Okay so I've been looking into the origins of the KJV and it seems that there were Masonic influences on King James I or he may have even been one of them. From my research into freemasonry this disgusts me greatly, I've been told all my life that this was the "pure and miraculously preserved Word of God" (Baptist) but if a freemason was in charge of it's translation than I'm going to be taking a HARD pass at that.
I'm looking for a good Catholic/Orthodox approved translation please. I like the old english style of the KJV but I'd like a bit of an updated english for some of the words they use. Just need some suggestions as to what version would be the most reliable and accurate. Thanks!
The Mason stuff is pure conspiracy theory. There’s no actual proof. I’ve read it a couple times and aside from a few specific verses where it intentionally teaches Protestant theology (meaning in verses with ambiguous theology, it will err on the side of Protestantism) it’s a fine translation. If you want a good Catholic Bible use the Ignatius/RSVCE, if you want a good Orthodox Bible use the OSB, and if you want a good Protestant Bible use the KJV. If you are really really really paranoid about Masonic influences on the KJV, use the NET I guess
Andrew Lewis
modern freemasonry only really came into being around the time that the KJV was being translated (17th Century) but if you think this nascent group were a powerful enough organisation at that time to influence the court of King James and get themselves onto the translation committee, then fair enough; grab any modern translation that employs the thousands of corroborative texts we have available to us today, rather than the 5 the KJV translators had available
sidenote; i would probably stop worrying about the funny handshake clubs if you believe God is Sovereign – read Psalm 2 to see how God perceives such bodies
Justin Cruz
There were not Masonic influences in the KJV translation This chart might help you some
You've probably heard of Douay-Rheims and know the Orthodox have their OSB.
But from my understanding the English Revised Version was the first to produce a 'complete' translation of 2 Esdras. Otherwise there's the modern RSV and ESV translations which are popularly used and have versions that contain apocrypha. I like the way a NKJV reads more though.
Lincoln Martin
According to many sources, King James himself was a Mason. I'm pretty sure that would count as "masonic influence".
I'm also a former student of A&M and I say he wasn't looks like we're square
Even if the king was, he had no hand in the translation
Josiah Barnes
Douay-Rheims or RSV2CE. Orthodox Study Bible. Not sure if you're still Baptist, but if so, consider the ESV (very similar to the RSV). God bless.
Luis Taylor
Every modern version seems to promote feminism in some way. The KJV is what an elite group wants to be done away with. You can find evidence, I believe, of this in "New Order of Barbarians". Check Ephesians 5:33, the word there actually means "fear", but almost every modern version translates it as "respect". The KJV translates it as "reverence". The modern versions are similar to the Catholic versions.
Ethan Martin
It would interest you to know that the Douay-Rheims translates it as fear. The Wycliffe Bible translating from the Vulgate rendered it as dread. The ASV and the Geneva Bible also translate it as fear. Not that it should be hoped this alone will be enough to sway those with KJ monomania, but it should be of interest to everyone else.
Grayson Diaz
Because more versions to choose from is inherently better!
Xavier Sanchez
Yikes. I've checked my bible, it has "respect" too. It should be "fear". Because the wisdom of the Man comes from his fear of God, and thus, the wisdom of the woman should be from her fear of the husband. Well, I speak french but seeing here, there are three variations. saintebible.com/ephesians/5-33.htm 1) "respecte" 2) "révère" (to revere the husband) 3) "craigne" (to fear) Seeing all the divergence here, I assume it is a highly controversial verset.
David Reed
Darby and Martin are two which appear to render with craigne and révère respectively. I've found some later Catholic translations in different languages to be dynamicized and I find this less desirable than whatever faults Reformation era translations may have.
Henry Flores
The NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) is the perfect Catholic bible (approved by the Vatican for personal use and study) and my favorite translation.
It’s a study bible with great commentaries, and the Old Testament translation and notes were aided by the recently discovered dead sea scrolls. The Psalms went through several revisions to meet board approval and turned out beautifully.
In accordance with Vatican 2, some of the translators were from other denominations, and the commentaries take an objective perspective on much of the text.
Great starting bible. Save the KJV and NASB (the latter being the most accurate word-for-word) for your second and third read through. I wholeheartedly recommend both. Avoid the NIV, NLT, and other thought-for-thought translations like the plague. They’re boarderline heretical and are usually just the opinion of the individual translator (the NAB and NABRE were approved by several councils)
Why do people say this? The NASB added the word "merely" into 1 Peter 3:3 for literally no reason, and also removed the words "in me" from Mark 9:42. These are objectively incorrect changes with no justification at all. Also only the NASB does these things. Whoever made up this "word for word" meme and the meme chart it's based on is DEAD WRONG.
Ok let me take a minute to describe just how fundamentally messed up this concept is. You are telling people that God decided his word was to remain hidden until 1947 when some Israelis would finally dig it up and we could update our Bibles to the correct rendering?
How do you know there aren't more hidden "secrets" out there that will change the Bible even more based on this? How do you know?
Also the NAB removes the entire verse of Matthew 18:11, it removes the word "LORD" from the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42, (so that he doesn't say that Jesus is Lord) and the NAB lessens the divinity of Christ by changing Micah 5:2 (which is Micah 5:1 in the NAB). Where it should say "he is from everlasting" the NAB just says "he is from ancient times." This is an attack on the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ by the NAB.
How can you pretend these things don't matter? What I've shown here is just the start of a much longer list of changes. You should not pretend these things simply do not matter because clearly they do very much so matter. It is highly, highly irresponsible to belittle or trivialize this, even moreso in front of other people, which you have implicitly done by putting these translations side by side as "comparable."
Brody White
Why would the LXX be considered better than the Septuagint, when it’s a translation of a translation?
Ryan Gomez
To my knowledge there are only 1 or 2 orthodox approved translations, but from what I've seen they good and fairly modern. For Catholics, there's the NAB(RE), JB, NJB, RSV, NRSV, DRV, and few obscure ones like the Knox translation.
Obviously if you want really old English the DRV is a pretty obvious choice. The Knox translation is similarly dated, though probably a bit more modernized (I've only ever read snippets though).
If you want to study church doctrine, I'd recommend the NAB(RE) or NJB/JB. The NAB is more literal, but the Jerusalem translation has a better flow tbh. If you buy the later though, I recommend specifically getting the one by CTS. It gets rid of the more iffy things in the JB/NJB like the use of the Lord's literal name. The NAB on the other hand is basically a study bible.
The RSV or NRSV are the most literal (at least based on the more recent scriptures) and are a pretty good compromise all around in my opinion. The RSV uses slightly more dated language, but they are by and large the same having gone through both.
Owen Thompson
Which one would you recommend instead?
Juan Russell
The Authorized Version (ie the KJV). It follows the original language sources and it has none of those changes that the others have.
Also as an aside anyone who uses anything else will always try to downplay the relevance of these things because they know they're wrong and indefensible. This is of course due to the fact only the KJV and its predecessors that don't change anything is actually defensible. It's only the people who don't care that will end up using some other version and usually a handful of versions.
Julian Richardson
You mean like leaving out the deuterocanonical books? Because they were written in Greek? Like the entire NT? And even though Hebrew copies were found of some of them at Qumran?
Colton Price
28 Q. Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians?
A. The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians since they are instructed by the Church; however its reading is very useful and recommended to all.
29 Q. May any translation of the Bible, in the vernacular, be read?
A. We can read those translations of the Bible in the vernacular which have been acknowledged as faithful by the Catholic Church and which have explanations also approved by the Church.
30 Q. Why may we only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church?
A. We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.
31 Q. Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?
A. We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church's interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.
32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.
33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.
Absolutely orwellian Don't think for yourself, mommy will tell you.
Angel White
You know the RSV and NRSV are protestant made translations we allow right? It's no more Orwellian than KJV-onlyists.
Ryan Ortiz
- Nope, includes the words and mentions that it’s identical to Luke 19:10
Dude we had Christianity for 400 years before the Bible had a complete cannon and another 1000 years until it was mass printed. Under the same logic you just gave me why did it take that long?
- Do you know how Moses got from being buried in Deutoronomy to heaven during the Transfiguration? Not without apocrypha texts!
Remind me again where thinking for yourself has gotten Protestantism? When people "think for themself" they start rejecting doctrine that they don't like and creating a new religion.
Apples to apples The exact same propensity happens in Catholicism , see charismatics, socialist Catholic worker movements, attestations to false apparition in South America.
Carter Torres
And based on the church they're objectively wrong. That's the difference. There's a standard that we can measure them against. Protestantism is just a free for all where you choose your own doctrine at will
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a legitimate Marian apparition btw
Anthony Perez
The standard is the Bible, that's the point of the Reformation. Relativist mainliners are decidedly non-protestant because they reject biblical inerrancy.
Kevin Sanders
The Bible isn't self interpreting though. If you have no authority above scripture then how are you to say that someone who interprets in a different way (say, to permit women being Priests) is wrong? You think you have the guidance of the Holy Spirit? So do they? Do you just roll the dice and see who is right at judgement?
The standard might be the Bible but if that standard is completely subjective depending on your exegetical method then you're on shaky ground, especially if you start interpreting it in ways that conflict with the Church Fathers as almost every single Protestant sect does.
Jacob Martinez
Douay-Rheims. >no (((textual criticism)))
There's not really anything for orthodox but the OSB (which I personally don't really like).
It just skips right over it leaving a marker for a footnote. That is removing it by pretending it's not scripture.
It also removes Acts 8:37 by the way.
That is an incorrect statement of course.
Ok and what about it? Most people were illiterate before that time. Surely you understand the concept of preaching the word and hearing it spoken and the masses getting it that way? After all, like John 8:47 says, "He that is of God heareth God's words". If that's really true then it explains a lot of things. But if you start to doubt this ironclad statement by our Lord, then you start asking questions like that.
Because the word of God is not limited to being written down, it can be both spoken, so that illiterate people can also hear it. And another thing, in the book of Acts we know that the word of God can be told in other languages because it was done by the miracle of speaking in tongues. This infallibly proves that it isn't limited to a specific language. Also the fact that the original language sources were in more than one language to begin with should have been enough already to prove this, since the whole Bible isn't originally from a single language.
So, "it didn't take that long" and "you got your facts wrong" is the answer.
This is not true. Not only that, but if you're implying the KJV is correct then why not just use the KJV?
Why would you be ok with someone using something that removes stuff? The Douay-Rheims removes "is come in the flesh" from 1 John 4:3. The DRB mistranslates Psalm 2:12 by following a modern false Jewish interpretation.
Jeremiah Thompson
Read up the history of KJV. It was heavily influenced by its predecessor the Dr. I'm not saying KJV is correct, it's full of protestant errors and removes books because it relies on the Jewish (((masoretic))) text as its OT source. I prefer christian scripture not Jewish heresy
James Price
Orthodox can use duay rheims since its a translation of the vulgate that predates the schism.
Justin Flores
It doesn't include the whole orthodox canon, nor is it based solely on the LXX. It's NT differs from the 1904 patriarchal text.
Jaxon Cox
It includes the entire canon of Carthage and hippo.
Of course it differs from lxx and patriarchal text, St Jerome used loads of different latin, Greek and Hebrew/Syriac/Aramaic texts to translate. Its the most accurate and original.
Ethan Allen
Calling it a 'american' bible triggers me though.
William Bell
The American Standard Version was just about the best or most precise translation with Alexandrian readings ever made though. No sjw crap.
Jason Diaz
Yes, but it's differences from the orthodox canon (3 Maccabees, for example) make it inappropriate for orthodox use (at least with regards to a complete bible)
James Carter
Why?
Carson Rivera
What are the goods french translations ? I have the Ostervald one, unfortunately it's Protestant.
Jeremiah Turner
He’s obsessed.
Jacob Nguyen
Council of Carthage and hippo is the orthodox canon
Matthew Wilson
Op here, my Douay-Rheims is in the mail and I'm excited to start reading. Probably going to start with the books like Maccabees that were edited out. Any other suggestions for where I should start reading?
Benjamin Nelson
So the Catholic church has provided a tidy, infallible commentary on the entirety of the Bible, right? Surely you're not going to tell me that there isn't a codified set of Biblical interpretations the Catholic church uses, right?
Matthew Nelson
...
John Rodriguez
>Ignoring the possibility of having the catholic interpretation of scripture before even knowing individual interpretation isn't ok. Such as with me
Mason Sanchez
The Orthodox Study Bible is superior and rich with clear explanations of ancient biblical interpretations. Easy to read and truly the best gift out there.
There's plenty of reasons to prefer a non-KJV bible and that's not one of them.
Cooper Martin
If a book is mentioned in the Bible by the Apostles, it scriptural. So get a Bible with ALL the books. The will say they are not Canonical but that's a Jew trick. ALL Canon is scriptural and defines doctrine. All Scripture supports Canon and doctrine. Trust what the Apostles chose to read.
So which Bible. In my mind there are only two that are decent +. Many have HUGE HUGE HUGE translations errors. These two have some small translation errors . The 1st here transliterated which makes it easy to read. The second is literal and it's harder to read but every word lines up with the Strong Exhaustive concordance.
1) The Jerusalem Bible (Gotta buy it on Amazon) 2) The Scriptures 2009 isr-messianic.org/
Also download E-Sword at E-Sword.net and download the following Bibles 1) KJV 2) KJV+ (So you can see with your own eyes all the concordance translations hyperlinked in a box.)(You will see rather quickly which Bibles mistranslate) 3) The New Jerusalem Bible (There is no version of the Jerusalem Bible) 4) TS2009
You will easily see which Bible stays closest to the Greek and Hebrew. You won't need someone elses opinion.
So also make sure you read 2 Maccabees first. Then use Wikipedia and look up the main characters and understand who they are. You have John Hyracanus and Antipater the Idumaean en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipater_the_Idumaean and his son King Herod who is all over the New Testament. It's important that you know who these men are because 2 are Edomites pretending to be Israelite and 1 is the King of the House of Judah. It's important because it will show you who is an Edomite today and who is not.
I have that one and use it often as reference. JRR.Tolkien contributed to it.
Gabriel Russell
Yes, I would say it is the best transliterated bible out there and one of the cheapest to buy. The NEW Jerusalem bible used the inclusive language so, it's not as good.
If you get E-Sword and download ALL the bibles, it is so very easy to see which ones translate correctly and which don't.
Connor Baker
I'd recommend CTS version of the Jerusalem bible over the original. It has the Grail Psalms rather than the JB's original psalms, and it get's rid of inclusive language and the usage of the literal name of God (lets call it I AM in hebrew), replacing it with the LORD as per tradition.
This is the game they play folks. Making you think you're the genius scholar just by feeding you one of these concordances.
Dominic Ward
Thanks for the recommendations. I also went to the site here and just bought a copy of The Scriptures. Should be here in a few days and I'll definitely add it to my study list. I'd download it, but I don't read well sitting at the computer. Plus I like the smell and feel of publishing paper/ink. Thank you, folks!
But seriously, looking into concordances, lexicons, and dictionaries would show that those translations are fairly liberal, the messianic one not so much but its questionable "peculiarities" are quite evident.
Ethan Harris
I mean if you want to get right into it those other non-KJV versions contradict the Greek New Testament in several places.
The TS2009 changes the name of Jesus in Philippians 2:10, making it factually incorrect. The name Jesus is the latin script for what the Greek New Testament says in all those places in the New Testament. If you change it to something else (such as a bunch of Modern/Mishnaic Hebrew names), you are therefore saying the Greek New Testament is false!
The Jerusalem/New Jerusalem removes the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22.
Hunter Nguyen
Get the OSB then if you're that anal, just avoid prot BS.
One should always have a KJV or Douay + whatever your parish uses (NAB… and I guess NIV/ESV for Prots).
I think most Orthodox still use liturgical and prayer books based on KJV language. No need for extras for them. Pretty based tbh.
Joseph Lopez
It shouldn't matter which because they are all same when spoken out loud. They're the same words. I'd prefer the 1900 format tho with Cambridge spellings. Biblia.com lists it as KJV1900. That's what I currently have.
The AKJV and UKJV appearing to be a hobbyist project and not being commercialized, evoke the most confidence from me unironically. I feel like I'd prefer their literalness for the bulk of the text over what individual perk the RSV/ESV may feature.
The most generally reliable translation for me would be the ASV though. For traditional text based translations I admit that in some verses the Douay-Rheims may offer a good rendition.
