King James and Validty

  • Thread starter Thread starter CapitalistCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
graciew… have you not been reading the comments prior… did you just jump in without lookin. If he is your cousin , you can call him cousin Jimmy, Jimbo, Diago… anything your heart desires
 
Yes ,I have.
But he is a historical character… And he belongs in the House of Stuart and Orange.
 
Last edited:
gracie garcie gracie, be aware I am being patronizing…

He was from the House of Orange… pray tell me how?
 
KJV among other translations suffers from pitfalls however they do not all share the ‘same’ pitfalls. It is important to understand these individual pitfalls when examining any translation.
 
Settle down or many will come to the logical conclusion that you are indeed still a child.
 
I am well aware of the breeding and pedigree of the various dynasties including the current saxe coburg gothas … but that was not the question. How is Queen James a member of the House of Orange… please explain. Thanking you in advance.
 
  1. KJV is a translation; as with any translation, some research is useful in understanding the presuppositions of the translators.
  2. It is named ‘King James’ because it was commissioned (paid) by him, 54 translators actually did the work.
  3. The basis for source text was: Bishops Bible & Tyndale’s Bible, Masoretic Texts, multilingual Jewish texts, and The Received Text. It is very helpful to understand the role of these (name removed by moderator)uts.
  4. The subjective pressuposition (purpose) was to address concerns over previous English translations such as Bishops and Tyndale. Note: all translations have subjective presuppositions often especially in modern times these subjective concerns are more social or cultural rather than theological.
  5. KJV is a literal translation and is written to the highest reading level (Grade 12) of any major translation
  6. Textus Recepticus (The Received Text) was approved by Catholic and Protestant authorities. It is similar to the Majority Text which had scholastic objections. Textus Recepticus does not hold claim to the oldest manuscripts rather it was preferred as authoritative over older documents such as Textus Vatanicus for theological and scholarly reasons (only original manuscripts would be indisputable).
If you wish to read God’s Holy Word in English free of modern political correctness (mid 19th century forward) it would be advantageous to use KJV or Douaii Bibles.
 
Buddyroe said:
  1. The basis for source text was: Bishops Bible & Tyndale’s Bible, Masoretic Texts, multilingual Jewish texts, and The Received Text. It is very helpful to understand the role of these (name removed by moderator)uts.
Click to expand...
The textual basis for the previous bibles Bishop’s, Great Bible, Tyndale etc (some 7 previous bibles) was the Textus Receptus, so all these bibles were TR bible. They also used the DR NT as a check against the KJV These are for the NT.

THe OT is from the Masoretic texts but very few were actually decent in their hebrew and used consultants from outside to accomplish this which is the reason you have unicorns in the KJV instead of Oxen in some instances
Buddyroe said:
  1. KJV is a literal translation and is written to the highest reading level (Grade 12) of any major translation
Click to expand...
You have been reading wikipedia … 🙂 good for you. I was one of the editors of the article 🙂
  1. Textus Recepticus (The Received Text) was approved by Catholic and Protestant authorities. It is similar to the Majority Text which had scholastic objections.
Click to expand...
Yes it was and then discarded by the Church because the Complutensian Polyglot was a more superior prepared text. It was suppressed because Erasmus got a right to publish before so the CP had to hold for 5 years before it got approved for printing even though the preparer of the text was the Grand Inquisitor.
Textus Recepticus does not hold claim to the oldest manuscripts rather it was preferred as authoritative over older documents such as Textus Vatanicus for theological and scholarly reasons (only original manuscripts would be indisputable).
Click to expand...
Correct, the TR used 6 byzantine manuscripts none of which were older than 1450 and none of which were complete each was fragmentary MSS . Erasmus keeping with the Humanist fad at the time just wanted any Greek manuscript to translate from and Biblical criticism was in its infancy. So Erasmus used what he hard at hand. None of the manuscripts were complete copies. For the last bit of Revelations Erasmus translated from the Latin vulgate to Greek because none of his six manuscripts had those pages.
If you wish to read God’s Holy Word in English free of modern political correctness (mid 19th century forward) it would be advantageous to use KJV or Douaii Bibles.
Click to expand...
The language in both a dated, and with any living language the meaning of words morph or die out or take a new meaning Example is Shambles when the KJV was written it was the place were animals were slaughtered, in the present day in means clutter
 
You presume Wikipedia is my source, stop patting yourself on the back. KJV was recognized as a literal translation way before Wiki, the internet or the computer (or you and I) ever existed.

To guard against revisionism in the sense that we are blind to our own cultural preferences it is extremely helpful to step outside of our own situation and understand scripture by viewing it from another time zone. Also consider power and influence KJV has had pointing directly to God’s point of view as opposed to most modern translations which point more or even completely to man’s point of view. In spiritual and worshipful terms, KJV says ‘Pow’ where most modern versions just go ‘fizz’.
 
Buddyroe said:
ide of our own situation and understand scripture by viewing it from another time zone. Also consider power and influence KJV has had pointing directly to God’s point of view as opposed to most modern translations which point more or even completely to man’s point view
Click to expand...
Where do you get this from? Modern translations are good, and meet the needs of most people who do not need to have the thee thou ye … Ideally the bible should be written so that it can be understood by someone who is 13 years of age. The modern translations are closer to the original autographs than the majority text bibles. As this is the case there is more of man’s words in the KJV than says one of the more modern bibles which are based on critical (minority texts). All these extra “pop” is man’s word attempting to improve on Gd word by adding to it?
 
Last edited:
Many Protestants consider the KJV the only Bible God authorized and protected. They prefer it to all other versions. Catholics know better.
 
Buddyroe said:
Also consider power and influence KJV has had pointing directly to God’s point of view as opposed to most modern translations which point more or even completely to man’s point of view. In spiritual and worshipful terms, KJV says ‘Pow’ where most modern versions just go ‘fizz’.
Click to expand...
Well said! 😉

I have some early 19th Century American KJV bibles, (1801-1812) and they usually have the Apocrypha, the notes are restricted to JUST marginal references and translation alternatives for a given word. KJV Bibles usually did not come with commentary type notes unless it was specifically intended, such as the Scott’s Family Bible. But your basic KJV bible did NOT have any polemical notes.

IMHO the KJV Bibles are honorable and honest translations for the texts that were used. It’s a fact that many Eastern Orthodox Churches will use the KJV Bible in their English Liturgies.

I prefer the D/R Bible for personal reading, mainly because of the good Catholic notes, although the translation itself can sometimes be awkward or even difficult to understand in places. The KJV bibles are embedded, culturally in the English speaking world, although they too can be difficult because of its antiquated language (even more so than the D/R).
 
Quaestor said:
Ambrose, ARE YOU AWARE, that the KJV fourth edition (1626) onwards included the glossed notes about Rome being the the Harlot of Babylon in the glossed study notes of Calvin. In fact, all the notes from the Geneva bible was included in the 1626 edition onwards?
Click to expand...
It may have been true for CERTAIN EDITIONS in 1626, but that was absolutely not true “onwards.” There are NO polemical notes in the KJV bibles I have from the early 19th century, printed in the USA. You have no credibility IMHO. 🤨
 
Quaestor said:
Regardless if the Orthodox use the KJV/NKJV for their English Liturgy, the Catholic Church indexed the KJV. Therefore, not a bible which should be used by Catholics.
Click to expand...
Catholics should indeed prefer a Catholic bible. However for whatever reason or circumstances may require, there is nothing for a Catholic to fear in referring to or reading the KJV bible. For example, I would recommend the Ignatius Study Bible (which is the RSV update of the KJV) but with copious Catholic notes. Or I would recommend the Navarre STudy Bible (again the RSV update of the KJV) but with copious Catholic notes. Or I would recommend the RSV-CE itself. All of these Bibles would be based on the KJV, but be updated with the latest scholarly findings, and modern English. For that matter, the English Vatican Website uses the RSV update of the KJV bible!
 
I think I already mentioned this before. The RSV is not an update of the King James Bible! It does pay lip service to the KJV but it is not an update. It is a new bible and does not use the Textus Receptus! IT uses the WH instead which is what the ASB used. I think I already explained as much. The KJV influenced the Douay Rheims Challoner edition heavily, in fact, the DRC borrows heavily from the KJV for its rendering of text, that does not make the DRC another KJV. Just because the RSV uses the KJV terminology and uses it as a base for rendering a translation does not make it a KJV. They do not share the underlying MSS tradition. In fact the RSV due to its reliance on WH which is a critical prepared text based on MSS aleph. The NRSV i believe uses the NANTG 26 as a error check.
 
Read my post again. I said the RSV uses the latest scholarly findings. You say “it does pay lip service” which is most vague and imprecise. What it in fact means is that the underlying KJV text is maintained, but where modern scholarship has found better texts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) it can shed light on the original meaning of some difficult passages therefore changing the wording in some situations (but rarely). Read a reasonably recent KJV side by side with an RSV and you’ll see. Also understand from my replies, that I have NEVER referred to the NRSV.
 
Last edited:
RSV did not use the latest scholarly texts … the NRSV does (more so)
RSV = WH
NRSV = WH checked against NANTG 26 (I believe)
Nova Vulgata (Vatican Press) relies on the NANTG 26
The NANTG 28 is the latest in scholarly findings.
Ergo RSV does not use the latest
Of course the differences between NA 26 and na 28 are small and not worthy of a quibble

I am well are that you did not mention the NRSV, but the NRSVCE and NRSVCEA are used in Catholic Liturgies and are checked against the NANTG 26. I did not mention anywhere that you mentioned NRSV. I am fully aware of the differences.
 
The overwhelming influence of KJV on English culture has firmly established a familiarity through rote memory. Even atheists will quote Jesus in the KJV vernacular.

When in need of a scripture reference KJV also has a great advantage via rote memorization and makes it easier to cross-reference Biblical concepts especially if a computer isn’t readily available. E.G. what are the English words for the ‘Lord’s prayer’? Quick now recite it in NASB, ESV or NIV.

D/R has a great advantage to English speaking Catholics for devotions and for a study where scholars have bequeathed English commentary from that era.

Speaking of devotions may add I am a closet admirer of the Rosary. There are very few devotions that place the soul at peace as the Rosary. Some (OK us Protestants), may criticise the Rosary for being overly repetitive and unnecessary as a means of gaining our Lord’s attention. I have found the repetition is very useful simply to calm the spirit (tone down and tune out the world) to a level where it is possible to focus on communicating with our Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top