this Catholic Article:

Bible Translations Guide
"Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me,” or, “My King James Version corrects your Greek text.”

They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men.

Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.

The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the “Douay-Challoner” version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize)."

". . .We recommend staying away from translations with unconventional renderings, such as the TEV, and **suggest using the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. **This is a Church-approved version of the RSV that has a few, minor changes in the New Testament. It has been reissued by Ignatius Press under the title The Ignatius Bible (available from Catholic Answers in both hardcover and paperback formats).

In the end, there may not be a need to select only one translation of the Bible to use. There is no reason why a Catholic cannot collect several versions of the Bible, aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is often possible to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations.

**So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read." **

I have many translations of the Bible, and continue to collect them. Each has its own value in the historical context of the transmission of Holy Scripture.

Anna

 

[Padrej]

Wow…can I ask what it is about the King James Bible you all dont like?? And I am not trying to argue…I just dont quite understand. In some of the posts…it seemed like you flat out dont want that book in your house…almost like I wouldnt want pornography in mine. I use a King James Bible…always have…always will. I am a born again Bible believing Christian who has accepted Christ as my personal Saviour. I can back up why I know Im saved through the Word of God. And Im not saying anyone else who has posted here isnt saved…that’s not it at all…Im just saying that I DO stand by the King James Bible…It is the Authorized Word of God. And I do attend a Bible believing church. So, yes, Im a protestant…and I am amused at how I feel like you look at us like we are aliens or something. I dont look upon catholics like that. In fact…a VERY large number of my friends ARE catholic…just sayin…
have a blessed day!

I personally have never said that I do not like the KJV, I learned many Bible verses from it and to me there is nothing prettier than its poetic language. HOWEVER, You mention it is the “Authorized Version”, I take it you have never read the preface well. It is Authorized for use in THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Last I knew the Baptist church was not the Church of England. Also the KJV was originally intended to be a “catholic” Bible as it contained the Apocrypha in 1611 and was authorized by the Catholic King James. The First truly Protestant Bible in English would be the Geneva Bible that predates the KJV and has footnotes by John Calvin.
We also do not think or speak in the language of the King James. For example in the book or acts it mentions, “And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
Acts 28:12-14” Think about this a minute, When you hear “fetched a compass” wouldn’t you think of a magnetic compass that tells direction? Most would; however in 1611 this phrase meant “turn around and go in the opposite direction.” The magnetic compass had not yet been invented in Paul’s time in the Book of Acts so how could it be a magnetic compass?
Another line: “and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.” 1 Corinthians 12:31 Last I knew you “shewed” a varmint out of your house. Today we say “show.” This is why I prefer the NKJV as it also takes into consideration the manuscripts that were not available to the translators of the 1611KJV.

You say that *“Im saved through the Word of God.” * Last I knew people were saved through the shed Blood of Christ and through faith in that Blood. Can you explain the difference here? Can you find a verse of scripture that says God’s WORD will save you? Yes I am playing semantics with you.because in the line before you stated you accepted Christ as Lord and Savior and then followed it with “Saved through the Word of God.” I have never heard that one in ANY Baptist teaching yet.

 

[crazzeto]

If this is a response to my post, I wasn’t trying to make it one… I was just curious due to the usage of “Catholic” next to “Anglo-Lutheran” in his religion. It’s incidental and OT I guess. I appologize for that.

The study of the transmission of Scripture includes study regarding the history of each translation. I really do not see this as a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Every translation, accurate or inaccurate, holds a place in history.

I believe we should watch for the discovery of manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls were an incredible find, and have given us a glimpse into the world around the time of Christ.

The transmission of Scripture continues to evolve and change over time. Some groups support one translation and look no further. Though I think there are risks in doing this, it is their choice to do so.

There is an interesting article under the “Faith” Tab on this website that might be helpful to this discussion. It is helpful to me, and I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector.

Link: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
Partial quote from this Catholic Article:

I have many translations of the Bible, and continue to collect them. Each has its own value in the historical context of the transmission of Holy Scripture.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

If this is a response to my post, I wasn’t trying to make it one… I was just curious due to the usage of “Catholic” next to “Anglo-Lutheran” in his religion. It’s incidental and OT I guess. I appologize for that.

Hey crazzeto,

It really wasn’t a response to anyone in particular. I’ve come across similar threads before, where people see translations as a source of division. I am hoping we will all become less suspicious of one another.

I know that some Bible translations do reflect theological motives, but that is changing, as are attitudes. I just wish it would change a little faster. That’s all.

Anna