G
- Status
C
crazzeto
Guest
Here is a link to newadvent about the KJV, nothing about it being an official Catholic translation. Again, not that a bible need be an official Catholic bible to be worth reading at all, and not that the lack of an Impramatur immediatly means it’s tainted by “Protistantism”. But still, any claim that the KJV was ever a true Catholic bible is simply based upon some overly enthuisastic ecumenical aims. The KJV is not now, nor has it ever been a true Catholic bible. The Church has never compramised on True Orthodoxy, and they certainly wouldn’t have allowed true authorized use (by Catholics).
This isn’t an attempt to slam the KJV, or in any way claim it’s anything other than a good bible translation (if short some books). But one can not claim it’s a Catholic bible in any sense. If any one wants a good Catholic bible with the same type of language I would recommend a Douay bible instead. If someone really wants to read the KJV, then that’s fine too (though I would ignore the notes particularly on modern versions).
This isn’t an attempt to slam the KJV, or in any way claim it’s anything other than a good bible translation (if short some books). But one can not claim it’s a Catholic bible in any sense. If any one wants a good Catholic bible with the same type of language I would recommend a Douay bible instead. If someone really wants to read the KJV, then that’s fine too (though I would ignore the notes particularly on modern versions).
G
GKC
Guest
When James was nurturing the idea of the new translation, he particularly wanted to avoid marginal notes, as being too prone to partisanship.
GKC
P
Padrej
Guest
My answer to you would be relatively the same as Fr. John’s. As the good Fr. posted there are many versions of Catholic translations so we also have many versions. The language of the people has also changed over time as Fr. John pointed out. Do we speak in King James English today, or in the language of the old Douay for that matter? Do you add “eth” to the end of some of your words as these translations do and say “thee and thou” in your everyday conversation?You make it sound more like a “you vs me” than an “us vs them” argument. I believe I posted the question in good faith and in keeping with the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps it could best be answered by an informed Protestant. One thing is for sure if I am to be accused of having a ax to grind here I am not the only one.
The desire with every Bible translation has always been to put the Bible in the language of the “People.” This was also true of the translations that predate the KJV. Look at the Vulgate for example, why is it called the “Vulgate”? Is it because it is in proper Latin or the “vulgar” language of the people so that it could be understood by more. Why was the Bible Translated into Koine Greek? Because Koine Greek contained elements of all the Greek dialects at the time so it could be understood by more people.
The desire of Luther was to have a translation of the Bible in the hands of the people that were German speakers. Granted he “added to” on a few verses that if you are a student of Greek could be translated that way, but it obviously promoted his agenda.
Latin was for years the universal language spoken by the Church, but eventually people wanted the Bible in their own language and it was this that led to many translations. Do I as a protestant pastor and educator agree with EVERY translation? No I do not. If it brings one closer to God however, I am not going to stop the person from reading it. as Fr. John pointed out, if a teen in his church preferred to read a translation they could understand, I would not stop them. Most kids today are not going to understand the Bible of our fathers and tend to rebel enough as it is. I will not force an older translation down the throat of anyone who is in the “seeking” stage of becoming a Christian.
M
Muzhik
Guest
What I really object to, are the Protestant ministers who insist that the Catholic Church made it their goal from St. Jerome until today to separate believers from Scripture and deny them the chance to study scripture for themselves. One such believer wrote that St. Jerome’s translation of the New Testament into Latin was designed to remove scripture from the language of everyday people, a trend that continued until Luther made his own translation into German. He ignored the fact that while at the time the New Testament documents were being written, Greek was the common language used in the eastern part of the Empire, and that every person of any importance knew his Plato as well as his Virgil. However, when Jerome did his translation 300 years later, Greek was no longer the common language of the people. The very name of the translation bears this out: “Vulgate” comes from the same root as “vulgar”, meaning “common.”
His contention that the Church forbade any vernacular translations was disproved after 5 minutes of internet searching. In that time, looking at the catalogs of antique book dealers, I found 5 different editions of different books of the New Testament, all in German and all printed well before Luther’s translation. The Church’s focus on using the Vulgate translation wasn’t to keep Scripture from the hands of the people; it was to ensure that any theological debates would originate from the same playbook, so to speak.
When I wrote the author to point out these errors, he replied that he “wrote the book that God told him to write.”
His contention that the Church forbade any vernacular translations was disproved after 5 minutes of internet searching. In that time, looking at the catalogs of antique book dealers, I found 5 different editions of different books of the New Testament, all in German and all printed well before Luther’s translation. The Church’s focus on using the Vulgate translation wasn’t to keep Scripture from the hands of the people; it was to ensure that any theological debates would originate from the same playbook, so to speak.
When I wrote the author to point out these errors, he replied that he “wrote the book that God told him to write.”
P
Padrej
Guest
I have several lapsed Catholics in my parish, all of them have told me that growing up that none of them were ever encouraged to do ANY kind of scripture reading on their own. These persons were taught “that the Church would teach them all they needed to know.” I also have an Aunt who is a “died in the wool” Roman Catholic and her parish in Texas always has had some form of Bible study. I can only deduce from this that like many areas today in Roman Catholicism you have some that are highly conservative and some that are liberal and allow anything. For example, you can have a Catholic Bishop in one area who tolerates politicians voting certain ways and offers them the Eucharist while others will forbid it. Just as with the encouragement of Bible study, it seems some were highly encouraged while others were not. We have the same issues in the Protestant denominations as well, some liberal leaders and some more conservative.
The sad thing was I heard one guy tell me that when he was growing up he was told by his Baptist parents that the neighbors kids who were Catholic would beat their kids every night before sending them to bed. They did so to scare the child away from conversion to Catholicism.
Another Catholic mentioned how the old Priest used to smell the breath of the kids on Friday to see if they had been eating anything other than fish. If he smelled hot dog, no communion. So I guess we could all tell of horror stories if we tried.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Scripture Study is being pushed by the Orthodox segments of the Church now, and actually always has been encouraged. Previously, the Church recommended one study the Bible with their spiritual director (as noted in a now defunct Admonishment) only, but the Church always made every effort to encourage the reading of scripture. In fact as of 1901, as noted in my Bishop Challoner Douay Bible there was a partial indulgence granted for reading the bible just 15 minutes a day, for 1 month straight.
Today one only need read the bible 30 minutes, period, to receive a plenary indulgence. The Church can’t encourage reading scripture any more than it does. So I would suggest that the problem wasn’t so much the Church not encouraging Scripture study on the part of the layity, but a lack of interest on the part of the layity to engage their Spiritual Directors to read the bible.
Fortunetly today, thanks in great part to some (apparent) lay movements like the Apologetics movement, along with networks like EWTN scripture study is getting very popular. Every Catholic Church around me is running a CSS scripture study program, mine is studying Revelation with the aid of this program. The study guide was written by Opus Dea member Dr. Scott Hanh, you don’t get a whole bunch more Orthodox Catholic than that.
P
Padrej
Guest
I do not deny that it always was encouraged in one form or another. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, “So I would suggest that the problem wasn’t so much the Church not encouraging Scripture study on the part of the laity, but a lack of interest on the part of the laity to engage their Spiritual Directors to read the bible.” I know that some also like the scriptural laziness approach and think that all they have to do is show up at church every Sunday and they have done their part so long as a few dollars is in the plate from them. OR “I am a member because my parents are a member.” Hopefully these “pew warmers” and “coat tail riders” will one day wake up to the truth of God’s Word.
G
greggy53
Guest
Growing up I don’t remember seeing a bible around the house though my mom probably had one somewhere. I did learn a lot about the scriptures though everyday in Religion class.
C
crazzeto
Guest
We had bibles around my house, though certainly my parents never encouraged me to read the bible. I only really ever opened it up as a curiosity, to see what the Word of God “looked like”, so I would read random passages, and really not learn anything (particularly since I picked books I already knew through other means).
That isn’t to say I never learned anything though. I certainly learned enough to have an idea what sounds like good christian principal and what doesn’t. Though now that I am studying scripture I’m realizing this whole new demention of Christianity is opening up for me.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Why The Lutherans evangelical and Missouri synod, adopted the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Mass, A, B, and C years… It was my understanding the Anglicans have also.
What are the readings, liturgy you do use? Are they the same readings/ schedule we read them in?
Justy, "Better check your facts about that. The standard use Bible in our church is the NRSV WITH the Apocrypha! And mind you Protestants aren’t even close to being the first folks to question the apocryphical books. While were at it you should wonder why it is that the Catholic Canon is different than the Orthodox Canon when the Holy Spirit supposedly discerned the Canon to the Early Church (East and West before the split) at the same time. Hmmmm.
.
Give me a break, Men will be men? The Great Schism 11th century wasn’t over the books, The Greeks exited over the philosophical explanation of the Mysteries of God… I.e the term Transubstantiation, was the last straw, its not that they didn’t agee with Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, its that they feel it cannot be explained. In the east it seems people do not question the Mysteries of the Church, where in western Culture, they are questioned, and hence try to be explained.
The Fillioque, whether The holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or both the Father and Son, and the authority of the Pope in Rome, were constant discussions in the Church since Constantine’s time.
Orthodox and RCC Bibles not comparable??? They got two extra Maccabee books(# 3 and 4), 1 Esdras, that are said to be written 1 century a.d. in, and Greek, and That’s why they didn’t make the Canon,Which by the way was set in the sixth or seventh century when the Eastern Rite and the Roman Rite body of Bishops both agreed, The Maccabees 3 and 4, were included as inspirational not Sacred.
The Biblical text used by the Orthodox** includes the Greek Septuagint** and the New Testament. It includes the seven Deuterocanonical Books which are generally rejected by Protestants and a very few other books that are in neither Western canon. Orthodox Christians use the term “Anagignoskomena” (a Greek word that means “readable”, “worthy of reading”) for the ten books that they accept but that are not in the Protestant 39-book Old Testament canon. They treat them on the same level as the others and use them in the Divine Liturgy.[9] Orthodox Christians believe scripture was revealed by the Holy Spirit to its inspired human authors.
OOPS there goes your big difference!
Wikipedia:
3 Macc:
he book was written at some point after 2 Maccabees, since that book is cited in the text. This sets the date of composition to the end of the first century BC and its use in the Orthodox Church also speaks for its composition before the first century AD. One theory, advanced by Ewald and Willrich, holds that the relation is a polemic against Caligula, thus dating from around AD 40, but this theory has been rejected by more recent authors, because Ptolemy in the book does not claim divine honors as Caligula did.
4 Macc: he book is generally dated between the first century BCE and the first century CE, due to its reliance on 2 Maccabees and use by Christians. It was probably written before the persecution of the Jews under Caligula, and certainly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Protestants left books out according to the palestine Canon because some books could not be found at the time in the Hebrew, however they were found in the Hebrew @ Qumran. It only goes to show you the Catholic Canon is the rite Canon, but then you knew that already its why you use it!
Code:God bless, John
J
John_oxios
Guest
Before Television, and its beginnings, (Shows weren’t on 24 hrs 7days a week) Just about every home I remember, always had a Bible on coffee table… We had one I’d open it to se the illustrations, my parents? I never saw them open it up. Mom always went to Church, Dad, wet for funerals, weddings, baptisms.
God bless,
John
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Perhaps you can donate it to your nearest public library. Or try a Good Will store. There might be a book section there.
PAX :heaven:
P
Padrej
Guest
When I was growing up the only time I saw my father EVER crack open the Bible was when he was studying to preach (he was a lay pastor) and that was maybe once or twice a year. We got some Bible reading in as kids in Church during Sunday school. I remember one time my dad thought I was turning into a religious nut when one of my Sunday school teachers gave a devotional book and I was actually using it. His teasing actually turned me away from the Bible and church for a while.
T
tweetymom
Guest
My husband a life long Catholic, went to paroical all his school year, was an altar boy and started Seminary, never had opened a Bible. We married in 2002 and he had never read scripture just heard it at Mass. Sad.
P
Padrej
Guest
I guess this is why only two commands in all of scripture are directed to children the rest are to adults on how to raise the child. I often wonder how different my life would have been if I had been encouraged to read scripture daily. It is only now that I am older that I know how much that I truly missed out on. I just pray that if parents read this they will take this to heart and read the Bible in front of their children and pray in front of their children. as Christ said, “If you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you.” Mark 8:38
C
crazzeto
Guest
That’s funny, my mom thinks that I’m a religious nut now that I’m actually reading the bible and coming to understand it better. I’m not sure about your parents, but mine came out of the Baby Boom Generation, which at least in my estimation seems to be one very bad generation with regard to serious scripture study.
I’ll be honest, when I was younger I would watch stuff like woodstock and think “wow, how cool is that I wish I could have been back in those times participating in the cultural revolution”. Now I look back on those days and think “wow, honestly you really got to dig to find anything purely good which came from that era”.
T
TemplarKnight
Guest
The KJV is an excellent bible and can easily be supplemented with a separate Apocrypha.
Remember the Duoay-Rheims and the KJV are translations that are not created via committee such as the NIV, etc.; they were translated from original texts.
The problem with studying many different versions is that you get many different interpretations. For example, why do many of the “modern” translations including our beloved NAB omit the word “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12? Yet it is found in the DR and the KJV. I find it odd that it was acceptable for 1900 years by all churches yet in our new age society it is no longer “accepted” or included in “modern” translations.
Point being is that the KJV is a fine interpretation although for a Catholic it needs to be supplemented by the Apocrypha.
Remember the Duoay-Rheims and the KJV are translations that are not created via committee such as the NIV, etc.; they were translated from original texts.
The problem with studying many different versions is that you get many different interpretations. For example, why do many of the “modern” translations including our beloved NAB omit the word “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12? Yet it is found in the DR and the KJV. I find it odd that it was acceptable for 1900 years by all churches yet in our new age society it is no longer “accepted” or included in “modern” translations.
Point being is that the KJV is a fine interpretation although for a Catholic it needs to be supplemented by the Apocrypha.
G
greggy53
Guest
Well then he heard it.
L
Lapell
Guest
I believe the texts from Haendel’s Messiah all come from the KJ Bible (except that Haendel’s text would say “he” or “him” (the Messiah) when some Bible passages would say “I” or “me” (for instance, “he gave his back to the smiters and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair”))
- Status