Rate KJV

  • Thread starter Thread starter abcdefg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

abcdefg

Guest
What do you think of this protestant translation?
5 is best, 1 is worst
 
I only voted 1 because there wasn’t a lower number. This version is the fruit of a heretic and is incomplete, as is any “bible” used by protastandts…

This may sound rough, but any version that had books ripped out of it, or has been reworded by Non-Catholic sources, is definatley not up to par.

NASB all the way! A version of the Bible endorsed by Christ’s Church.
 
If 5 is best and 1 is worst, I rated it a 2. There is always room for something worse and since I have not read all the Bible versions in the world, I have to leave some room. I cannot rate it above a 2 because it leaves out several books and has changed some words (which caused the original meaning of certain passages to change). 😦 Oh, and just the title “King James Version” irritates me. I know that King James didn’t actually write it, and every Bible must have a title which differentiates it from the others so that people can easily identify it, but I personally don’t like a title that even hints at giving credit to a single man for something that he should not be taking credit for. Maybe I am ignorant on this matter, but it is how I feel nonetheless.
God bless.
 
I gave it a 2 just for the poetic wording of the translation, which is more euphonious than the Vulgate. But, the Vulgate has all the books and is the correct translation, so poetical or not, it gets a 5.
 
40.png
TheGarg:
I only voted 1 because there wasn’t a lower number. This version is the fruit of a heretic and is incomplete, as is any “bible” used by protastandts…

This may sound rough, but any version that had books ripped out of it, or has been reworded by Non-Catholic sources, is definatley not up to par.

NASB all the way! A version of the Bible endorsed by Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
The NASB (stands for “New American Standard Bible” and was a 1970’s update of the “American Standard Version” of 1901) is a Protestant Evangelical translation and is not endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church, if that was who you meant by “Christ’s Church”.

Roman Catholic liturgy employs the “NAB”–New American Bible. It is not, properly speaking ‘endorsed’ by the RCC and is widely deemed a pretty shabby version. It’s footnotes border upon heresy, and are widely criticised by conservative Roman Catholics. But it IS a Roman Catholic version.

By the way: there isn’t a single Catholic edition of the Bible listed among all the versions found in the link you created for the NASB.
 
While the KJV, and its many revisions, have much in common with Catholic Bibles, there are too many instances where the Protestant agenda has reworded scripture to support its beliefs. Some are obvious, and a number are very subtle. The end result is that some thoughts and ideas offered by the apostles are taken out of context, or there is a covert attempt to shift the focus of certain expressions so they will not appear to favor traditional Catholic teachings.

The measure of a Bible is inerrancy. The Bible’s principle strength is that it is as true to the intent of God as possible.

An inerrant Bible that is in error is no Bible at all.

Thal59
 
I voted 3 because there are some potetic protestant translations out there! Just as there are many many thousand protestant denominations there are almost as many different versions and translations.

I do have to credit the KJV translators for good translating in many parts of the NT because they translated literally, but it is a very biased translation, and even corrupted in subtle ways. Such as John 1 when Jesus called Simon “Cephas” which is translated Peter/rock. The KJV translators used “stone” for “Petros” which is deceitful considering they translate it Peter every other time, and also “Petros” means rock, just as the Aramaic word “Kepha/Cephas” means rock. It is just like the Pharisee version of the OT called the Masoretic Text that changed Psalm 22:17 from “they have peirced my hands and my feet” to “like the lion are my hands and my feet.” They changed God’s Word to deny spiritual truths!
 
40.png
copland:
They changed God’s Word to deny spiritual truths!
Click to expand...
Amen, brother.

Personally, I wouldn’t waste my time with the KJV, or any Protestant translation for that matter. It’s just needlessly handicapping yourself.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
What do you think of this protestant translation?
5 is best, 1 is worst
Click to expand...
I voted 5 just to outweigh the people who only voted one because it’s a Protestant Bible.
 
I voted 4 because it is really the most beautiful, poetic version that I have ever read.A great piece of English literature.
That said, I don’t use it that much any more. I prefer modern language; it’s less likely to leave me in need of a pile of references to figure out what I am reading.
You can now buy the KJV with the deuterocanoinical books included; it is a facsimile of the original KJV, actually! I have a separate book with thse books included, so I don’t bother.

The more I am exposed to something called “KJV Onlyism”, the less likely I am to use it at all. Yes, I know this is :whistle: not entirely rational.
 
For your information going forward, the NASB is the “New American Standard” version of the bible and is essentially literal as is the “English Standard” version. They are both considered excellent translations by conservative evangelical protestant scholars and translators. Although the Deuterocanonical books are missing, they are the best of the protestant versions. Also, you are safe without commentary and study notes as they are interpretive. As Catholics, you do not need to be defensive in your approach on this. Fr. Groeschel likes to use his small protestant bible because it is well bound. The Catholic publishers can take some lessons on producing good quality publishing vis a vis the Evangelical Christian publishers.
 
I gave it a “5” because I love the beautiful, poetic, lyrical wording of this bible. I also like it because my old, repressed grade school nuns told us at more than one point in time that anyone who reads the KJV is well on their way to the fires of Hell. What a load of malarky! Finally, getting back to the wording, I hate “modern” biblical translations… Boring and pedestrian in the extreme. My thought is that if you read the bible, what difference does it make what version it is (Anton Levay’s excepted of course!!).

Peace!

PS: Another reason to like the KJV is that it is the version that the “Gideons” stick in every motel room in the country, and a free bible is about as good as it gets. 😃
 
40.png
abcdefg:
What do you think of this protestant translation?
Click to expand...
Depends significantly on what for, for a child to read, or for a Protestant, or what?

The, “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,” from 1Cor 11:27 really bugs me as a gross mistranslation/agenda. The Greek clearly says “or”, an obvious and disturbing thing, causing one not to trust the translation.

I don’t get TheGarg’s link to the NASB, either. It is a Protestant translation that does not have all the books.

I agree with Zooey, the KJV does have the missing books. They are just usually missing.:hmmm:
 
What? Only 12% voted 5? Don’t you Romanist Papists know that the 1611 King James Bible is the only Bible version inspired by the Holy Spirit, printed by God, protected from the diabolical deceptions of Satan, mass-produced in bonded leather, gold edges, and thumb indexes, and dropped from heaven to the Apostle Paul for distribution to all the world? 😃
 
40.png
big_guy144:
The King James Version is the only inerrant Word of God.
Click to expand...
Man, get out of here with that ****. If you actually believe that, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Silly, silly Protestant…
 
Big_Guy144,

You first have to take into consideration which source is being translated. You also have to take into consideration whether the translators are offering a literal,dynamic, or literal - dynamic translation.

On top of that, one has to take into consideration what the original authors meant with respect to the idioms and “slang” of their time and culture. The end result can be a variety of ways to translate the same expression that all do justice to the original context.

True corruption comes when changes are made to sentence structure and wording specifically for the purpose of causing scripture to express the translators personal opinion or the beliefs of his denomination. In this case, the KJV is corrupt. If you want to honestly see a few cases, please feel free to email me and I will discuss it with you further.

Thal59
 
I rated it as a 5 for use in Catholic Apologetics. When I pull out my weathered and marked up KJV in front of a Fundamentalist, the expression on his face… They know its flaws much better than we Catholics do and it’s quite often to their detriment.

Isn’t the KJV a protestant version of the Douay-Rheims?

Wasn’t King James Catholic?

Why did those Fundamentalists remove books from the original 1611 KJV bible?

For all the **honest **mistakes, in some places the KJV adheres to Catholic doctrine better than the NAB or the RSV.

I like my Douay-Rheims but few read or quote it.

The Catholic Church needs a bible translation that can match the beauty and majesty of the KJV or Douay-Rheims while using modern English.

The KJV, like it or not, is the most quoted text in the English language. Before we can bring our separated brothers and sisters back the the true faith we must be able to speak their language. Quite often this is the KJV bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top