King James Vs NAB Bible

[Jim_Dandy]

A key word you state is beliefs, of the early church, for certainly it’s practices would not resemble today’s Catholicism as far as baptism, confession, even confirmation, communion, priesthood, head bishop (pope). But it’s beliefs were universal and laid groundwork for future “practices”. I have not read much further past 130 A.D. and for sure CC practices began to evolve , as witnessed by writings of the period. I am sorry we are at odds over this ,but if we disagree on scriptural foundation on differences, we will most certainly disagree on any historical data /writings also. I understand the CC teaches she is One ,Apostolic , Holy and Universal etc and has been from day 1 at Pentecost, and that all her practices have biblical and apostolic foundations.

The ‘books’ of the NT were selected by the Catholic bishops because they reflected the teaching of the Church. The Church could see herself in them as in a mirror. Protestant misinterpretations have twisted their meaning thousands of different ways.

QUOTE: Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" St. Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107. END QUOTE. This is as true today as when Ignatius wrote it… St. Ignatius was a student of St. John’s, ordained by St. Peter, and a friend of St. Paul’s.

The Church’s teachings have developed with the centuries, but they have not changed. She still teaches in the 21st century what she taught in the first. The faith was “delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). The Church draws on this deposit of faith left to her by Jesus and the Apostles. And she has been guided by the Spirit for these 2,000 years.

 

[benjohnson]

Ya’ll probably know about this, but I’ll throw out a mention of the Anchor Bible. All 120 volumes of it. Takes up about 20 feet of shelf space.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Bible_Series

If you haven’t had the pleasure of reading one of the volumes, each volume describes the history of the biblical text, the troubles in translating, the decisions that had to be made translating it, the translation, and then more commentary.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE:

Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" St. Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107. END QUOTE. This is as true today as when Ignatius wrote it… St. Ignatius was a student of St. John’s, ordained by St. Peter, and a friend of St. Paul’s.

 

[Nicea325]

Jim Dandy;9327684:

QUOTE: Hi JimDandy. And what, protestants don’t believe /have bishops /presbyters,who indeed are admonished/chosen because of there Christ-like qualities-this is “universal-catholic”. As far as St.Ignatius, he mentions bishops, some by name, of most of the cities he wrote to, but mentions none in Rome, and nothing of a headbishop (other than Christ).

The classic case of proving something with silence. The fact he does not mention Rome does not indicate a confirmed fact. St. Ignatius also never mentions the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine,does it make a fact he never did?

 

[JRRTFAN]

What are reasons that someone would accept the King James Bible as Authoritative over the Latin Vulgate or NAB bible? Why is Textus Receptus the word of god over the Say Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus? My friend believes King James is the absolute word of god because it does not come from Egypt. Says its closest to Hebrew. I say it doesn’t have Apocrypha like original King James. Can anyone offer any scholarship on this issue. Thanks in advance…

KJV only is generally a very fundamentalist approach to the Scripture. We have the same thing in the Douay Rheims only groups.

The fact is the KJV Only group is relying on an old translation of the Textus Receptus (last updated in 1888 - a fact of which they are not aware ). There have been older better manuscripts discovered since th TR, just like the manuscripts used for the NAB are more reliable.

The thing that always got me was , why would you think think that an English version would be the be all and end all? Wouldn’t a Greek/Hebrew version be closer to the source? But I’m not a Fundamentalist.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I think that there is another aspect to the discussion of Onlyism. In my opinion, there are two currents in religion that are in opposition. There is the desire for stability, certitude, and comfort, which leads to a desire to see things as unchanging. Then there is the desire for spiritual growth and exploration. This desire emphasizes struggle, and a by-product is doubt. It seems to me that some denominations appeal to one side or the other. At any given time, we may lean one way or the other, though we trend in one direction. Thus what one person would see as certainty, another may find spiritually stultifying. Conversely, what one might see as spiritually challenging and exhilarating, another might see as doubt and heresy.

When I deal with an Onlyist, my first reaction is to reassure them. This can only go so far, as I am by nature a skeptic and an explorer. The challenge to all of us is to find some common ground.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9329704:

The classic case of proving something with silence. The fact he does not mention Rome does not indicate a confirmed fact. St. Ignatius also never mentions the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine,does it make a fact he never did?

Hi Nicea…Not exactly apples to apples,this bishop/headbishop v.s trinity. .Ignatius speaks oodles of this bishop, elder heirarchy and lay people, could have mentioned pope but he didn’t. He does not get into Christology or the nature of the Three at all (I don’t think). But what if he did dance all around the subject and never alluded to any trinity idea ? That would be apples to apples. Yes, silence does not prove anything, but it may suggests more than you care to admit . I have not mentioned anything of the Stanley Cup hockey going on right now, but it does not mean it is not going on. We agree here. BUT , if we start talking about everything in the sports world going on right now, basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer etc and make no mention of hockey ,then something is amiss. This is more akin to St Ignatius - either he didn’t know about a pope (headbishop-presiding in Rome) ,or thought it the least in heirarchy , not worthy to be mentioned with the others. But you are right, it is not proof but only evidence. However, is not that what faith rests upon, evidences, for with proof I don’t think you need faith. Fact is by faith you think a pope was there for Ignatius to acknowledge had he chosen to, and by faith I think he did not acknowledge a pope cause there wasn’t one…Go Rangers or Devils-both have a player that I have been privalaged to been on the same ice with (pickup games when they were only about 16-17 yrs old).

 

[david_ruiz]

I think that there is another aspect to the discussion of Onlyism. In my opinion, there are two currents in religion that are in opposition. There is the desire for stability, certitude, and comfort, which leads to a desire to see things as unchanging. Then there is the desire for spiritual growth and exploration. This desire emphasizes struggle, and a by-product is doubt. It seems to me that some denominations appeal to one side or the other. At any given time, we may lean one way or the other, though we trend in one direction. Thus what one person would see as certainty, another may find spiritually stultifying. Conversely, what one might see as spiritually challenging and exhilarating, another might see as doubt and heresy.

When I deal with an Onlyist, my first reaction is to reassure them. This can only go so far, as I am by nature a skeptic and an explorer. The challenge to all of us is to find some common ground.

Thank-you Interesting .Reminds me of doubting Thomas . I have heard some good sermons on him , putting him in a good light .That is ,he was a skeptic ,BUT only because he wanted certitude more than the rest ,or that was his way towards certitude. How about this the more things change the more they stay the same. Couldn’t then change and exploration be in vain ? The Jews did indeed explore and “grow” ,experiment. Christ comes on the scene and must bring them right back to the beginning, to the original intent of Word. Yes, there is an excitement to living in the spirit ,understanding the times.There is a time to be still ,to stand .What does not change is original intent of a Word. Who got it right on the birth of Christ -some wise men ,Simeon,a few others .They explored original intent of scriptural prophecies of the incarnation , If they doubted ,it was doubting anyone straying from inspired interpretation of the Word/prophecy, or doubting false foundations…I get what you mean though ,a bit like Peter at the transfiguration,where he wanted to stay ,and build altars. I am careful in judging “Onlyists” .The worst would be one who thinks KJV is perfect ,the best would be one who sees it as the best but flawed,but sees the other “improved” ones with flaws also

 

[Nicea325]

David Ruiz:

Hi Nicea…Not exactly apples to apples,this bishop/headbishop v.s trinity. .Ignatius speaks oodles of this bishop, elder heirarchy and lay people, could have mentioned pope but he didn’t. He does not get into Christology or the nature of the Three at all (I don’t think).

Again,but you are merely assuming or it is pure conjecture the fact he does not mention the pope it automatically proves something. Case in point, was St. Paul in the habit of constantly making mention of the exact-precise whereabouts of the Apostles?

But what if he did dance all around the subject and never alluded to any trinity idea ? That would be apples to apples. Yes, silence does not prove anything, but it may suggests more than you care to admit .

Suggest what? You do not have a single shred of evidence from “silence” to even suggest anything. At best you are left with second guesses and conjecture. I can suggest Igantius for all intensive purposes could have been mad at the pope and chose not mention him. For all intensive purpose I could suggest Igantius ran out of ink?

I have not mentioned anything of the Stanley Cup hockey going on right now, but it does not mean it is not going on. We agree here. BUT , if we start talking about everything in the sports world going on right now, basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer etc and make no mention of hockey ,then something is amiss. This is more akin to St Ignatius - either he didn’t know about a pope (headbishop-presiding in Rome) ,or thought it the least in heirarchy , not worthy to be mentioned with the others.

He did not know the pope? So what you are saying that for someone living and writings less than 70 years after Christ departure,he would have NEVER have heard of a head bishop? We are talking years later,but he is aware of other bishops?

But you are right, it is not proof but only evidence. However, is not that what faith rests upon, evidences, for with proof I don’t think you need faith. Fact is by faith you think a pope was there for Ignatius to acknowledge had he chosen to, and by faith I think he did not acknowledge a pope cause there wasn’t one…Go Rangers or Devils-both have a player that I have been privalaged to been on the same ice with (pickup games when they were only about 16-17 yrs old).

Evidence based on…what concrete facts? And my faith tells me you are wrong because it is all based on assumptions and conjecture.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Nicea325;9330522:

Hi Nicea…Not exactly apples to apples,this bishop/headbishop v.s trinity. .Ignatius speaks oodles of this bishop, elder heirarchy and lay people, could have mentioned pope but he didn’t.
…This is more akin to St Ignatius - either he didn’t know about a pope (headbishop-presiding in Rome) ,or thought it the least in heirarchy , not worthy to be mentioned with the others. But you are right, it is not proof but only evidence. However, is not that what faith rests upon, evidences, for with proof I don’t think you need faith. Fact is by faith you think a pope was there for Ignatius to acknowledge had he chosen to, and by faith I think he did not acknowledge a pope cause there wasn’t one.

Ignatius was writing about the year 110, very early on, so it is interesting that the bishop, elders, hierarchy and lay people were well established then, at least among the more eastern churches. But was there a bishop at the church in Rome? It would seem odd that there would not be. The reason Ignatius was able to admonish the churches nearest him to obey their bishops, I would say, is because he had a primary influence among them, being from Antioch, an apostolic see where Peter himself had been bishop. To the Roman church he would not, since the Romans had the most influential bishop of all! He wanted the Romans not to try to save him from the wild beasts. So there is no reason that he would mention the Roman bishop.

Of course the idea of the bishop of Rome as being the pope would not be as strong at that early date as it would be in later times. The recognition of the Bishop of Rome as primary among all bishops came as the need arose. Since Peter had been the leader of the apostles, it would have been natural to look for leadershiop to the bishopric where Peter had last been.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Nicea325;9330522:

Hi Nicea…Not exactly apples to apples,this bishop/headbishop v.s trinity…

He does not get into Christology or the nature of the Three at all (I don’t think). But what if he did dance all around the subject and never alluded to any trinity idea ? That would be apples to apples.

Ignatius does mention Jesus as God. Again, this is very early on, much sooner than anyone would have time to do exegesis of apostolic writings. Therefore, this was an oral teaching from the apostles. He would not be expected to allude to a trinity idea, for the word trinity is a later word chosen by subsequent contemplation on the mystery of the relationship between God (Father), Son, and Holy Spirit. Ignatius casually assumes that his readers will understand and not dispute his appelation of Jesus as God; I take this as evidence that his readers already knew the kerygma, which includes the deity of Jesus.

 

[david_ruiz]

:

You do not have a single shred of evidence from “silence” to even suggest anything

 

[loko]

I have DR and a KJV version of the Bible. I don’t have an issue with either but one of the ladies in my Marian group was very condescending when she saw my KJV Bible. She said this and I quote " Why would you bother with a Bible version that gives homage to an openly homosexual King of England?".

I was speechless because I have never heard of that accusation.

 

[david_ruiz]

I have DR and a KJV version of the Bible. I don’t have an issue with either but one of the ladies in my Marian group was very condescending when she saw my KJV Bible. She said this and I quote " Why would you bother with a Bible version that gives homage to an openly homosexual King of England?".

I was speechless because I have never heard of that accusation.

The bible says give honor to where honor is due. For the first time in centuries, a king “allowed” a transaltion to be made of the bible . Translators before were persecuted, even burned posthumously. Many popes were against the bible in the vernaucular, as late as the 1800’s. There is enogh to be speechless on both sides of this argument. …The KJV gives honor to that milestone of government ,church sanction of an english bible for the first time. It does not give honor to his (king’s) alledged lifestyle.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9331364:

Ignatius was writing about the year 110, very early on, so it is interesting that the bishop, elders, hierarchy and lay people were well established then, at least among the more eastern churches. But was there a bishop at the church in Rome? It would seem odd that there would not be. The reason Ignatius was able to admonish the churches nearest him to obey their bishops, I would say, is because he had a primary influence among them, being from Antioch, an apostolic see where Peter himself had been bishop. To the Roman church he would not, since the Romans had the most influential bishop of all! He wanted the Romans not to try to save him from the wild beasts. So there is no reason that he would mention the Roman bishop.

Of course the idea of the bishop of Rome as being the pope would not be as strong at that early date as it would be in later times. The recognition of the Bishop of Rome as primary among all bishops came as the need arose. Since Peter had been the leader of the apostles, it would have been natural to look for leadershiop to the bishopric where Peter had last been.

Hi MB. I like that you are trying to place yourself there in history, for I try to also. I also believe there was a bishop in Rome at the time, in fact many historians say certainly more than one, and probably many, at the same time .It is a good point that perhaps Igantius fely it not proper to admonsih the Roman church because it was not his “territory” . Yet if he was more familar with eastern churches , partly because of Pualine, Petrine ties, he should have felt comfortable with Rome also, for that is where the two apostles ended up, by most accounts. I would have to reread his letter to Romans, but does he do any admonishing ? He certainly could have recognized some leaders in a salutory manner, as I believe he did other cities …He certainly could have recognized them in his plea not to be spared. Again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=mackbrislawn;9333809]

Of course the idea of the bishop of Rome as being the pope would not be as strong at that early date as it would be in later times.

 

[mackbrislawn]

mackbrislawn;9333809:

Hi MB. I like that you are trying to place yourself there in history, for I try to also. I also believe there was a bishop in Rome at the time, in fact many historians say certainly more than one, and probably many, at the same time .It is a good point that perhaps Igantius fely it not proper to admonsih the Roman church because it was not his “territory” . Yet if he was more familar with eastern churches , partly because of Pualine, Petrine ties, he should have felt comfortable with Rome also, for that is where the two apostles ended up, by most accounts. I would have to reread his letter to Romans, but does he do any admonishing ? He certainly could have recognized some leaders in a salutory manner, as I believe he did other cities …He certainly could have recognized them in his plea not to be spared. Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks, David. I suppose we’re a little bit of the topic here–not being about KJV and NAB, but I’ll comment. I don’t have Ignatius in front of me, so I don’t remember if he admonished the Roman church in his letter to them. If he didn’t mention leaders there, perhaps he didn’t know them. And I don’t remember how he greeted the other churches either. The lesson I take is that Ignatius felt in full communion with all the churches, including the Roman one.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9336776:

Thanks, David. I suppose we’re a little bit of the topic here–not being about KJV and NAB, but I’ll comment. I don’t have Ignatius in front of me, so I don’t remember if he admonished the Roman church in his letter to them. If he didn’t mention leaders there, perhaps he didn’t know them. And I don’t remember how he greeted the other churches either. The lesson I take is that Ignatius felt in full communion with all the churches, including the Roman one.

OK . Thanks. Illuminational blessings to you.

 

[mangy_dog]

Neither,

Douay-Rheims is the best hands down.

Followed by Jerusalem Bible.

In Spanish the Nacar-Colunga followed by Jerusalem also.

Nothing else will do for me.

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=mackbrislawn;9333809]

Thank-you ,and from my vantage point this is an understatement…

Again, to continue a bit off topic…Yes, I don’t feel it is necessary to argue that the bishop of Rome was called pope from the very beginning. We see an evolution of church structure in the NT itself. The idea is that God continued guiding the church. The deposit of faith itself was delivered once for all as Jude says, but the Holy Spirit continued to be present with the Church as it grew to meet the present needs.

Again, thank-you for being so honest and factual .Many Catholic historians admit the office “evolved”,yet not denying CC teachings on the matter. “As the need arose” fits the protetstant view also, interpreting it as political more than theological .That is, the political arose first, then the theology in their opinion.

.Yes, for myself I see no problem with the office evolving, or perhaps I would say, growing! Leaving the church’s infant status behind, in order to survive in the hostile world. So from that standpoint, perhaps you could say, political. A strong leadership would be necessary in order not to be swamped by the multitude of other mystery sects in the empire at that time. Was God guiding the church this way? I suppose it is a matter of faith, but Catholics think so.
It is true, a lot of what historians write is their opinion. Of what “must have happened.” Was it political more than theological? Maybe, or not. Either way, was it necessary in order for the Church to continue?

The key term here is “natural”. But is it “spiritual/God’s way” ? I do wonder at the fact that for centuries popes were from the Roman area, often from aristocracy- again, remaining political as much as spiritual ? Again, a respecter of persons in a way (which never has been God’s way).

Indeed, natural. God’s way? That is a matter of faith. Or, perhaps we could apply the “test of Gamaliel,” as is going on in another thread. If something persists, then it is of God. God would certainly want his church to persist, because if it died out or went into apostasy, what would be the point in establishing it to begin with?

Why Rome? Why not Jerusalem? Jerusalem after all was the mother Church. But Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. So there was no longer a Jerusalem church to amount to much. The Jerusalem Christians escaped across the Jordan and no longer contributed, being Judaic as well.