KJV easier to defend Catholic doctrine than the NAB?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter HillbillyHermit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HillbillyHermit said:
OK, I’ve done some reading. Please bear with me, I’m not a scholar. 🙂

Ahhh…that’s something that didn’t cross my mind until after posting the question. That is a good point. The KJV has been a respected translation by many Protestants (even some Catholics it seems 😉 ). The great thing about computers is the ability to have software with the search function and side by side comparison of Catholic and Protestant translations. I don’t think I’ll be discussing Catholic doctrine with family/friends any time soon, but it’s there just in case. I’ll still want to use my Bible, the NAB when I can.

Here’s some of what I got from Strong’s Dictionary.
G4383…

From G4314 …the front (as being towards view), that is, the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication presence, person: - (outward) appearance, X before, countenance, face, fashion, (men’s) person, presence.

I don’t know much about translation, it definitely can’t be an easy job, but presence is mentioned there.

And thanks for your replies, DelsonJacobs. They were very helpful. Some things I thought I knew, and others…no idea! Especially about the Liturgy and why things get changed for it.
Click to expand...
I must point out that Strong’s is not Catholic, so would have a protestant slant to interpretation. Here is Catholic interpretation from the Haydock Commentary. You can see the difference:

2 Corinthians 2:10

Ver. 10. I also. The apostle here granted an indulgence, or pardon, in the person, and by the authority of Christ, to the incestuous Corinthian, whom before he had put under penance: which pardon consisted in a releasing of part of the temporal punishment due to his sin. (Challoner) — Now as you have pardoned him by my instructions, and have received him again into your communion, I also pardon[2] him, and confirm what you have done, for your sake, as well as for his, and dispense with any further severities of a longer penance, which he deserved. (St. Chrysostom) And I do this in the person of Christ, by that power and authority derived from Christ, which he left to his apostles, when he said, (Matthew xviii. 18.) whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven, &c. not only in the sight of men, says St. Chrysostom, but in the sight of God, who hath given us this power. (Witham)

This is where the Apostolic Tradition enters in. Through it, the details of these passages may be made known as they have been known from the earliest days of the Church. The reformation rejected the Apostolic Tradition, and so much of “rest of the story” has been lost to them. Then, the guessing begins.
 
I have read the entire King James Apocrypha, and for some reason it’s a lot more difficult to read than the other parts of the King James Bible. I don’t know why. Maybe the Apocrypha English is frozen in time while the rest of the KJV has been modified over the years to keep up with the evolution of the English language.
 
Russ_of_Tokyo said:
I have read the entire King James Apocrypha, and for some reason it’s a lot more difficult to read than the other parts of the King James Bible. I don’t know why. Maybe the Apocrypha English is frozen in time while the rest of the KJV has been modified over the years to keep up with the evolution of the English language.
Click to expand...
And, even then, they do not have Chapter 13 and 14 of Daniel and a couple of other bits.
 
po18guy said:
I must point out that Strong’s is not Catholic, so would have a protestant slant to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I know. It’s the only thing I have on the computer to know what the original word is. It was free and my Bible reading is mostly prayer and devotional.
 
HillbillyHermit said:
I’ve seen at least a few posts stating this, for example:
Here and Here

To me, it’ll still boils down to:
A) Trusting the Church’s approval of a translation. (I just can’t stand lately to see/hear Catholics say so much about the teaching authority of the Church then turn around and bash an approved translation and its notes. IMO it’s the same as being a Protestant and setting yourself up as higher authority on these things.)
OR
B) An anti-Catholic king.
Click to expand...
Probably, since a lot of Protestants don’t listen to anything other than the KJV.

Personally, I prefer the NABRE. Much more readable and it is Catholic Church approved.

Footnotes: But unless you understand that the footnotes are historical-critical they can be very confusing. If you realize that they are they can be very beneficial too. I suppose the ambiguity in the footnotes is what causes the uproar about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top