The Catholic church does NOT believe that a pure and perfect Bible exists and is available to man today?

[mercygate]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

I would tell him that Protestants share the same view. With all the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, we can piece together a very good and very accurate idea of what the autographs contained. Catholic and Protestant scripture scholars have no quarrel with one another about the manuscript evidence.

I would refrain from suggesting that any “pure and perfect” Bible would contain the seven books generally omitted from Protestant versions.

 

[inthecloud]

But the original KJV has does 7 books and them some more. Is till printed that way in the UK.

 

[mercygate]

But the original KJV has does 7 books and them some more. Is till printed that way in the UK.

Maybe so, but the kind of mind that posed the original question is almost 100% guaranteed to reject the Deuterocanon.

 

[COPLAND_3]

inthecloud

I also wonder of the implicit racism and ethnocentrism in the KJV only movement.
That means that only English speakers have God perfect Revelation?

Exactly! Very arrogant on their part if you think about it. And in my exerience they can be very arrogant.

 

[mark_a]

Oy vey, he basically believes God waved His hand and somehow miraculously made the KJV perfect. This is purely just another fundamentalist fantasy. -_-;;

If God truly did intend to preserve His Word in the KJV, can your correspondent then account for these mistakes found in the KJV editions across the century?

You can tell him/her, that my source is not even Catholic.

Good stuff!

 

[Cattitude]

Oy vey, he basically believes God waved His hand and somehow miraculously made the KJV perfect. This is purely just another fundamentalist fantasy. -_-;;

If God truly did intend to preserve His Word in the KJV, can your correspondent then account for these mistakes found in the KJV editions across the century?

You can tell him/her, that my source is not even Catholic.

Someone else in the thread already brought that up, and his reply was:

In 1611 spelling was not even standardized. Subsequent editions altered some words to line up with standards that were set. Other editions corrected obvious errors in typesetting.

So, I guess those errors are OK with God!

No point in throwing anymore pearls at this swine. But, I like the discussion for my own knowledge base! Thanks!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oy vey, he basically believes God waved His hand and somehow miraculously made the KJV perfect. This is purely just another fundamentalist fantasy. -_-;;

If God truly did intend to preserve His Word in the KJV, can your correspondent then account for these mistakes found in the KJV editions across the century?

You can tell him/her, that my source is not even Catholic.

(23) is IIRC from 1633.​

It is possible (or not ?) to defend AV-KJV-onlyism by saying that those are all misprints, and are recognised as such. Or do all forms of AV-KJV-onlyism require:

• an infallibly perfect text in every copy of the AV- KJV
  as well as
• a text which can be known to be perfect ?
  More importantly, I hope that there isn’t a sort of “D-R-only” tendency in the CC.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

Salaam/peace

God did not give us the original manuscripts,

.

Muslims believe that Jesus (p) was blessed with a holy book .

So , Christians don’t think that he got any revealation from God or it was preserved ?

If there is not any original book ,they why some Christians claim that they know few priests who memorised the whole Bible ? Which Bible they have memorised then ?

 

[mercygate]

Salaam/peace

Muslims believe that Jesus (p) was blessed with a holy book .

So , Christians don’t think that he got any revealation from God or it was preserved ?

If there is not any original book ,they why some Christians claim that they know few priests who memorised the whole Bible ? Which Bible they have memorised then ?

I do not know the Muslim tradition that Jesus was “blessed with a holy book.” The “holy books” he knew were “the writings” of the Jewish community in the post-exilic age. Even the Jews had not closed the canon at the time Jesus was teaching.

There was complete consensus – no controversy at all – over the Pentateuch and wide consensus over the other writings, all of which were called “scripture” but much of what we would not include in scripture today was also called “scripture” – which just means “the writings.” After the canon is closed, the word “scripture” means exclusively “the holy writings believed to be inspired by God and inerrant.”

As for Christians and an “original book,” the Church accepted the scriptural canon of the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Hebrew Scriptures, including 7 Deuterocanonical books written in Greek, and then added the 27 books of the New Testament.

There are literally thousands of early manuscripts of the New Testament texts – some almost whole and many in fragments. These manuscripts are in the original Greek and also in many, many languages of the ancient world.

The Greek manuscripts contain variant readings. BUT, there are so many manuscripts that it is possible to determine what is a “variant” and what is the original text.

When people memorize scripture, they usually memorize it in the translation they prefer. I know many of the psalms in a translation that was made in the 16th Century – before the KJV or the Douay-Rheims English versions were published. Just a preference. I could just as well have chosen the RSV or any of the many translations available today.

 

[jblake]

Cattitude;:

Thanks for all the great replies. This particular person is a vehement KJV-only.

a) Which version of the KJV does he use?
b) Does it correspond to the version that was mandated by British Law to be printed?
c) Does that version correspond to the one which Anglican Canon Law mandated?

Most people aren’t aware of the number of revisions of the KJV.

Even fewer are aware that there was a time when the Bible had to include the complete Anglican Canon (76 books), and not just the 66 book Protestant Canon. (Hoping I’m counting both sets correctly, using the criteria of this forum as “correct”.)

Even fewer realize that that civil law, was based upon Anglican Canon law.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Lost Wanderer;:

can your correspondent then account for these mistakes found in the KJV editions across the century?

(8) 1702, “Printers” Bible, (Ps. 119:161, “Printers have persecuted.”)

Given the plethora of typographical errors, and other such critters, I think that phrase is a sooth.

xan

jonathon

 

[colliric]

a) Which version of the KJV does he use?
b) Does it correspond to the version that was mandated by British Law to be printed?
c) Does that version correspond to the one which Anglican Canon Law mandated?

Most people aren’t aware of the number of revisions of the KJV.

Even fewer are aware that there was a time when the Bible had to include the complete Anglican Canon (76 books), and not just the 66 book Protestant Canon. (Hoping I’m counting both sets correctly, using the criteria of this forum as “correct”.)

Even fewer realize that that civil law, was based upon Anglican Canon law.

xan

jonathon

The KJV included the 7 deuterocanon books under a seperate section entitled “the Apocrypha” that also included Orthodox books too(such as 3 and 4 Maccabees), they were not “Anglican Canon” per-say. The Anglican canon is predominantly the 66 Book canon, but occasionaly they will refer, in their sermonizing to the “Apocrypha” for ‘inspiration’, which is why they still print the KJV in england with the “Apocrypha” and mandated it to be so. Also perhaps the influence of the Anglo-Catholics(some of which hold to the full Catholic Canon) has kept the Deuterocanon well regarded/respected in the High-Church Anglican movement(but only in this movement).

But their canon is officially over the majority of the Anglican movement, the 66 book protestant version.