What to do with a King James Bible

[John_oxios]

This is not a Greek Orthodox Study Bible. It is labeled "“The Orthodox Study Bible” It had various contributors mainly from St. Athanasius Academy but also many Other Orthodox Bishops of all flavors from Greek to Antiochian. Kallistos Ware is probably the most widely known Orthodox bishop with his hand in the pot. This IS NOT just the New Testament, it is the complete Bible with the inclusion of 3 Maccabees and 151 psalms, plus separates the Epistle of Jeremiah out of Baruch. Copyright 2008
Isbn 978-0-7180-0359-3

PadreJ,
Well they had just the N.T. for awhile as far as I know and then they printed the whole Septuagint Later, I got it from the Local greek orthodox Church Bible study grp.

Thanks for the info though!

Go Bless,
John

 

[greggy53]

Yes, I have always loved the 1st chapter St John’s Gospel especially the KJV …And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not!

 

[greggy53]

I wonder though if one Bible translation is as good as the next why then did the Protestants feel the need to write their own?

 

[Padrej]

I wonder though if one Bible translation is as good as the next why then did the Protestants feel the need to write their own?

By the same token why have the…
Catholic Bible : New American Version
The Douay-Rheims Bible
Ignatius Catholic Bible: Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible
The New American Bible (With the Revised Book of Psalms and the Revised New Testament) by Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
The Catholic Youth Bible Revised
The New Catholic Answer Bible: The New American Bible
Catholic Women’s Devotional Bible
New Testament, Catholic Public Domain Version
The New Catholic Answer Bible - Librosario
The Ignatius Bible
My Daily Catholic Bible: 20-Minute Daily Readings (Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition)
New American Bible: St Joseph Edition
New Catholic Children’s Bible
NRSV Catholic Edition
The New Jerusalem Bible: Standard edition
Catholic Prayer Bible, the (NRSV): Lectio Divina Edition
The International Student Bible for Catholics
Prove It: Catholic Teen Bible
Fireside Catholic Youth Bible
Good News Bible (Catholic edition)
The Catholic Couples Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible: Saints Devotional Edition
Catholic Rainbow Study Bible-TEV
The Rainbow Study Bible: Catholic Millennium Edition
The Catholic One Year Bible
NRSV Standard Catholic Ed Bible Anglicized
Christian Community Bible: Catholic Pastoral Edition
GNT Children’s Bible, Catholic Edition
The World English Bible (WEB) Catholic Kindle edition
The Holy Name Edition of the Catholic Bible

Here is the big one!
The Catholic Comparative New Testament: New American Bible Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible … Bible Douay-Rheims, Good News Translation
(the above for serious Bible scholars) So many Translations in one book!!!

Why so many Catholic editions if one is good enough??? Why point out the many Protestant editions when you just as many?

 

[FrJohnB]

I wonder though if one Bible translation is as good as the next why then did the Protestants feel the need to write their own?

As Padrej points out we Catholics have many versions of the Bible too. As the English language changed over the years so did the Bible to meet the “needs” of the faithful. We also try to market our translations in such a way as to attract the most buyers, just as the Protestants do with theirs with different study versions, teen versions, etc. So basically we are in the same boat as they are. It seems every Bible translation has its own Catholic edition to market to Catholics. I was raised on the Douay and Jerusalem so it is hard to pry them from my hands. But if you had say a teenager who was seeking the Lord, the language of the Douay is much like the King James in that it may not be as understandable to them. I would far rather they have a Catholic Edition of something that they could understand than something that they had no idea what it was talking about.

 

[Justy90]

Hello I bet your Church uses the same liturgy we’ve been using since the early 70’s developed by the Catholic Church over a ten yr. period to get back to the liturgical Mass of the early Church. So why knock us now?

You better not take up gambling.

Or put back the 7 books you took out? I got several different types of CCC’s none are as big as my Bibles even the Protestant versions!

 

[Justy90]

By the same token why have the…
Catholic Bible : New American Version
The Douay-Rheims Bible
Ignatius Catholic Bible: Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible
The New American Bible (With the Revised Book of Psalms and the Revised New Testament) by Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
The Catholic Youth Bible Revised
The New Catholic Answer Bible: The New American Bible
Catholic Women’s Devotional Bible
New Testament, Catholic Public Domain Version
The New Catholic Answer Bible - Librosario
The Ignatius Bible
My Daily Catholic Bible: 20-Minute Daily Readings (Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition)
New American Bible: St Joseph Edition
New Catholic Children’s Bible
NRSV Catholic Edition
The New Jerusalem Bible: Standard edition
Catholic Prayer Bible, the (NRSV): Lectio Divina Edition
The International Student Bible for Catholics
Prove It: Catholic Teen Bible
Fireside Catholic Youth Bible
Good News Bible (Catholic edition)
The Catholic Couples Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible: Saints Devotional Edition
Catholic Rainbow Study Bible-TEV
The Rainbow Study Bible: Catholic Millennium Edition
The Catholic One Year Bible
NRSV Standard Catholic Ed Bible Anglicized
Christian Community Bible: Catholic Pastoral Edition
GNT Children’s Bible, Catholic Edition
The World English Bible (WEB) Catholic Kindle edition
The Holy Name Edition of the Catholic Bible

Here is the big one!
The Catholic Comparative New Testament: New American Bible Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible … Bible Douay-Rheims, Good News Translation
(the above for serious Bible scholars) So many Translations in one book!!!

Why so many Catholic editions if one is good enough??? Why point out the many Protestant editions when you just as many?

You illustrated my earlier point very well. Thank you.

 

[greggy53]

As Padrej points out we Catholics have many versions of the Bible too. As the English language changed over the years so did the Bible to meet the “needs” of the faithful. We also try to market our translations in such a way as to attract the most buyers, just as the Protestants do with theirs with different study versions, teen versions, etc. So basically we are in the same boat as they are. It seems every Bible translation has its own Catholic edition to market to Catholics. I was raised on the Douay and Jerusalem so it is hard to pry them from my hands. But if you had say a teenager who was seeking the Lord, the language of the Douay is much like the King James in that it may not be as understandable to them. I would far rather they have a Catholic Edition of something that they could understand than something that they had no idea what it was talking about.

Yes but why did the Protestants insist on having their own translations?..What was wrong (allegedly) with the Catholic version(s) that made them write their own?

 

[FrJohnB]

Yes but why did the Protestants insist on having their own translations?..What was wrong (allegedly) with the Catholic version(s) that made them write their own?

If you remember your church history, the King James Version was originally considered a “Catholic Bible” and is now considered Protestant. Why do we have so many revisions of our own Bible? Could it be because as time progresses our language changes?

What concerns me is that you seem to be making this (I could be wrong on this), and you are not the only one that does this, an us-V-them, Protestant-V-Catholic argument when we are not totally sinless when it comes to revisions of our own. How many times did the Vulgate get revised? How many times have church councils argued over the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonacal books? The Douay we have now is not the first translation, neither is the Jerusalem or American Standard. What was wrong with the originals?

If you study the original Greek and Hebrew our translations are off in places just as the Protestants are off in places because of the language not always being easily being translated into a “native tongue.” We try and keep as close as possible to the originals as we possibly can and so do they.

Why are you so concerned with the number of translations the Protestants have to start with? Are you trying to convict them of some sin? I have heard many Catholics step all over Martin Luther’s German translation because of the addition of “alone” to one passage when it could actually be interpreted that way out of Greek, albeit a weak interpretation but one possible way of doing so. Was he, Luther, promoting his agenda? Yes, but also do we do the same with our revisions over time? The answer is the same, Yes. I say yes here because as the Church progressed through the councils its path on the canon shifted on acceptance of certain books. If you look at the position of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint they are in the back in a separate section because at that time there was a debate as to their being totally inspired. By the time of Trent (after Luther’s translation) it was decided all these books WERE inspired and then they were placed into the order we have them today; this went against the teachings however of many of the early Doctors of the Church who felt they were not inspired writings. But look at the political climate, Luther released his version the reformation was going into full swing and the Catholic church had to take a stand opposite of the emerging Protestants. Now, some Protestants will tell you that they are going back to the original texts because of the reformation and the decisions of Trent so they want the “pure” Bible, so consequently you are going to have a few more translations.

As I stated before, I try not to make this an us-V-them argument. Is there version every bit the Bible ours is? It contains the same meaningful words (may not be exactly like ours that is why I use meaningful words), translated out of the same texts, we both believe them to be inspired; so why are we arguing over this point? I don’t believe there was anything inherently wrong with our versions, we rejected the King James and it became theirs so to my way of thinking we handed them on a silver platter one of their translations. One translation that sticks out as anti-catholic from the Reformation period would be the Geneva Bible, that one clearly had an agenda besides putting the Word of God into the hands of English speakers.

 

[crazzeto]

Errrrr, I’d like to see where anyone ever suggested the KJV was ever a “Catholic Bible”, at least out side of the context of confused Anglicans thinking they were Catholic. Which genuinely Catholic Bishop ever gave any version of the bible an Impramatur? I highly doubt this is the case, as while it does contain work found in the Douay bible, it also contains work found in Tysdales bible (from what I’ve read). If it’s true that any version of the KJV bible contains any of Tysdale’s bible I can assure you no version has an Impramatur.

 

[FrJohnB]

Errrrr, I’d like to see where anyone ever suggested the KJV was ever a “Catholic Bible”, at least out side of the context of confused Anglicans thinking they were Catholic. Which genuinely Catholic Bishop ever gave any version of the bible an Impramatur? I highly doubt this is the case, as while it does contain work found in the Douay bible, it also contains work found in Tysdales bible (from what I’ve read). If it’s true that any version of the KJV bible contains any of Tysdale’s bible I can assure you no version has an Impramatur.

At the time of 1611 England was still predominantly Catholic, King James was Catholic. The Douay became recognized later as the “Catholic” Bible of that time. James being a Catholic king considered himself by divine right (as did many kings of his era) the one to put the imprimatur on his version.

 

[crazzeto]

At the time of 1611 England was still predominantly Catholic, King James was Catholic. The Douay became recognized later as the “Catholic” Bible of that time. James being a Catholic king considered himself by divine right (as did many kings of his era) the one to put the imprimatur on his version.

I’m not so sure about your history here, first and foremost while the KJV bible was dedicated to him if I remember correctly the project started well before him, and was undertaken for the reason of ending civil unrest due to the inflamatory nature of the Tysdale bible. While it may (or may not be) that King James attempted to put his own Impramatur on the bible, I’m not so sure the Church reconginzed this as being valid.

 

[greggy53]

If you remember your church history, the King James Version was originally considered a “Catholic Bible” and is now considered Protestant. Why do we have so many revisions of our own Bible? Could it be because as time progresses our language changes?

What concerns me is that you seem to be making this (I could be wrong on this), and you are not the only one that does this, an us-V-them, Protestant-V-Catholic argument when we are not totally sinless when it comes to revisions of our own. How many times did the Vulgate get revised? How many times have church councils argued over the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonacal books? The Douay we have now is not the first translation, neither is the Jerusalem or American Standard. What was wrong with the originals?

If you study the original Greek and Hebrew our translations are off in places just as the Protestants are off in places because of the language not always being easily being translated into a “native tongue.” We try and keep as close as possible to the originals as we possibly can and so do they.

Why are you so concerned with the number of translations the Protestants have to start with? Are you trying to convict them of some sin? I have heard many Catholics step all over Martin Luther’s German translation because of the addition of “alone” to one passage when it could actually be interpreted that way out of Greek, albeit a weak interpretation but one possible way of doing so. Was he, Luther, promoting his agenda? Yes, but also do we do the same with our revisions over time? The answer is the same, Yes. I say yes here because as the Church progressed through the councils its path on the canon shifted on acceptance of certain books. If you look at the position of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint they are in the back in a separate section because at that time there was a debate as to their being totally inspired. By the time of Trent (after Luther’s translation) it was decided all these books WERE inspired and then they were placed into the order we have them today; this went against the teachings however of many of the early Doctors of the Church who felt they were not inspired writings. But look at the political climate, Luther released his version the reformation was going into full swing and the Catholic church had to take a stand opposite of the emerging Protestants. Now, some Protestants will tell you that they are going back to the original texts because of the reformation and the decisions of Trent so they want the “pure” Bible, so consequently you are going to have a few more translations.

As I stated before, I try not to make this an us-V-them argument. Is there version every bit the Bible ours is? It contains the same meaningful words (may not be exactly like ours that is why I use meaningful words), translated out of the same texts, we both believe them to be inspired; so why are we arguing over this point? I don’t believe there was anything inherently wrong with our versions, we rejected the King James and it became theirs so to my way of thinking we handed them on a silver platter one of their translations. One translation that sticks out as anti-catholic from the Reformation period would be the Geneva Bible, that one clearly had an agenda besides putting the Word of God into the hands of English speakers.

You make it sound more like a “you vs me” than an “us vs them” argument. I believe I posted the question in good faith and in keeping with the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps it could best be answered by an informed Protestant. One thing is for sure if I am to be accused of having a ax to grind here I am not the only one.

 

[GKC]

At the time of 1611 England was still predominantly Catholic, King James was Catholic. The Douay became recognized later as the “Catholic” Bible of that time. James being a Catholic king considered himself by divine right (as did many kings of his era) the one to put the imprimatur on his version.

Could you expand a little on the subject of James’ Catholicity?

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’m not so sure about your history here, first and foremost while the KJV bible was dedicated to him if I remember correctly the project started well before him, and was undertaken for the reason of ending civil unrest due to the inflamatory nature of the Tysdale bible. While it may (or may not be) that King James attempted to put his own Impramatur on the bible, I’m not so sure the Church reconginzed this as being valid.

The work began in 1607, at James’ direction, to satisfy a felt need among the more reformed of the Anglicans for a more accurate translation than was then available. . James favored the idea and set up the structure for the translation, which drew on the best from previous Englaish versions, corrected by the best scholarship available. James was the patron, though not the initator, of the work.

GKC

.

 

[greggy53]

By the way I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and if I had told sister Emily that the KJV was a good Catholic Bible she would have slapped my face for sure!

 

[FrJohnB]

You make it sound more like a “you vs me” than an “us vs them” argument. I believe I posted the question in good faith and in keeping with the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps it could best be answered by an informed Protestant. One thing is for sure if I am to be accused of having a ax to grind here I am not the only one.

That was certainly not the intention of my post so please accept my apology if it was taken that way. My point is simply we are not the only ones with various translations and revisions. The language over time changed so the Bible seems to follow these changes.

 

[crazzeto]

The work began in 1607, at James’ direction, to satisfy a felt need among the more reformed of the Anglicans for a more accurate translation than was then available. . James favored the idea and set up the structure for the translation, which drew on the best from previous Englaish versions, corrected by the best scholarship available. James was the patron, though not the initator, of the work.

GKC

.

Thanks, I’m not totally familiar with the KJV. Ultimitly though, I find any claim that this bible was ever a true good Catholic bible incredulous at best. It’s certainly not considered a “good Catholic bible” today. This isn’t to suggest that it’s a terrible bible as some like to try and assert, but it certainly isn’t an authorized Catholic bible.

 

[greggy53]

The work began in 1607, at James’ direction, to satisfy a felt need among the more reformed of the Anglicans for a more accurate translation than was then available. . James favored the idea and set up the structure for the translation, which drew on the best from previous Englaish versions, corrected by the best scholarship available. James was the patron, though not the initator, of the work.

GKC

.

An intelligent and level headed response. Thank you.

 

[GKC]

An intelligent and level headed response. Thank you.

Thank you. You are very welcome.

James himself tried hard to be a level-headed and moderate force, as between the Church of England and the RCC, and, within the CoE, between the Puritans and the establishment forces, though he favored the latter. It was the conflict between the two parties in the CoE that lead to the Hampton Court meeting in 1604, James presiding, to address the problem. This led, in due course, to the KJV translation.

GKC