King James Vs NAB Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter peeteyg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
… You do know, as a Catholic, that it is missing seven books right?
Click to expand...
Not exactly so.

The KJV does in fact have the deutero-canon translated and ready to go at any time. The issue there is that most of the customers don’t want it, so most of the editions for sale (especially the cheapo give-away types) will not have it.

Since the KJV is in the public domain and does not have a copyright it can be published by anyone, entirely or in part, and most of those publishers are not interested in making the book more expensive for a market that largely does not want it and will not pay extra to read it.

The NIV on the other hand is missing the deutero-canon, because the people who own the copyright did not want to translate it for their own reasons. It was a deliberate decision on their part, they do not want to distribute the deutero-canon.
 
Mackbrislawn, you asked why the texts are not in 100% agreement and it is an excellent question. There is also an excellent answer in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Sadly, I do not temember what the name of the article is, but it goes into a catalog of errors that occur when copyists work on a text. Many copies were made by reading a master copy to a room full of copyists, who might be distracted, or hear one word and write another. In working from a written text, sometimes lines would be left out and inserted in margins, as were comments on the text, so the next copyist would have to decide whether the marginal entry was something left out or just a comment. This is just what I can recall of an article that I read several years ago.

The Iliad was a much shorter text, written in one language, over a much shorter period of time. Extant texts have about 55% agreement. I hope that this gives some perspective on how closely the text of the Bible has been transmitted.
 
I will say this in defense of the KJV only people – there are some “shady” Bibles out there, and they sort of tailor the Bible to what people want to hear in order to sell more Bibles. KJV isn’t the best out there, but it’s not one that’s modernized to appeal to modern audiences. It’s a fair enough baseline and one that can be agreed upon to prevent being led astray by a translation with an agenda.

jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NLT/nlt_exposed.htm

They aren’t right that KJV is the only English Bible worth reading, but you need to be very careful about what translations you use, simply because a bad translation is a gateway to heresy. If a translation is made to support an agenda, say as the NWT is written to deny the Trinity, then you cannot use that Bible to understand God.
 
Justice_Mercy said:
  1. The KJV was a direct attack against the Geneva Bible, which had notes that were anti-Monarchy; something that King James despised. It was created to replace the use of the Geneva Bible, as well as other older translations (such as the Bishop’s Bible that you mention) into one that upheld the authority of the crown.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The Sum and Substance of the Conference at Hampton Court by William Barlow quotes King James as “professing that he could never, yet see a Bible well translated in English; but the worst of all , his Majesty thought the Geneva Bible to be.” This book is a reporting of the conference in 1603 which among other things set out the rules for the KJV translation
Justice_Mercy said:
  1. The language of the KJV was not in the common language of that day. It used many phrases that were already outmoded in English at that time. You hear a lot of people say "the King James version sounds majestic in its language: - well, it had the same effect back then as it does now, in that it is not common language (in 1611 or in 2012).
Click to expand...
This is also correct. In fact, the book I quote above was written in pre-modern English that is very readable other than some different spellings, i.e. “be” is spelled “bee” and “me” is spelled “mee”. There was also no letter J at the time so Jesus was spelled Iesus.
 
CalCatholic said:
How can the King James version of the bible be considered authoritative to some when the Church did without it for the first 1600 years? 🤷
Click to expand...
Amen you hit the nail on the head unfortunately some Fundamentalists are stuck in 1611,
 
Try putting this little known fact to your run of the mill KJV only friends. "The origins of the TR go back to the Roman Catholic priest and Christian humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. " biblestudymanuals.net/Textus_Receptus.htm
I heard this on another thread and it was new to me so I looked it up and found the following article which is where protestant is refuting protestant on this.
If you want to read the full article it is very detailed and interesting but if you want to cut to the chase for the sake of your argument with your friend then just scroll down to the conclusion! 😃
 
septimine said:
I will say this in defense of the KJV only people – there are some “shady” Bibles out there, and they sort of tailor the Bible to what people want to hear in order to sell more Bibles. KJV isn’t the best out there, but it’s not one that’s modernized to appeal to modern audiences. It’s a fair enough baseline and one that can be agreed upon to prevent being led astray by a translation with an agenda.

jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NLT/nlt_exposed.htm

They aren’t right that KJV is the only English Bible worth reading, but you need to be very careful about what translations you use, simply because a bad translation is a gateway to heresy. If a translation is made to support an agenda, say as the NWT is written to deny the Trinity, then you cannot use that Bible to understand God.
Click to expand...
Well Amen to the ‘shady Bible’ idea as I note in the store I work but that is not new… perhaps you might enjoy the link I added in another post in this thread that shows that Erasmus could not find enough Greek scriptural evidence for the inclusion or the text commonly used to support the idea of the Trinity!
 
Maryann_C said:
Try putting this little known fact to your run of the mill KJV only friends. "The origins of the TR go back to the Roman Catholic priest and Christian humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. " biblestudymanuals.net/Textus_Receptus.htm
I heard this on another thread and it was new to me so I looked it up and found the following article which is where protestant is refuting protestant on this.
If you want to read the full article it is very detailed and interesting but if you want to cut to the chase for the sake of your argument with your friend then just scroll down to the conclusion! 😃
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I have seen this completely ignored or rationalized (falsely) away by KJV Only advocates.
 
Justice_Mercy said:
That is ridiculous!

I am not a KJV Onlyist… I am answering the questions about those that hold that idea. There are a lot of misconceptions regarding it and if we are to show it for the false belief that it is, we need to understand it. Also, as i said before, it originally had the full canon of scriptures, but those were weeded out by others later.

It is obvious that the OP is facing someone that is a KJV Onlyist and I have seena lot of misconceptions regarding that posted in this thread. It is just something I know about from engaging those people over the years.

P.S. I just received my NABRE in the mail two days ago!
Click to expand...
As far as those seven books .I understand jerome did not want them either but “reluctantly” included them.Did he not also offer his opinion on all the books .
 
For someone who is a bit green on the subject yet probably am a kjv is best person, why wouldn’t it be easier to make an english translation from the original greek , instead of from greek (original) to latin (vulgate) to english ? Did not Jerome like the hebrew better than the greek ot for same reason ? What could be better than to go to original language ?
 
“Hardly! It is based on a few very late manuscripts, and in some cases has no Greek manuscript support whatever. Without question it is possible to produce a text which is closer to the autographs by comparing the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts available today.” This is from that sight you posted .Thank you . Do not understand the conclusion I have above.I thought the kjv was indeed from thousands of manuscripts,the earliest included .How do you get “a few late manuscripts” ? The 5000 we have available today ,how many were available in the 1500"s or 1600’s ? I know we have picked up a few .
 
david_ruiz said:
As far as those seven books .I understand jerome did not want them either but “reluctantly” included them.Did he not also offer his opinion on all the books .
Click to expand...
The KJV Bible was compiled 1200 years after Jerome. I do not understand the question, since there is no direct relation to the KJV
 
david_ruiz said:
“Hardly! It is based on a few very late manuscripts, and in some cases has no Greek manuscript support whatever. Without question it is possible to produce a text which is closer to the autographs by comparing the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts available today.” This is from that sight you posted .Thank you . Do not understand the conclusion I have above.I thought the kjv was indeed from thousands of manuscripts,the earliest included .How do you get “a few late manuscripts” ? The 5000 we have available today ,how many were available in the 1500"s or 1600’s ? I know we have picked up a few .
Click to expand...
The KJV translators had only about a half a dozen or so mss to use and some earlier English translations that they liberally took passages verbatim from (around 20 - 30% of the KJV owes the wording to earlier English translations).They did try to acquire the use of others, but were unsuccessful. They didn’t have a Greek mss that contained all of Revelation. It was back translated from Latin to Greek, making the KJV have wording for the last 6 verses unlike other Bibles at that time.

Modern Bible translators have access to all of the mss plus other material, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, so they are better able to compare and create a more accurate Eclectic Text that seems to be 99% (by many Textual Critic standards) in line with what the original autographs must have been
 
Justice_Mercy said:
The KJV Bible was compiled 1200 years after Jerome. I do not understand the question, since there is no direct relation to the KJV
Click to expand...
I guess I was responding to "farsight "who mentioned KJV does have the seven books that Catholic bible has. If the king james is to be criticized for that then I would consider the original reluctance of jerome to include them also and for earlier “catholic” lists not including them (Melito 170 ad), (Epiphanius-late 300’s), (Origen-250’s ).
 
david_ruiz said:
I guess I was responding to "farsight "who mentioned KJV does have the seven books that Catholic bible has. If the king james is to be criticized for that then I would consider the original reluctance of jerome to include them also and for earlier “catholic” lists not including them (Melito 170 ad), (Epiphanius-late 300’s), (Origen-250’s ).
Click to expand...
You are correct in that it took the Church some time to confirm the canon of scripture and that what some thought was the canon varied… I understand your comment now 🙂 Sorry for the misunderstanding… you know how text can be difficult to interpret correctly on forums sometimes.

God bless you 🙂
 
Justice_Mercy said:
You are correct in that it took the Church some time to confirm the canon of scripture and that what some thought was the canon varied… I understand your comment now 🙂 Sorry for the misunderstanding… you know how text can be difficult to interpret correctly on forums sometimes.

God bless you 🙂
Click to expand...
thank-you
 
David… it is a complex issue. It is good that you are investigating it.
There are certainly some not-so-good modern translations and paraphrases out there. There are also many good modern translations out there.

The RSV and the NRSV (which are available both with and without the Deutero-Canonical writings) are ones that both Protestants & Catholics and even the Orthodox consider valid. Those make for a good basis of dialogue between the groups - except for KJV-Onlyists, of course.

There are some great books on the history of the KJV out there. I do not dislike the KJV… I was raised on it… but I do believe there are more accurate translations out there. I am just starting to read the NABRE and so far I don’t have much if any complaints. That is a recently revised translation that the RCC uses.

You have a lot of great questions!

I recommend these books if you are curious about the history of the KJV:

amazon.com/In-Beginning-Changed-Language-Culture/dp/0385722168/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1336619679&sr=8-7

amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736/ref=pd_sim_b_1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top