Posted on 11/27/2010 7:12:53 AM PST by re_tail20
“The Catholic Church gathered/Organized/ordered the Canon and is exclusivley responsible for it’s protection for almost 2000 years. So yeah.....”
You do realize there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years. Frankly, as a Baptist, it looks to me like the Bishop of Rome broke with all the other bishops, not they with him. Even if one grants that a hierarchical church was God’s plan - and I do not - then one would need to ask who broke away from whom. Even after the hierarchy developed, the Bishop of Rome was responsible for his area, and other bishops responsible for theirs.
Yes, I’ve read Matthew 16:16, but I see no justification for the idea that Peter was to rule over all others. If that was what Jesus was trying to communicate, he sure didn’t speak clearly!
That said, the church in 400 AD agreed (mostly) on what was being used as scripture, although it continued to debate the value of the Apocrypha and many continued to debate on Revelations. It was a bottom up process, with the council recognizing what was already accepted rather than pulling a list out of its own mind. The congregations drove the decision by what they already accepted.
The Hebrew scriptures, without any controlling body determining them, were already recognized as scripture. The Gospels, Paul’s letters and 1 Peter and 1 John were recognized as scripture almost as soon as the ink dried.
Nor was the Roman Catholic Church responsible as custodian of the scriptures, since the Orthodox also kept copies, as did other groups. And Protestant Bibles, except Wycliffe’s translation, have never been based on Jerome’s translation. Tyndale and Luther both went to the Greek and Hebrew, not the Vulgate.
The Vatican DOES have many valuable manuscripts. So does the British Museum...
“...exclusivley responsible for it’s protection for almost 2000 years.”
I suspect Wycliffe, Tyndale and others would dispute the exclusive protection the Catholic Church gave. The Word of God was meant for all men. Protecting it by locking it up was, shall we say, a bit misguided. I’d rather see scripture ‘protected’ the way the Wycliffe Bible Translators do it (http://www.wycliffe.org/).
Everyone should read the Apocrypha at least once so you will see why they are as irrelivant(sic) as THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, which is in the Alexandrian MMS..
The KJV! Four hundred years old and still going strong!
From 397- until the 17th century the only Bibles contained the Duetrocanicals, approximately 1300 years and you are bragging about a measly 400 years.
Get over your self and get some perspective.
Look at the very first machine printed Bibles from Gutenberg in the 1450's everyone of them contained the duetrocanicals in order and complete.
Quit acting like a petulant child and do some real adult research.
What percentage knew who King James was?
***The KJV! Four hundred years old and still going strong!***
***Quit acting like a petulant child and do some real adult research.-Verga***
The KJV! Four hundred years of being a burr under the Catholic saddle! ;-)
The manuscripts aren't inaccurate. While sometimes they vary slightly, they're amazingly consistent considering how many times they were copied and re-copied.
The KJV doesn't win points merely for being "old". If anything, there's more reason to criticize its somewhat laborious translation. It really isn't all that great of a translation, and it suffers badly from dated word usage that has changed greatly over the centuries. I'm not stuck on any particular translation, I've got several and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. None of them are really "wrong". For general reading I tend to like the NIV the best, but for serious study I have a Greek New Testament with parallel literal english side by side.
The "KJV only" crowd is misguided, IMHO. It was a remarkable accomplishment for the time, and it deserves preservation has a key historical step in the history Christianity and the world. But there's nothing special about that particular translation that places it above all others. In fact, it's just not suitable for serious study now that we have better and more accurate translations available.
You wrote:
“According to a NY Times article from 1906, of the editions put out prior to Luthers’ all but one were folios...”they were not publications for the people”.”
False. Folios meant large size. The Bible is a large book. Luther’s Bible and even his NT were often in Folio size.
“As for the one published in mass, “This followed the Latin model so doggedly that its German text can only be grasped by someone who knows Latin grammar as well.””
That doesn’t change the fact that it is in the vernacular and was meant for common German speakers. Luther altered the text to satisfy his own heresy. Which is worse?
“The figure of 100,000 Bibles in 40 years comes from one printer alone, and was for complete Bibles.”
I already mentioned that. I am not very impressed by an average of 2,500 copies a year in a nation of many millions.
“The impact was huge, and everyone without a PhD seems to have recognized that.”
I mentioned that this, “The grand total from all printers is very impressive.”
Clearly the bigotry of anti-Catholics makes them unable to read what is right in front of them.
You wrote:
“Only if an accurate translation is heresy.”
Produced by a heretic, it would be suspect no matter what.
“As for the notes, here is a reproduction of his 1526 New Testament...look at all those notes:”
And you think that was the only edition? Even you can’t be that lazy.
You wrote:
“Vladimer said the English translations were good, then attacks them.”
False. All translations have good and bad points. I always distinguish one from the other whenever I talk about any translation. Was the KJV a good translation overall? Yes. Was it faulty as well? Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. The two are in fact quite common - typical in fact.
I suspect a lot of them have heard of it at one point or another, but it just didn't stick.
****Valid wrote:
The Douay and Tyndale largely agreed to begin with. Quite frankly almost all English Bibles do except for dated vocabularly.****
(I wrote:
“Vladimer said the English translations were good, then attacks them.”
Vlad writes:
False. All translations have good and bad points....
Was the KJV a good translation overall? Yes. Was it faulty as well? Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. The two are in fact quite common - typical in fact.
I wrote...Are there better translations today? YES! But they don’t have the “music” that public reading of the KJV has.
Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Again, you said Tyndale and DR largely agree!
To study the Bible imo, all versions should be available plus a good concordance (a Strong one works) PLUS a comparison Bible with several versions side by side plus Greek and Hebrew.
Works for me...
Well stated.
I found an interesting argument comes from noting that there are some NT passages which our Lord quoted from the Septuagint, which were not exact translations of the Hebrew, but were still adequate as Scripture in the NT.
So we have a few verses, in both Greek and Hebrew in the canon of Scripture which quoted one from the other, but not an exact translation,....yet, God the Holy Spirit still has sufficient ammunition to sanctify the believer who studies them and thinks them through faith in Christ.
This shows that His Word is more powerful than simply a holy book, but rather it’s the proper thinking through faith in Him which provides the believer with access to Him.
You wrote:
“Again, you said Tyndale and DR largely agree!”
And that still means you were wrong when you said: “Vladimer said the English translations were good, then attacks them.”
I never said that Tyndale’s Bible was good. I never said it was terribly bad. ALMOST ALL BIBLES LARGELY AGREE. Even the NWT - the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation - largely agrees with most other Bibles. It is still so terribly faulty that I would never want anyone to use it. Most Bibles agree on all but a relative handful of verses. They can differ wildly on those handful of verses, however. I have always said this. I have always been right about it too. I have been consistent - and consistently right - throughout.
I, in fact, like the beautiful language of the KJV - although I like many of the variant readings in the original 1611 better than what became the definitive edition of the KJV. I also know that it is an overall good translation. It also has faults. Some of them are real problems. Others are minor. I have never said otherwise. I have been right all along.
I've always been one of those that believes that ol' William had a hand in the KJV.
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.