WE have, on this baord, discussed the much Maligned King James Bible, which is either adopred beyond all scope pf reaosn, or else admonished as the worst translation available, and htough hte former statement is not true, neither are the critisisms agaisnt said translation just.

I still intend, in future, though nor soon, as researhc is slow since its not on the front burner, to post a thread about hte King Jsmes Bible to end all misconceptions over it.Its History, origin, and translation notes will be discusse din full detail at a later time as I am doing a proper job on it rathe rhtan y usual hash job I have doen on this board in my posts.

However, indifferent tot he above statement, I will defend the King James Bile form attack that is not warrented. It is not ovrall a bad translation, and indeed, surpasses most Modern ones ( Which prefer to paraphrase the Bible, and often try to eliminate gender bias , as i is called.)

It is a worthy, noble translation that coaches the scriptures in beutiful words, poetically styled, and yet accurate to the Hebrew and Greek that they used.

In this end, it has evn proben accurate in contras tto modern translations, able to hold its own agaisn thtem, and surpasing most.

This having been said, the Roman Cahtolic CHurch does not recognise his as an official Bible. This not withstanding, if ( And his is a Hypothetical, as I was wondering about htis this day.) I where to join the Catholic Faith, then coudk I retian my King James Bible, and read form it faithfully? The bulk of my learnign of scriptures is form the KJV anyway, and it is the one I am most comfortable with, havign grown up with it.

So, as a queastion I ask if it woudl be allowable and not unseemly. ,Out of curiosity.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 12, 2004

Answers

Response to KJV AND MEMBERSHIP INTO CATHOLISISM

And this is to spare the Bumper.

-- ZAROVE THE BUMPER (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 12, 2004.

Response to KJV AND MEMBERSHIP INTO CATHOLISISM

I certainly am no authority on this issue (being still a Protestant myself). However, I know a girl who used to be Catholic, and at her church, they gave her an NIV Bible, without the deuterocanonical books! In fact, she didn't even know there were additional books in the Catholic Bible from what she had, and when I told her there were, she thought I was crazy (you know, a Protestant telling a Catholic what was in the Catholic Bible didn't seem to go over too well). Just FWIW...

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.

Response to KJV AND MEMBERSHIP INTO CATHOLISISM

Zarove,

When you become a Catholic...I hope, through God's Grace... you will have a change of heart ... you will like things that are Catholic ... you will learn to like Catholic Bibles (NAB, Jerusalem, Navarre, Douay Rheims, etc) which are superior to Protestant Bibles, (not to mention, complete) ... you will learn to love Mary and the Hail Mary ... you will love Catholic Bibles which say, "Hail Mary, Full of Grace." (Douay Rheims, Navarre) ... plus you will learn to trust books with the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat

So hopefully, you will outgrow your KJV phase.

-- Jack (jthorpe99@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.

To Emily: Biblical Ignorance is an issue with all of CHristainity, and I wish one day that it shoudl cease. More Christaisn need to read their Bibles. ( But not the dreadful NIV...)

To Jake, the KJC ISnt a Phaase. Form a Literary standpoint, its a masterpeice. Beutiful, powerful wprds conveyed in eloquence. It has always topped hte list of the worlds best english liturature. Further, it is accuragte, not oly have I studied the Issue, but I personally compared the Hebrew text to the King James english. Their is little to nothing that is flawed in the translation.

So we have a masterful translation beutifly phrased, indeed, phrased better than any other version I have yet seen.

As to incomplete, lets face realities here. The King James initially came with what you refer to as the Deuterocannonical works. Likewise, many are still available to-day.

Also, my love of the KJC ISnt a phase, its the version I grew up on, and grew to appriciate more after studying the languages, and seeing the various options. The NAB DOesnt ocme close to matchign the majesty, or accuracy. ( It is also a Modern Paraphrase Bible...)

I also beg you to note, the King James isnt a protestant Bible, or Cahtolikc, it was made for boht parties...

-- ZAROVE (ZARFF3@JUNO.COM), February 13, 2004.

Zarove,

The King James Bible of 1611 is undeniably Protestant, not Catholic, to serve the cause of Protestantism. The Puritans were dissatisfied with the English Bibles of Henry VIII and Edward VI; that's why they requested James I to make a new English translation. Never did the KJV bear the Nihil Obstat nor the Imprimatur.

The superior Catholic Douay Rheims Bible which was published a few years earlier (New Testament 1582, Old Testament 1609) had a considerable influence on the King James Bible.

Contrary to your personal opinion about the NAB, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believe in the majesty and accuracy of the NAB for they use it as one the official translations for Mass readings in the U.S.A..

-- Jack (jthorpe99@yahoo.com), February 13, 2004.

"Zarove, The King James Bible of 1611 is undeniably Protestant, not Catholic, to serve the cause of Protestantism."-jACK

Actually it was to serve the cause of both,His Majety, James wanted a universal English Bible.That is why it had the additional books in it initially.

"The Puritans were dissatisfied with the English Bibles of Henry VIII and Edward VI; that's why they requested James I to make a new English translation."-Jack

Partially true, bot James himself was dissatisfied with all available english Bibles, including hte Geneva.

"Never did the KJV bear the Nihil Obstat nor the Imprimatur."-Jack

I never claimed it did.

"The superior Catholic Douay Rheims Bible which was published a few years earlier (New Testament 1582, Old Testament 1609) had a considerable influence on the King James Bible. "

Now we tread on thinner waters lad. I am sorry, but two things need to be addressed. The Suporoority of the DR, and the Influence it had on the King James Version.

As far as superiority foes, the DR isnt even on consideration for me as a Bible, as its not a proper translation, its a translation form the Vulgate ( Thoihg the Challenor revision did refer back tot he Origional languages on occassion.)

Further, on the influence, being considerable, I beg to differ. Their is no proof, whatsoever, that the DR of 1609 had any influence at all on the KJV, which, I remin you, was under proccess since 1604.Indeed, the reverse seems true, that the King James Bible had a powerful influence on the Douay heoms revision of CHallenor. Many Cahtolics like to show the simular pasages between the AV1611, and the DR, thinkign that it is solid proof thst the older DR was an incluence on the KJV, but hwta they are lookign at is a Challenor revised DR, which largley borrowed formt eh KJV. This is obvious, and even admitted to by schollars.

Rather than say thsat the DR had a powerful influence on the King James, if one looks at the evidence impartially, the reverse seems to be the truth, that the revisions to the DR where powerfully influenced by the KJV. Indeed, I have compared the origional DR witht eh KJV in all the proof texts htat clealry shopw that it influenced the KJV, and few of them seem to hodl up as the DR was origionally prodiced. Only the CHallenor revision seems to show this "Powerful influence", and as it was a century after the King James edition, I do not see how the infulence coudl have been form the Challenor revision tot he King James.

Back to superiority, I am afraid that this is also a matter of flaed reasoning, the DR has many critical errors, more so even than the KJV, which of course where handled to some degree by Challenor, but some flaws remian.

Rather than beleive false things abouthe Kinf James Bible and its acuracy, ot that the DR had a Storng influnece over the translation, which is unproven and of whioch the clearest texts shown in evidence of this are form the Challenor revisions of 100 years later, perhaps you shoudl investigate more closely the relationship between the origional language and the translation fo the KJV, and the hisotry of the translation. As well as the hisotry of the DR. ( Incedentally, I mean not to come off as so critical, but I took exception toy the trivialisationg ot eh KJV Before, and detest the innaccurate information spread about it these days, as well as beign trivialised myself as havign my affection for it caleld a Phase.Highly presumptuos.)

Shoudl I dig the references I have and illustrate the case fully? Superioroty is not detemrined by an official seal of approval.Indeed, the King James ible coudl easily reccieve an Imprimature, if submitted, and a few Minor revisiosn where made, so I am informed.

I always htought oerhaps to understake a Cahtolic Edition of the King James, to see how it went. But clealry a bias exists for it, if you dfeel you must disparage it.

"Contrary to your personal opinion about the NAB, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believe in the majesty and accuracy of the NAB for they use it as one the official translations for Mass readings in the U.S.A.. "-Jack

Which doesnt alter the fac thtat it is a Dynamic Equicvolency Bible, rather than a formal Equivolecy Bible. I orefer formal to Dynamic as it gives you the tect in as close ot the origional language as posibel, whreas DXynamic Equivolency rewords it and offers this, for the sake of readability. The readibility however comes at the cost of total accuracy.

In this end, only Bibles such as the King James Version, Revised Version, ( Either Catholic or not) American Standard VCersion ( Also rather Catholic or not) and Youngs Literal, to name a few, are prefered for any reading.

New American is admittidly a Modern Dynamic Equivolency, and no matte rif its authorised for use or not this aspect will not change on it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 13, 2004.

Karove,
Strange you say a Catholic trivialises the KJV since you seem to me mistaken about the Douay Rheims. There are NO errors in that translation, despite the Vulgate.

If there were errors, the church would have withheld her imprimatur. You might feel a ''translation'' is faulty. That doesn't mean a passage has to be erroneous.

Let me also say, I admire beautiful writing. The KJ is truly beautiful as literature. But so is the Douay-Rheims beautiful. English is a lovely language. Latin is a lovely language, and in the DR, its' translated into excellent English. More important, we have a Bible not really for literature's sake, but for our faith.

The simple fact KJV is a product of those who hated our Popes and persecuted the Catholic Church; as well as truncating unmercifully the canon of holy scripture for ''reformation's'' sake places the KJV outside the approval of a faithful Catholic.

Read Shakespeare for literature. Douay Reims for beauty and the love of God. Good advice; and not meant to hurt your feelings. You appear to be a fine man.

_________ __________________________ __________________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2004.

"Karove, Strange you say a Catholic trivialises the KJV since you seem to me mistaken about the Douay Rheims. There are NO errors in that translation, despite the Vulgate."

This I disagree on, form a scholars perspective their are some diffrences vbetween the Vulgate anf hte DR, abd between either of them and the origional language texts. The only final authority I recognise is the origional language text. All Translation s, includign the ign James Bible, have thir errors, or alternate readings.

"If there were errors, the church would have withheld her imprimatur. "

Not if they didnt notice, or, more acurately, if it where imporrible to notice. Remember, no translation will capute fully the subtleties of a wholly unrelated language.

Besides, a flaw here and their is expected in any translation.

"You might feel a ''translation'' is faulty. That doesn't mean a passage has to be erroneous. "

I dont quiet follow you here, but I beleive the Bible to be free of error as it was penned in the origional tounges, and I likewise beleive the Translators of varioy editions are naturally inclined to see only their aspect of the verse during translation, and as humans are also capable of error.

"Let me also say, I admire beautiful writing. The KJ is truly beautiful as literature. But so is the Douay-Rheims beautiful.English is a lovely language. Latin is a lovely language, and in the DR, its' translated into excellent English. "

But the Authorised vrsion is more than Beutiful, it is also accurate, which is the cheifest reason I use it, in conjunction wiht other resources.

"More important, we have a Bible not really for literature's sake, but for our faith."

I agree, again this is the primary reason I stay to the Kign Jmaes and dont use either Dynamic euqivolency Bibles, or most other translations. I quiet readily accept other translations, so long as they are valid. I simpley do not see the DR as accurate in the same vein as the King James. I have been investigatign Bibles, in fact, to find suitable companions, as I said, no english Bible can match perfectly the origionals, and the others offr fresh insight, but only if they are form the origonal language text, and only if they are acurate to this text.

The King James, for all the misgivings peopel have issued agaisnt it, is still an acucrate and reliabl,e translation.

"The simple fact KJV is a product of those who hated our Popes and persecuted the Catholic Church;"

No, it was the end result of a King who issues a toleration decree allowign Catholisism and Pritestantism to flourish in England and Scotland.

History is quiet clear that James, who married a Cahtolic and made peace with many Cahtolic majority nations, and who issues that anyone can belong to any Church they please, dod not, in fact, persecute Catholics in any wise.

"as well as truncating unmercifully the canon of holy scripture for ''reformation's'' sake places the KJV outside the approval of a faithful Catholic."

Except that the origional volume of the King James didnt truncate anyhting, all the missing books are actually in several editions fo the King James in my possession. All the Deuterocannonical works ar ein the book itsself.

"Read Shakespeare for literature. Douay Reims for beauty and the love of God. Good advice; and not meant to hurt your feelings. You appear to be a fine man."

Thank you, and I mean not ot offend either, but I do not read the James text only for beuty, I read it also for faith and inspiration, I ifnd in its passages far mor einpsiration than I ifnd in any modern language tet, and have my own misgivings abouthte DR that come not from theological debates, but translation style.

I beleive the James to be more acurate a translation, and it is based upon the actual origional languages and not the Vulgate.

This Bible, which I hrew up with and so inpires me, is my favourite translation, and all I asked was if it woudl be so unseemly if I retained it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 13, 2004.

Nobody can stop you. Anyway, forgive me for misspelling your name. I realised it after submitting that post.

The Bible of a Church of England may not be truncated as an original edition (I didn't know.) --and James may not have persecuted Catholics. (They were later discriminated against,) That's fine. I only know the KJV has no authorisation from our Church. If it had an imprimatur, we could begin to agree. Nevertheless, it is not a sin to read the KJV which you grew up knowing and loving.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2004.

Pax et bonum, to all. I don't see why you can't keep you KJV. You might want to add a Jerusalem bible or a couple of other translations which add the deuterocanonical books, as well as some Catholic study guides. When I returned to the church I kept my KJV, and still refer to it, esp when using a concordance based on that version. IMHO, the grail translation of the psalms is the best (if not yet exposed to this, see a book of Chirstian prayer, or liturgy of Hours) in terms of poetic beauty, but in many respects the KJV is a well- loved and beautiful rendition. I also have an NIV with the addtional books, and as is is a rainbow study bible, use it as well from time to time, though it is a dreadful clunky thing. The Jerusalem bible is wonderful, give it a try, as well. And, others hate the New Jerusalem bible, but I like it, as well. I have about 8 different translations, btw, and as long as I know where each stands on scholarship, each has their beauty and utility for me. +JMJT+ Denise PS (We would much rather have you, with your KJV, than not have you!)

-- Denise Griffiths (wolfiesmomtoo@yahoo.com), February 17, 2004.

The NIV Is worse than the NAB... In fact its among the worst Bibes in print. ( Thoug beter htan the Mesage or the Contemporary english Version.)

As ot he King Jmaes, mine actually does have all the DXeuterocannonical works in it. ( well, soem of mine, I have many Kign Jmaes Bibles.)

Bu tthanks, jst wonderign how this coudl be recieved.I simpley do not wish to loose my reliable Bible, whoch I have relied upon for many tears, and am most familiar with, shoudl I do anyhting.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 17, 2004.

OK, Zarove, now that you got a general consensus that it's alright for you to keep your precious KJV, get moving with your conversion to Catholicism. Time is precious, too. 1st step, call your local Catholic parish and inquire about the RCIA program. You would make a great Catholic!

-- (GO4it@RC.IA), February 17, 2004.

Zarove,

I know how you feel about being raised reading a certain Bible and growing to love it. I was this way with the NIV. I have much of it memorized and many stories are familiar. Granted, my favoring the NIV is more from habit than anything else, like extensive study as you have apparently done. But I'm wondering, what is it that makes the NIV not-so-great in your eyes - I'm curious. FWIW, I also really love reading the New King James. What is your opinion on this version?

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

It is nice to see a fairly calm discussion about the KJV. Sometimes I think that Catholics (myself included) don't like the KJV for the simple reason that there are Protestants who insist it is the ONLY one to use.

I agree with you, Z, that it is a masterful translation. But it is a masterful translation into 16th century english. I speak 20th (er . . .21st) century english. If you like that style of language, that is fine, but I want to see it in the language that I speak. That is the point of translation after all. To that end I read the KJV like I read Shakespeare, with a realization that some of the language does not speak to this time and place.

About, formal vs. dynamic equivelence, I think both are very necessary. Often the formal translation actually obscures the meaning. EG: ""None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."

Versus: ""No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."

Example sited on Catholic answers bible translation guide.

So in the end I like to have both around. Actually several of both. Since you do the same, well I like the way you do things.

Here is the one thing that does bug me about the KJV (probably the only thing). It translates the same Greek into different English phrases depending on the context. It uses 'holy one' whenever the Greek is indicating someone in heaven, and 'saint' whenever it is indicating Christians on earth. Even though the Greek is identical. [I find this really odd considering that the Church of England still refers to folks as Saint so-and-so]. (Don't ask me for the quotes, I'm at work, and don't have them with me.)

So those are my thoughts, take them as you will.

God bless you

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Zarove, I know how you feel about being raised reading a certain Bible and growing to love it. I was this way with the NIV. I have much of it memorized and many stories are familiar. Granted, my favoring the NIV is more from habit than anything else, like extensive study as you have apparently done. But I'm wondering, what is it that makes the NIV not-so-great in your eyes - I'm curious. FWIW, I also really love reading the New King James. What is your opinion on this version? - eMILY.

Ro this I say I prefer the Old King James, i will posyt a longer reaosn why in my next post. But suffer to say that, in their desire to make it a copywirteable mateiral rather than a derived material property, they made some unessisary, and in many cases unwise, desisions.

Stuill, its fairly accurate. One of the best on the market.

Just not as good.

"It is nice to see a fairly calm discussion about the KJV. Sometimes I think that Catholics (myself included) don't like the KJV for the simple reason that there are Protestants who insist it is the ONLY one to use. "-Dano

{You wil DIE for this... sorry had to say it...meant as a joke.}- Zarove

"I agree with you, Z, that it is a masterful translation. But it is a masterful translation into 16th century english. I speak 20th (er . . .21st) century english. If you like that style of language, that is fine, but I want to see it in the language that I speak. That is the point of translation after all. To that end I read the KJV like I read Shakespeare, with a realization that some of the language does not speak to this time and place. "-Dano

{Oddly this is an appeal for me. Much of the lamguage, as archaic as it is, makes it NOT of this tome, and the Bible isnt of this time, its for all time. This language, that used in the KJV, is beuitiful, the perfect language of the poets, and all our great poets lived when it was spoken... At the same time soem modern translations arent bad either... I just like this one.}-Zarove

About, formal vs. dynamic equivelence, I think both are very necessary. Often the formal translation actually obscures the meaning. EG: ""None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours." Versus: ""No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you." Example sited on Catholic answers bible translation guide. So in the end I like to have both around. Actually several of both. Since you do the same, well I like the way you do things.

{Thanks.}-Zarove

Here is the one thing that does bug me about the KJV (probably the only thing). It translates the same Greek into different English phrases depending on the context. It uses 'holy one' whenever the Greek is indicating someone in heaven, and 'saint' whenever it is indicating Christians on earth. Even though the Greek is identical. [I find this really odd considering that the Church of England still refers to folks as Saint so-and-so]. (Don't ask me for the quotes, I'm at work, and don't have them with me.)

{This is why I fragmented your post, to address htis point, which is one thats not so confusing.

You see, Greek is a language of context, and oftden the same word means somethign different if used differently. The King James translators coudl not translate this accratley into english, since english does not have the same stylised system as Greek did, evn in the 1600's. Instead, they chose to use synonyms for the same word in different contexts, to illustrate that the Greek woudl be understood differently.

It was a decsision that, rather we agree with it or not, we are stuck with in the King James, but can overcome by the use of the aformentioned other translations. ( Which is actulaly recocmended ny the translators of the KJV, they say many translations woudl be good for the reader to understand the sybtleties.}-Zarove

So those are my thoughts, take them as you will. God bless you Dano

{Thansk, and a pelasure. Hope I cleared up the problem over the KJV. I was brief, and dont knwo if I explaiend it well.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2004.