Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But perhaps the most definitive “proof” that the KJV is in fact a “Catholic Bible” is the undeniable use by the translators of the Roman Catholic Rheims NT. The translators of the 1881 ERV NT were frank about the KJV’s use of the Rheims NT. They said in their “Preface” to the New Testament that the text of the KJV “shows evident traces of the influence of a Version not specified in the rules, the Rhemish, made from the Latin Vulgate, but by scholars conversant with the Greek original.” (p. VI). And indeed this influence is pervasive. Dr. J. G. Carleton in his work The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902. 259 pp.) has shown that the KJV has taken some 2,803 readings, besides 140 marginal readings--nearly 3,000 in all--from the Roman Catholic (Rheims) translation of 1582 (Carleton’s book was first brought to my attention by Lemuel J. Hopkins-James in his The Celtic Gospels: Their Story and Their Text by. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934; reprint 2001, p. xx). After a brief but helpful survey of English Bible versions before 1611, Carleton explains his methodology, and then presents his findings in extended lists, meticulously prepared, showing precisely where and how the KJV was influenced in its vocabulary, phraseology and grammar by the Roman Catholic Rheims NT, an influence that literally affects every page of the KJV NT.

Consider two summary statements by Carleton: “The Tables annexed give the sum total of the issue of my inquiry. They speak for themselves as to the intimate relationship, hitherto insufficiently acknowledged, which exists between the Authorized and Rhemish Versions. If one were to assess the degree of obligation due from the former to the latter, it might, I think, fairly be said, that while the Translation of 1611 in its general framework and language is essentially the daughter of the Bishops’ Bible, which in its turn had inherited the nature and lineaments of the noble line of English versions issuing from the parent stock of Tyndale’s, yet with respect to the distinctive touches which the Authorized New Testament has derived from the earlier translations, her debt to Roman Catholic Rheims is hardly inferior to her debt to puritan Geneva,” (p. 31). And again, “As a set-off against these improvements, in which A[uthorized] has followed R[heims], we observe instances, not a few, in which A[uthorized] has been led by R[heims] into translations distinctly inferior to the earlier renderings, to which the Revised Version has frequently returned,” (p. 53).

So the question still is: KJV or RSV, or NIV, or whatever, does it really matter?

This is really a remarkable quotation because here Ellen White praises all of these Christian giants, none of whom had the complete message as later proclaimed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, yet she states they "prepared the way for the proclamation of the last great message".

In my estimate there is no greater difference between the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, and many other Bible translations, as there is between our understanding of Scripture and those Reformers Ellen G White praised in the quotation above. Why should we not rather be grateful to our Lord for providing us with His Word than lamenting the small variations it takes great research to discover?

For the situation the Seventh-day Adventist church is in today, I think the greatest problem for us is how the Roman Catholic influence on the KJV is seen in how their view of a woman is seen in that version and has infiltrated the Roman Catholic view among people in our church who regard themselves as honest.

I was replying to the post by Dave and therefore wrote in that context. I have no special burden to prefer the NIV. Why don't you use the Bible you are most comfortable with?

I have yet to see a Bible through which it is impossible to teach all of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps you can convince me there is such a Bible?