N
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mercygate
Guest
Hold the phone! The KJV is a “good” translation. OK, there are problems with it and a few places where judgment calls pushed a translation onto the Protestant side of a doctrinal matter, but in its day it was an outstanding effort. There are places where the KJV illustrates a Catholic teaching better than some of our own translations.Convince me why the KJV is a good, inspired, and accurate translation.
That’s one of the main points of this thread!
When Challoner did his revision of the Douay-Rheims translation in the 18th Century, he leaned heavily on the KJV.
Nobody except KJV-onlyists hold to the indspiration of ANY translation.
M
mercygate
Guest
We seem to be talking about two different things. Catholics INVENTED the idea that Scripture is inspired and inerrant. But we do not hold ANY translation as equal to the autographs – of which we have no copies.
J
JTBT
Guest
I must be honest and say that I have not listened to this yet, I will listen to it and then respond. I may not agree with him either. but there are others on that site who you may like, one of which is Peter Kreeft.We seem to be talking about two different things. Catholics INVENTED the idea that Scripture is inspired and inerrant. But we do not hold ANY translation as equal to the autographs – of which we have no copies.
J
JTBT
Guest
ok I listened to the first part of this and it doesn’t sound like the topic I was trying to get at, usually the speakers are very good on this site, I will find a better one.We seem to be talking about two different things. Catholics INVENTED the idea that Scripture is inspired and inerrant. But we do not hold ANY translation as equal to the autographs – of which we have no copies.
M
mercygate
Guest
I didn’t listen to it either – because the title seemed to be about the reliability of Scripture. That is something about which Catholics and Protestants have no disagreement. NONE.ok I listened to the first part of this and it doesn’t sound like the topic I was trying to get at, usually the speakers are very good on this site, I will find a better one.
Everybody (nowadays) knows that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament and the recovery of the Qumran scrolls demonstrate a consistent and widespread uniformity of content and show our Scriptures to be at the very least credible documents in their own right.
D
dmar198
Guest
So all we have to do is wait for copyrights to expire, like happened to the KJV. This argument will only work for the next ~100 years, and on whether the copyrights are renewed.Someone once told me that if the Bible version that you use has a copyright, then it CAN’T be the true word of God.
All fecetiousness aside, copyrights are in place to prevent people from stealing translations of God’s Word. You don’t get God’s Word unless you go back to Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic; God inspired people to write in those languages, not in the King’s english, so precisely zero english translations are God’s word. All of them are only imitations and conjectures – good ones, but none perfect.
Thirdly, the KJV is not the only version without copyrights. The ASV is very commonly used; it served as the basis for the RSV and (by extension) the ESV.
The World English Bible is growing in popularity because it lacks copyright, but it isn’t that great in terms of the actual translation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.