M
MarkRome
Guest
Reminds me of TLM Onlyism among some Catholics.
- Status
C
commenter
Guest
The really insideous biases are always those of your own generation:
the biases, mostly unintentional, embedded or assumed in Catholic and Protestant translations of your own lifetime.
They are insideous because they have the same preoccupation and blind spots we ourselves are prone to.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
If someone wanted to undermine Shakespeare, they would point out “there’s a crackpot group that says (only) he was divinely inspired.”
This wouldn’t reduce the value of Shakespeare in reality but might diminish his value in opinion of some readers.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I wouldn’t want to be found supporting KJV-onlyism, but it does seem to raise a question. If God ensured, by inspiring the authors, that the Bible is inerrant, as many Christians believe, why shouldn’t He ensure, by inspiring the translators, that a particular translation of the Bible is inerrant?
T
TMC
Guest
Well, which translators? And which authors? We have differing versions of the texts, both in Greek (and Hebrew) and in the languages into which Scripture has been translated. If one believes that one of those is inerrantly inspired by God, which one is it, and why that one?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Is that Henry Wansbrough, or was he involved only in the latest edition, the Revised New JB?
G
GKMotley
Guest
I have to factor in an aesthetical yen.
N
NevermoreLenore
Guest
C
commenter
Guest
Language changes over time, so there can’t be a perfect translation. Some (Isaac Asimov?) argue English has not changed much since that era because the KJV and Shakespeare are so good we don’t want to lose sight of them.PickyPicky:
Well, which translators? And which authors? We have differing versions of the texts, both in Greek (and Hebrew) and in the languages into which Scripture has been translated. If one believes that one of those is inerrantly inspired by God, which one is it, and why that one?
The Catholic view is that the Magisterium is needed to discern which imperfect translation is appropriate to a given generation, and for that matter which books belong in the canon.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Yes, the famous rollerblading monk! He also did the New Jerusalem Bible. He wrote some good textbooks for a series that was designed to cover the various papers that made up the A-level syllabus. Possibly published by the Christian Education Trust - it’s a long time ago now… I don’t think they were specifically Catholic. I’m fairly certain that at least one volume was written by an Anglican priest who was chaplain of the King’s School, Rochester.
D
dochawk
Guest
That it’s leaving a few fruitcakes without any crunch?
those would be the folks whose “ancient” texts have direct quotes from a translation into a language that wouldn’t exist for another millennium? It’s not like they have much choice . . .
And there’s also the issue as to which version of KJV, as they don’t tend to use the original . . .
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Wansbrough is also said to be either the main author or the sole author of a book-length document released by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 2001: The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. We quite often see bits of it quoted on comments threads here, usually in the “replacement theology” (aka “supersessionism”) connection.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html
G
GLam1761
Guest
Actually there is a remarkable similiarity
I CUT MY TEETH on the KJV and memorized
many verses of it as a young man. When the
NIV(New International Version) was distributed
among the students at a \university I attended
I meticulously verified that it is saying the SAME
things!!
I CUT MY TEETH on the KJV and memorized
many verses of it as a young man. When the
NIV(New International Version) was distributed
among the students at a \university I attended
I meticulously verified that it is saying the SAME
things!!
C
commenter
Guest
You likely were able to compare the two without having the written KJV on hand, because it is so memorable.
How much of NIV specific wording is now or will ever become part of Western heritage?
M
mcq72
Guest
Well others have been meticulous also and see some biased variances.
Yes, you and I can read both texts and see them thru our already preconceived lense, and say they seem to be alike.
Last edited:
G
GLam1761
Guest
I STILL read the KJV Schofield Translation with newer
English words in the subsript of the verses. It is the Bible
that an Anglican friend of mine gave me before his passing.
I don’t mind other translations like Jerusalem Bible or the
NASB or NIV or even Dougay-Reimes which some on this
Forum swear by. It’s MY trusted source of the Scriptures!!
English words in the subsript of the verses. It is the Bible
that an Anglican friend of mine gave me before his passing.
I don’t mind other translations like Jerusalem Bible or the
NASB or NIV or even Dougay-Reimes which some on this
Forum swear by. It’s MY trusted source of the Scriptures!!
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
In the words of the Baptist pastor of a very small church in my home county - “I want the bible just like Jesus had it - the King James version.”
He said this publicly. Repeatedly. Sincerely.
I howled with laughter every time. . . .
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
Like most Protestants they mean well but I think 85% of Catholics would agree that the “KJV only” movement is misguided and loaded with theological problems.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Was he just saying that for effect, or did he really believe it was the literal truth? And if so, was he an ordained Baptist minister? Had he been through seminary? What did they teach them there about history?
Last edited:
- Status