Here you go. It sums up my argument plus adds a couple.
I had no idea!!!!!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
If it pleased God to use the Greek word for passover, no argument is sufficient to use an unrelated word.
There are problems with almost every English translation of the Bible. It helps to be aware of them.
I generally quote from the King James Version, because it was the standard Bible in England, known to English writers for hundreds of years and influencing numerous poems and novels, and the style is beautiful. There are errors in translation, but they are not all that numerous.
When I taught the Bible I preferred to use the Revised Standard Version. This version was agreed to by a committee of Catholic and Protestant scholars, and where they disagreed the differences are clearly noted. It is based on the KJV, but it corrects those kinds of errors. Unfortunately, it also changes “thou” to you, which I think was unnecessary.
Since the RSV, there have been numerous translations, and most of them have gone sharply downhill. The NRSV introduces numerous errors in the name of feminism and political correctness. The more recent the translation, the more likely that it has been infested by political correctness or dissent. The Catholic version used in the liturgy, the NAB, is atrocious in style and frequently misleading in translation.
The Catholic translators of the Jerusalem Bible did a good job, but it never widely caught on.
Yes, certainly it is foolish to imagine that the KJV is inerrant. But it remains a better translation than most of the politically correct junk that has been published in recent years.
Ignatius Press has put the RSV back into print, and that’s the one I’d generally recommend. It includes what Protestants refer to as the Apocryphal books, but they are clearly labeled as such in case Protestant readers are worried about that. And in fact Protestants like John Milton read and used many of the Apocryphal books without any fear of being contaminated.
As I told Protestants who were assigned this text for the class, you get more for your money, and you can decide for yourself whether they are worth reading.
Well, it just goes to show that the KJV is a defective translation. This is just one example of the defects that exist throughout.
Unfortunately, this defect in a Protestant version of Scripture has been the call for a whole lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. The amusing thing is that the English version of Scripture authorized by the Church (the Douay-Rheims version) that was in existence prior to the KJV actually used the word “Pasch” — the more accurate term, as indicated by the author of this article.
Thanks for posting it, and have a wonderful celebration of the Resurrection of Our Lord.
Narses, thanks for pinging me to this thread.
When all else fails read “From the Translators to the Reader” in the old KJV.
• 12 Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church:
• 13 as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.
The Douay Rheims was translated directly from St. Jerome's 4th century Latin Vulgate.
Has anyone here actually looked at the text of the AV of 1611? No, I don’t mean the revision in use today, I mean what a reader of the early 1600s would have read. Unless one already knows what they are reading it’s virtually unreadable. So if anyone says that the KJV is the only allowable translation they should get a copy of the original and use it not a revision of a revision.
The truth of God’s Word does not depend upon any paticular translation as the Bible its self shows.
Has anyone here actually looked at the text of the AV of 1611? No, I don’t mean the revision in use today, I mean what a reader of the early 1600s would have read. Unless one already knows what they are reading it’s virtually unreadable. So if anyone says that the KJV is the only allowable translation they should get a copy of the original and use it not a revision of a revision.
The truth of God’s Word does not depend upon any paticular translation as the Bible its self shows.
When doing hard core Bible exegesis I generally review several translations. For just reading the Bible I am sold on the English Standard Version.
Amazing how God could get us perfect originals, but couldn't perserve them?
It is always funny to read how 'scholars' cannot figure out how God can raise up godly men to get His work done.
So, the author begins like all King James critics as a Bible skeptic, believing that God almost preserved His words perfectly, but not quite.
Why was God able to keep most of His words (95%), but couldn't manage to perserve those last 5%, (the difference between the two major text types, the TR and the Critical)?
Why are the modern versions constantly changing their translations, usually to match the King James readings?
Why has the Nestle-Aland text had to reintroduce hundreds of readings from the TR and KJB into its 26th edition?
The King James Bible is God's perfect words in English.(pr.30:5)
KJV only is B.S. Everyone knows the NIV is the only accurate translation.