Reading the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueadept
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The early editions of the KJV were really quite acceptable, although short a few books. Later editions were problematical particularly with words in parts bearing on faith and works etc. The translation was undertaken by groups of very well educated persons which were assigned a particular portion to work on. The problem English language bibles referred to in the above posts were not so much condemned because of the translation, but because of the notations or notes printed along with the text. Many of them were smuggled into England from printers living in other countries like Switzerland. In order to keep tabs on things in England only printers approved and licensed by the Crown could print certain books or documents hence “The Kings or The Queens Stationers”. Anglicanism was under threat from other sects like the Puritans and these outside Bibles were being used to attack that faith. In the last five years a history of the KJV was in print. I do not recall the title or publisher, but it was very well written.
 
On another board the debate went from explaining the Inquisitions to blaming the Church for not allowing anyone to own a bible or reading one. I enjoy these boards since I can get a lot of info in a short period to defend the faith. I appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut

Peace 😛
 
A couple people have posted about the KJV being “short a few books”.
That is true of most KJVs today. However, contrary to popular belief, the original KJV (1611) had the deuterocanon included. This practice continued for more than a century & a half.
Even then, Bibles sold for sale in England were rerquired to have the complete text as translated by the KJV translaters. The original 66 book KJV was for the American descendants of the Puritans/Pilgrims. It was I believe, not until a severe paper shortage in the late Victorian/early Edwardian period that KJV began to be sold on a regular basis w/o these included.
And now, there is a new edition available that contains them again. (A re-issue of the 1611 edition).

It is also interesting to note that the reason that the KJV often sounds so much like DR is that the DR was used as one of the sources for the KJV.
 
The church has done an excellent job of retaining the official teachings contained in the bible through Sacred Tradition.

CARose
 
40.png
blueadept:
The question is Has there ever been a time in our church history has it been not allowed for someone to own a bible? (KJV or other)

Has it ever been prohibited to read the bible?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has asked its members not to read poorly written or incorrect Bibles.

So the answer is sort of.

Good Bibles have allways been allowed to be read, never banned.

If a Bible version was known to be wrong, like say a Protestant one that denies Christ is the Son of God, should the Catholic Church encourage its members to read it or tell them to avoid it?
 
40.png
ceasar:
do you need someone to interpret the bible for you???

Ceasar
Click to expand...
The apostles asked Jesus to interpret parables for them all the time. If asking for help was good enough for them - and they knew Jesus - it’s good enough for us too.

When did Jesus ever instruct somebody, “Oh just interpret what I say any old way you want?” Please give me the verse.
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
The Catholic Church has asked its members not to read poorly written or incorrect Bibles.

So the answer is sort of.

Good Bibles have allways been allowed to be read, never banned.

If a Bible version was known to be wrong, like say a Protestant one that denies Christ is the Son of God, should the Catholic Church encourage its members to read it or tell them to avoid it?
Click to expand...
If a bible denies Christ to be Son of God, it ceases to be a bible.
:banghead: bad example
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top