Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[Steven Avery]

So with that in mind, lets' try again, which Catholic churches USE the NIV for their services?

That is a non-issue. The real issue is that the rcc supports the critical texts, and never the Reformation Bible, from the Greek Received Texts.  In that sense the 200+ English translations of the CT are from the rcc-approved Greek text.

Steven

 

[subllibrm]

So why am I chiming in?  Simply because it’s been bandied about how “regular” people interpret the Bible at “face value”.  Well, I am a “regular” person.  So I thought I might explain how I, a regular person, interpret Revelation 3:15-16:
...
So that’s my “regular” interpretation of those verses.  Take it as you will.

It is no surprise to me that a post-modernist approach sides with a modernist approach. Same spirit behind it.

Well we can see how the gifts of the spirit manifest in your interaction with God's people.

All the other stuff aside, you have in this one post shown your total lack of grace and love toward the brethren. You are, in what I would call a "regular" English phrase, a jerk.

 

[subllibrm]

So with that in mind, lets' try again, which Catholic churches USE the NIV for their services?

That is a non-issue. The real issue is that the rcc supports the critical texts, and never the Reformation Bible, from the Greek Received Texts.  In that sense the 200+ English translations of the CT are from the rcc-approved Greek text.

Steven

A non-issue? Then tell BibleBaloney to stop calling things "Vatican produced" when you know very well he is wrong and lying.

 

[Steven Avery]

> Biblebeleiver
> "As a matter of fact; you reject the English text of the protestant reformation while embracing Rome's bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) As well as Rome's corrupt manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus)."

While there are some difficulties, there is no "lying".  All the modern English versions mentioned are from the Rome-approved critical text.  Alexandrinus is not a Rome manuscript, and is rather Byzantine in the gospels.  Sinaiticus has its own unusual pedigree.

Steven Avery

 

[subllibrm]

> Biblebeleiver
> "As a matter of fact; you reject the English text of the protestant reformation while embracing Rome's bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) As well as Rome's corrupt manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus)."

While there are some difficulties, there is no "lying".  All the modern English versions mentioned are from the Rome-approved critical text.  Alexandrinus is not a Rome manuscript, and is rather Byzantine in the gospels.  Sinaiticus has its own unusual pedigree.

Steven Avery

Then produce the proof that these translations belong to the Vatican. You do know that an apostrophe after a noun makes is possessive, correct? "Rome's" = ownership. That is a lie.

 

[Steven Avery]

Then produce the proof that these translations belong to the Vatican. You do know that an apostrophe after a noun makes is possessive, correct? "Rome's" = ownership. That is a lie.

They are Rome's Bibles in the sense that they come from the Greek text approved by Rome. I agree that the connection can be referenced more precisely. If we say that the AV is the fundamentalist Baptist's Bible, or the historic Presbyterian's Bible it does not mean they are the owners.

 

[subllibrm]

Then produce the proof that these translations belong to the Vatican. You do know that an apostrophe after a noun makes is possessive, correct? "Rome's" = ownership. That is a lie.

They are Rome's Bibles in the sense that they come from the Greek text approved by Rome. I agree that the connection can be referenced more precisely.

Nice way of avoiding saying the man is a whack job.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Then produce the proof that these translations belong to the Vatican. You do know that an apostrophe after a noun makes is possessive, correct? "Rome's" = ownership. That is a lie.

They are Rome's Bibles in the sense that they come from the Greek text approved by Rome. I agree that the connection can be referenced more precisely.

So every text that is approved by Rome would be considered "Rome's Bible"?

 

[praise_yeshua]

> Biblebeleiver
> "As a matter of fact; you reject the English text of the protestant reformation while embracing Rome's bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) As well as Rome's corrupt manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus)."

While there are some difficulties, there is no "lying".  All the modern English versions mentioned are from the Rome-approved critical text.  Alexandrinus is not a Rome manuscript, and is rather Byzantine in the gospels.  Sinaiticus has its own unusual pedigree.

Steven Avery

Then produce the proof that these translations belong to the Vatican. You do know that an apostrophe after a noun makes is possessive, correct? "Rome's" = ownership. That is a lie.

Lies and half truths are the "norm" with most any KJVOist.

For instance, Avery is ignoring the fact early Byzantine text type manuscripts are somewhat different than later Byzantine texts. Disagreeing less with Alexandrian texts.

 

[bgwilkinson]

> Biblebeleiver
> "As a matter of fact; you reject the English text of the protestant reformation while embracing Rome's bibles (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) As well as Rome's corrupt manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus)."

While there are some difficulties, there is no "lying".  All the modern English versions mentioned are from the Rome-approved critical text.  Alexandrinus is not a Rome manuscript, and is rather Byzantine in the gospels.  Sinaiticus has its own unusual pedigree.

Steven Avery

Then produce the proof that these translations belong to the Vatican. You do know that an apostrophe after a noun makes is possessive, correct? "Rome's" = ownership. That is a lie.

Lies and half truths are the "norm" with most any KJVOist.

For instance, Avery is ignoring the fact early Byzantine text type manuscripts are somewhat different than later Byzantine texts. Disagreeing less with Alexandrian texts.

So are we saying that the Orthodox Church, the one that made most of the Byzantine Bibles, is not a Catholic Church?

Well I guess they do not believe in the real presence during Mass.

 

[Steven Avery]

So every text that is approved by Rome would be considered "Rome's Bible"?

In the context of the Reformation Bible compared to the rcc Bibles, sure.
An example of versions that are neither would be the Peshitta or the Greek Byzantine text.

So are we saying that the Orthodox Church, the one that made most of the Byzantine Bibles, is not a Catholic Church? Well I guess they do not believe in the real presence during Mass.

There can be an honest difference of opinion as to whether the Orthodox should be considered Catholic.  They certainly claim not. They use the traditional Greek text and then took corrections from the Reformation Bible.  Afaiak, as insitutions they have have not yet been duped into the textus corruptus.

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Lies and half truths are the "norm" with most any KJVOist. For instance, Avery is ignoring the fact early Byzantine text type manuscripts are somewhat different than later Byzantine texts. Disagreeing less with Alexandrian texts.

 
I'm really not sure what is the supposed specific half truth or lie that is your accusation.

Maybe your reference is to Washingtonianus, which is only Mark.  I am curious what manuscripts you are specifically referencing.  (It is interesting in its own right, even if irrelevant to the earlier conversation.)

Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

So every text that is approved by Rome would be considered "Rome's Bible"?

In the context of the Reformation Bible compared to the rcc Bibles, sure.
An example of versions that are neither would be the Peshitta or the Greek Byzantine text.

Are you sure? Is that your answer?

 

[FSSL]

The FFF is overrun with modernists!! What are we to do?!

 

[bibleprotector]

The FFF is overrun with modernists!! What are we to do?!

... be zealous therefore, and repent.

 

[Biblebeliever]

Not one of which is used by the Catholic church.

Are you certain about that??

USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics

1983 - Present

The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1).  Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese. 

What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.     

In addition to the translations listed below, 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. 

Books of the New Testament, Alba House

Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications

New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches

The Psalms, Alba House

The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company

The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company

Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)

So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House

Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society

Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

 

[FSSL]

If it were not for Catholics, there would not be a King James Bible

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-catholicism-contributed-to-the-king-james-bible#.VJTUZ2gAIF

 

[bgwilkinson]

Not one of which is used by the Catholic church.

Are you certain about that??

USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics

1983 - Present

The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1).  Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese. 

What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.     

In addition to the translations listed below, 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. 

Books of the New Testament, Alba House

Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications

New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches

The Psalms, Alba House

The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company

The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company

Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)

So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House

Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society

Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

And you pretend you are not Catholic.

lol  ;D

 

[Steven Avery]

And you pretend you are not Catholic.  lol  ;D

Rather a dumb comment.

If the question is what texts do the rcc use, then it is helpful to know what they use, including various modern versions, even the NIV.

Steven

 

[subllibrm]

Not one of which is used by the Catholic church.

Are you certain about that??

USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics

1983 - Present

The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1).  Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese. 

What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.     

In addition to the translations listed below, 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. 

Books of the New Testament, Alba House

Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society

Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society

The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications

New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches

The Psalms, Alba House

The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company

The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company

Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)

So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House

Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society

Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society

So really, it should be the Latinist Catlicks complaining about Rome using Protestant bibles.