Nevertheless, Luther changed the Bible (took out words and added words) so the King James is incomplete and inaccurate.
Yet millions of souls are saved eternally as you quibble over words.
Do tell what the German Martin Luther had to do with the English King James Bible.
I'm all ears.
Anyone who does a translation “changes” what they translate. That is why no translation should be unquestioningly accepted. However, Luther’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into German. Tyndale’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into English, and the KJV owes a great deal to Tyndale.
And since the D-R Bible is essentially a KJV with Roman Catholic theology inserted (regardless of the Greek or Hebrew), the most famous Catholic English translation owes a lot to the KJV and thus Tyndale as well!
Hey, weren't you just advising, Everyone needs to check the facts.??? I hope you realize that Luther had NOTHING to do with the KJV. His was a GERMAN translation of Greek and Hebrew texts done nearly a century BEFORE the KJV. And, as with ALL translations, some words can be and some cannot be brought over word for word. So, even that part of your post was without facts.
Is this a "we hate Luther" week? "Cuz it sure seemed that y'all liked him last week when he talked about Mary.
You need to take a break from your reactionary attack- Prots-at-any-cost-of-credibility posting. Luther did not translated the KJV, nor was it a translation of his work, though it was one one of many that would be consulted, including the Catholic Rheims bible.
Nor does it add "alone" to Rm. 3:28 as Luther did (and come Catholic writers as well), while it is more of a word for word type translation, versus "dynamic equivalence" like your NAB.
Moreover, it places most words supplied by translators hoping to better provide the meaning in italics so that you know, unlike most other Bibles, including Catholic ones.
In addition, it has been abundantly documented, including here, that Luther was not a maverick in excluding the apocrypha as Scripture proper, as their inclusion as such was debated down thru the centuries and right into Trent, and that the Prot canon has ancient testimony.
Now tell me if you agree with your bishop's choice of the NAB.