Catholics who read Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyleboerner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Russ_of_Tokyo said:
Here in Japan, Catholics and Protestants use the exact same Bible version, the SHIN KYOUDOUYAKU SEISHO (Japanese New Interconfessional Translation Bible). It is the Bible officially read in mass. When I left the Anglican Church and became a Catholic I did not have to buy a new Bible.

It is available with or without the Deuterocanonicals. They do not distinguish between the words “Deuterocanonical” and “Apocrypha” in Japanese. The Deuterocanonicals are placed between the Old and New Testament, which is unfortunate and awkward for reading, but nobody has called it heretical.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_New_Interconfessional_Translation_Bible/

Does that Bible have a “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimature”? if not, it isnt approved by the Masgisterium.
Click to expand...
 
JerryParker, do you use the KJV revised, or the KJV original text
 
preppyboy6 said:
as to a question asked earlier, i am very certain that i have the original Douay Rheims translation, straight from the Latin Vulgate.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it ‘original’ unless it’s not the Challoner version. 😉
 
preppyboy6 said:
Does that Bible have a “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimature”? if not, it isnt approved by the Masgisterium.
Click to expand...
The entire Catholic Church in Japan has been using this Bible officially every day in mass for all these years and you claim that there is actually a possibility it is not approved by the Magisterium? I think we are getting even deeper into silly territory…
 
preppyboy6 said:
wrong my friend, i stated that if a King James version is missing those seven books, which includes them being separated and relegated to apocryphal, then that KJV is heretical, and as to all the other arguments that state all the books in the bible are in protestant translations. The seven books, otherwise known as dueterocanonical books, were removed by Martin Luther from the position of Sacred Scripture, meaning they are not recognized as an official part of the Bible, and are relegated to the “Apocrypha”. So, the Protestant Bible is not just a translation, but an entirely different forgery crafted by Martin Luther.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the placement of the apocryphal books
I would instead see if the cross references includes them or not
 
Russ_of_Tokyo said:
The entire Catholic Church in Japan has been using this Bible officially every day in mass for all these years and you claim that there is actually a possibility it is not approved by the Magisterium? I think we are getting even deeper into silly territory…
Click to expand...
I just remembered. AFAIK there still isn’t yet an official translation of the Bible in the Philippines: what is being used is, if I remember correctly, the Tagalog analogue of the GNB (aka the Tagalog Popular Version). Obviously it isn’t a specifically Catholic translation - there is a ‘with Deuterocanonicals’ version along with one that isn’t available in the market - but I do remember that the one containing the Deuteros in it (not within the OT itself as in ‘proper’ Catholic Bibles mind you but in that good ol’ Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha section in between the OT and NT) carries an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat. Though, I guess it doesn’t count, does it?

It makes me wonder though. What would happen, say, if we rebound a KJV (or another version) in such a way that the Deuteros would be included within the OT?
 

Preppy Boy asked: Jerry Parker, do you use the KJV revised, or the KJV original text?​

I prefer to use the Authorised “King James” Bible (with the Apocrypha) in any Cambridge University Press edition, including the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible but the variants in the A.V. Bibles text come from various degrees of conformity with the A.V. translators manuscript materials, which are still extant. The differences result from various attempts at improved proof-reading rather than of variant editions, and these variants do not amount to enough to constitute a different edition, such as some supposed “K.J.V. revised”. For a fascinating explanation of this, read David Norton`s *The King James Bible: a Short History from Tyndale to Today *(Cambride, 2011).
 

CyberAngel wrote: Regardless of the placement of the apocryphal books, I would instead see if the cross-references include them or not.​

The A.V. (KJ.V.) Bibles, with both references and Apocrypha, which the two great British university presses publish, include in their marginalia the A.V. translators references within the O.T. and N.T. to the writings in the A.V.s Apocrypha and vice versa.
 
Jerry_Parker said:

CyberAngel wrote: Regardless of the placement of the apocryphal books, I would instead see if the cross-references include them or not.​

The A.V. (KJ.V.) Bibles, with both references and Apocrypha, which the two great British university presses publish, include in their marginalia the A.V. translators references within the O.T. and N.T. to the writings in the A.V.s Apocrypha and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Many people don’t seem to know that there are marginalia in the KJV. Because of King James I’s directives against it, there are no lengthy side material as in former translations. English translations which preceded the KJV - the Rheims-Douai included - are characterized by their very copious supplementary material, which could often be used as a vehicle for polemics, often anti-Catholic: James was especially perplexed by the low-church Calvinistic/Puritan and anti-monarchical notes of the Geneva Bible, which was the commonly-used translation before the KJV was published (the Geneva was the Bible William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan was familiar with): in fact, the Geneva and its side material was so popular that it became infamous, and provided the catalyst for the production of the Bishops’ Bible under Elizabeth I, the KJV under James, and even the Rheims-Douai among Catholic Recusants.

Instead, the original 1611 edition gives alternative (oftentimes more literal) renderings of the Hebrew or Greek in the margins, something the translators believed to be very important.

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1966/footnote.jpg

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1966/footnote.jpg
 
Catholic here who’s primary daily reading\prayer Bible is the King James. I own a beautiful Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha. (So yeah, all the books are there) 😛

Why? I love the way it reads. Yes, I own a DR, an RSV and a few other Catholic Bibles, but I love the way the KJ flows. I also really, really like the quality of the Cambridge. NOTHING by ANY Catholic Bible producer even comes close to the quality of Cambridge or Allan. I still keep wondering why. St. Benedict is a joke quality wise, and the same goes for Ignatius.
 
Patrick,

We wrote:

Jerry Parker; *The A.V. (KJ.V.) Bibles, with both references and Apocrypha, which the two great British university presses publish, include in their marginalia the A.V. translators references within the O.T. and N.T. to the writings in the A.V.s Apocrypha and vice versa. *

Patrick; *Many people don’t seem to know that there are marginalia in the KJV. Because of King James I’s directives against it, there are no lengthy side material as in former translations. English translations which preceded the KJV - the Rheims-Douai included - are characterized by their very copious supplementary material, which could often be used as a vehicle for polemics, often anti-Catholic: James was especially perplexed by the low-church Calvinistic/Puritan and anti-monarchical notes of the Geneva Bible, which was the commonly-used translation before the KJV was published (the Geneva was the Bible William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan was familiar with): in fact, the Geneva and its side material was so popular that it became infamous, and provided the catalyst for the production of the Bishops’ Bible under Elizabeth I, the KJV under James, and even the Rheims-Douai among Catholic Recusants.

Instead, the original 1611 edition gives alternative (oftentimes more literal) renderings of the Hebrew or Greek in the margins, something the translators believed to be very important. *​

What confuses a lot of folks is that the work on the Authorised “King James” (A.V.) Bible continued in significant (albeit minor) ways in the years after its initial publication, namely on the marginal readings and the references, even on the early corrections deriving from publisher`s errors in the initial editions. Thus, a facsimile of the 1611 printing will not show quite all of what the A.V. really is and includes.
 

Patrick wrote: *To be honest I make no secret of the fact that I like the (original) Rheims-Douai over Bishop Challoner’s version. The latter almost seems too much of a ‘Catholicized’ KJV to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with that mind you, but I’m just in the minority which likes all the big words and fidelity to the source text over readability (something which the original translators thought was the problem with translations in their day: the attempts to make the text more readable “[restrained] the sense of the holy Ghost to [their] phantasie.” *​

Well, there is room for both the Douay-Rheims and for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner versions. The major reason that I occasionally use the Douay-Rheims (as unrevised by Challoner) is when I make resort to the Clementine Vulgate Bible in Latin. The earlier form of the English version, being so much more slavishly literal to the Latin than Challoner`s revision happens to be, can help me, since my Latin, to say the least of it, has become quite “rusty”, so that having a literal English rendering from the Clementine (or pre-Clementine) Latin Vulgate to help me along is a real asset in study.

The Lollard Bible, also from Latin, can be helpful, too. The Lollard translation of Wycliffe (as revised during Lollard times by John Penry et al.) of the New Testament is avialable (with spelling helpfully modernised) as published by Xulon Press (Fairfax, Va., 2002).

For normal use, however, the Challoner Bible reigns supreme among Catholic English versions.
 
CyberAngel said:
Regardless of the placement of the apocryphal books
I would instead see if the cross references includes them or not
Click to expand...
The 1611 KJV cross references to the Dueteros about 100 times. Including to Wisdom where the strongest prophecy of Christ is. KJV family Bibles in the 1800s have enormously higher cross reference counts to the deuteros however they are for reasons as simple as the same word usage, town name, etc.

I am working through the list of those references from 1611 now and hope, in a couple months, to have the list available.
 
Bitz wrote: *The 1611 KJV cross references to the Dueteros about 100 times. Including to Wisdom where the strongest prophecy of Christ is. KJV family Bibles in the 1800s have enormously higher cross reference counts to the deuteros however they are for reasons as simple as the same word usage, town name, etc.

I am working through the list of those references from 1611 now and hope, in a couple months, to have the list available. *​

Yes, 👍 it is important to keep in mind the cross-references and marginal readings that the translators themselves of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) Bible provided, by 1611 and in the work of some of these same translators in the years and decades immediately after 1611. Cross-references and marginal readings that were added later and/or by others than the A.V.`s translators are of quite variable usefulness and reliability; many are downright fraudulent more controversialist :eek: in tone and content. Other publishers, even in their text-with-references A.V. Bibles that do not add to what the A.V. translators provided often trim down the marginalia that the translators left us, e.g. in at least some of the A.V. (without Apocrypha) editions from the publisher Holman.

This is another reason why the Oxford and Cambridge university presses` editions (expeially those of Cambridge) in reference/marginal-readings notes editions with Apocrypha, are so essential to consult; they avoid what is not authentic and subtract nothing authentic. To help in identifying just that, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is very helpful and reliable.

Study or annotated Bible editions of the A.V. can be helpful for what they add as explanatory matter in their own notes, but such versions are not examples of the A.V. Bible`s text and marginalia “pure and simple”.
 

Patrick wrote: T]*here’s also the NT being translated from the Textus Receptus, which could make things a bit confusing especially if you’re like me who use something like the NA, which is an eclectic text. *​

You dont really need to have this problem. Instead of reading the Authorised "King James" Bibles New Testament (N.T.) with Nestle-Alands (or the U.B.S.) so-called "critical text" in hand for the Greek, get one of the easily obtainable Greek N.T.s of the Text*us Receptus *(Byzantine Text) kind. The Trinitarian Bible Societys is one of them and most facilitates using with the Authorised “King James” Bible`s N.T.
 
Rotlex wrote: *Catholic here who’s primary daily reading\prayer Bible is the King James. I own a beautiful Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha. (So yeah, all the books are there)

Why? I love the way it reads. Yes, I own a DR, an RSV and a few other Catholic Bibles, but I love the way the KJ flows. I also really, really like the quality of the Cambridge. NOTHING by ANY Catholic Bible producer even comes close to the quality of Cambridge or Allan. I still keep wondering why. St. Benedict is a joke quality wise, and the same goes for Ignatius. *
Steve​

Right on, Catholic dude! 👍 Why not use the best when it is available? And you are using the best!
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Yes, 👍 it is important to keep in mind the cross-references and marginal readings that the translators themselves of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) Bible provided, by 1611 and in the work of some of these same translators in the years and decades immediately after 1611. Cross-references and marginal readings that were added later and/or by others than the A.V.`s translators are of quite variable usefulness and reliability;
Click to expand...
Yes that is true. One thing I have noticed is that the cross references you find in other protestant Bibles, such as the Geneva Bible, which itself also translated the Dueterocanonicals their own way and likewise was published with cross references between the Deutero and NT books. They appear to be mostly the same as the KJV ( I’ve only sampled so far ) but not 100% identical.

I ponder if there was not an earlier list that was consulted by more than one set of translators, ie. something from the Church. And if there was such a list does anyone know what it was ?

Another item on my list is to go through my facsimile Douay and capture its listed cross references/citation notes however thats a long way out. The douay is however completely different in what it references.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top