3 ms·
so, uh, I thought the kjv was... not recognized as valid by the catholic church? Like, the KJV was authorized by the church of England, a, uh, rather different
by lsc 7y ago
so, uh, I thought the kjv was... not recognized as valid by the catholic church? Like, the KJV was authorized by the church of England, a, uh, rather different body from the Vatican. I thought a lot of what made the KJV important was that it was early in that split.
I mean, i suppose that the Vatican would probably still have a pretty interesting opinion on it.
- schoen 7y agoAnother commenter elsewhere in this thread just mentioned the Preface to the KJV, which includes some specific criticism of the Catholic Church (referred to as "our chief adversaries") for (at the time) disapproving of vernacular language editions of the Bible. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C2%A710_The_unwillingness_of_our_chief_adversaries,_that_the_Scriptures_should_be_divulged_in_the_mother_tongue,_etc https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C....
- pg_is_a_butt 7y agoPretty sure the Muslims were always their chief adversaries.
- schoen 7y agoI misunderstood a detail here: this section admits that the Catholic Church sponsored an English translation (the Douay-Rheims Bible) but complains that this translation was itself made in response to pressure from Protestants, and that Catholics were expected to seek permission from church authorities in order to read it. So I probably shouldn't have said "disapproving of" but rather something like "grudgingly permitting" or "restricting access to".
- lsc 7y agoI actually had no idea that the catholic church permitted an english translation so early.
- emmelaich 7y agoIt's not that that the KJV is not "valid". It's that it's not recommended over the Catholic version. The Catholic version contains the "deuterocanonical" books of the Old Testament. https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-recognize-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/why-doesnt-the-cat... PS. [mentioned in the article] Apparently the original KJV did include the deuterocanonical books, but they were not considered canon. The Puritans and non-English protestants were the first to omit them entirely.