King James Version

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
amarkich:
The sad thing is that the King James Versions which contain the Deuterocanonical books are closer to the correct English translation (Douay-Rheims) than the New American and almost all other English translations besides the Douay-Rheims.
Click to expand...
Theophilus amarkich,

Could you give us examples to prove or illistrate this fact? Compare a few verses or something perhaps?

A prisoner of Christ
 
TO DAVEBJ:

Who in the HECK is this DaveBj person?

Let me tell ya, what started as an innocent inquiry to the KJV has revealed a dire need to know Hebrew and Konic Greek! Sheeze! …I am loving it! The challenge is just terrific and I haven’t felt so enthuastic in so long.

But now a little prophesey (Traditional pseudo-Italian Catholic Curse), Dave must beware of any women at the supermarket who are NOT blonde. Winn Dixie, Piggly Wiggly, Kroger, Schunks…beware of those who are not blonde!!

LOL…sorry…its just so goofy to consider that a person might take seriously such a statement and only persue blonde women while buying groceries. The delima would be more than difficult to explain to a spouse, wouldn’t you agree?

Ok Dave, I am only kidding you. You have started a thread that has become a terriffic inspiration for me. I think your response to St. veronica was tremendous. I will cultivate my own objections to the KJV…namely Acts 12:4 at the moment, and we’ll duel on that.

Take care, and I hope you choose the Church!! 👍

Yours in Christ
 
40.png
Xenon-135:
TO DAVEBJ:

Who in the HECK is this DaveBj person?
Click to expand...
It’s all in my profile 😃
Ok Dave, I am only kidding you. You have started a thread that has become a terriffic inspiration for me. I think your response to St. veronica was tremendous. I will cultivate my own objections to the KJV…namely Acts 12:4 at the moment, and we’ll duel on that.
Click to expand...
I know where you’re going with that, and you have no argument from me. The context is Peter’s arrest, and in the KJV this verse refers to Herod’s intending to bring Peter to trial “after Easter.” This translation is grossly incorrect; it should have been “after Passover.”

(This brings up another whole can of worms–I really hate the name “Easter;” most languages use either a transliteration of the Greek or Hebrew word for “Passover” or a translation of the word “Passover” into the recipient language. “Easter” is a name reminiscent of a pagan goddess, and I loathe it. I usually call it “Resurrection Sunday.” But that’s a topic for another thread.)

There are plenty of places in the KJV that could be called “mistakes;” even the Puritan commentators of the 18th and 19th centuries like Adam Clark and Matthew Henry point that out. Just one example–in the KJV I John 4:19 reads “We love him because he first loved us.” The “him” is not in the Greek text; it should be “We love, because he first loved us.” That, and the archaic nature of the language are two of the reasons why I don’t use the KJV except as a reference source. However, I am still waiting to hear legitimate theological reasons why Catholics down the KJV.
Take care, and I hope you choose the Church!! 👍
Click to expand...
RCIA starts this coming Monday night. 😃 I’ve already made my decision; it would take a trainwreck to keep me out.

DaveBj
 
40.png
DaveBj:
This brings up another whole can of worms–I really hate the name “Easter;” most languages use either a transliteration of the Greek or Hebrew word for “Passover” or a translation of the word “Passover” into the recipient language. “Easter” is a name reminiscent of a pagan goddess, and I loathe it. I usually call it “Resurrection Sunday.” But that’s a topic for another thread.
Click to expand...
Dave: You might want to check out this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1049&highlight=Easter

Check out the last entry. Maybe Easter (erstehen?) really means “Resurrection.” Ah, perhaps one less thing to loathe.
 
**Apologia100 [/quote said:
]Hey, if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul, its good enough for me!
*** I read this twice, and it says the KJV was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul.**

*** You jest! Both of them were separated by time from the King James Version (of 1611) by 1578 years. There was no New Testament in Paul’s time.:bounce: **
Click to expand...
 
I think we all to need to realize we are talking abut translations here people thus no version is perfect. We all have our preferences.
In theory the King James Version could be a Catholic Bible oen reason it isn’t is that it has never been submitted to a Catholic Bible Committeee to do so thus no Imprimatur and such.
It has some places or protestant prejudice but overall its an accurate literal translation. Remeber this the Revised Standard Varsion is a portestant transaltion it was submitted to a catholic comitte it was tweaked here and there where it conflicted with tradtional catholic biblical interpretation and thus we have the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Its started out a protestant Bible but is a forite translationa mong conservative catholic today appauded for its accuracy and closeness to the original text. WIth some tweaking the same could be done with the King James Version. But I doubt it will ever happen becuase of its rivalry with the DOuay they came out a few years from each other and each version does borrow from the other whehter anybody admits it or not.
The Douay gets slammed becuase its not a direct translation but its pretty accurate as it was letter compared with the original Hebrew and Greek text by Bishop Cahloloner and places where the Latin translation conflicted with the original it was changed to resemble the original but it does some unique latinizations so to speak. ANd yes Jerome has manuscripts and codices closer to the original that we don’t ahve today as due to time no longer exist. So the Latin Vulgate is valuable for that reason. But since that itself is a translation we can’t rely on the vulgate alone and the Douay Rheims only croud can ge as as crazy as the KJV only croud as other translations have value as well. The only thing that drives me crazy are the watered down translations like the NLT, Living Bible, the Message etc these are thought for thought translations and serious Bible study can’t be done with these translations.
 
Exporter said:
*** I read this twice, and it says the KJV was good enough for Jesus and St. Paul.**

*** You jest! Both of them were separated by time from the King James Version (of 1611) by 1578 years. There was no New Testament in Paul’s time.:bounce: **
Click to expand...

Ease up, Exporter. This is a standing joke among conservative but non-obscurantist Protestants. It was apparently actually said by someone during the Scopes trial hoopla.

DaveBj
 
I grew up with, “If it was good enough for Paul and Silas…” Is Silas late enough for the KJV?
 
40.png
DaveBj:
It was apparently actually said by someone during the Scopes trial hoopla.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
Speaking of the Scopes trail which had fundamentlist christians debating a literal view of creation verses atheistic Darwinism. Which Neither which the catholic church espouses. Here is what I find hypocrtical evangelicals and fundies which are very literal of Genesis and Revelation will be all over the Galileo and Church disagreement but still incist that God took 6 literal 24 hour days to create the earth. Considering there was no such thing as a literal day for part of creation as their was originally no sun and thier was no earth we have a huge problem in this theory. They don’t see how Genesis just might include mytholigical symbolism to reflect the literal truth of God’s creation. But hey when Jesus Says this is my body that means symbolism because that’s the catholic interpretation and those guys are always wrong.
 
Hot dog! My replica 1611 KJV came in today. Now I can go out and start my own church–DaveBj’s First Church of the 1611 😃

NOT!

😛

DaveBj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top