CNN: The Catholic Church just declared the King James Bible a fraud. What the hell are you going to do now?

Answer 1

Please cite the documents or provide links to these quotes so that the rest of us can properly research your claims.

To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church has never approved the King James Bible.

The following Bible translations are approved by the Catholic Chruch for personal use:
+ Douai-Rheims
+ Confraternity Edition
+ Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition
+ New American Bible (NAB )
+ Jerusalem Bible
+ New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)- Catholic Edition
+ New Jerusalem Bible
+ Today's' English Version - Catholic

Only the New American Bible (NAB) is approved for liturgical use in the U.S. and many other English speaking countries.

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

Nothing. I don't need to do any thing.
The king James bible can defend itself.

Which members of the catholic church made this declaration? Certainly not all of them. I was brought up catholic, as were my parents.
There are catholics who read the king james bible, even if they don't hold views about "inerrancy."
I'm fine with that.

Whoever it was in the catholic church who said the kjv was a fraud might not have read their own apologetic websites. Some phrases in the old english catholic bibles match the king james bible. Some parts are known to match the Latin catholic bible rather than any Greek or Hebrew.

There really is no original bible any way. Paper doesn't last for two thousand years. Some paper doesn't last 200 years. So how to disprove the accuracy of an english bible with no original? Since no paper lasts 2000 years, or even 1000 years, hmm, what to do.
Nothing because it doesn't really matter any way.
The king james bible isn't really anti-catholic. It's the only bible I read. If someone in the church of Rome has a problem with that, it's not my problem.

If someone wants to "declare" the king James bible to be one thing or some thing else, it doesn't break my back or pick my pocket. Why do I want to sit around and argue like a moron? What a waste of time.

The opinions of the catholic leadership often don't carry too much weight even with lay catholics.
Catholic Christians are usually the "mind-your-business" types. Since people are individuals, Catholic people are individuals, too. Each one of them will have their own opinion in the matter.

There is a passage in the king james bible that striving about the law is unprofitable and vain. For me this means no arguing about religion or politics.

Priests, nuns, and catholic clergy might have to conform to papal bulls, and other such. But lay catholics usually think, prefer, and believe what they wish.

Religious monopoly is impossible in the open information age. And I like it that way.

Just as a side note, I don't believe that catholics are going to hell. I'm a catholic raised, king james bible only Christian with catholic family members.

Answer 3

A check of cnn.com shows no mention of this--but wow, you sure did bring out the Catholic haters, didn't you? The King James of the KJV Bible was devoutly Protestant, and oversaw the first official translation of the Bible into English, while the Catholics maintained that the Bible should stay in Latin, for fear that increased translations would muddy the meaning (and, some might argue, to maintain the need for priestly intercession). Cathlic services stayed in Latin until the 1960's, so that conflict is pretty old news. Per previous mentions--no, the Pope didn't kiss the Koran, and there are no more pedophiles among priests than among any group of men, of any religion, with free access to young boys (ministers, coaches, etc.). The scandal in the church is that the Church, in the past, has looked the other way for too long, not that the pedophiles exist.

Answer 4

If you are going to make such an outrageous claim in the future, provide a hyperlink.

However, lets discuss the KJV.

First, neither it nor Wycliffe's bible were the first translation into English, the oldest English language bibles come from the 700's. What Wycliffe did that was different is that it was the first time a single person translated the entire bible into English. The oldest extant partial translation we have is from Aldhelm who lived from 639-709. It is a fantastic task to undertake for one person alone to translate the entire bible into English. It was also expensive prior to the printing press to produce even a single copy of scripture.

Now to the KJV. The KJV suffers a lot from the fact that it was translated from a grievously flawed copy of a single strand of Greek copies. When it was retranslated in 1890, they identified and removed 20,000 major errors. You see strands of this in the phrase "peace on Earth, goodwill to men." All actual ancient texts say "peace on Earth toward men of goodwill." That is a very different message.

Further, while the original KJV was identical to the Catholic bible, later editions removed what Protestants now call the Apocrypha. The KJV as poetry or as an historical document is invaluable. But as a variant of scripture it was a disaster. Many denominations existed solely on passages that were later found to be in error. There are in fact denominations today that insist on using the pre-1890 KJV because their denomination could not exist with the new better translations. Some denominations just quietly "fixed" their doctrine and most people never noticed.

The KJV is certainly not a fraud. It was produced under the authority of James, as head of the Christian Church. Of course to accept the KJV as valid is to accept Jame's authority which is to declare Elizabeth II the proper spiritual head of the Christian Church. Further, it is to acknowledge America's violation of the divine compact between God and Queen and we really need to beg Her Majesties Royal pardon and rejoin the Commonwealth.

Very few people ever really think out the implications of what they do. Luther at least realized that to accept the bible was to accept papal authority and he had the guts to repick the books himself. Of course he excluded James, Jude, Revelations and the books now called the Apocrypha, but at least he was honest and thought through the implications.

Answer 5

The King James Bible was originally put together by Protestants. As far as I know, Roman Catholics have never endorsed the KJV. Why would they care what the Roman Catholic Church has to say about it now?

Answer 6

Paul and Peter couldn't get along 2000 years ago. There were issues between the "followers" of the Holy family (James, Mary) and those not from the family (again, Peter and Paul, though they were not allies) Why expect things to be different in the21st Century? My grandfather once told me, "If anyone comes to your door and says, 'I want to discuss something from the Bible with you.' hold on to your wallet with both hands." Remember all them "religious" books were written for only one purpose, keep people from going somewhere else (read, think for themselves).

Keep questioning. You are on the right path.

Answer 7

The King James Bible was written by poets, not by biblical scholars...never really been a big fan of it to begin with

Answer 8

First of all, I don't believe you. Secondly, didn't one of their popes kiss the Koran? The same Koran that denies Jesus is the son of God who died on a cross, rose again, and is the only way to salvation?

So why would anyone who believes the bible follow what the Catholic church has to say?

Answer 9

well this should be very interesting i can't wait to see the replys from this question lol anyway they will just stick by the king james version regardless and instead will attack the catholics instead

Answer 10

Well, to start with, I don't put much faith in the Catholic church. as I am a baptist. I will continue to worship my God as I have always done. I just believe that I can pray to God myself anyway. I don't need any help from a priest. Thank you very much for your concern.