King James Vs NAB Bible

[loko]

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.

Indeed give honour where honour was due but if this King James was openly homosexual I want nothing to do with his Bible.

Is there any truth about his open homosexuality?

 

[Nicea325]

]Actually the statement was made that such writings show (prove?) that the Church was like today’s CC. We cordially begin with one side believing in no pope and the other yes. I don’t have to prove their was no pope .Show me proof there was ? Ignatius does not prove your point that there was a pope .That is all that is being said. Would you not agree, that in this regard ,a protestant is quite happy with Ignatius.

 

[liturgyluver]

Indeed give honour where honour was due but if this King James was openly homosexual I want nothing to do with his Bible.

Is there any truth about his open homosexuality?

Since the references are speculation and heresay, it’s fair to assume he wasn’t “openly homosexual” as you put it. But I find your fear irrational. Undoubtedly gay people will have worked on more modern translations, and I have yet to read of any adverse impact as a result!

 

[loko]

Since the references are speculation and heresay, it’s fair to assume he wasn’t “openly homosexual” as you put it. But I find your fear irrational. Undoubtedly gay people will have worked on more modern translations, and I have yet to read of any adverse impact as a result!

There is a difference between being an ‘openly homosexual’ person and being a chaste homosexual.

I find your conclusion irrational as we are talking about ‘Sacred Scripture’ not The Star magazine.

Actually have been doing some research on this in the past hours and it is actually widely held that he was openly practiced his homosexuality with young men in his court.

Just threw my KJV Bible in the bin.

 

[liturgyluver]

There is a difference between being an ‘openly homosexual’ person and being a chaste homosexual.

I find your conclusion irrational as we are talking about ‘Sacred Scripture’ not The Star magazine.

Actually have been doing some research on this in the past hours and it is actually widely held that he was openly practiced his homosexuality with young men in his court.

Just threw my KJV Bible in the bin.

Well, I thimk you are stupid. Do some more research and you will end up throwing more bibles in the bin. You clearly have a prejudiced and irrational fear.

 

[liturgyluver]

There is a difference between being an ‘openly homosexual’ person and being a chaste homosexual.

I find your conclusion irrational as we are talking about ‘Sacred Scripture’ not The Star magazine.

Actually have been doing some research on this in the past hours and it is actually widely held that he was openly practiced his homosexuality with young men in his court.

Just threw my KJV Bible in the bin.

And by the way…he didn’t write the bible, he just commisioned it so you have fear of been tainted by association?

 

[loko]

And by the way…he didn’t write the bible, he just commisioned it so you have fear of been tainted by association?

Commissioning a bible and having it named after an openly gay person is enough for me.

 

[loko]

Well, I thimk you are stupid. Do some more research and you will end up throwing more bibles in the bin. You clearly have a prejudiced and irrational fear.

Stupid really, you are calling me stupid. I have just reported you to the moderators.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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.

Where did you glean this? It is false. The Douay was completed before the KJV. The first printed Bible was the Gutenberg Bible in the vernacular of the country of its printing. Your argument is one advance by fundamentalists who simply do not know history and who think “vernacular” is French for English. It’s not.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

The Gutenberg Bible was in Latin, not German. The Coverdale and Bishops Bibles preceded the King James Version and were authorized the the King of England. The Coverdale is especially interesting, since the New Testament was essentially the Tyndale translation and he had been kidnapped from Holland and burned alive at the stake just two years prior for publishing his Bible. The Luther Bible was the first in German, but date of publication is problematic, since people were so eager for it, it was sold by the page, just as soon as they were printed.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Gutenberg Bible was in Latin, not German. The Coverdale and Bishops Bibles preceded the King James Version and were authorized the the King of England. The Coverdale is especially interesting, since the New Testament was essentially the Tyndale translation and he had been kidnapped from Holland and burned alive at the stake just two years prior for publishing his Bible. The Luther Bible was the first in German, but date of publication is problematic, since people were so eager for it, it was sold by the page, just as soon as they were printed.

Thanks oldtimer. “it was sold by the page, just as soon as they were printed” WOW !!!

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Hunger for the word of God is a real Wow! The Germans getting the latest page of Luther’s Bible ran through the streets yelling, “Ich kann es verstehen!” ( I can understand it! ) When the English Chained Bibles were installed on lecterns at Saint Paul’s in London, people were so noisy reading it that the bishop threatened to withhold communion from anyone involved in the disturbance, because the priest celebrating the service could not be heard. I once showed a 13 year-old who had only been exposed to the KJV a passage in the Bible in Basic English. Her face lit up and she also said, “I can understand this!” Catholic friends who got their first Bibles after Vatican ll can still recall very clearly their excitement. We live in an especially blessed age that the word of God is so available to us.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hunger for the word of God is a real Wow! The Germans getting the latest page of Luther’s Bible ran through the streets yelling, “Ich kann es verstehen!” ( I can understand it! ) When the English Chained Bibles were installed on lecterns at Saint Paul’s in London, people were so noisy reading it that the bishop threatened to withhold communion from anyone involved in the disturbance, because the priest celebrating the service could not be heard. I once showed a 13 year-old who had only been exposed to the KJV a passage in the Bible in Basic English. Her face lit up and she also said, “I can understand this!” Catholic friends who got their first Bibles after Vatican ll can still recall very clearly their excitement. We live in an especially blessed age that the word of God is so available to us.

Uh, I had a Catholic bible before Vatican II and the copyright of it was 1944, containing a statement from the pope dated 1923 how important it was to read the scriptures.

They say ich kann es verstehen, but they verstehen nicht.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

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.

Let’s be a bit more accurate here:

King James was having disputes between the Church of England and the Puritans, who were in a struggle to get the king to be sympathetic to their own particular views of how things should go religiously in England. One by one, both sides were denied any of their concessions. Eventually, one request by the Puritans was that a new translation of the Bible be made. King James jumped at this, because he despised both the Geneva Bible because of its study notes that were anti-monarchy & the Bishop’s Bible, which was a poor translation. He diffused the hostility between these two factions by having them work together on the translation, which was a brilliant move.

The Geneva Bible had more impact on the world than the KJV for 40 more years, as the KJV was not an immediate success, being considered too “modern” by some. Just because a “king” allowed a Bible to be printed doesn’t make it any better than one that was translated by committee w/o the sanction of a king (like the Luther Bible or the Geneva).

All of this hagiography involving King James and the KJV is propaganda. Just stick to the issue of the translation itself and not the myths that surround it.

King James was intelligent, but the was also vulgar and immoral as much as he was pious. The KJV has had a great impact, because it was the only Bible allowed to the English people, who shortly after the time of King James spread the empire across the world. It was the only Bible that many used or had ever seen. It has influenced culture and history. That is all well and good, but none of this makes it any more or less than a translation of God’s Word. To ascribe attributes to a book that should be ascribed to God is Bilbliolatry … something many KJV supporters and Onlyists do; something I warned you about in this thread long ago, David. Keep a level head about this issue. Use the KJV if you want to, but don’t glorify a translation above others… give glory to God. Give honor due to God, not a translation.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9335329:

Listen carefully to what you are claiming. It is very evident from your statement that since he does not mention Rome,it is conclusive it does not exist. My argument is to remind you that how could Ignatius be aware of others bishops from all over the Roman Empire,but Rome is completely silent? All of places,the capital where Christians already existed and yet are without a bishop? Your logic is simply faulty. Again,not mentioning Rome does not prove conclusively that there was none. That is my point.

My proof? The writings of other contemporary bishops such St.Irenaeus who provides a list of Roman bishops sometime around the year 180 A.D. Or was this list all a lie? There is not a lot writings in the very early years,but what we do have sure says a lot more than making an argument based out of pure silence. And why? Because Ignatius does not mention him?

Yo are right,Ignatius mentions no bishops in his letter to Romans, as he does in his other letters to other churches about their bishops. I would never infer threrefore, that there were no bishops in Rome from Ignantius. From my understanding there may have been several at the same time, some more prominent than others,or better remembered…I was only speaking about proof that there was a headbishop in Rome over all bishops (pope) worldwide… Iraneus does give a list of bishops of three prominent christian communities(Rome.Antioch ? plus another) to fight off gnostics who claimed special knowledge not shared by apostles. His "list’ of Rome matches a few other historical documents ,though some differ in order slightly. The list starts out with Peter and Paul as co founders in blood(martyred)of the church in Rome.

 

[david_ruiz]

Where did you glean this? It is false. The Douay was completed before the KJV. The first printed Bible was the Gutenberg Bible in the vernacular of the country of its printing. Your argument is one advance by fundamentalists who simply do not know history and who think “vernacular” is French for English. It’s not.

Sorry, some statements have been corrected by others statements above .The slam was on King James and all I am saying his eyes were opened more than previous kings. I do also understand it was around the seventh translation of the bible into English. Am I not correct however, that some of those early translations had to be done cladestinely ,with threat to life and limb ? Wyclif was first English bible (1382)- he was burned(posthumously ?) and ashes cast into a river (dug up his dead body to do this). Tyndale (1525), done from original Greek and Hebrew was burned ta the stake . …What I am about to write is done only to show how we should appreciate our times of reading the bible in our own language , and in context of some slamming king james for his morals ,or motives etc., which I do not know much about, and to show we must be careful when judging for maybe we (churhces) can be guilty of things also. And again, as C.S.Lewis said , “Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past” . Indeed I have an older Catholic bible (1950’s) which has a whole section encouraging family bible reading.nevertheless, it has been a bumpy road historically. Bibles were rare in Spain in the 1800’s .Bibles were confiscated in various catholic dioceses in America in the 1800’s. This was not across the board ,but left up to individual church clergy/leaders/bishops/priests. Pope Pius 9th (1878) condemned bible societies, as did Pius the 8 and Gregory 16 . Pope Leo condemned also bible translations outside CC (latin ok). Clement 11, 1721 issued bull against bible reading…Some would say this was done with the desire for only accurate translations, accurate understanding of His Word ,which the CC can only guide, perhaps but I would also add the road to hell (or being wrong) is paved with good intentions. Is this Protestant propaganda ? Maybe,maybe not. But again ,thank God, as others have already stated for our blessed times, for all churches, and King James did not do a bad thing.

 

[david_ruiz]

Let’s be a bit more accurate here:

King James was having disputes between the Church of England and the Puritans, who were in a struggle to get the king to be sympathetic to their own particular views of how things should go religiously in England. One by one, both sides were denied any of their concessions. Eventually, one request by the Puritans was that a new translation of the Bible be made. King James jumped at this, because he despised both the Geneva Bible because of its study notes that were anti-monarchy & the Bishop’s Bible, which was a poor translation. He diffused the hostility between these two factions by having them work together on the translation, which was a brilliant move.

The Geneva Bible had more impact on the world than the KJV for 40 more years, as the KJV was not an immediate success, being considered too “modern” by some. Just because a “king” allowed a Bible to be printed doesn’t make it any better than one that was translated by committee w/o the sanction of a king (like the Luther Bible or the Geneva).

All of this hagiography involving King James and the KJV is propaganda. Just stick to the issue of the translation itself and not the myths that surround it.

King James was intelligent, but the was also vulgar and immoral as much as he was pious. The KJV has had a great impact, because it was the only Bible allowed to the English people, who shortly after the time of King James spread the empire across the world. It was the only Bible that many used or had ever seen. It has influenced culture and history. That is all well and good, but none of this makes it any more or less than a translation of God’s Word. To ascribe attributes to a book that should be ascribed to God is Bilbliolatry … something many KJV supporters and Onlyists do; something I warned you about in this thread long ago, David. Keep a level head about this issue. Use the KJV if you want to, but don’t glorify a translation above others… give glory to God. Give honor due to God, not a translation.

Thank-you .I do think you give a proper honor to KJV. I was inferring honor to King James for at least allowing/ordaining the translation instead of slamming him for possible sins of the flesh. (some say for a uniform service in Presbytery Scotland and Episcopal England was his motivation-but thank you .Did the puritans really request it .I thought White said they didn’t like KJV, after all they to leave the country ? Am not read up on it.

 

[Izdaari]

I may have already said this (it’s been a long thread) but…

If I had only the KJV and NAB to choose from, I wouldn’t be happy. I don’t especially like either one, though I’d use either if it was all I had. For me, the archaic language of the KJV is distracting and annoying. And to me, the NAB reads like an NIV, only more awkwardly worded with some odd vocabulary (such as “holocaust” for “sacrifice” – which may be technically correct but it conjures images of genocide rather than gifts to God).

I’d be happy enough with an RSV or any of its descendants.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;9338639:

Yo are right,Ignatius mentions no bishops in his letter to Romans, as he does in his other letters to other churches about their bishops. I would never infer threrefore, that there were no bishops in Rome from Ignantius. From my understanding there may have been several at the same time, some more prominent than others,or better remembered…I was only speaking about proof that there was a headbishop in Rome over all bishops (pope) worldwide… Iraneus does give a list of bishops of three prominent christian communities(Rome.Antioch ? plus another) to fight off gnostics who claimed special knowledge not shared by apostles. His "list’ of Rome matches a few other historical documents ,though some differ in order slightly. The list starts out with Peter and Paul as co founders in blood(martyred)of the church in Rome.

Okay,but why would one living in the 1st century or early church feel compelled to have to “prove” there was one head bishop in Rome? The problem today is that people want to apply modern principles such as constant,absolute and conclusive “proof” to make their argument valid. If it was accepted as Apostolic Tradition handed down from the twelve,then why would it be questioned from the get-go? If it is a custom from the beginning,then why the need to prove it? Even Gnostics were holding claims of Apostolic Tradition,thus it is evident it already existed.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9345021:

Okay,but why would one living in the 1st century or early church feel compelled to have to “prove” there was one head bishop in Rome? The problem today is that people want to apply modern principles such as constant,absolute and conclusive “proof” to make their argument valid. If it was accepted as Apostolic Tradition handed down from the twelve,then why would it be questioned from the get-go? If it is a custom from the beginning,then why the need to prove it? Even Gnostics were holding claims of Apostolic Tradition,thus it is evident it already existed.

If it wasn’t questioned (mentioned) because it was "accepted’, then why not say silence does not prove it’s acceptance ? The gnostics were claiming something not in scripture. If the gnostics were told they were wrong in claiming apostolic tradition, why can’t one say that other apostolic claims such as Peter’s chair or Mary doctrine be wrong ? That is the problem when we don’t stick to scripture more instead of “tradition” claims.