Who/What Determines the Authenticity of a Bible Version?

[beeliner]

So without the matter of divorce, King James would not have ordered a new Bible.

Wow, talk about convoluted history!

Wikipedia gives an extensive, unbiased history of the KJV, but the key is right ‘up front’ in the second paragraph:

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all whom were members of the Church of England.

In other words, it was a ‘cooked’ translation from the git-go.

In addition, it is full of errors of translation that are just plain mistakes.

Nearly all modern translations, including the NAB, are the result of interdenominational scholarship, Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Protestant-Jewish. Even the RSV, though primarily a Protestant Bible, included the work of some Catholic translators.

For me, as I have said here several times before, the Anchor Bible and its subsidiary publications, originally published by Doubleday and now owned by Yale University, is the absolute state-of-the-art of Bible scholarship. Nothing else even comes close.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If you think I am misaddressing your posts, then I apologize. That is not my intent but the post in question was asking me to reconcile my statement above with the one below it. The one above was my answer as to why I used Olde English and the one below it was my statement about Peter being ignorant. Between those two, you asked me to reconcile them:

You deliberately used my posts to attack that Catholic Church and the Bible used by Catholics. You posted

This was not incorrect language back in those days. It was common knowledge that “know” meant to know sexually. It was understood by all then and that is why it was written that way. Any student knows that. I do not advocate anyone who does not have a good knowledge of reading such languages to just pick up a Bible and attempt to understand it. That is easy enough for the learned but not for the ignorant. Any well educated person should not have any problem with it however. Incidentally, did you know the** Bible says peter was ignorant**, as well as his brother? And they seemed to do fine.

I asked how you reconciled how Peter and his brother could do just fine, if you say the Bible is only for the learned.

Then you posted my statement about Peter and after that you placed two question marks: ?? Check your post #97.

"qui #97:

OS:

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
Any student knows that. I do not advocate anyone who does not have a good knowledge of reading such languages to just pick up a Bible and attempt to understand it. That is easy enough for the learned but not for the ignorant. Any well educated person should not have any problem with it however.

qui:

Are you saying that only the scholarly should read the Bible? Which scholar’s interpretation? Reconcile the above with the below:
OS:

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
Incidentally, did you know the Bible says peter was ignorant, as well as his brother? And they seemed to do fine.

Was I not to believe you were asking me to prove what I said about Peter?

No, I was asking you how you reconciled the Bible is only for the learned, but you added the remark about Peter being ignorant.

Perhaps it is not simply me but the way you are reading some things.

You are right, I am reading a lot of mistruths, antiCatholicism, plagerism and poor scholarship. You seem to be using this thread as a sprinboard to post anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Aren’t you aware that all the non-Catholic churches consider the Roman Catholic Church to be apostate?

But if you feel it is me, then I apologize…

apology accepted - go and sin no more

 

[qui_est_ce]

**Not true. The meaning of the word “porneia” is:

*porneiva Porneia ***(por-ni’-ah);

Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4202

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   
   a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism,
   intercourse with animals etc.
   
   b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   
   c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman;
   Mk. 10:11,

Would you agree that illicit=unlawful?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why not make a new translation of the Bible in the language of today? This is easy to answer.
When someone says it should be translated into the language of today, they never really define what they mean. What is the language of today? It is not the language of the 17th, 18th or
19th or even the 20th century. What will be the language of the
21st and 22nd century? Who knows???

"os:

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
If you speak Latin every day to everyone, how many understand you? Scholars and most theologians speak several languages. It helps to speak Latin, Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic if you want to study the Scriptures thoroughly. Many can read it but don’t speak it very well.

My ancestors spoke Olde Tyme Inglisch. I’m afraid I do not very well.

Your logic continues to escape me.

Those children who memorized the 23rd Psalm in Sunday School 30 or 40 years ago can still find those words in the KJV but will not find them in the newer translations. We need a standard.

We are not talking about the 23 Psalm only. No problem here. Maybe if we learned it all in Latin, we wouldn’t have ANY problems.

Those who attack the King James Version for its “Archaic” language and instead are promoting modern-speech versions are discouraging the memorization of the Scriptures, especially by children.

No one is attacking KJV, we are disagreeing with your premise that KJV is the only scholarly English Bible and that all other translations have an agenda, while KJV does not.

The King James Bible fulfills that requirement much better than any other translation. Another reason is that modern-speech Bibles are not scholarly.

This is just outright false.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Now your Douay Rheims says the same thing. But because the Roman Catholic Church does not accept divorce at all, (though that is not Scriptural) and insists that a person have their marriage annulled. That’s very strange that a marriage can be annulled even after many years. That’s why King James had the King James Version made in the first place. If you don’t know the story, I will be glad to tell you.

The Catholic Church is neutral regarding civil divorce. I am divorced and am a fully particpating Catholic. I am not denied any of the sacraments.

quote:

If you don’t know the story, I will be glad to tell you. You really should read the Catechism, it’s a fascinating read.

 

[BRB]

great admirer and fan of the KJV, and frequently speak up on its behalf on these forums. But for textual accuracy (sometimes at the expense of linguistic flow), the RSV (which I call “Son of King James”) is a virtual trot to the Greek and Hebrew.].

Grew up on KJV … much to admire there.

I find RSV the current ‘gold standard’. Better than most of the recent revisions.

Don’t think we should wait for the ‘Old Scholar’ edition …