G
GKMotley
Guest
Yep. The very one.
- Status
G
GKMotley
Guest
I was referring to Batman. It is not definitive, only speculated. Also sometimes speculated that he is a lapsed RC.
The Morbius reference was to his movie status.
The Morbius reference was to his movie status.
Last edited:
C
catholicray
Guest
I formerly adopted the position of KJV Only personally. The argument is actually well made within a Protestant framework of theology.
The for it is as follows:
If Sola Scriptura is true then God would not allow his words to be destroyed as Scripture is necessary for knowledge of the faith.
This is followed by noting textual variants between the KJV and other versions of the Bible.
The logic is that the variations are significant enough to be able to come to different conclusions depending upon which version of the Bible you use. A simple question is asked. How can Gods word change? The answer if you believe Scripture Alone is that it can not change.
KJV only, highlights changes from one translation to another and concludes logically that there must be an “authorized” version of the Bible. As they reject Catholicism they see the “authorized” King James Version as the standard of authority.
The idea actually holds up quite well within a Protestant framework. It’s actually quite logical that if only the Bible is infallible shouldn’t we all have the same words? It doesn’t hold up so well outside of that framework. None the less I do own a facsimile of the 1611 KJV because of my journey. It’s still a pretty great Bible but I prefer my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible most these days.
The for it is as follows:
If Sola Scriptura is true then God would not allow his words to be destroyed as Scripture is necessary for knowledge of the faith.
This is followed by noting textual variants between the KJV and other versions of the Bible.
The logic is that the variations are significant enough to be able to come to different conclusions depending upon which version of the Bible you use. A simple question is asked. How can Gods word change? The answer if you believe Scripture Alone is that it can not change.
KJV only, highlights changes from one translation to another and concludes logically that there must be an “authorized” version of the Bible. As they reject Catholicism they see the “authorized” King James Version as the standard of authority.
The idea actually holds up quite well within a Protestant framework. It’s actually quite logical that if only the Bible is infallible shouldn’t we all have the same words? It doesn’t hold up so well outside of that framework. None the less I do own a facsimile of the 1611 KJV because of my journey. It’s still a pretty great Bible but I prefer my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible most these days.
M
mcq72
Guest
I thought the KJ originally came with the 7…one of the versions temporarily did
T
tonyh12
Guest
That’s right we said this above
N
new-kirishitan
Guest
Excuse my language, but to me KJV-ists are ignorant fools who believe a badly translated and plagiarised version of Tyndale Bible, like an Evangelical Protestant friend of mine from the American state of Indiana who once made the remark that ‘Catholicism is a whole new subset of Christianity’, which I had to tell him that it’s extremely inaccurate to call Catholicism a ‘whole new’ subset, and it would more accurate to call us ‘the old stubborn subset of Christianity fixated on traditional rituals’.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The readings in Anglican services included, at one time, almost the whole of the Deuterocanonicals. I have an old BCP with the church calendar listing the first and second “lessons” (readings) for the whole year. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Baruch are all there, together with Daniel 13 (Susannah) and 14 (Bel and the Dragon). They only left out the two books of Maccabees.
Last edited:
S
Symphorian
Guest
Current CofE lectionaries still contain lessons from the DC’s although alternative readings are provided.
CofE Canon Law states that Bibles used in its churches must contain the DC books.
‘Benedicite, omnia opera’ one of the Canticles said/sung at Morning Prayer is taken from the DC’s.
CofE Canon Law states that Bibles used in its churches must contain the DC books.
‘Benedicite, omnia opera’ one of the Canticles said/sung at Morning Prayer is taken from the DC’s.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Speaking with an American/1928 accent, that last is suggested as a reading on the Eve of the Ascension, but I’ve never seen it done. Sung, yes
G
GKMotley
Guest
Not sure which BCP you were looking at, but the American 1928 lectionary includes I Mac & 2 Esdras readings (and Three Children, for that matter).
Never seen that last read. Sung or chanted.
Never seen that last read. Sung or chanted.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
This edition is dated 1858. The OT readings for weekdays, morning and evening, begin with Genesis 1 on January 2 in the morning and end up with Isaiah 66 on December 31 in the evening. Isaiah is switched from its canonical order. It follows Bel & the Dragon, beginning with Chap. 1 on November 24.
S
Symphorian
Guest
The CofE has quite a few readings from the DC’s coming up over the next couple of months or so including Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom and 1 & 2 Maccabees.
M
mcq72
Guest
Reminds me of a saying I heard the other day.
“If you don’t forgive your hurts you bleed on other people”
Like you took a remark as disparaging, and passed it on ( to KJ ers)
Last edited:
C
catholicray
Guest
I see a lot of negativity for KJV onlyism. I have this to say.
First humble yourself. Christ died for those you may mock. Their journey is not complete and they are worthy of being treated with dignity. St. Paul says it best. “If I have faith so as to move mountains but I have not love I am nothing.” Right theology and logic does not dictate a heart that loves. Even the devil knew Scripture and even the demons believe. What separates us then other than love?
Second, KJV onlyist do not think the Scriptures in the original languages are void and that the KJV overides the original languages. Rather they try to embrace Romans 13 and therefore believe that the KJV is the authorized English version.
I don’t say this to defend their position but rather to correct your opposition. For how shall you begin to correct another when you don’t understand what to actually address in your correction. Therefore remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from your brothers eye.
Yes the original KJV had the deuterocanon positioned between the Old Testament and the New but it is titled Apocrypha.
If you ask me God is at work here because the KJV only position is logically formidable within Protestantism. It does not make much sense outside of that framework but it tests Sola Scriptura within it. So pray and have humility in order to offer your heart to those outside of the Church rather than condescension. It is heartbreaking that they do not have the Eucharist because of all the confusion in this world. Have compassion and throw the Church doors wide open for them while we yet have time.
God Bless
First humble yourself. Christ died for those you may mock. Their journey is not complete and they are worthy of being treated with dignity. St. Paul says it best. “If I have faith so as to move mountains but I have not love I am nothing.” Right theology and logic does not dictate a heart that loves. Even the devil knew Scripture and even the demons believe. What separates us then other than love?
Second, KJV onlyist do not think the Scriptures in the original languages are void and that the KJV overides the original languages. Rather they try to embrace Romans 13 and therefore believe that the KJV is the authorized English version.
I don’t say this to defend their position but rather to correct your opposition. For how shall you begin to correct another when you don’t understand what to actually address in your correction. Therefore remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from your brothers eye.
Yes the original KJV had the deuterocanon positioned between the Old Testament and the New but it is titled Apocrypha.
If you ask me God is at work here because the KJV only position is logically formidable within Protestantism. It does not make much sense outside of that framework but it tests Sola Scriptura within it. So pray and have humility in order to offer your heart to those outside of the Church rather than condescension. It is heartbreaking that they do not have the Eucharist because of all the confusion in this world. Have compassion and throw the Church doors wide open for them while we yet have time.
God Bless
J
JonahJones
Guest
The KJVO position is not as wacky as is sometimes portrayed.
Many in the Christian community assume there is some lineage of manuscripts that is accepted as authoratative by all when in fact there is no such thing. The NRSV, NAB, or NJB that you hold in your hands is the product of scholars sitting around debating which manuscripts to accept and which to reject based on a lot of academic detective work. The Greek manuscripts underlying your Bibles are not the same ones used by Jerome, for example…or even in use 200 years ago. The soundness of this work is not as clear-cut as is often assumed.
Setting aside the question of whether or not to include the apocrypha (which doesn’t change the story), Catholics have the same textual tradition as Protestants because they’re all translated from the same Nestle-Aland/UBS text (a process Catholic scholars participate in). It’s not as if Catholics have a different Greek than Protestants. The only differences between an NIV and a NAB is the translation philosophy and how each version chooses to handle (or at least mark) the contested passages, such the longer ending of Mark, 1 John 5:7, the Pericope Adulterae, John 5:4, etc.
An alternative to the NA text is the majority text, sometimes (though not quite accurately) referred to as the Textus Receptus. This is what the KJV (and NKJV for that matter) are based on and its textual history favors the Byzantine text, which tends to be fuller than the Alexandrine text. The Byzantine text was known earlier but the Alexandrine texts are adjudged to be older.
Here are some issues that people who discard the KJVO position do not have good answers for:
(1) Where is the inspired word of God? The non-KJVO answer is invariably “in the original autographs”. Those no longer exist, and at best you have a detective-game guess (through textual criticism) of what scholars think they said. If God inspired His word, didn’t he preserve it? If so, where is it? Put it in my hands. A KJVO person can put a copy of the KJV in your hands and say definitively “there, that is God’s word”. A modern translation person can’t because they accept many competing translations as God’s word. And they are constantly changing.
(2) Where does textual criticism end? There’s been 28 editions of the Nestle Aland, and the Greek in the 1st edition is quite different than the Greek in the 28th. So are we to say we didn’t have the word of God until the NA28? When the NA29 comes out, all Bibles must be discarded and we start anew? The reality is that there is no end to the textual criticism process so you will never have the final word of God - it will always be changing, by the very nature of the process. Again, where is the word of God?
The KJVO argument is about the underlying Greek as much as the English. It comes down to wanting to have the perfect word of God. KJVO people would say unequivocally that they have it. Critical Text people (every other modern translation, including all Catholic Bibles) can’t say that because both the Greek and the resultant translation changes from edition to edition of the NA.
Many in the Christian community assume there is some lineage of manuscripts that is accepted as authoratative by all when in fact there is no such thing. The NRSV, NAB, or NJB that you hold in your hands is the product of scholars sitting around debating which manuscripts to accept and which to reject based on a lot of academic detective work. The Greek manuscripts underlying your Bibles are not the same ones used by Jerome, for example…or even in use 200 years ago. The soundness of this work is not as clear-cut as is often assumed.
Setting aside the question of whether or not to include the apocrypha (which doesn’t change the story), Catholics have the same textual tradition as Protestants because they’re all translated from the same Nestle-Aland/UBS text (a process Catholic scholars participate in). It’s not as if Catholics have a different Greek than Protestants. The only differences between an NIV and a NAB is the translation philosophy and how each version chooses to handle (or at least mark) the contested passages, such the longer ending of Mark, 1 John 5:7, the Pericope Adulterae, John 5:4, etc.
An alternative to the NA text is the majority text, sometimes (though not quite accurately) referred to as the Textus Receptus. This is what the KJV (and NKJV for that matter) are based on and its textual history favors the Byzantine text, which tends to be fuller than the Alexandrine text. The Byzantine text was known earlier but the Alexandrine texts are adjudged to be older.
Here are some issues that people who discard the KJVO position do not have good answers for:
(1) Where is the inspired word of God? The non-KJVO answer is invariably “in the original autographs”. Those no longer exist, and at best you have a detective-game guess (through textual criticism) of what scholars think they said. If God inspired His word, didn’t he preserve it? If so, where is it? Put it in my hands. A KJVO person can put a copy of the KJV in your hands and say definitively “there, that is God’s word”. A modern translation person can’t because they accept many competing translations as God’s word. And they are constantly changing.
(2) Where does textual criticism end? There’s been 28 editions of the Nestle Aland, and the Greek in the 1st edition is quite different than the Greek in the 28th. So are we to say we didn’t have the word of God until the NA28? When the NA29 comes out, all Bibles must be discarded and we start anew? The reality is that there is no end to the textual criticism process so you will never have the final word of God - it will always be changing, by the very nature of the process. Again, where is the word of God?
The KJVO argument is about the underlying Greek as much as the English. It comes down to wanting to have the perfect word of God. KJVO people would say unequivocally that they have it. Critical Text people (every other modern translation, including all Catholic Bibles) can’t say that because both the Greek and the resultant translation changes from edition to edition of the NA.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Catholics and Orthodox understand inspired Scripture to be that which has been deposited by the Apostles to the Church and has been continually read in liturgy and in teaching. Manuscript differences and the loss of the autographs do not affect this.
The Catholic Church does not exclusively use whatever critical text is in currency. The Nova Vulgata, for example, is an eclectic combination of different textual traditions, and our liturgy reflects this diversity. In the Orthodox Churches, there’s an even wider variation, and sometimes the same reading will offer dissimilarities depending on which particular liturgical book it’s written in.
The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches do not predicate their understanding of Scripture on the basis of a reconstructed critical eclectic text. The latter can be helpful in understanding Scripture, and certainly we have ++Martini (Catholic) and Johannes Karavidopoulos (Greek Orthodox) as members of the Nestle-Aland editorial committee. But our doctrinal and liturgical conceptualisation of Scripture is not circumscribed by a critical eclectic text.
Insofar as we Catholics see it, we had the Verum Verbum before the first edition of the NA, we still have it now as of the 28th edition, and we’ll still have it in the future even if a 50th edition is published.
J
JonahJones
Guest
Thanks for the correction. It seems that the Catholic Church has a “KJVO-type position” then, if they say “we declare this text to be the One True Text, regardless of what scholarship unearths”. I could see how that would fly in the Catholic church (with the Catholic view of magisterium) but I find the parallel rather striking.
It’s untrue, however, that the Church has used the same text since the apostles “deposited” it. The NV, for example, has been revised several times, for example, and before it, there were earlier vulgates.
It’s untrue, however, that the Church has used the same text since the apostles “deposited” it. The NV, for example, has been revised several times, for example, and before it, there were earlier vulgates.
B
Bithynian
Guest
And I never claimed it was the exact same, rather that it has been in continual use - in some form or another, whether emended or not, whether of a single textual tradition or multiple - in liturgy and in teaching. The Nova Vulgata, in its current state, reflects diverse traditions due to the very unsystematic nature of its transmission.
Regardless of this messiness and inconsistency, we do not view textual variations across manuscript traditions as compromising the integrity of Scripture. This is why very many of the liturgical rites, from Latin to Syro-Malabar, will utilise Scriptural texts that evince traits from their particular textual traditions, but nonetheless all are understood as wholly complete and true. We also extend this to those Scriptural texts as used in Orthodox Churches which, despite whatever variations, we do not view as deficient or untrue.
I do want to strongly emphasise that Catholic and Orthodox conceptualisations of Scripture are very different from that of Protestantism and textual criticism. Namely, the latter see textual variations as problems that need to be fixed in order that one may arrive at the earliest antecedent, which is conceived as most representative of the truth. The ancient historical Churches have never conceptualised their possession of Scripture as their possessing a single harmonious text that is of a unitary textual tradition.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the overwhelming majority of Eastern Christians (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental Orthdox) simply wouldn’t care as the mere notion of a critical eclectic text and KJV-Onlyism would be entirely inexplicable to them. It would be like suggesting to any Christian (whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox) that they need a critical eclectic text of the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon: otherwise, how can they know if they’re really teaching orthodox doctrine, as opposed to whatever textual corruption that has crept into place?
Edit: I should say that I have no issue with modern critical scholarship. I completed my undergraduate in Classics and I have fluency in Ancient Greek (Classical, Koine and Medieval), Latin, Classical Hebrew and Classical Syriac. I continuously consult, in my own reading and in parish Scripture studies, both the NA and the BHS and their attendant scholarship, and I’m eagerly expecting the completion of the critical Gottingen LXX (hopefully sometime before the Second Coming). I’m just judicious in not conflating two different conceptualisations of Scripture: that which the Church teaches, and that which historical-critical scholars utilise.
Last edited:
J
JonahJones
Guest
Indeed. The Protestant/non-Catholic viewpoint is that scripture is inspired (and “god-breathed” as 2 Tim 3:16 says), hence it is of supreme importance. The Councils of Nicaea, etc. are merely discussions of men and are infinitely less importance than God’s word. Catholics would argue for magisterium. Well, it’s hardly a revelation that the role of scripture is a key dividing line in Catholic vs non-Catholic thought
The majority of non-Catholics would state that minor variations in the text (as you find in different translations/Greek source) is of no importance because no essential doctrine is changed (or even any doctrine at all), whereas the KJVO position is that there must be a preserved, perfect text. Just pointing out the differences in thinking.
- Status