[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 581 KB, 1052x1600, KJV-King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7111831 No.7111831 [Reply] [Original]

Help me out guys, I have a bit of a problem here. (short version: I want to be a Catholic AND keep my KJV)

My favourite edition of the Bible is the King James Version. It's hard to say why. I grew up around atheists so I was never told "this is THE ONLY Word of God" or any of that nonsense—actually, until very recently, I wasn't aware how extreme some KJV-onylism is. But I did always think it sounded best, and although the sense was sometimes a little muddled, I always had recourse to other versions and my own judgment when it seemed to err (which was, on the whole, not so often).

The difficulty is this. Of all the churches I've considered joining, it has seemed to me that the best is quite probably the Catholic church. I agree with much of their doctrine, and I like the idea of proper submission to the church without so much of the individualism of spirituality that other churches seem to offer.

But I can't give up my KJV. One reason is I have a particularly expensive KJV—sort of a vulgar consideration, but, you know, there it is . . .

The more important reason is that, though it loses by its omissions, and though it is not always ideal, it is still one of the liveliest Bibles available and I have always found it the surest bet for edification. I don't think it's "better" that newer Bible are "easier to understand"—often that leads us to read too passively, to not think enough about words and their meanings. It is right that the Bible should be harder than the average book to read.

None of this is helped by the way every article explaining the Catholic Church's problem with the KJV not only talks to me like I'm an idiot, but doesn't give very compelling reasons why it is so horrid. Some books are missing—can I not also buy something supplemental with those books in it? It was, in some ways, translated so as to conform to the theology of the Church of England—which passages are corrupted in this way, and can I not read the KJV with a skeptical eye in those parts?

Anyway, I know I really shouldn't, but how terrible would it be if I continued to enjoy my KJV as a Catholic? Am I asking the wrong people?

>> No.7111864

Are you going to agonize like this every time you jerk off, too?

>> No.7111877

>>7111831
keep both?

The RSV/NRSV are both pretty good, and you can cross reference it with the KJV.

There is no limit on books you can read my man.

>> No.7111887

The KJV has better prose than any Catholic Bible. Just understand that the prose sometimes obscures the real meaning. It's fine.

>> No.7111891

Agreed, keep both. The various Bibles were assembled by committees of monks making educated guesses; there are no 'right' or 'wrong' versions.

>> No.7111903

>>7111877
>There is no limit on books you can read my man.
I think the Catholic Church may not agree with you 100% on this. Of course I can read the KJV; I'm not sure I can read it as-the-Word.

I like the NRSV for when I need to check whether the KJV is fucking something up, but I hate the thought of using the NRSV as my go-to version. I mean, I shouldn't hate it, because it's still the Bible, but . . .

>> No.7111912

>>7111831
>I agree with much of their doctrine.
>But I can't give up my KJV. One reason is I have a particularly expensive KJV

Do you happen to use faith just to sense that you belong with certain people?

>> No.7111937

>>7111903
Well, I guess if you want 'The Word' (which is an inherently dodgy concept imho, but to each their own) your best bet would be an edition that cross-reference to the oldest known version - kind of like those side-by-side Shakespeare books with both modern and Old English in.

>> No.7111941

>>7111831
The King James translation included the deuterocanonical books in Apocrypha so you're good dude

>> No.7111948

>>7111941
holy crap, I did not expect to see the word 'deuterocanonical' today.

>> No.7111952

>>7111937
Or you can learn greek and cross reference that if you REALLY want the unabridged word

>> No.7111977

>>7111912
I try to be alert to spiritual dangers but that's not one of them for me, as far as I can tell. I've been absolutely closeted as a Christian for as long as I've been one, so far—it certainly hasn't been a social benefit, other than having a better attitude most of the time, which makes me slightly more likable.

I have a great respect for many of the Christian writers, so it's possible that I may be trying to 'be like' them. But I really do believe in much of what is particular to the Catholic church, and many of my favourite Christian writers have not been Catholic. Nor do I expect to find myself among really hip company when I do finally join a church. I want to do it for other reasons.

>>7111937
I do think the Bible is, or can be, "The Word", but I do not think it derives that status from infallible original documents. Just to look at the history of how the Bible has come to exist is to know that these things are, in a way, developed over time. I'm not averse to the idea that the KJV itself could be a new divine inspiration, for example. I could think the same of the Vulgate.

>kind of like those side-by-side Shakespeare books with both modern and Old English in.
>Old English
are you baiting me

>> No.7111982

Feel like I should point out, the original Bible is long gone. We have copies of copies of copies, cobbled together, transliterated and interpreted over 2000+ years... at this point, none of them say exactly what they did to begin with.

>> No.7111989

>>7111977
No bait intended, is that not the correct term? Medieval English, maybe?

>> No.7111991

>>7111982
Yes, any really serious Christian is well aware of this. That's why I've said I'm not obsessed with finding the most "original" versions.

>> No.7111996

>>7111989
Early Modern English and you are definitely baiting me

>> No.7112009

KJV may be the old timey sounding bible of epic quotes in Hollywood movies but it's shit otherwise.

I suggest you just get over it and dump the thing. See it as a gesture of commitment to your faith to not unnecessarily attach yourself to trivialities.

>> No.7112087

>>7111831
You could get the Douay-Rheims which is based on the Vulgate and was written around the same time as the KJV. It was the official English bible for a very long time, though the prose isn't as pretty.

I've heard nothing but good about the RSV2CE if you want a more modern translation, though other Catholic editions of the RSV are fine too. There's also the Knox bible but you're not likely to find a translation as poetic as the KJV.

>> No.7112100

>>7111982
There are all sorts of very old manuscripts and they all say pretty much the same things. Reddit pls

>> No.7112113
File: 162 KB, 649x463, 1412622891009.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7112113

>>7111831
le first world problems: le thread

>> No.7112149
File: 320 KB, 750x562, litBoy_and_TommyP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7112149

>>7112113
this is now a pinecone meme thread

>> No.7113846

>>7112009
>KJV may be the old timey sounding bible of epic quotes in Hollywood movies but it's shit otherwise.

how can one person be so uncharitable

>> No.7113892

>>7113846
Because the KVJ is the LARPers bible and attracts people who like religious gestures more than religious practise, tbh.

>> No.7114378

>>7111831
Have you even heard of thr Douay-Rheins version?

>> No.7114468

>>7111831

Why would anyone want to be Catholic?

>> No.7114510

>>7113892
Yup. There's a reason hyper-patriarchal home school types to KJV only. It adds to the air of mystery and authority around the reader when read aloud more than it illuminates the original language.

>> No.7114517

>>7114468

Because apparently, people don't like the idea that they don't know everything there is to know about existence and most people don't really know how we ought to live our lives here, so instead of just admitting this, they pretend to have a book that knows every answer to every question, even when those answers are quite obviously completely wrong

>> No.7114619

If you're a christfag at all you're fucked so what does it matter what brand of shit fanfiction you read?

>> No.7114710
File: 50 KB, 464x444, 1440203771949.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7114710

>>7114517
>He's being serious

>> No.7114900

>>7114619
why are you so angry with Christendom?

>> No.7115516

>>7114710
could well fucking do with a cheeky pint of ale tbh m8

>> No.7115540

>>7114517
The Catholic Church doesn't claim to have the answer to every question.

>> No.7115564

the bible is p shit as a work of literature tbh. read the god delusion btw. its the red pill for the religious

>> No.7116205

>>7115564
this post is p shit as bait tbh. read the god delusion btw. its the real bait for the religious

>> No.7118072

read the vulgate, noob

>> No.7118101

the message is what matters. not the medium.
>>7115564
>>7116205
talking like this isn't funny. it takes no effort. its like normalfag shitposting. worst of all worlds

>> No.7118121

>>7111831
>But I can't give up my KJV. One reason is I have a particularly expensive KJV—sort of a vulgar consideration, but, you know, there it is . .

> Concerned about the fate of your immortal soul enough to seek out a faith you're not raised with to devout yourself too as you believe it's the correct one

>Doesn't want to give up an expensive book for it

Kill yourself.

>> No.7119969
File: 12 KB, 300x191, $T2eC16VHJHQFFhfCPP4oBR8qVc4N(g--60_35.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7119969

>>7118121
This tbh

>>7111831
Keep both. If you have read the official version you already know where the differences are. I'm german and prefer the Luther translation over the catholic one too. Differences between versions are smaller than you'd think