A question for Catholics

[Mannyfit75]

The preface to the KJV states that it was “translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty’s special command”. By the “original tongues” I understand to mean Hebrew and Greek, not Latin; and by the “former translations” I understand to mean earlier English translations mainly, of which there had been quite a few.

zerinus

I did some further research and the King James Bible was translated from the Textus Receptus, or is the name given to the first Greek-language text of the New Testament to be printed on a printing press.

I’m surprise you held King James of England much credit.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Greek OT books from the Septuagint books actually were included in the 1611 KJV. These books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. The KJV translation of the Septuagint books is still available today. I just got one for my priest for Christmas.

Martin Luther didn’t like them because 2 Macc 12:39-46 talks about prayer and offerings for the dead that their sins might be forgiven, which he personally opposed. (The practice was being abused during Luther’s time by corrupt church officials who used it to raise money.) Luther couldn’t justify rejecting just 2nd Maccabees, but he did find support from other anti-Catholic reformers in a “return to our Jewish roots” campaign for defining the entire group of Greek OT books as an unjustified addition to Old Testament scripture.

What Luther and his supporters apparently didn’t know, or chose to ignore, was that the Jewish rejection of the Greek OT books was part of an anti-Christian effort, long after Christianity was well-established.

See these articles:
How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (best explanation)
Old Testament Canon (Early Church Fathers’ position on the canon)

Nan

Thanks for the information

 

[zerinus]

I did some further research and the King James Bible was translated from the Textus Receptus, or is the name given to the first Greek-language text of the New Testament to be printed on a printing press.

That refers to the NT. The OT was presumably translated from Hebrew.

I’m surprise you held King James of England much credit.

I am not. We think that the KJV is the best translation of the Bible into English that has ever been made.

zerinus

 

[Mannyfit75]

That refers to the NT. The OT was presumably translated from Hebrew.

I am not. We think that the KJV is the best translation of the Bible into English that has ever been made.

zerinus

It also contains errors.

 

[zerinus]

It also contains errors.

All translations contain errors.

zerinus

 

[Mannyfit75]

All translations contain errors.

zerinus

True, the NAB has errors on it, and many devote Catholic dislike it. Most Catholics use either the RSV or the Douy Rheims Catholic Bible.

The Douy Rheims Bible is translated from the Latin Vulgate and was written in 1609 A.D.

 

[zerinus]

True, the NAB has errors on it, and many devote Catholic dislike it. Most Catholics use either the RSV or the Douy Rheims Catholic Bible.

The Douy Rheims Bible is translated from the Latin Vulgate and was written in 1609 A.D.

And so? I still think that the KJV is best!

zerinus

 

[Mannyfit75]

And so? I still think that the KJV is best!

zerinus

I prefer the DR Bible over the KJV and for more modern context, I would use the RSV-Catholic Bible

 

[Sir_Knight]

You would be almost right, except for one proviso. I know you don’t like me to say it; but it is an essential tenet of our faith. With all due respect to the Catholic Church, we believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and the Catholic Church no longer possesses the divine authority and the ecclesiastical legitimacy that it once possessed. Therefore the logic of your argument when applied to the subject at hand, which is the canon of scripture, breaks down at that point.

If what you say is true that the early Christian church apostatized, then that would also mean that Christ was wrong about His church standing up to the jaws of death. And if He was wrong about that, how can you be sure that He wasn’t wrong about everything else?

 

[Allweather]

If what you say is true that the early Christian church apostatized, then that would also mean that Christ was wrong about His church standing up to the jaws of death. And if He was wrong about that, how can you be sure that He wasn’t wrong about everything else?

BTW Knight, you and I share the same birthdate, and apparently a love of motorcycles…

You won’t get anywhere with a Mormon by appealing to common sense.

This has been posed to Zerinus more than once. His standard reply is “I have already answered that question…” blah blah blah.

Near as I can tell, the Mormons when pressed will back-pedal and say that not all renounced the faith, but only the priests and bishops, such that the sacraments were lost. There continued in the world good Christian people, but without the sacraments, or the divine authority Jesus vested in the Church. One wonders how the Church managed to convert the barbarians and found Christendom without the sacraments or divine authority, and therein lies the nonsensical nature of the Mormon apostasy charge.

The Mormon theory doesn’t make a lick of sense to me, but it apparently makes perfect sense to a Mormon. The ones I’ve spoken to in person, face to face, have always quickly arrived at the glassy-eyed moment where they say, “I believe that there was an apostasy. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I believe that the Book of Mormon is true. etc.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

BTW Knight, you and I share the same birthdate, and apparently a love of motorcycles…

You won’t get anywhere with a Mormon by appealing to common sense.

This has been posed to Zerinus more than once. His standard reply is “I have already answered that question…” blah blah blah.

Near as I can tell, the Mormons when pressed will back-pedal and say that not all renounced the faith, but only the priests and bishops, such that the sacraments were lost. There continued in the world good Christian people, but without the sacraments, or the divine authority Jesus vested in the Church. One wonders how the Church managed to convert the barbarians and found Christendom without the sacraments or divine authority, and therein lies the nonsensical nature of the Mormon apostasy charge.

The Mormon theory doesn’t make a lick of sense to me, but it apparently makes perfect sense to a Mormon. The ones I’ve spoken to in person, face to face, have always quickly arrived at the glassy-eyed moment where they say, “I believe that there was an apostasy. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I believe that the Book of Mormon is true. etc.”

So you suggest, they aren’t worth debating or discussing with?

 

[Nan_S]

So you suggest, they aren’t worth debating or discussing with?

About half the time it seems we are doing the debating and they are merely echoing, “It’s true - your church is apostate - I have the testimony of the Holy Ghost.”

Still, the other half of the time I can’t help thinking we are planting little seeds of “I wonder…” in the wall that is Mormonism

 

[Allweather]

So you suggest, they aren’t worth debating or discussing with?

Not at all. The exmos and many others here, especially NanS in my opinion, have really taken them apart down at the fastener level. It depends on what we mean by “worth debating.” It is worth it to me, because I’m in Mormon school here, learning about this religion that surrounds me through my fiance’s family. I’d like to be more prepared for the inevitable discussions between us. Like Zerinus said recently, he likes to debate religion because it is “fun.” Of course, we all know that his purposes are more to do with evangelizing Catholics into Mormonism. He doesn’t seem to be having all that much fun.

I was referring mainly to the apostasy thing. That has come up many times. There is no proof of it, except in their burning bosoms, and that is the only proof they can offer. The Mormons I know, or have met briefly, have a pretty vague idea of it. It seems to be like the anti-Catholicism of the fundamentalists, in that they accept it at face value without ever giving it any thought. As I explained the meaning of apostasy to my fiance, and informed her about what a serious sin it actually is, she began to see the lie of it. We discovered that one early heresy involved arguments over whether to accept Catholics back into the faith after they renounced the faith due to persecution. Up to then, she thought that apostasy meant that people just became lax in the practice of their holy lifestyle. I think this is how most Mormons think of apostasy.