What to do with a King James Bible

[GeneGee]

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

 

[GKC]

Very like a broken record, yes.

Remember the Subscription Act/1571? If not, do so. It’s why anyone (clergy) in the CoE is required to subscribe to the Articles. And no one else.

Remember what Bishop Bull said? If not, do so. It’s how the Articles are to be treated within the CoE.

Outside of it, it’s a free for all.

I know several Anglicans who affirm the Articles. I don’t argue the point with them, either.

GKC

Like a broken record I still say the 39 Articles are a major part of Anglican ethos and understanding of church polity and theology. If priests in the Church of England are expected to abide by and respect them, I still fail to understand how a layman attending a Mass of that tradition is allowed to pick and choose or abandon them altogether? I know they are not as binding as, say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but they historically are so crucial in making sense of what Anglicans are to believe. My old rector valued them a great deal and thought Anglicans should not only follow the creeds, scriptures, and prayer book but the Articles. Father James was a big Articles fan and would quote them when seeking to understand the church. I still feel that the only reason that Anglo-Catholics don’t want to follow the Articles is that they are a stumbling block, a square peg that won’t fit or make sense so the way to rationalize it is to make them an option, not a must. I agree with your take on Transubstantiation from an Anglican standpoint. When I was attending Anglican Church worship, I saw the Eucharist through the lens of transub., and saw it not as official truth but my way of understanding it.

 

[GeneGee]

The Protestant Bible the same as the Catholic Bible with the following exceptions. These books were removed; Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 &2, Wisdom, Sirach,and Baruch. Several lines added to the Lords prayer and of course the last book in the Bible one word in Greek where the other Bible word is in Latin but they both mean the same. What to do with the bible keep it. I am sure you are well awaere that Martin Luther was a monk that taught the priesthood to students that is why both Bibles are pretty much the same.

 

[bridgeforsale]

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

See if King James will take it back

 

[Padrej]

JL: Thanks I did scan the article it is very long, when I get time I will try to look at it again. I agree most have not read the entire bible. I know I read the NT at lest seven time from MT-RV and tried to read the OT from Gn thru, but always got bogged down, I should be an expert on Gns, with all my starts. I have read the entire bible, Catholic with 7 more OT books. I took the OT by groups of books. Since I like history I started with the historic books, Prophets, Wisdom books and so on. I finally got thru all the OT. I have read different books of the OT several times, and spot read many others several times.

I have found JWs do not read or really know the bible AT ALL, all their answers are given to them thru WT books. They seem to be knowledgeable because they are using WT articles and answers which SOUND very knowledgeable But when you really step back and think about them its fluff.

Maybe I should rephrase on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are trained to know certain key scriptures so as to break down the defenses and put doubts in the minds of those they “witness” to that their faith is correct. I think you may be correct in that Jehovah’s witnesses may be the same as the rest of us so to speak in that they may not be that knowledgeable on what they have not been trained on. They do SOUND knowledgeable. I remember tripping one up with the passage from Exodus that God says his name is “Jealous” and they could not explain that one.

 

[Padrej]

The Protestant Bible the same as the Catholic Bible with the following exceptions. These books were removed; Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 &2, Wisdom, Sirach,and Baruch. Several lines added to the Lords prayer and of course the last book in the Bible one word in Greek where the other Bible word is in Latin but they both mean the same. What to do with the bible keep it. I am sure you are well awaere that Martin Luther was a monk that taught the priesthood to students that is why both Bibles are pretty much the same.

I find that if I am doing serious Bible study that I want several translations around me. Keep the Bible if only for that reason.

 

[crazzeto]

I find that if I am doing serious Bible study that I want several translations around me. Keep the Bible if only for that reason.

I’m doing a study of revelation right now with the CSS program, I find I like reading it first out of the booklet (I suspect it’s RSV-CE), then immediatly cracking open my Haydock Douay Rheims bible, and re-reading it along with the Rev. Haydock’s notes. I get so much more out of it that way.

 

[greggy53]

The Protestant Bible the same as the Catholic Bible with the following exceptions. These books were removed; Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 &2, Wisdom, Sirach,and Baruch. Several lines added to the Lords prayer and of course the last book in the Bible one word in Greek where the other Bible word is in Latin but they both mean the same. What to do with the bible keep it. I am sure you are well awaere that Martin Luther was a monk that taught the priesthood to students that is why both Bibles are pretty much the same.

I have a KJV Bible that has the 7 DC books in it. printed in 1876.
When did the Protestants decide to remove them all together?

 

[crazzeto]

The Protestant Bible the same as the Catholic Bible with the following exceptions. These books were removed; Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 &2, Wisdom, Sirach,and Baruch. **Several lines added to the Lords prayer **and of course the last book in the Bible one word in Greek where the other Bible word is in Latin but they both mean the same. What to do with the bible keep it. I am sure you are well awaere that Martin Luther was a monk that taught the priesthood to students that is why both Bibles are pretty much the same.

I was curious about this statement, as I figured they would have not included the doxology into Matthew 6, but apparently the retained that. Weird that they would retain such an error, I guess they have to since Protestants really think that’s part of the prayer.

 

[Padrej]

I have a KJV Bible that has the 7 DC books in it. printed in 1876.
When did the Protestants decide to remove them all together?

The movement started in England with the British Foreign Bible Society in 1826 which resolved: *That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books which are usually termed Apocryphal * So actually it was the rise of Bible societies that triggered their removal as it cost more to print a Bible with additional pages containing these books. If the goal of the society was to distribute the Bible to as many persons as possible every penny counted. There were many similar Bible societies and Christian aid societies in the US which soon followed this practice. One that remains today that you can still get cheap Bibles from in large quantities is the American Bible Society. They also have a CD Rom version of the bible with the Deuterocanonicals intact that is search-able for around $13.

So there were KJV Bibles produced in this period of the 1800’s that had the Apocrypha in them but as time went on they became increasingly rare. Now as I understand it, you can still get the KJV with those books included today.

 

[Padrej]

I was curious about this statement, as I figured they would have not included the doxology into Matthew 6, but apparently the retained that. Weird that they would retain such an error, I guess they have to since Protestants really think that’s part of the prayer.

The last lines of the Lord’s prayer are in some of the early Greek Manuscripts, just not the earliest known. The question is, If it is not part of the prayer, WHY in a Roman Catholic mass, do you follow the tradition of adding it after the priest says a short prayer? Funny you were pointing out Protestants were in error for having it in their Bible but yet you pray it in your Mass.

 

[FrJohnB]

The last lines of the Lord’s prayer are in some of the early Greek Manuscripts, just not the earliest known. The question is, If it is not part of the prayer, WHY in a Roman Catholic mass, do you follow the tradition of adding it after the priest says a short prayer? Funny you were pointing out Protestants were in error for having it in their Bible but yet you pray it in your Mass.

It is true that the line did not exist in Earlier manuscripts which is why we end the prayer there by tradition. Now does this mean that the line is totally in error and does not line up with scripture? No it does not. If the early church added it as evidenced in the later Greek manuscripts then it must have been a tradition. This is why we at a Mass add it later.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The last lines of the Lord’s prayer are in some of the early Greek Manuscripts, just not the earliest known. The question is, If it is not part of the prayer, WHY in a Roman Catholic mass, do you follow the tradition of adding it after the priest says a short prayer? Funny you were pointing out Protestants were in error for having it in their Bible but yet you pray it in your Mass.

It’s the Doxology, an ancient prayer, and there’s nothing anti-biblical about praying it, and we’re not violently opposed to tradition like non-Catholics think they are. We just don’t pretend it’s Scripture when we know it’s a later addition. We aren’t saying it to quote Scripture, we’re giving honor and glory to God. Nothing wrong with that, I presume.

 

[greggy53]

The movement started in England with the British Foreign Bible Society in 1826 which resolved: *That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books and parts of books which are usually termed Apocryphal * So actually it was the rise of Bible societies that triggered their removal as it cost more to print a Bible with additional pages containing these books. If the goal of the society was to distribute the Bible to as many persons as possible every penny counted. There were many similar Bible societies and Christian aid societies in the US which soon followed this practice. One that remains today that you can still get cheap Bibles from in large quantities is the American Bible Society. They also have a CD Rom version of the bible with the Deuterocanonicals intact that is search-able for around $13.

So there were KJV Bibles produced in this period of the 1800’s that had the Apocrypha in them but as time went on they became increasingly rare. Now as I understand it, you can still get the KJV with those books included today.

Interesting. My KJV is a family heirloom which belonged to my great grandfather, and was given to him and his wife on their wedding day. It is the most beautiful and ornate bible I have ever seen… The Apocrypha section of the bible contains 15 books of which the 7 DC books are included. When my father gave it to me I was amazed to find the DC books in it. I had never seen a Protestant Bible with the DC, and thought that Martin Luther removed them long before the mid 19th century.

 

[crazzeto]

It’s the Doxology, an ancient prayer, and there’s nothing anti-biblical about praying it, and we’re not violently opposed to tradition like non-Catholics think they are. We just don’t pretend it’s Scripture when we know it’s a later addition. We aren’t saying it to quote Scripture, we’re giving honor and glory to God. Nothing wrong with that, I presume.

It’s not anti-biblical, but Christ never spoke the words. By placeing it in the bible as you find in the KJV, it leads one to beleive that Christ actually spoke the words and there for that it is an actual part of the prayer.

The doxology is not a part of the prayer, the Lord never spoke the words. This makes it optional rather than required, and indeed Catholics do not include the doxology as a part of the paryer (as a convert, you do know though that we do say it at mass still).

This is the inappropriateness of the KJV keeping the doxology as it has. It should be moved out of the inspred text, into the notes. Add an astrisk if you really want, with a foot note adding it. But stop propetuating the error that the doxology is actually a part of the inspired text.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Open the KJV to the Book of Ephesians. Read the whole Book. Re-read Ch. 1,2. Make a personal application of Eph. 2:8-10. Let the Holy Spirit bear witness.

Read the same Book in a Douay-Confraternity or other approved version using the same criteria as above.

The message is the same: if we do not understand Eph. 2:8-10, the rest makes no sense–we are like Nicodemus in John 3, Masters of Religion–outside the kingdom. Being born again–from above is the key. Do we have the key for the right lock?

Now what?

Peace,

James Least

Amen! We must understand Ephesians 2:10 in light of all of scripture. Take the book of James for example…

Ephesians 2:10 (King James Version)
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

James 2:14; 20-22; 24-26 (King James Version)
14What doth it profit, my brethren, **though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?
can faith save him? **

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

What now indeed.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

It’s not anti-biblical, but Christ never spoke the words. By placeing it in the bible as you find in the KJV, it leads one to beleive that Christ actually spoke the words and there for that it is an actual part of the prayer.

We don’t know for sure that Christ* never* spoke those words.

The doxology is not a part of the prayer, the Lord never spoke the words. This makes it optional rather than required, and indeed Catholics do not include the doxology as a part of the paryer (as a convert, you do know though that we do say it at mass still).

I don’t consider it part of the Our Father, but rather our response when the priest prays, “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil…”

This is the inappropriateness of the KJV keeping the doxology as it has. It should be moved out of the inspred text, into the notes. Add an astrisk if you really want, with a foot note adding it. But stop propetuating the error that the doxology is actually a part of the inspired text.

Amen.

 

[Padrej]

It’s not anti-biblical, but Christ never spoke the words. By placeing it in the bible as you find in the KJV, it leads one to beleive that Christ actually spoke the words and there for that it is an actual part of the prayer.

The doxology is not a part of the prayer, the Lord never spoke the words. This makes it optional rather than required, and indeed Catholics do not include the doxology as a part of the paryer (as a convert, you do know though that we do say it at mass still).

This is the inappropriateness of the KJV keeping the doxology as it has. It should be moved out of the inspred text, into the notes. Add an astrisk if you really want, with a foot note adding it. But stop propetuating the error that the doxology is actually a part of the inspired text.

I take it now that you are old enough to have lived back in ancient Palestine and actually heard the words of Christ? Most Protestant translations make a footnote that those lines were added and not part of the earliest manuscripts. Some of the later translations like the Living Bible leave the verse out all together.
Your line about the inappropriateness shows your lack of knowledge of both Protestantism and the Bible. Let me show you what I mean.
You say that the Doxology IS NOT part of the “inspired text” It is actually a quote from 1 Chronicles 29:11 so I can only presume that you believe that that is not inspired that Jesus would never have quoted the Old Testament either? I take it from your response that it was not part of the “inspired text” that being this is from 1Chronicles that that chapter is NOT inspired even though the Bile clearly states “ALL scripture is inspired.” Do you as a Roman Catholic not believe this?

 

[FrJohnB]

It’s the Doxology, an ancient prayer, and there’s nothing anti-biblical about praying it, and we’re not violently opposed to tradition like non-Catholics think they are. We just don’t pretend it’s Scripture when we know it’s a later addition. We aren’t saying it to quote Scripture, we’re giving honor and glory to God. Nothing wrong with that, I presume.

As Padrej points out the doxology comes from 1 Chronicles so we are technically quoting scripture when we say this. True we do not know if Jesus said those words directly, but it would NOT be out of line if He did. True this was not found in the earlier texts and was added later. It is not in Luke’s version of the prayer, but his version was to a Gentile audience and Matthew’s to Jews. So was it added so that it would sound harmonious to them? Could have been. Certainly not out of line with the inspired text, but the Greek versions that it appears are still older than Luke’s version. Being this was part of the sermon on the mount and Luke’s version a chat with the disciples it is quite possible that there were two or more givings of this prayer. notice also the subtle changes that Mathew has versus Luke and we are not arguing over Jesus actually saying that! So why could it not be POSSIBLE that He DID say the doxology added later?

 

[crazzeto]

We don’t know for sure that Christ* never* spoke those words.

I don’t consider it part of the Our Father, but rather our response when the priest prays, “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil…”

Amen.

We do, as we know where the doxology came from! It was scribbled in the margines of a copy (of a copy) the Gospel of Matthew. It was never copied as gospel in any bible not of protestant origin.