Bible

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

which bible version do you read...?

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005

Answers

Response to bible

The Douay-Rheims

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

Response to bible

okidokiki

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

Response to bible

I use the Authorised version, also known as the King James Version.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2005.

Response to bible

k is the new king james version any good?

i read the message, its a good reading bible but not a good study bible i use niv for studying....

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.


Response to bible

on the king james version...

its a matter of perspective, really, zarove swears by it. Catholics, however, tend to stay away from that particular version of the bible because of what we view as translational errors that were injected in its original writing (not to open a new can of worms or anything).

much more common place is the douay rheims (sp?) version of the Bible, though i dont have a copy right now. I currently use the St. Ignatius version for catholic reading and have a copy of the NIV protestant version for reference when debating with protestants.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 18, 2005.



Response to bible

on the king james version... its a matter of perspective, really, zarove swears by it. Catholics, however, tend to stay away from that particular version of the bible because of what we view as translational errors that were injected in its original writing (not to open a new can of worms or anything).

The "Translational errors" also show up in the douay-Rheims and New American half the time, to be fair. Often there is a stigma toward the KJV among Cahtolics, hwoever, the percieved translaitonal errors arent "Perceived to be errors" in other Bibles that read basicllay the same way...

The KJV is hated by Catholics mainly because of Modern-day anti- Catholic fundamentalism's use of it, not because of the text itsself.

Few Catholcis relaly objected to it in the 19th century, or centuries prior to the 19th. Its mroe of a Modern trend.

The "Percieved errors" though is just an excuse, since the errors are ususlaly similar tot he same "mistakes" in basiclaly all other Bibles.

much more common place is the douay rheims (sp?) version of the Bible, though i dont have a copy right now.

Ususlaly this is a traditionalists choice, hwoever most Cahtolcis in the states tend ot use the New American Bible.

In europe its either the Jerusalem bible or New Jerusalem.

I currently use the St. Ignatius version for catholic reading and have a copy of the NIV protestant version for reference when debating with protestants.

To clarify, the St.Igmnatius is a special "Study" edition of the United sttaed Cahtolic Bible used for Mass, the New American Bible.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2005.


Response to bible

OH and the Mesage is relaly not that great, its a parpahrasic Bible whick, liek the Living Bible, condednced an alreayd eistant english Translaitoninto simplified phrases.

Basiclaly, its a true paraphrase, menaign it did NOT translate the text. it presents what the text means in simplified language, which is only good if you agree wihhe parpahraser on what the text means...

The NKJV is not as good as the KJV, but tis not the worst Bible out either.

tHE niv IS A dYNAMIC eQUIVOLENCE TRANLAITON, AND HTUS NOT EXACLTY WORD-FOR-WORD AND SO NOT PARTUCUALLY USEFUL FOR INDEAPTH STUDY. tHE nkjv, A FORMAL TRNALATON, WOIDL BE BETTER...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2005.


Response to bible

I don't know that Catholics "Hate" the KJV bible..I'm Catholic and I certainly do not..It's simply not the complete bible, therefore I do not read it as such.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

Response to bible

the message as i said is a very good read (i have read 4 books this mnth! and normally im on one book a year!)

the nlt (new living translation) is good too

-- kt (jc_died_4_me@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.


Response to bible

Leley, how is it incomplete? My Cambridge KJV has 78 books, 5 more than your Catholic Bible...

The "Incomplete" argumen dosnt quiet hold up.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Follow this link, then scroll to the bottom. though dont be fooled, in my KJV the Aporypha is NOT in the back, but rather in the middle...

And dotn be offended, I call it the apocrypha because its hwo tis listed in the books, I knwo Cahtolcis call 7 of these 12 books the duterocanon, but type in "King James deuterocanon" n amazon and you wont find luck...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2005.



Response to bible

also, the New Living is not that great. its what Kenenth taylor thins the Bible means, not what the Bibel said...

its a true Paraphrase, taylor and his reivison committee rendeirn ght words for simplisity, but in so doing ocnveyign their inerrpetation., makign it a lign and elaborate ocmmentary, or midrash, not a true Bible.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2005.


Response to bible

jUST TO BE CLEAR MIDN YOU...A true trnalsaiton is better than a parpahrase...

-- zaerrove (Zaroff3@juno.com), February 18, 2005.

Response to bible

I tend to quote here from the New American Bible, since it is the version I found on the Vatican web site at http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm

At times it is very interesting to see the differences across different translations, and that is where http://bible.cc/ is great. The main page there says: "Each of our 31102 Bible Verse Pages is currently titled and formatted with 8 versions listed and direct links to the chapter in 25 versions on 12 separate sites."

Finally, if you're looking for a different take on the translation of the Christian Old Testament check out http://www.breslov.com/bible/bible.htm for a "Jewish" translation.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 19, 2005.


Response to bible

I find the Jerusalem Bible best. It avoids the extremes of slavish word-for-word literalism on the one hand, and bending over backwards to sound "modern" and "relevant" on the other hand. Both these approaches can often obscure the original meaning.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 19, 2005.

Response to bible

I use the Recovery Version

It has some excellent footnotes.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 19, 2005.



Response to bible

Paul H sez, I currently use the St. Ignatius version for catholic reading and have a copy of the NIV protestant version for reference when debating with protestants.

Zarove sez in reply, To clarify, the St.Igmnatius is a special "Study" edition of the United sttaed Cahtolic Bible used for Mass, the New American Bible. OH and the Mesage is relaly not that great, its a parpahrasic Bible whick, liek the Living Bible, condednced an alreayd eistant english Translaitoninto simplified phrases.

Zarove is 100% wrong. His comments are truly irresponsible, since he ought to know better (having been corrected multiple times in the past).

First, the "Ignatius Bible" is NOT the New American Bible. Rather it is the "Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition" (RSV-CE). The RSV, most of which was translated by Protestants (roughly in the 1940s), is a tremendous 20th century improvement on the error-laden KJV. Since the RSV was originally incomplete (lacking the seven deuterocanonical books), the RSV-CE makes the volume complete by supplying those seven books.

Second, the RSV and RSV-CE are NOT "paraphrastic" works. They are NOTHING like the "Living Bible," but are instead genuine translations from the original languages. The text of the RSV-CE is not only considered accurate (as literal as necessary), but readable and understandable (unlike many passages in the KJV), because its words carry 20th-century meanings.

Nor is the New American Bible (NAB) a paraphrase, even though Zarove calls it one. It too is a translation from the original languages (as called for by Pope Paul VI), published in about 1970. Zarove, for whom English is not his first language, apparently does not know the meaning and pejorative connotations of the English word, "paraphrase." I will not sit quietly while a non-Catholic unjustly rips Catholic bible translations at a Catholic forum. Let him do it elsewhere or preferably nowhere.

Zarove then sez, Leley, how is the KJV incomplete? My Cambridge KJV has 78 books, 5 more than your Catholic Bible... The "Incomplete" argumen dosnt quiet hold up.

This is a typical zarovian double-deception!

First, the fact that his edition of the KJV "has" 78 books is irrelevant, since his edition rejects 12 of those books as divinely inspired!

Second, Zarove knows very well that the majority of KJVs being used by people right now have only 66 books. Therefore, Lesley's general comment about incompleteness is valid, while Zarove tried to deceive Lesley.

Then he sez, And dotn be offended, I call it the apocrypha because its how it is listed in the books, I knwo Cahtolcis call 7 of these 12 books the duterocanon, but type in "King James deuterocanon" n amazon and you wont find luck...

Rubbish! This is a Catholic forum, and the seven books can NEVER be called "apocrypha" here, since that word has a different meaning to Catholics. If Zarove wants to take part here, he must use the term "apocrypha" (which has negative connotations) as Catholics use it. He must speak of "deuterocanonical books" or "what Catholics call the 'deuterocanonicals'" for the seven books that we consider divinely inspired. This is what is required of Zarove to show us Catholics the due deference and respect in this forum, our "home away from home." What may happen at Amazon is totally irrelevant. The term he sees in his KJV edition ("apocrypha") is also irrelevant.

Amen.

-- Typist (asdf@jkl.com), February 19, 2005.


Response to bible

Paul H sez, I currently use the St. Ignatius version for catholic reading and have a copy of the NIV protestant version for reference when debating with protestants. Zarove sez in reply, To clarify, the St.Igmnatius is a special "Study" edition of the United sttaed Cahtolic Bible used for Mass, the New American Bible. OH and the Mesage is relaly not that great, its a parpahrasic Bible whick, liek the Living Bible, condednced an alreayd eistant english Translaitoninto simplified phrases.

Zarove is 100% wrong. His comments are truly irresponsible, since he ought to know better (having been corrected multiple times in the past).

{Am I?}-Zarove

First, the "Ignatius Bible" is NOT the New American Bible. Rather it is the "Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition" (RSV-CE).

{Sorry, was thinking "St.Jospeh" and got hte two confused. Never claimed infallablity.}-Zarove

The RSV, most of which was translated by Protestants (roughly in the 1940s), is a tremendous 20th century improvement on the error-laden KJV.

{You know, simpley declaring the KJV "error-Laden' doesnt magically render it so. I for one am personally ired of the attacks leveled agaisnt htis one particular traslation. its enough to vendicate Jack Chick...

The KJV is no more error-Laden than any other translation, and form PERSONAL examinatiion fromt he Hebrew I find fewer errors than in most modern sdnamic eqivolences.

Likewise, the RSV wasn tthat great, nor an imprvement over the KJV, no even related tot he kJV as it wasa brand new translation, not een based ont eh same MSS line. It was an Alexandrian line, based ont he critical text, rather than Byzantine.

lease stop saying the KJV is error laden and Ive been corrected. Unless you want ot open a thread and post rleevant informaitin clealry demonstrating the infiriority of the KJV, then you cant just declare Im wring and move on.}-Zarove

Since the RSV was originally incomplete (lacking the seven deuterocanonical books), the RSV-CE makes the volume complete by supplying those seven books.

{At lets, form a Catholci perspective. Ironiclaly the KJV was compelte by Cahtolci standards,contianign these books, in its origional form, yet you feel compelled to disparage it uselessly for no better reason than you personally have a deep set hatred fo this partucular translation, so you feel tis OK to pass on the notion that its deply flawed without rellay showing how and expect peopel to bow down to that decree, if they dont, their wrong and refuse orrection.

I seldom attack other Bible tranlations, yet have to defend the kJV all the itme form peopel who make stupid comments abtu how its flawed.

Exaclty WHY do peopel feel compelled to attakc this partucular tranlation? Please don sayt because i is flaed, I elay want a sincere answer.}-Zarove

Second, the RSV and RSV-CE are NOT "paraphrastic" works.

{I never said they where. I said the NAB was...}-Zarove

They are NOTHING like the "Living Bible," but are instead genuine translations from the original languages.

{See above. I confused the St.Josephs for the Ignatius... this does nto eman I called the RSV a dynamic equivolency. And I didnt even call the NAB a true parpahrase b a dynamic equivolency... which means tyour "Correcting" me here for no real reason...

Do you just liek to make yourself feel superior for osme reason?}- Zarove

The text of the RSV-CE is not only considered accurate (as literal as necessary), but readable and understandable (unlike many passages in the KJV), because its words carry 20th-century meanings.

{Oddly enouh the KJV tsts at a 5th grade reader level, so the old canard that its "Not readable" is an outright lie. se pasaes may have been obscured by changes in he langauge, but over 90% of he text is understandable tot he average 12 tar old.

The rest can be handled by simpely picign up a revised edition, such as the 21st Century KJV or Third Millinium KJV.

Also, the RSV is considered a formal equivolency, on tat you are corect ( And I neve contested), however, the liberal vriw and scolarship lead to its widespread rejection when it first appeared. It even rejected the endign verses of Mak, alter to translate them after upheavel.

There is a difference between "Literal" and "Accurate", and he RSV won faovur ony among intellectuals when furts untriduced whow anted o feel better about themselves liek they knew better than to use the older versiosn out, sch as Youngs Literal or the Ubiquitous KJV.

It slowly gained accepance based ont he "New langage" argument, and now is seen as better,but stil contians many flaws introdced into it ny liberal theology. Not to meniton the common mistakes foun in any translation. ( Find one error int he kJV and its tme to toss i ot the trash, fnd one errr int he RSV and you widl lielly say its not an error...)}-Zarove

Nor is the New American Bible (NAB) a paraphrase, even though Zarove calls it one.

{Unfortunatley you are incorrct. its not a true parpahrase, such as the New Living Boble, ut it is a paraphrasic translation, or "Thought for thought". It is a "Dynamic equivolency" translation, which is called " A parpsahase". Instead of acuracy beign prime to it, its not a literal word-for-word translation, liek the kJV or RSV, its a "Thouhgt for thouht" trnalaiton, and is even admited as such in its preface.}-Zarove

It too is a translation from the original languages (as called for by Pope Paul VI),

{Perhaps you need to look at the preface and read what I said and learn abotu translaitons. I never sai it wasnt taken form the origional languages. I said it was a dynamic equivolency tranaltion, as opposed o formal equivolency. Dynamic equivolency oes not translate word for word but instead attmeots to take the meanign of the passage and present it in modern english... thats what makes it a parpahrase, but a translational parpahrase of the origional texts, not a parpahrase f an exisitng tranlaiton liek the NLB}-Zarove

published in about 1970.

Zarove, for whom English is not his first language, apparently does not know the meaning and pejorative connotations of the English word, "paraphrase."

{I'm form england. english is my firts language. Not knowing this about me after Ive visited this baord for a ocue of yars et presumign Im constantly corrected on matters such as this is absurd.

and again, the term "Parpahrase" in context to translation refers to "Dynamic equivoency" as a meahtod of translation.}-Zarove

I will not sit quietly while a non-Catholic unjustly rips Catholic bible translations at a Catholic forum. Let him do it elsewhere or preferably nowhere.

{I actually didnt rip any Catolci Bible trnslation. whts ironic is that I only defneded the KJV, but Im expected to sit idly while unkind and innactrate infomation about the KJV is spread, because ttis "error-;aden and inirior". wlel guess what, yor wrong.

Its no more error laden than any other Bible, saying it is doesnt make it so, notr is it correctign me.

Attakcignt he KJV is not equel to prving it is wrong.

making a minor error in catolic editiosn of the Bible is not the same as priving how stupid I am.

Defendign Catholic Bibles agaisnt nonexistangt attakcs doesnt accomplish much either.}-Zarove

Zarove then sez, Leley, how is the KJV incomplete? My Cambridge KJV has 78 books, 5 more than your Catholic Bible... The "Incomplete" argumen dosnt quiet hold up.

This is a typical zarovian double-deception!

{I own a cambridge which I ue for study, and its not deception. I do not like the disparagence on my charecter.}-Zarove

First, the fact that his edition of the KJV "has" 78 books is irrelevant, since his edition rejects 12 of those books as divinely inspired!

{But their stull their, arent they? thats all I said. beside that, I did say they wher ein a central section, not interrpeerced.}-Zarove

Second, Zarove knows very well that the majority of KJVs being used by people right now have only 66 books. Therefore, Lesley's general comment about incompleteness is valid, while Zarove tried to deceive Lesley.

{I am not deceiving anyone. Everyone knows most KJV's in circulation lakc them, what I was poiign out was that the origional press run contained them, and oen can sill find these books in some KJV editiions. The deception is imagened.}-Zarove

Then he sez, And dotn be offended, I call it the apocrypha because its how it is listed in the books, I knwo Cahtolcis call 7 of these 12 books the duterocanon, but type in "King James deuterocanon" n amazon and you wont find luck...

Rubbish! This is a Catholic forum, and the seven books can NEVER be called "apocrypha" here, since that word has a different meaning to Catholics.

{I was refering to how they are presented it he KJV, and how one woudl find a KJV withthese books. Aain, you cannot find a King James wihthte deuterocannon. you can find it wihhte apocrypha.This is how they are lsited. Same books though.

From a publicaton standpoin I was techniclaly accurate in aiding thers fidn the kJV with these books.}-Zarove

If Zarove wants to take part here, he must use the term "apocrypha" (which has negative connotations) as Catholics use it.

{I used the term because its how ts listed in ther KJV. Logiclaly speaking, I cannot call them "Deuterocannon" and expect lesley, or anyone, to go to Amazon.com and find them, since its listed as Apopcryapha. The bulk of the time I call the books "Deuterocannon" except in cinjunction to Bibels that contian them that do not clal them such.

This is becaue form a writting standpoint, the prodict lables them as Apocrypha.

and the temr hasless of a negative connotaton, it merely is a word to me at this point.}-Zarove

He must speak of "deuterocanonical books" or "what Catholics call the 'deuterocanonicals'" for the seven books that we consider divinely inspired.

{and make it imposible o find a copy of the kJV with them... again hte poitn wa sin discussing the KJV, and in the KJV thy are claled Apocrpha, so it is more aurate to call them this, and is not an offence to Catholcis asmuch as an acurate presentation of th eproduct...}-Zarove

This is what is required of Zarove to show us Catholics the due deference and respect in this forum, our "home away from home."

{I've oen this for two years. It seems I am repaid by havign my Bible attacked so you can feel superor and disparage it for its many thousands upon thousands of errors and condemn me for defendign it by lying and syaing I attack Catholci Bibles.

That sin my lack of respect, but your own attemot to orce everyone into aligment with you.}-Zarove

What may happen at Amazon is totally irrelevant. The term he sees in his KJV edition ("apocrypha") is also irrelevant.

{The term is used in the kJV, and is thus relevant when discussing the KJVC.

f coruse, you only want peopel to discuss the kJV if they are tearign it apart, and anyoe who defneds it is attackign Catholisism and must be punished...}-Zarove

Amen.

{Neither shall this be, or the Lord shall not allow venhom to overtake the righeous.}-Zarove



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 19, 2005.


Response to bible

ANd the New American Bible was published in 1970, but underent several revisions. The New Testament was revised in a major was in 1986, and the Pslams in 1991.

Most other revisisons ar eminor varients between editions.

Below are a few of the kJV's with the APocrypoha avaialble on AMazon.

Again, I call them apocrpha as this is hwo they ar elisted, not to foffned.

this si why its rlevant, excpet you want me to be silent while peopel attack this Bible.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0521509467/qid=1108823775/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-6205240- 2466308?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0521843863/qid=1108823775/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/104-6205240- 2466308?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0785209301/qid=1108823775/sr=8-9/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i9_xgl14/104-6205240- 2466308?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/- /0521508231/qid=1108823775/sr=8-12/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i12_xgl14/104- 6205240-2466308?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 19, 2005.


Response to bible

I use the Haydock Bible, which is Douay-Rheims plus commentary. It's great! In the commentaries, I found the answer to every question I ever had about Scripture. (The commentaries were collected by Fr. Haydock, hence the name, and most of them come from the Fathers of the Church.)

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), February 19, 2005.

I have a "The Catholic Action Edition." It's awesome! Anyone ever hear of it before? One guy in my parish approached me today after mass because he'd never seen that edition before. He has been teaching Bible studies and learning about many translations for 30 years he said, but never heard of my Bible. Um, does that mean it's bad?

I also have the KJV, NAS, and The Catholic Youth Bible."

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 20, 2005.


Simpley not haivng heard of it dosnt make it bad...

Tell me, whats the Biblial text tranaiton?

NAB? Douay-Rhems?Jerusalem?

Out of all the Cahtolci Bibels I know of, the Jerusalem text is the best.

Though I disliek the Liberal leaning to its scholarship. I also dislike the format. ( Instead of verse, or even parpahraph, its in line format, similar ot poetry, which makes it near imposisble to look things uo efficiently, and for me near impossible to read withotu great difficulty.)

That, and the Notes, render it defective, regretabely.

The New Jeruslaem then come sin and butchers it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005.


Zarove, I could rip your latest post to shreds, just as I did your first one. However, I won't bother, for a couple of other reasons: (1) I would have to use an hour just to correct all your spelling mistakes in the passages that I'd want to quote, and (2) you would fail to acknowledge how wrong you are, because you seem to lack the intellectual acumen to put two and two together, so I would be wasting my time on you. I'm pretty well convinced that your dyslexia does not only cause you to mix up letters when you write, but also to mix up concepts to such a great extent that you cannot grasp other people's logical arguments. Thus you remain mired in ignorance, and you pitiably try to defend the indefensible.

Your admission concerning your St. Ignatius/St. Joseph error just about bowled me over, as it was the first time I had ever seen you admit to having made a mistake (out of the very many mistakes you have made, beginning with your failure to become a Catholic). In fact, your admission of error ought to help your mind snap into the realm of reality. It should make you admit that you are fallible and that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the contrary-to-Catholic statements you ever make here are just as possibly wrong as was your Ignatius/Joseph "boner."

Therefore I will stand by my original post and will trust that the Catholics here are seeing right through the swiss-cheesy arguments that you keep posting.

The only thing to which I will respond is this foolish question of yours, the answer to which is so obvious to everyone else who is Catholic ==> "Exaclty WHY do peopel feel compelled to attakc this partucular tranlation?" (i.e., "Exactly WHY do people feel compelled to attack this particular translation?").

The attacks on the KJV are not really due to the fact that it is so hard to understand, though even that would be a justifiable reason for attacks. Nowadays, huge numbers of people can't be bothered with trying to read something that is only 90% understandable, and then being forced to look elsewhere for the meaning of the other 10%. Even that 90% claim is deceptive, as it is not true that the average person can grasp 90% of the text effortlessly. Instead, a good bit of that 90% is merely what people tend to "puzzle out" with great effort, insecurely hoping that they got it right.

OK. So if the impossibility of understanding the KJV's thousands of archaisms is not the real reason for the attacks, what is the reason?

The reason has been given over and over and over again! The fact that you missed it and still have to ask is why I earlier judged your acumen to be substandard. So I will tell you why again, one last time.

The KJV is subject to just attacks because (and I'll put it in "caps" so you won't miss it again) IT HAS MISLED COUNTLESS MILLIONS, IF NOT BILLIONS, OF PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THAT GOD HAS GIVEN MANKIND ONLY 66 INSPIRED BOOKS AND THAT CATHOLICS TRUST IN 7 NON-INSPIRED BOOKS. This doubly misleading action was engineered by, and very pleasing to, SATAN. He WANTS people to disregard those seven great books and to think that Catholicism is wrong! Any Bible version, such as the KJV, that either falsely tells zillions of Christians that Wisdom and Tobit and Judith, etc., are not divinely inspired, or that completely leaves out seven books without even mentioning them, IS SUBJECT TO MUCH-DESERVED ATTACKS LIKE MINE. Got it now, Zarove?

There are three other valid reasons for the KJV to be attacked, and I really couldn't care less how you feel about these reasons ===> (1) the thousands of translation errors in the KJV, vastly more than in the RSV-CE and NAB, and (2) the fact that the version bears the name of a persecutor of English Catholics, and (3) the fact that it is also referred to as "the Authorized Version" despite having never been "authorized" by the only Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church (members of which wrote the New Testament, members of which preserved the text from destruction, and popes and councils of which infallibly tell us that there are 73 divinely inspired books).

-- Typist (asdf@jkl.com), February 20, 2005.


Zarove has been commended many times on this forum for his contributions and the way he interacts with the people here. As for his dyslexia, I find it not only a cheap shot that you attack him for his spelling, but I find it disgusting that you would in fact do so, knowing that he has this condition, and then go even further to attack his intelligence. Zarove is a very intelligent person and has shared many things here with substance and character. If you're going to discuss the matter of the KJV, do it in the spirit of an ambassador of Christ.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.

Zarove, I could rip your latest post to shreds, just as I did your first one.

You didnt rip it to shreds, all you did was say the KJV is VASTLY infirior to the RSV, claie it was error laden ( wihtout proof, I may add) and then claimed I wa slying. in adiditon to claimign I was not a native English speaker, dispite the fact that england uses english and I lived most of my life in Tennessee.

You didnt rip anyhtign to shreds, all you did was make accusations.

Now, if you can pleas emove on and get a life, and allow me my prefernece of Bibles withotu the need to rip into IT then we widl make progress.

However, I won't bother, for a couple of other reasons: (1) I would have to use an hour just to correct all your spelling mistakes in the passages that I'd want to quote, and

This is called he cheap shot. Tyruign to goat an argument.

In other words " I desotyred you last time and cna again but won because your too lame."

relaly, this means you CANT argue agaisnt me, you just want to seem superor.

Look, if you jhave a problem with me, sorry. If you don like the lJV, fine. why the need to put otherds down though?

(2) you would fail to acknowledge how wrong you are, because you seem to lack the intellectual acumen to put two and two together, so I would be wasting my time on you.

es if I where smart I woudl acknowledge how wonderful yo are and how terrible the KJV is.

Really, the ateists who come here say the same thing. "Christians, as dumb as they are, dont een beleive this" coems to mind form seirra.

Is insultign my intelegence realy what it means ot be a good cahtolic?

I am no where near as limited in intelelct as you make out, what you relaly mean by this is yet another cheap shot. You want to look superior while bakcoung out of an arugment to generate a flase image of a victory.

The truth is you have no where near the ability to prove the KJV is th worse Bible tranlaiton ever made or that I diliberatrly lied to anyone, and all you want to do is put me down again to make more extravegant boasts.

I do nto approciate beign called an idiot by someone who cant even remotely defend his statements, elast of all since I obviouslypoossess an intelelct far above average. ot to boast, but lets be realistic, your callign me an idiot because I use the KJV and disagre with you. Isnt that childish Pelleigario?

I'm pretty well convinced that your dyslexia does not only cause you to mix up letters when you write, but also to mix up concepts to such a great extent that you cannot grasp other people's logical arguments.

To dat you have ye tot make a logical arugment.

Basiclaly, saing "The revied standard verison is a vast imprivement over the King James Verison" isnt a lgical argument, tis an affirmative statement.

Nor is saying "The King James Verison is error laden" a logical argument.

Your last post and this one arent advocatign logic, their relying on pesonal attacks aimed at me for npo reason.

You want to call me an idiot becsue I dotn get your arguments, yet the relaity is you made no arguments.

You cannot prive the kJV is infirior by repeatign over and over aain that its infirior. You cant prve he KJV is error laden by repeatign ove and over agai that its error laden.

Those arent logical arguments, they arent even argumens, thei repetitious affirmations.

Callign me an idiot isnt a ;ogical argumen either, its an ad hominim attakc.

Its choldihs and petty for you to attakc soemone for disagreieng with you, and to daye I have posted more useful informaiton than you have.

I stand by my past recorfd, what do you have, more cheap insults?

Thus you remain mired in ignorance, and you pitiably try to defend the indefensible.

Yet at the sam time, my defence of the kJV is unneeded here since yout "Logical Argument" that I cant udnersand consists entirley of declarign it error laden without the slightest hint of evidence.

The last time anyoen did attakc it it was Paul H, and all he did was cut-and-paste a sandardised liust, which many verses corrosponded to the NAB.

Im not mired in irngoance, but I can plainly see that you ar emired in arrogance and mean-spirited guile for makign suhc useless and pathetic attakcs.

Your admission concerning your St. Ignatius/St. Joseph error just about bowled me over, as it was the first time I had ever seen you admit to having made a mistake (out of the very many mistakes you have made, beginning with your failure to become a Catholic).

If bt "error" you mean " Places where you disagre with me personally" then Im not surprised. However my true Charecter is grossly diverent form the image of me you portray here.

whats mroe, will you admit to your errors?

For instance, when you said I was not a Native English speaker?

Ad speakign of whihc, oen of my errors is the use of the kJV which is error laden, you lciam this is because I am too ignorant and stubborn to listen to your well made logical argumens, btu a logical argument is not " Its infirior and needs ot be thown away".

I do hope you learn basic logic befoe deciding to post in the future.

In fact, your admission of error ought to help your mind snap into the realm of reality.

More mean-spirited guile form you? More Ad Hominim attacks? Is this what passes for "Logical argument" and "crection of error" in yor world?

It should make you admit that you are fallible and that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the contrary-to-Catholic statements you ever make here are just as possibly wrong as was your Ignatius/Joseph "boner."

And how may Anti-Catholci staements have I acutlaly made? really now, I am actulaly not that bad, you veiw methrough a filter. It seems raher paranoid to think " Non-Cahtolic" means "Anti-Catholic."

I have no problems with Cahtolisism, I merley disagree with a few things.

You on the other hand hate the KJV Bible, for no real reason, and think it is sufficient to say all other Bibels ar superior to it as a lofical raon to reject it, and claimign that its eror laden is enough to prve how bad it is. No facts need coem form your keyboard, jts your decaration, for you ar einfallable, and I am a mere mrotal Zarove who cannot comprehend your swords...

Again, beign rude and cruel in word is not at all evidence to your superiority.

Therefore I will stand by my original post and will trust that the Catholics here are seeing right through the swiss-cheesy arguments that you keep posting.

If any Catholic is swayed by yor arugment to belive the KJV is error laen, I shall have seriosu rservatiosn about their intellect, to be frank.

Again, all you did was declare that the KJV was eerror laden an the Revised standard verison was far, far superior. You presented no evidnece and merely mae his claim.

Then, when soemone stood up to you, you attakced their charecter.

this is what you call logical arugment and fact. Its what everyone else calls stupid and cheap.

The only thing to which I will respond is this foolish question of yours, the answer to which is so obvious to everyone else who is Catholic ==> "Exaclty WHY do peopel feel compelled to attakc this partucular tranlation?" (i.e., "Exactly WHY do people feel compelled to attack this particular translation?").

The attacks on the KJV are not really due to the fact that it is so hard to understand, though even that would be a justifiable reason for attacks. Nowadays, huge numbers of people can't be bothered with trying to read something that is only 90% understandable, and then being forced to look elsewhere for the meaning of the other 10%. Even that 90% claim is deceptive, as it is not true that the average person can grasp 90% of the text effortlessly.

Its not "deceptive", and its priven, Do need toprve it to you using the US Department of edication? They teste the text at a 5th grade level.

So saying his is deceptive, just liejt he ":Error laden" claism are.And its not liek you go out of yor way to prive its error laden, you just make the same claim ahain as if this makes it authoritative.

Instead, a good bit of that 90% is merely what people tend to "puzzle out" with great effort, insecurely hoping that they got it right.

Isn't this the arugment againt Sola scirptura in General?Regardless of translation?

OK. So if the impossibility of understanding the KJV's thousands of archaisms is not the real reason for the attacks, what is the reason?

Its not relaly that hard to read, your exagerating, and I think your above hate-filled drivel is evidence in m favour when I say yo have discredited yourself as biased.

The reason has been given over and over and over again! The fact that you missed it and still have to ask is why I earlier judged your acumen to be substandard. So I will tell you why again, one last time.

Oh I idnt miss it, but you will not by chance liten to my sttaements and instead prefer to insult my intellect.You somehow think this strengthens your case.

The KJV is subject to just attacks because (and I'll put it in "caps" so you won't miss it again) IT HAS MISLED COUNTLESS MILLIONS, IF NOT BILLIONS, OF PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THAT GOD HAS GIVEN MANKIND ONLY 66 INSPIRED BOOKS AND THAT CATHOLICS TRUST IN 7 NON-INSPIRED BOOKS.

No, it idd not.

1: It was oriigonally translated with 12 additional books, upping the conten to 78.

2: Martain Luthers Bibel was the firts to call the books "Apocrypha", een it contained them though.

3: Over the centuries, many contested these books,including faithful Catholics, starting with Jerome who tranlated the Vulgate.

4: Most Protestant Bible prior tot he advent of the AV 1611 and after it, those that arent dependant upon it at all such as te Modern NIV or the NASV, have only the 66 books. The Protestant Caon has nly 66 Books. This was true before the AV came out.

Only a fool woiudl blame the kJv for this, since it not only ignores the origional KJV, but ognores the fac tthat these books where expunged long before 1611, and indeed, had thr KJV never been printed, they woidl sill be expnged.

This doubly misleading action was engineered by, and very pleasing to, SATAN.

Assuming, of ocurse, yor righ and th ebooks ar einsired. I shant get too deeply into tha debate, hwoever, it is presumption to asusme this.

He WANTS people to disregard those seven great books and to think that Catholicism is wrong!

You know,if I where truely the anti-Cahtolic hatemonger you said I was, I coidl jst as easily go to a Chick style message baord and hear hwo Satan loves the extra books and how the Catholic HCuhc is of Satan.

Isnt this the same thing? Isnt this just paranoid hate mongering and oversimplification?

The books you refer to wher removed for theological and historical reaosns that you seem unwillign to acknolege, and the queation on their inpsiration was palced long before the reformation.

But why get io that? Why listen to me, Im an idiot, i lakc intelelcual acumen, unliek you. Saying its all Satan and declarigm me wrong is suficient to prove yor vast intellect...

Any Bible version, such as the KJV, that either falsely tells zillions of Christians that Wisdom and Tobit and Judith, etc., are not divinely inspired, or that completely leaves out seven books without even mentioning them, IS SUBJECT TO MUCH-DESERVED ATTACKS LIKE MINE. Got it now, Zarove?

So, basiclaly, yor a rqabid Jack CHikc clone, only Catholic. You dotn care abouthte facts, you don concern yourself as to why the books where rmeoved or queationed, you only care that everyone agrees with you.

Mind you, I use those books, espcilaly here on a Catholic Board.

However, I do not proclaim either side to be the side lead direclty by Satan and undersand boht the reasosn for their inclusion and exclusion, which you do not.

There are three other valid reasons for the KJV to be attacked, and I really couldn't care less how you feel about these reasons ===>

At this point I doubt anyone cares muhc for yoyr claims. They ar eutterly ridiculous...

(1) the thousands of translation errors in the KJV, vastly more than in the RSV-CE and NAB, and

Simpleu declarign it has "Vastly more errors" than the NAB and RSV- CE is, to put it again to you, not sufficient evidence for this to be correct.

Simpley declarign it as a fact does not make it so.

The KJV has fewer errors than the RSV and NAB, and I woudl prove it agaisnt anyone who asks.

However, since you makde the declaration, care yo PROVE this to be the case? Or do you honesly think that merely repeatign that it has thousands upon thousands of errors, far more than any Cahtolci Bible, is enough to convence everyone that its not to be trusted and filled with errors?

Really, this sin evidence and isn a logical argument.

And my rejecting it doesnt prove I lack the intellectual acumen to undertsand it.

I understand wuit well. The KJV is filled wiht more errors than any other Bibel tranlation.

What you do undertsand is that the statement isnt a true one.

You js basiclaly say it is a lot, but never ovver proof that its a true statement, and I contend otherwise.

I learned Hebrew and compared the text tot he mesoraite text. Did you? I took an inerlienir and combed throgh it for the Greek. Dd you?

Can you honeslty say its filled with errors and demonstyrate his as a fact, or can yo just make more acucsatiosn as if they are to be taken seriosuly?

I can always say "The Catholic hcurhc is he hsore of babylon". And why not? I dotn need evidnece, its true becuaae I said it and can find others makign the claim. May as well, icne you alreatd say I am anti-Cahtolic and say many anti-Cahtolic things , dispite htis not beign my record.

You are exaclty like an Anti-Cahtolic though, you make accusatiosn and never prove them.

And expect others to beleive you and join you in your hatred.

(2) the fact that the version bears the name of a persecutor of English Catholics, and

As opposed to? James was not as bad as you may think American.

He passed hte Act of toleration, an Catholics where only persecuted after the Gunpowder plot.

Even then thier was much beter for Cahtolics than Mary mad it for Protestants, so the hatred of Catholcis comes at a ime while that wa sstill etched in living memory.

The Historical events surroudnign the period need to be considered.

Liekwise, considerign its acucracy, I don care.

( I know, its filled with far mroe errors than all other Biels, whatever. its the most accurate English Bible in current existance I say, and will stand by this unless proiven wrng. And you alreayd Know I admit error when I make error.)

(3) the fact that it is also referred to as "the Authorized Version" despite having never been "authorized" by the only Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church (members of which wrote the New Testament, members of which preserved the text from destruction, and popes and councils of which infallibly tell us that there are 73 divinely inspired books).

Thats a stupid reason, to be blunt.

Its named hr Authorised Version because it was AUhtorised by the King to be read i the churhces. No one claimed it was Uahtoridsed by the CVahtilic hcurch...

But its just a name...so who cares?

The text is the most accurate English Text available, this is why I use it. Sayign its filled with errors doesnt prove is filled with errors. Callign me an idiot for not agreeign with you dosn prve its filled with errors.

Either prove its illed with errors, or else leave me alone in what I choose to read.



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005.


The text is the most accurate English Text available, this is why I use it. Sayign its filled with errors doesnt prove is filled with errors. Callign me an idiot for not agreeign with you dosn prve its filled with errors.

Zarove, could you provide a basis for your statement that the KJV uses the most accurate English possible?

There is a passage in the KJV which says in my Father's house there are many mansions. I believe the correct rendering should be abodes. Would you comment on this?

The word mansion conjurs up thoughts about a physical house of physical awe and splendour, when I believe rather that the passage is referring to the mutual indwelling of God and man.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.


On that regard you must realise the date of the transaltion. "Mansion" in he 1600's meant basicay "apartment". This is on of the few valid critisisms ot he KJV, its daed language.

However, to proe the acuracy ( I appolgie for the lingwinded post shortly afte yours, we posted simultaniously, and I am more use ot the need to defend myself than others dng so)

This is more difficult because all i can say is " I foudn few errors when I personally examined it agisnt he origional texts."

This doe snot mean, hwoever, that no errors exist in the KJV, but they are fewer in number than most critics tend to poin out, and many, liek theoen you mentioned above, are he result of lingual changes over the last few centuries.

A revision ( Such as the Third Millinium Bible) woudl end this problem.

However, as to proving it lacks the number of erros is imposisble since that requirs proving a negative.

I cna prve where it acuraley renders several pasages, but that woidl take up pages and is best for a new thread. I usually get busy an forget, but if I rrmember, Ill post a defence on Ask Jesus of the KJV and its acuracy. I've been meanign o for a whole, but I iften do lot of work onlien and off, and don always manage to keep my obligatons. suhc a when I inended threads for DC.

However, you can compare the KJV to most other Bible versiosn and see that heir is no real differece between them, and indeed, Ironiclaly, the KJV is th emost Cahtolic of the Protestant Bibles, because it was prodiced by the Chruch of england, which was very Catholic at the time, an yet is te oen attacked.

But if you widl like, Ill show why the KJV is at leats usable as a text and accurate. ( Indeed superior to most Modern versios, and in my estemaiton, superior to all avialable, this is no to say the others are nessisariy vastly infirior, only infirior.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005.


Oh and you uoted John 14:2

John 14

1. Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

The New King James reads as follows.

1 "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2In My Father's house are many mansions;[a] if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

The footnote says this.

John 14:2 Literally dwellings

Interstignly, The Douay-Rheims reads htis way.(Mind you, this is one Cahtlcis respect...)

1 Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

Youngs Literal follows suit.

1`Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, also in me believe; 2in the house of my Father are many mansions; and if not, I would have told you; I go on to prepare a place for you;

NIV

1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God[a]; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005.


Thanks for the answer. Have you checked out the Recovery Version bible? As to the afforementioned passage, do you think it is talking about the coinherence of God and man? If not, what do you suppose it is referring to?

Cheers

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.


I have not personaly examind the Recovery yet. Nor wil i in the forseeale few months as I have too uch work, and beginnign a new study o Archaic Bibles. ( a new thread I made where I also am attacked...)

so I cannot comment.

As tot he verse, I alays htoguth it merley emant that Jesus went ot prepare a home for us in Heaven, for his followers. Not realy givin muhc dep thought into it as it seemed slef explanitory.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.


A place in heaven? But Revelation 21:2 says that the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

God taught us to pray that His name be sanctified as in the heavens so also on the Earth, His will carried out as in the heavens so also on the Earth, and His kingdom come as in the heavens so also on the Earth.

Although the words as in heaven so also on the Earth only appears once, the grammatical construction ties all the clauses together.

Secondly, God created man to have God's expression and dominion on the Earth. The New Jerusalem is thus not a physical city but a spiritual city, a corporate entity, the church.

God will accomplish this through the church which will become His enlargement for His expression on the Earth.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 21, 2005.


Perhaps this is no he thread for such dicussiosn,a s it is off coruse as is, and n lih of my current attacks on anoher thread, whre of course I attacked the Cahtolci faith and am rde and itmu be valiently defneded, perhaps we can wait naothe time...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ