ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Is The KJV A Catholic Bible

A catholic friend said the KJV was adapted from the catholic bible. He said that therefore, the RCC bible is older and more accurate. Where can I look for more info of the origins of the KJV?

Moderator - Take the Bible History quiz.

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Annie on 4/10/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (11)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Man frequently tries to get credit for things he has no business getting credit for.
Older does not mean more accurate.
---john on 3/14/08


** Jack: My friend's catholic bible has the Apocrypha while mine does not.**

Though it is tricky to find one in the USA, the KJV was originally published WITH the Apocrypha. In fact, ALL English versions had it UNTIL the NASB of the 1960s. Relatively late in the game, don't you think?

There are actually two different versions of the 10 commandments, even in the KJV. And believe it or not, chapter and verse divisions are NOT in the original MSS.
---Jack on 4/20/07


Jack: My friend's catholic bible has the Apocrypha while mine does not. This is where he says that his bible is more "complete" and true than mine and I am confused. Just looking for clarification. Also the 10 commandments are different.
---Annie on 4/18/07


**I am not a KJV onlyist, but I do see significant differences between the bibles I read and the catholic version.**

Basically, this depends on what is the Greek text underlying the NT translation.

In truth, the differences between the Alexandrian version/s and Received Text are negligible. Only 3 passages are disputed, and no doctrine is affected that is not established elsewhere.
---Jack on 4/17/07


Thank you for all the responses. I am not a KJV onlyist, but I do see significant differences between the bibles I read and the catholic version. My friend says the KJV (and all newer bibles) came from the catholic bible. I wanted to know what texts were used when the KJV (and others) were written.
---Annie on 4/16/07




*Even though these things are true, they are construed by KJV onlyists as attacks on the KJV.*

Yes,I know what you mean. I do like the KJV, I consider to be a very good translation. However, I do not believe that the KJV is 100% error free.

I like what Jack said, "I am NOT attacking the KJV. I'm attacking an attitude towards it that is superstitious verging on idolatrous."

What the KJVO see as an "attack", I see has exposing whats true and whats a fairy tale!!
---Ramon on 4/15/07


*Ramon, ever hear about the edition of the KJV that printed, "Thou shalt commit adultery" in the Ten Commandments?*

Yes Jack.

*One thing the Bible in ANY translation into ANY language makes clear is that mere human beings have NEVER done anything for God and gotten it 100% right.*

Yes! ALL translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God. Why do the KJVO group refuse to accept the errors in the KJV?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


*What doctrines are chasnged by the english Bibles which are not translated soley from the TR?*

JohnE, let me give a "sneak" peak at KJVO "flaws". A KJO will state that the NIV and other modern version deny the virgin birth. They will point to Luke 2:33 in NIV that say Joseph is Jesus father.

Was the NIV denying the virgin birth? Of course not. If thats true, the KJV is also denying the virgin birth (read Luke 2:48 KJV).
---Ramon on 4/15/07


#2 Why attack the modern version for a error, if the KJV has the same error? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship" and 100% blindness? Matthew and Luke both affirmed the virgin birth, and this is supported by the NIV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).

All translation has errors. There is no conspiracy to pervert the Word of God as the KJVO want all to believe.
---Ramon on 4/15/07


Ramon, not to be picky, but none of the Gospels were identified by the author in their original texts. It is only from Tradition that we know who wrote what. All four gospels are the Gospel of Christ, we added the "according to..." later. The fragments of Papias record that the oracles of the Lord (His gospel) was prepared in Hebrew by Matthew, this was the first. Other writers record the details about the other authors so that we would know who they were (and to tell them apart).
---lorra8574 on 4/15/07




**Even though these things are true, they are construed by KJV onlyists as attacks on the KJV.**

Good point, JohnE.

An important distinction.

I want it clearly understood here that I am NOT attacking the KJV. I'm attacking an attitude towards it that is superstitious verging on idolatrous.
---Jack on 4/15/07


Amen Ramon!
Even though these things are true, they are construed by KJV onlyists as attacks on the KJV. The question that I have for KJV only folks is: What doctrines are chasnged by the english Bibles which are not translated soley from the TR?
---JohnE on 4/15/07


**3)If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?**

Ramon, ever hear about the edition of the KJV that printed, "Thou shalt commit adultery" in the Ten Commandments?

And then there are the "HE" and "SHE" editions, depending how how Ruth 3:15 read.
---Jack on 4/15/07


**2)What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.?**

There was a KJVO coven that was so burdened that their Castillophone neighbors didn't have a REAL King James Version in Spanish? (Though the Reina-Valera predates KJV and was one of the versions "diligently compared".)

So they started on the NT, and consistently rendered "Holy Ghost" not as "Espirt Santo" but "Santa Fantasma"--Holy Hobgoblin or Sacred Spook.
---Jack on 4/15/07


Part 3:

**3)If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?**

One thing the Bible in ANY translation into ANY language makes clear is that mere human beings have NEVER done anything for God and gotten it 100% right. Why should the KJV be the single exception?
---Jack on 4/15/07


Greg and others:
1)Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?
2)What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.?
3)If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
4)Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
---Ramon on 4/15/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


#2 5)When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
6)Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"?
7)Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


#3. 9)If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

10)Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke"?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


#4.
11)Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
12)If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI); "hades and hell (GEENNA)"?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


#5
13) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
14) Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
15)Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


#6 14)Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
15)Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
16)In what language did Jesus Christ teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
17)Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


#7)
18)If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
19)Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
---Ramon on 4/15/07


**As for me and my house, I go with God and God alone**

Jana, If you went by God and God alone, you wouldn't be spouting the silly myth that the Romans took the original mss of the NT and hid it in the Vatican until Luther found them.

You didn't get that from God. You got it from erroneous SDA liturature.
---Jack on 4/14/07


trouble with man today is they like to compete against God. they think they know more and better by changing what He has given us...look at the 10commandments,some stick with it and some say its done away yet God never said it is. well then, who shall we go by, men or God. As for me and my house, I go with God and God alone...He knows our hearts and He knows who is genuine and who is a fake...
---jana on 4/14/07


Send a Free Memorial Day Ecard


In Acts 12:4 the KJV refers to Easter. Why?
---JohnE on 4/14/07


I enjoy both the King James Version and the Complete Jewish Bible translated by David H. Stern in a fully Jewish style to restore the Jewish unity of the Bible. He translated the NT from the ancient Greek original. The OT is something between a translation and a paraphrase. He did a great job. He speaks, reads and writes Hebrew. He also has great respect for the KJV. There are many translations and different people enjoy the different translations. None of them are perfect.
---Phyllis on 4/13/07


**The King James Bible is the preserved Word of God.**

Greg, which version of the KJV?

The latest revision in England done in 1769 (I'm not talking about the ERV here)?

The ABS version of 1904 normalized according to American spellings?

The Cambridge or Oxford exemplar?
---Jack on 4/13/07


Part 2:
With or without the Apocrypha--though the Apocrypha is part of the original printing?

The KJV "as originally written" no longer exists.

Did you know that the Abp. of Caterbury ordered over a dozen changes made on his own authority after the fair copy was delivered to the printers--since lost? So the first printed edition is not "as originally written."

Therefore I repeat: WHICH KJV?
---Jack on 4/13/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


**He [King James] wanted the Bible rewritten so that he could justify his own divorce. It didn't work.**

Susie, you're confusing King James with one of his predecessors, King Henry VIII.

King James did not divorce his wife, who curiously enough, was a Roman Catholic.
---Jack on 4/13/07


John, it is the Antiochian manuscripts that the KJV came from.
---MARK on 4/13/07


The King James Bible is the preserved Word of God. It was just put together in 1611, from true scriptural documents.
---Greg on 4/13/07


Mark. If God preserved his work forever and always and you are referring that to the KJV then where was that preserved work before the KJV was written? By your theology there has to have been the preserved word before the KJV so in which version was it preserved?
---john on 4/13/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


Jana, Martin Luther got his texts from the same place as other translators and you might notice that you are not using his original translation, nor anything based upon it. Even in Germany, Luther's translation has been revised more than once.

Even while he was translating, a new skill for him, he made good use of the Latin Vulgate to guide him, not some hidden scroll (several scrolls?) stolen from the secret Vatican archives.
---lorra8574 on 4/12/07


King James! Get it? The KJV was ordered to be written by King James who was not Catholic. This is not James who was one of the Apostles. He was a King. He wanted the Bible rewritten so that he could justify his own divorce. It didn't work.
---Susie on 4/12/07


* I have to say that I know that the Catholic Bible contains many lies between it's pages.*

So I gather than that the NIV is not your favorite version of the Bible, nor the Catholic New American Bible as it is my understanding that both are based on the same Greek & Hebrew texts.
---lee on 4/12/07


**I have them all and have missing texts or directly the opposite version of the KJV. **

Jana, milete ellinika? Yiati milao.

The question of "missing texts" depends on which NT version one believes to be better: the so-called Alexandrian Text or the Received Text. I prefer the Received Text, myself, but there is NO DOCTRINE affected by the Alexandrian text.

As the translators of the KJV themselves said, "Has the Kingdom of God now become words and syllables?"
---Jack on 4/12/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Sorry Jack? How about; sorry Jana? If you or I served a God that could not preserve His Word throughout time that would be a pretty sad situation. There is no doubt that the God that we are to serve is capable of doing this. Read Ps.12:6&7 KJV
So if the God that you are serving is incapable of preserving His Word forever, come on over and check out Jesus!
---MARK on 4/12/07


sorry Jack: I mean, the new modern versions are all corrupt. I have them all and have missing texts or directly the opposite version of the KJV. I have yet to get me a new Greek or Hebrew version
---jana on 4/12/07


**they speak of the first scroll that was taken from John as his workers were about to deliver them to the churches but the Romans caught them n took them and installed it in the vatican till Luther got to copy it.**

The seven hills of Rome are the Palatine, Capitoline, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, and Aventine.

Guess what is conspicuous by its absence from this list.

Bet you can't!
---Jack on 4/11/07


fmr. Catholic, I know exactly what you are saying. I sense a closeness to God when I am in the King James Bible, like no other bible. This is true. It is the preserved Word of God.
---Nate on 4/11/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


The Douay/Rheims version was one of many "former translations diligently compared" with their work by the KJV committee, but the translators also looked at German, Italian, and French vernacular versions as well.

So one might as well say that the KJV is a German, Italian, or French translation.

It makes just as much sense.

SECOND TIME OF POSTING THIS.
---Jack on 4/11/07


**But Lee and others will say it is a Catholic Bible meaning the corrupt Catholic bible so to discredit SDAs and all who go by the KJV which is the true Bible...the rest of them are all corrupt..**

"The rest of them" includes the original Greek and Hebrew versions, so what you are saying is that the Greek and Hebrew originals are corrupt.

If the originals are corrupt, why are translations more authentic?
---Jack on 4/11/07


**but the Romans caught them n took them and installed it in the vatican till Luther got to copy it. **

Guess what, Jana?

The Vatican was basically a SWAMP until the 300's or so when the first Basilica of St. Peter was built.

"The Vatican" in the sense you are using it didn't even exist until well into the Middle Ages. It certainly was not around at the death of John.

So much for SDA historiography.
---Jack on 4/11/07


The NT is based upon the same texts in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles, and there is a Catholic Edition of the KJV (I have the NKJV Catholic Edition in my house). I also have the NAB, Douay-Rheims, KJV New Testament and Psalms and a digital collection of most of the Protestant translations from the Reformation onward. So please, I get that you prefer the later Jewish OT canon and reject the stories of Bel and the Dragon and Susannah from Daniel, but other than that, there is NO difference.
---lorra8574 on 4/11/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Those that claim that a spirit told them that the Catholic Bible contained lies between the sheets - that is a false spirit seeking your ruin. The differences are only found within the OT Canon, and two stories from Daniel and a small part of Esther. And the books pulled from your canon were found within the Dead Sea Scroll collection with the other canonical books, and most were in Hebrew. The Jews altered their canon and Martin Luther followed their path for his own reasons.
---lorra8574 on 4/11/07


The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, yes inspired by God. Then it was translated into Greek. When the Bible was going to be translated into English they needed permission from King James. They told King James that they would dedicate it to him. That is why the Bible is called King James and why it is the most accurate version of the Bible, because it is an exact translation of the original.
---YARI on 4/11/07


I am of sound mind and I am a child of the most high God, through His son Jesus Christ my Lord. In the light of what I just told you all, I have to say that I know that the Catholic Bible contains many lies between it's pages. God told me this, through His Holy Spirit. fmr. Catholic
---fmr.Catholic on 4/11/07


The Catholic Bible is corrupted. There is truth there and there are lies, so that is why it's corrupted. The King James Bible is God's preserved Word. I too was a Catholic, and what I know now, I could never go back to the ungodly catholic ways.
---Harriet on 4/11/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Well who cares what group the KJV comes from. its the Bible. God bless you.
---Bernie on 4/11/07


when they speak of the Catholic Bible, they speak of the first scroll that was taken from John as his workers were about to deliver them to the churches but the Romans caught them n took them and installed it in the vatican till Luther got to copy it. That was the first Bible. But Lee and others will say it is a Catholic Bible meaning the corrupt Catholic bible so to discredit SDAs and all who go by the KJV which is the true Bible...the rest of them are all corrupt..
---jana on 4/11/07


If the old Catholic Bible were so good & correct why was it necessary to create a KJ Version & then drop some of the catholic books from within.The Glove dont fit ??
---Emcee on 4/10/07


If the old Catholic Bible were so good & correct why was it necessary to create a KJ Version & then drop some of the catholic books from within.The Glove dont fit ??
---Emcee on 4/10/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Your friend was either missinformed, lying to you or your just making this up.

Take the Bible History Quiz.

---. on 4/10/07


All the Books in the Bible were written by Jewish men, inspired by G-d - not Catholics and written before there was Catholicisim.
---Phyllis on 4/10/07


Of course it was, but that does not mean that the KJV is not a good translation. Originally it contained the Deuterocanonical books, but these were later dropped. Prior to the Reformation, only the Catholic Church was able to preserve the books of the Christian Bible. The Jews did preserve their own books, but the Dead Sea Scrolls show a larger canon than what they have now, closely matching the Catholic OT.
---lorra8574 on 4/10/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.