Do Catholics use the King James Version of the Bible?

Answer 1

Catholic AnswerNo, the King James Version was a defective translation authorized by King James I of England for use in the Anglican Church. It is missing the entire Deuterocanon, and contains numerous errors.

from Radio Replies, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, 1942

560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?

You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindal translated into English various Greek and Latin copes of The Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale's translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale's version, and published the "Great Bible" in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is know as the "Bishops' Bible.) This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishop's Bible, a committee of 47 revisers whose names are not know produced what is known as the "Authorized Version" in 1611. In 1881 a new revised version was published, correcting some 5,000 mistakes in the Authorized Version. Further revision of this "Revised Version" is being demanded. Thus you owe your English Bible to many unknown revisers, the Bishops of 1568, Miles coverdale 1539, Tindale 1525, Monastic copyists through the ages, and thence to the originals.

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

Apocrypha

Books erroneously held to be inspired and to be included in the canon of Scripture, but rejected as such by the Church, such as III and IV Esdras, III and IV Maccabees, Prayer of Manasses, 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Gospel of James. Books style "apocrypha" in Protestant editions of the Bible are not necessarily such in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Deutero-Canonical books

Those books of the O.T. whose place in the canon was not admitted till after that of the other books. They are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, ver. 4 of chapt. X to the end of Esther, and Daniel, ver. 24 of chap. Iii to ver 3 of chap 8v and chaps. Xiii and xiv. Their authority is equal with that of the other books of the bible and is so admitted by all the Eastern dissident churches, except that Greek and Russian Orthodox theologians have now for some time been questioning it. Protestants have always rejected them because they are not included in the Hebrew Bible of the Jews.

AnswerMany believe that the Catholic Bible and the King James Bible are different and they are correct. I am a catholic and i own 4 bibles two of each and i tell you that they are the same stories and pretty much the same words, but the change comes into play when you notice that the Catholic bible has more pages and more books, yes i said it the Catholic bible has more books the King James bible is missing 6 of the books that the Catholic bible has.. So u choose which follows which and so you know im not lieing the 6 books are:

Tobit

Judith

Maccabees 1

Maccabees 2

Wisdom of Solomon

Baruch

and that is that... God Bless and i hoped i helped you in some way of comming closer to God.

.

Answer

No, The King James Version is a poor translation with the Deuterocanonical Books removed. The Catholic Church would never approve of a translation that did not accurately reflect the actual text of the Holy Scriptures.

Answer 2

Catholic AnswerThe short answer is no, although most of the books from the Catholic Bible were included in the original King James Version, they were taken from another translation that was composed by the Jews centuries after the time of Christ. The Catholic Old Testament is based on the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament that Jesus used, the King James Version is based on various Masorectic texts which the Jews formulated after they have rejected Jesus as the Messiah and centuries after the Church had already been using the entire Old Testament. Longer explanation:The Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament, approved the Old Testament and has preserved the Holy Bible for two millennium. The King James Version (Authorized Version) is a truncated, poor translation of the Bible done by the protestant revolutionaries who left the Church in the sixteenth century. It is fraught with errors, poor translations due to preconceived notions, and outright heresies.

The reason given for truncating the Bible is that the Hebrew Bible used in the first century after Christ did not contain the Deuterocanonical books, but this does not hold up to the facts. Even the so called Council of Jamnia (supposedly a Jewish Council of the first century) can not be historically proven. The main reasons for removing the Deuterocanonical books are 1) they contain clear support for Catholic doctrines that have been rejected by the "reformers", and they are supported by the Catholic Church. For an exhaustive, scholarly, completely documented coverage of the whole story, read Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible, by Gary G. Michuta. In other words, the King James Version is a translation of the Bible used by the Christian Church for the fifteen centuries before that, that threw out the books which contained doctrines that Martin Luther didn't believe in, he tried to do the same to the New Testament, but other "reformers" objected. In other words, the New Testament also has Deuterocanonical books, such as the Letter of St. James, and the Apocrypha (Revelation) which M. Luther threw out, but the other protestant divines put them back in.

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

Apocrypha

Books erroneously held to be inspired and to be included in the canon of Scripture, but rejected as such by the Church, such as III and IV Esdras, III and IV Maccabees, Prayer of Manasses, 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Gospel of James. Books style "apocrypha" in Protestant editions of the Bible are not necessarily such in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Deutero-Canonical books

Those books of the O.T. whose place in the canon was not admitted till after that of the other books. They are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, ver. 4 of chapt. X to the end of Esther, and Daniel, ver. 24 of chap. Iii to ver 3 of chap 8v and chaps. Xiii and xiv. Their authority is equal with that of the other books of the bible and is so admitted by all the Eastern dissident churches, except that Greek and Russian Orthodox theologians have now for some time been questioning it. Protestants have always rejected them because they are not included in the Hebrew Bible of the Jews.

　

Canon of Scripture

Is the list of inspire books of the Old and New Testaments. Inclusion in the canon does not confer anything to the internal character of a book, but is only the Church's teaching of the fact of its antecedent inspiration. The N.T. canon is the same as that at present commonly received among non-Catholic Christians; the O.T. canon contains in addition the deutero-canonical books (see above). These books and fragments are usually called Deuterocanoica, or of the second canon, not because their inspiration is in any way different from that of the others, but because the inspiration of the books at present in the Jewish Bible was definitely proclaimed by the Jewish authorities previous to Christ, whereas the inspiration of the Deuterocanonica, tentatively held but later rejected by the Jews, was definitely proclaimed in the Christian dispensation. The Protestant reformers, denying the infallibility of The Church, returned to the Jewish canon; the Council of Trent reaffirmed acceptance of the Christian one. Doubts expressed by individuals in certain places and periods about the canonical status of Hebrews, Apocalypse (Revelation) and some canonical epistles in the N.T. and the Deuterocanonica in the O.T., were thus declared incompatible with Catholic faith.

from Catholicism and Fundamentalism - The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" by Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988

William G. Most discussing comments made in 1910 by Gerald Birney Smith, professor at the University of Chicago and speaker at that year's Baptist Congress...

Most notes that "what Professor Smith demonstrates is that for a Protestant there simply is no way to know which books are inspired. That means, in practice, that a Protestant, if he is logical should not appeal to Scripture to prove anything; he ha no sure mans of knowing which books are part of Scripture (William G. Most, Free from All Error, Libertyville, Ill.: Franciscan Marytown Press, 1985, 9-11)

One consequence of this inability to ascertain the canon has been that the Protestant Bible is an incomplete Bible, Missing are the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees, as well as sections of Ester and Daniel. These are known to Catholics as the deutero-canonical works. They are just as much a part of the Bible as the rest of the Old Testament, the proto-canonical books. ...

However easy it may have been for the Reformers to say that some books are inspired and thus in the canon, while others are not, they in fact had no solid grounds for making such determinations. Ultimately, an infallible authority is needed if we are to know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. Without such an authority, we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot tell if our prejudices lead us in the right direction.

The advantages of the Catholic approach to proving inspiration are two. First, the inspiration is really proved, not just "felt". Second, the main fact behind the proof - the fact of an infallible, teaching Church - leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31): How is one to know what interpretations are right? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes its inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his word.

from A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong; Sophia Institute Press, 2003

For further related reading, see the author's website (listed below)

They were included in the Septuagint, which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament Scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the East (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Gregory Nazianzen) recognized some distinction, but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

The Church councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the West and most of the East. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

Since these councils also finalized the sixty-six canonical books that all Christians accept, it is quit arbitrary for Protestants selectively to delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament is understood.

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus ©. 450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

The practice of collecting the deuterocanonical books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha".

Protestants, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles, due to their clear teaching of doctrines that had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tob. 12:12; 2 Mac. 12:39-45; cf. 1 Cor. 15:29), the intercession of dead saints (2 Mac. 15:14; cf. Rev. 6:9-10), and the intermediary intercession of angels (Tob. 12:12, 15; cf. Rev. 5: 8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other reformers.

Short answer

Yes, Catholic Bibles include all of the text normally included in Bibles meant for Protestant use. They also include a number of additional books. Though these were included in the original 1611 publication of the King James Version (in a section at the end of the Old Testament titled "Apocrypha"), they've been generally dropped over time, as Protestant theologians have doubted their divine inspiration.

Answer 3

No, the King James Version of the Bible, known as the Authorized Version, is a protestant Bible translation that was ordered by King James for use in the Anglican Church, it was a very late (and bad) translation of the Bible into English. There had been numerous English Bibles for centuries prior to this, and up until the 14th century they were call Catholic translations.

from

Radio Replies, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, 1942

560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?

You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindal translated into English various Greek and Latin copes of the Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale's translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale's version, and published the "Great Bible" in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is know as the "Bishops' Bible.) This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishop's Bible, a committee of 47 revisers whose names are not know produced what is known as the "Authorized Version" in 1611. In 1881 a new revised version was published, correcting some 5,000 mistakes in the Authorized Version. Further revision of this "Revised Version" is being demanded. Thus you owe your English Bible to many unknown revisers, the Bishops of 1568, Miles coverdale 1539, Tindale 1525, Monastic copyists through the ages, and thence to the originals.

from

A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

Authorized Version. The version of the Bible ordered to be made by King James I and published in 1611, based mainly on the so-called Bishops' Bile of Parker (1568) and modified by the use of Tyndales, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Whitchurch's, the Geneva and the Rheims-Douay versions. It is the official English translation used in churches of the Anglican communion and favoured by English-speaking protestants through the world.

Answer 4

apart from such interdenominational excursions ( a tame one might be funeral homes) the New American Bible is used in Mass services. There are differences in translation between this Bible- developed during Vatican II and the King James.. One has a preferene for the Elizabethan language of the KJV- Father, Forgive them for they Know Not what They Do! even though this is bad grammar to moderns- for they do not know what they are doing. One has a place for tradition. and here it is in chapter and verse.The New American Bible, is howver the official standard, though it handles certain passages differently./ while on this consult the New English Bible- which came out in the late sixties- early seventies- some Animal stole one from the medical department at Maxwell House around l969- who would steal a Bible? It happens.

Answer 5

Yes, because King James removed several books from the Catholic Bible to make his own for Protestants.

Catholic Answer

The Catholic Bible: the Old Testament is based on the Septuagint, which is the Bible that Jesus used, and most of the Jews at that time. It was a translation that was made from the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in around the fourth or fifth century B.C. Nearly all of the quotes in the New Testament are directly from the Septuagint, and widely in variance from the Masoretic text. The Masorectic text, which is what the Old Testament of the King James Version is based on, was a canon which was composed in the first centuries after Christ by the Jews who had rejected Jesus and His ministry, and His claims. They made their version up to specifically reject claims that were used by Christians. Thus, it rejects outright seven books of the Old Testament which were the Deuterocanon (Latin for "second canon", there are Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament as well), and has very different translations for many of the other texts. Most importantly, it does not coincidence with the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament that Jesus and His Apostles used.

Answer 6

No the KJV is a Protestant Bible.