Posted on 09/08/2014 7:13:24 PM PDT by daniel1212
Movie :
KJB: The Book That Changed the World
Of all places, Hulu has this well done, interesting and edifying documentary (with ads) with actor John Rhys-Davies.
Describes King James 1 upbringing and and political events, including the Gunpowder Plot and shows historical background and aspects which led to this translation.
1:33 long. Worth watching. Has ads (choose priceline ones)
Since a Bible cost the equivalent of three years wages, prior to Gutenberg’s invention, Luther’s doctrine would have been entirely impracticable and absurd. No one read because there was nothing to read.
Mat_21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat_22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mar_2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
Mar_12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mar_12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Luk_4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk_6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
Joh_19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
Act_8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Act_8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Act_8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
Act_13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
Act_15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Act_15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Act_23:34 And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia;
2Co_1:13 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;
2Co_3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
2Co_3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Eph_3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Well again scriptures proves you are spewing a fable...But yet, I'll bet you'll keep spewing...
First you side with a non-Christian cultic translator to attack the KJV, which thus attacks Catholic Bibles, and with that specious attack being exposed, you assert as fact what homosexuals can only allege (as they dare to do with David and Jonathan also, based upon the like manner of evidence in words and actions), yet which is irrelevant as Constantine's views in the Nicene council, since he did not translate one word.
And rather than James being opposed to the word of God and his alleged iniquity influencing the KJV, the KJV clearly upholds the injunctions against homosexuality, while James adopted a severe stance towards sodomy using English law. His book on kingship, Basilikón Dōron, (Greek for "Royal Gift") lists sodomy among those “horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive”. He also singled out sodomy in a letter to Lord Burleigh giving directives that Judges were to interpret the law broadly and were not to issue any pardons, saying that "no more colour may be left to judges to work upon their wits in that point." .
Now if your charge against James is to have any weight, then so must the reality of bad sexual active and even allegedly sodomite popes. Rome not only gives them the title "papa" (many were in infamous ways) but as the vicar of Christ, successors to Peter, though they would not even qualify to be church members in the NT church, and even makes a saint out of a man who employed a murderous mob that slew over 100 people in seeking to secure his papal office! Talk about a glass house.
In addition, rather than the Prot KJV being soft on sexual sins as James is all edge to be, it is the main RC American Bible, even on the Vatican web site, that will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
As to whether James was a sodomite or not, while having certain close male friends, James had seven live children with his wife, Anne of Denmark (married 1589; died 1619), as well as suffering two stillbirths and at least three other miscarriages, and between 1593 and 1595, James was also romantically linked [likely by enemies] with Anne Murray, later Lady Glamis, whom he addressed in verse as "my mistress and my love". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I Some homosexuals.
As usual, your attempts to attack evangelicals has against resulted in more evidence why one should not be a RC.
I have no doubt many here would. They have no choice, being sold into slavery of mind,
Indeed, thus the church began based upon Scriptural substantiation, with common souls reasoning what was correct in following itinerant preachers versus the historical magisterium. Anathema for a RC, no matter how weighty the evidence is for their message.
It amazes me that you continue to post after post statements that are arguments against being a RC, as by God's grace their specious nature has been substantively exposed again and again, but it is not surprising that you would resort to another in-credible unsubstantiated claim in desperately trying to deal with it.
Now once again, please tell us what you consider to be the best English Bible. Why not trust the judgment of your American Bishops and use the NAB? Why the continued silence?
Nope! That prize belongs to the Roman Catholic church catechism.
LOL
Oh yes, more sources that would be blithely dismissed if they were ever invoked against Rome. The first states,
So dedicated are we to the task of "Empowering" Ministers world-wide, that we "Ordain the Doctorate of Divinity" upon all who qualify without charging a single cent . . . without even asking a love-offering!
And in its diatribe against King James, it quotes two non-existent web pages, then none at all, then sodomite (with his partner David Allen) Rick Norton for the rest, " author of The Great Queers of History. And after seeing what such imagine descriptions in the Bible say, invoking him is a negative argument.
And which is who the second link is to. Remember this next time an RC rejects any source that impugns Rome. No bigotry here.
Indeed: I would have turned blue long ago, but she keeps doing it.
The King James Bible was not a Catholic Bible. It was an English translation of the Christian Bible for the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. It is chopped and diced so much it mangles the Word of God.
I use the Douay-Rheims. It is the Latin Vulgate in English. Also the Jerusalem Bible.
When one can't attack the message, attack the authority... or so it seems. Would say something about attacking the messenger, but that's been happening all the way along! Flack... target... ; )
That is a good thing.
NKP_Vet: don't you realize that making one specious assertion after another is an argument against being a RC?
In just 24 hours you have invoked a cult leader and then a homosexual apologist to attack the KJV, both being exposed for who they are, and which also implicitly attack Rome as well, and whom you would never allow credibility for if we used them to attack Rome!
And now, in a non-answer to my last exposure of your last vain attack, then besides telling me what i obviously know and never stated otherwise, who make the outlandish claim that the KJV is "so chopped and diced so much it mangles the Word of God." As usual this spitball has no proof.
However, your own Bible is the Douay–Rheims, almost surely that which was revised by Challoner, and which is very similar to the KJV, as the King James translators used the original Rheims version as a reference when they were creating their translation, and Challoner borrowed heavily from the King James Version, far more than your NAB!
Here's a comparison i found between the original 1582 Rheims NT and the Challoner NT (Philippians 2:5-11 and Revelation 5:6-14):
For this thinke in your ſelues, vvhich alſo in Christ IESVS, † vvho vvhen he vvas in the forme of God, thought it no robberie, him ſelf to be equal to God, † but he exinanited him ſelf, taking the forme of a ſeruant, made into the ſimilitude of men, and in ſhape found as man. † He humbled him ſelf, made obediēt vnto death: euen the death of the croſſe. † For the vvhich thing God alſo hath exalted him, and hath giuen him a name which is aboue al names: † that in the name of IESVS euery knee bovve of the celeſtials, terreſtrials, and infernals: † and euery tongue cōfeſſe that our Lord IESVS Chriſt is in the glorie of God the Father. +
DRB - 5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: 10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: 11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
KJV: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)
And as regards those who unduly exalt the DRB, RC apologist James Akin states,
often argue for the Douay's superiority from the fact that it is based on the Vulgate.
They argue that the Vulgate is superior on four grounds: (1) It is the official Bible of the Catholic Church, (2) it has been declared free of moral or theological error, (3) Jerome had access to manuscripts that we do not have today, and (4) he was a stupendous translator.
The first point is not true. There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu 21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition — the "Neo-Vulgate" promulgated by John Paul II — has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.
The second point is true — ecclesiastical documents have acknowledged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn't even the same thing as being a good translation. If someone utters the Spanish sentence "La manzana es verde" and I translate that as "The apple is red," then I have not committed a moral or theological error, but I have committed a translation error (verde means green, not red).
In the same way, as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn't.
The third point is true — Jerome did have manuscripts that we don't have today — but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.
One scholar, however brilliant, working in an age when textual criticism was still embryonic, was not as good as today's community of scholars who are able to critically cross-examine each others work in an age in which the rules of textual criticism have been worked out much better. Further, no matter how many manuscripts Jerome had access to, it was not the thousands used by biblical scholars today.
Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, "You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original" (Trials of a Translator, 29).
Finally, Jerome did not even translate certain books of the Vulgate; he simply incorporated extant Latin translations. Consequently, John Paul II notes that the Neo-Vulgate revision "was quite demanding in certain books of the Old Testament which Saint Jerome did not touch" (Scripturarum Thesaurus). These books scarcely provide an illustration of definitive textual criticism.
The fourth point — that Jerome was a stupendous translator — is true, especially for his era. He also had the advantage of being much closer to the time the biblical dialects were spoken, though koina Greek (the dialect the New Testament is written in) already had evolved into a new dialect before his birth.
But to his disadvantage, Jerome learned these languages in a time before dictionaries and foreign language grammars had been invented. As a result, if a translator didn't know a rare or unusual word or grammatical form, he couldn't look it up. No matter how good a translator is, the worthiness of his work will be proportionate to how much he exerts himself — and sometimes Jerome did not exert himself very much. For example, he translated the book of Tobit in a single night.
Recently, I read one Douay-Rheims Onlyist booklet that actually praised this as a demonstration of Jerome's linguistic prowess. One can only say that this demonstrates a lack of familiarity with how translation works.
Nobody trying to do a careful job of translating a book of Scripture will rough out a translation in a single night and leave it at that.
The Church owes an enormous debt to Jerome for the Vulgate, but one must not fail to acknowledge that it — like all translations — fails to capture perfectly the sense of the original. Sometimes this is due to the limitations of the language he's translating into (Latin), and sometimes it's due to translator error.
The Vulgate In English?
Douay-Rheims Onlyists often represent the Douay as the only English translation of the Vulgate. It's not. Ronald Knox's translation of the Bible is also based on the Vulgate.
Even then, the Douay is not simply a translation of Jerome's original. There is no pure edition of the Vulgate available, any more than there is a single, pure edition of the original Greek and Hebrew. When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.
Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.
Challoner's revisions were extensive — more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").
Free Of Protestant Bias?
While translator bias is a fact to be contended with, Douay-Rheims Onlyists often accuse contemporary translations of being tainted by Protestant translations.
But there's another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: "In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [i.e., King James] Version."
The fact is that Bible versions on both sides of the confessional divide influence each other. This is because serious translators don't read only works done by one side. Sometimes the other guys come up with a way of better capturing what's written in the original language, and when that happens the serious translator wants to know about it, not to hide his head in the sand.
All of this is not to say that the Douay-Rheims is a bad translation, or that it is not to be read, or that individuals may not prefer using it to other translations. It is only to indicate that the Douay-Rheims ought not be put on a pedestal.
©2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.
Actually, the KJV was such a good English rendering of the text, the Challoner revision used it extensively as guidance for revising the DR. Cardinal Newman is reported to have said the Challoner edition amounted to a new translation, and that edition, as I understand it is the line through which most modern DR editions come. So to criticize the KJV in sweeping generalizations means you might be unknowingly criticizing readings found in your own Bible.
To clear that up, can you share with us some of those mangled readings you mentioned? I might be able to show you how they actually work. The reason I say the is because I went through a time of doubt, and in that time I thought I had found a number of problems with the KJV text. But after further research, I discovered I was merely the victim of my own naivete. I’m not saying the KJV is always right, but I can tell you it’s usually going to have s sound connection to the Byzantine for the NT, and the Hebrew text for the OT. There’s even one place in Isaiah where it appears to have circumvented some confusion introduced by the Masoretic pointing system, an outstanding achievement.
Anyway, I’d be curious to see what you think is mangled and see if I can help with that.
Peace,
SR
Specious claims just keep on coming. See the last post that says,
When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.
Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.
Challoner's revisions were extensive — more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they 'almost amounted to a new translation.'
As for the Jerusalem Bible, Why not the NAB? I do not see the Jerusalem Bible listed in the list of approved translations by the American Bishops, though any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study. .
BINGO! ...except for the Freepers who pay attention and don’t fall for it anymore. ;o)
Jesus is wonderful, isn’t He? We over complicate everything, and I do think it’s hard for us to accept the simplicity that is in Christ.
“The mother church has some of her greatest defenders of her greco roman latin church traditions in her daughters- but on this forum, those daughters seem to either hate their mother or at least find fault with their mother for everything else..”
For believers in Christ Jesus, “the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother”. Also, I love Paul’s advice in Colossians :
“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
So the Mother Church and her daughters motif is moot. “Days and months and seasons and years” are irrelevant after our Lord rose and the commandments “expressed in ordinances” was nailed to the Cross.
We were called to freedom, brothers....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.