Roman Catholics hold KJV in high regard, claim major part in authorship

bgwilkinson

bgwilkinson

Active member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
10
Points
38
News flash from The Catholic News Agency

Quote

“Most people don’t understand the history of the King James Bible. There is a rich history, a very positive history of Catholic contribution to the creation of it,” Summers said.


"Vatican City, Feb 28, 2012 / 11:12 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A new interfaith exhibition that opens this week at the Vatican reveals how the roots of the 1611 King James Bible are almost entirely Catholic – despite the fact that the translation was often viewed as a highpoint of Protestant European culture.

“If it had not been for the Catholics of the 1500s there would be no King James Bible,” exhibition organizer Cary Summers told CNA.

“Many of the original bibles that formed the basis of the King James Bible came from Catholic priests. Very few changes were made. The ancient writings that the King James writers actually mimicked and copied were by Catholic priests,” he explained."

From this article it appears Catholics approve of the KJV.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-exhibition-highlights-catholic-roots-of-king-james-bible/
 
That's historical revisionism. The Romanists just want to take the glory for themselves.
 
bibleprotector said:
That's historical revisionism. The Romanists just want to take the glory for themselves.
Click to expand...
Even if the RC was against the KJV,  they are correct to link the existence of the KJV to the RCC. Had there not been an Erasmus (RC) in the 1500s, there would not have been a KJV.

The KJV is based directly off the Vulgate and a few mss on loan from the Vatican.

The high RC authorities were against anything attempting to replace their Rhiems. They came up with absurd "denial that vernacular translations are necessary and defends the use of the Latin text rather than the Greek, insisting that where they differ, the Latin is superior." Anchor Bible

The VulgateOnlies and RhiemsOnlies ultimately could not stop the popularity of the KJV.

Today's KJVO behaves and sounds like the good old RCs of old. They deny the value of Hebrew and Greek and they absurdly insist this generation learn Elizabethan English.

 
The oddity here is that these facts were known before the Catholic church made that statement.

The Bible tells us that you that judge do the same thing. The KJO crowd accuses the saints of using Catholic Bibles that have less Catholic influence than the KJV.
 
Guy Fawkes Day is still celebrated in England.
That was an attempt at a contribution by Rome.
 
FSSL said:
The KJV is based directly off the Vulgate and a few mss on loan from the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Uh, well, actually, NOT!

The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible was mostly a revision of the Great Bible by Matthew Parker, who was then Archbishop of Canterbury, and William Alley, who was then Bishop of Exeter.

The Great Bible was a revision of the Tyndale Bible done by Myles Coverdale.

Tyndale translated his bible from the third edition (1522) of Erasmus’s Greek text.

Erasmus edited his Greek text using Minuscule 1eap/rK which, together, contained the entire New Testament with the exception of the last few verses of Revelation.
Minuscule 2e/ap containing the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.
Minuscule 4ap Pauline epistles.
Minuscule 7p Pauline epistles .
Minuscule 817 Gospels.

The only part of his Greek New Testament that could be said to be "based directly off the Vulgate" would be the last six verses of the Revelation which he translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek which accounts for "book of life" (libro vitae) instead of "tree of life (ligno vitae) in Rev 22:19.

:)
 
Yeah..  my bad for saying "directly." The Catholics can still be proud.
 
FSSL said:
Yeah..  my bad for saying "directly." The Catholics can still be proud.
Click to expand...
Okay, I can live with that. There is no question it was the Catholic Byzantines (Eastern) who were most responsible for the preservation of the Greek text, as the Roman Catholic (Western) Church had been using the Old Latin since the late 2nd century AD, and the Latin text of Jerome since 385 AD.

But, even though it was the most commonly used version, it did not earn the name "versio vulgata" (the "version commonly-used") or "vulgate" until the Council of Trent (1545–63).

As the East/West split (The Great Schism) took place in 1054 prior to the Council of Trent it is probably incorrect to refer to the Latin Text of Jerome prior to the Council of Trent as being the vulgate as the text "commonly used" by the Eastern Orthodox was the Byzantine textform which is still used today in the Greek Orthodox Church.

As 5 of the 7 Greek Manuscripts used by Erasmus dated to the 1300s, prior to the Council of Trent, it would, in my opinion, be an error to ascribe to those Greek texts any Roman Catholic imprimatur. Even the competing Greek text of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez, the Complutensian Polyglot, proved unpopular with Roman Catholics to the point where only about 800 copies were ever made. The Western Church had used the revised Latin since the late 4th century to the virtual exclusion of the Greek text which remained the purview of the Eastern Church both before and after the Great Schism. And 6 of the 7 Greek texts used by Erasmus were Byzantine in nature.

:)
 
Thomas Cassidy said:
Even the competing Greek text of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez, the Complutensian Polyglot, proved unpopular with Roman Catholics to the point where only about 800 copies were ever made.
Click to expand...

The whole Spanish scholastic operation at Alcala, which was rather skilled, was closed up, and the scholars dispersed.  Around 1530, maybe a bit later. See the superb article by Basil Hall in the 1990 book  Humanists and Protestants, 1500-1900 - "Cardinal Jimenez de Cisneros and the Complutensian Bible." (I think my copy might have gone to Singapore, so I should consider a replacement.)

The hardening of the counter-Reformation opposition to the Greek text, the opposition to the Reformation Bible, came at Trent c. 1545-1550.  And the Erasmus New Testament ("Received Text") and other writings were put in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (forbidden books.)  Where they stayed at least till the 20th century.

Also, only at Trent was the Latin Vulgate  lifted up as special and the approved text by the rcc. (Which led to the humorous foibles of the editions of the late 1500s.) And it is helpful to understand that before the Trent counter-Reformation decrees there were scholarly elements among the catholics who understood that the Latin Bible needed Greek fountainhead correction.  The rcc support of the Complutensian and Erasmus efforts around 1510-1530 can be seen as quite commendable,

The support of Erasmus quickly hit speedbumps, leading to the Valladolid inquiry of 1527.  There were many elements to opposition, including the biting satire of The Praise of Folly from the early days of Erasmus. And his straddling on issues like transubstantiation.  There were a number of Bible textual issues involved, including the heavenly witnesses.  Although that verse was included by Erasmus in 1522, and had been utilized in the Ratio and in the Paraphrase edition as well. 

It does seem that Thomas Cassidy is one of the few writers, on any side of the Bible writing, who has the basics of the time expressed properly.  Although it should be emphasized that Erasmus had much more familiarity through travels and correspondence to NT manuscripts than just those on hand in the early 1500s when he worked on the Novum Instrumentum (later, Novum Testamentum.)  He even had correspondence on Vaticanus with Bombasius and Sepulveda. And then additional mss were available to Stephanus and Beza, include Codex Bezae, widening the available texts.  Also he had a very solid familiarity with the early church writers, understanding that they give a very important picture of the Bible text of antiquity.  Later this was emphasized by John William Burgon.

The homogeneity of the Greek mss line will show the historic accepted Greek text with a relatively small number of mss on the great mass of variants.  Probability and Statistics 101  :).

Steven Avery
 
I used to think the KJV was a good translation, not inspired, but a good one. Then I started arguing with KJVOnly, and the more I looked at the KJV the worse it got. I now hold the KJV a little above the NIV, and at least way better than the TNIV, which I detest. I'm going to cite one of the reasons.

the KJV seriously mistranslates James 2:14 by omitting the "ho" preceeding the word pistis (faith) from the Greek altogether. First here are some good translations:

First What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? NASB

the footnote gives the more literal Greek which would become "Can the failth save him?

Most other translations also have words like "that faith" or even "that kind of faith"

The Geneva Bible of 1599, which was in fact the Bible the Puritans and English reformers preferred, puts it this way:

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)  14 [a]What availeth it my brethren, though a man saith, he hath faith, when he hath no works? can that faith save him?

Footnotes:
a.James 2:14 The fifth place which hangeth very well with the former treatise, touching a true and lively faith. And the proposition of this place is this: faith which bringeth not forth works, is not that faith whereby we are justified, but an image of faith: or else this, they are not justified by faith, which show not the effects of faith.


Now the KJV by leaving out one Greek letter, "ho" which qualifies faith as a particualr kind of faith, and not faith in general, gives very much the wrong impression:

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? KJV

this is basically a compromise with how the Roman "catholics" mistranslate James 2: 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?[a] Footnotes: a.2.14 Good works are necessary besides faith.

For all KJV lovers: this is a serious mistranslation and one of the many reasons the puritans and reformers saw the King James as a compromise, preferring the Geneva Bible.

Now, Agreed that one can get the meaning by the context. Even the KJV mistranslation can be rectified by a careful study of the context. That does not change the fact that the KJV omits the Greek definite article "ho" which can be translated "the, this, or that"  and has thus caused a MAJOR stumbling block for centuries in the English speaking world, because it is badly mistranslated, become easy for people to take away from the context and misuse.

The point is that the KJV here is a worse translation than the Geneva Bible available at about the same time, and worse than most other translations, even the NIV, which I call a paraphrase.
 
cubanito said:
I used to think the KJV was a good translation, not inspired, but a good one. Then I started arguing with KJVOnly, and the more I looked at the KJV the worse it got. I now hold the KJV a little above the NIV, and at least way better than the TNIV, which I detest. I'm going to cite one of the reasons.

the KJV seriously mistranslates James 2:14 by omitting the "ho" preceeding the word pistis (faith) from the Greek altogether. First here are some good translations:

First What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? NASB

the footnote gives the more literal Greek which would become "Can the failth save him?

Most other translations also have words like "that faith" or even "that kind of faith"

The Geneva Bible of 1599, which was in fact the Bible the Puritans and English reformers preferred, puts it this way:

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)  14 [a]What availeth it my brethren, though a man saith, he hath faith, when he hath no works? can that faith save him?

Footnotes:
a.James 2:14 The fifth place which hangeth very well with the former treatise, touching a true and lively faith. And the proposition of this place is this: faith which bringeth not forth works, is not that faith whereby we are justified, but an image of faith: or else this, they are not justified by faith, which show not the effects of faith.


Now the KJV by leaving out one Greek letter, "ho" which qualifies faith as a particualr kind of faith, and not faith in general, gives very much the wrong impression:

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? KJV

this is basically a compromise with how the Roman "catholics" mistranslate James 2: 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?[a] Footnotes: a.2.14 Good works are necessary besides faith.

For all KJV lovers: this is a serious mistranslation and one of the many reasons the puritans and reformers saw the King James as a compromise, preferring the Geneva Bible.

Now, Agreed that one can get the meaning by the context. Even the KJV mistranslation can be rectified by a careful study of the context. That does not change the fact that the KJV omits the Greek definite article "ho" which can be translated "the, this, or that"  and has thus caused a MAJOR stumbling block for centuries in the English speaking world, because it is badly mistranslated, become easy for people to take away from the context and misuse.

The point is that the KJV here is a worse translation than the Geneva Bible available at about the same time, and worse than most other translations, even the NIV, which I call a paraphrase.
Click to expand...


Well I'm glad you became aware of the falsities of KJVOs.

Comparing one version against another is not the proper way to try a translation, according to Miles Smith a translation should be tried against the original Hebrew and Greek, the Golden Pipes.
 
I'm not a KJVOist by any stretch of the imagination but the Greek text literally reads "the faith". Not "that faith".

"That faith" is generally accepted based on seeing the "article" here as being "anaphoric"... or "contextually" relative to "pisti".

Either way. I would accept what the KJV says as being a valid translation. Those who choose to see it any other way..... are throwing their own bias into verse. The author isn't here to clear it up for us.

However, it is rather clear that the "author" GOES ON to declare that Abraham was justified by works. You can't spin it any other way. Read verse 21. The "author" goes on to say that "faith" is perfected by "works".

It is clear that the author does not see true "faith" without "works". This is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures.

IF you have ever studied the canonical inclusion of "James", you would see that it was only gradually accepted in the NT canon. Even Erasmus questioned the apostolicity of the book of James.
 
praise_yeshua said:
I'm not a KJVOist by any stretch of the imagination but the Greek text literally reads "the faith". Not "that faith".

"That faith" is generally accepted based on seeing the "article" here as being "anaphoric"... or "contextually" relative to "pisti".

Either way. I would accept what the KJV says as being a valid translation. Those who choose to see it any other way..... are throwing their own bias into verse. The author isn't here to clear it up for us.

However, it is rather clear that the "author" GOES ON to declare that Abraham was justified by works. You can't spin it any other way. Read verse 21. The "author" goes on to say that "faith" is perfected by "works".

It is clear that the author does not see true "faith" without "works". This is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures.

IF you have ever studied the canonical inclusion of "James", you would see that it was only gradually accepted in the NT canon. Even Erasmus questioned the apostolicity of the book of James.
Click to expand...
In other words, there is an understood "that", which is common in English.

What other faith could it be referring to, other than the dead faith of someone whose works aren't the result of pure faith?

 
bgwilkinson said:
cubanito said:
I used to think the KJV was a good translation, not inspired, but a good one. Then I started arguing with KJVOnly, and the more I looked at the KJV the worse it got. I now hold the KJV a little above the NIV, and at least way better than the TNIV, which I detest. I'm going to cite one of the reasons.

the KJV seriously mistranslates James 2:14 by omitting the "ho" preceeding the word pistis (faith) from the Greek altogether. First here are some good translations:

First What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? NASB

the footnote gives the more literal Greek which would become "Can the failth save him?

Most other translations also have words like "that faith" or even "that kind of faith"

The Geneva Bible of 1599, which was in fact the Bible the Puritans and English reformers preferred, puts it this way:

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)  14 [a]What availeth it my brethren, though a man saith, he hath faith, when he hath no works? can that faith save him?

Footnotes:
a.James 2:14 The fifth place which hangeth very well with the former treatise, touching a true and lively faith. And the proposition of this place is this: faith which bringeth not forth works, is not that faith whereby we are justified, but an image of faith: or else this, they are not justified by faith, which show not the effects of faith.


Now the KJV by leaving out one Greek letter, "ho" which qualifies faith as a particualr kind of faith, and not faith in general, gives very much the wrong impression:

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? KJV

this is basically a compromise with how the Roman "catholics" mistranslate James 2: 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?[a] Footnotes: a.2.14 Good works are necessary besides faith.

For all KJV lovers: this is a serious mistranslation and one of the many reasons the puritans and reformers saw the King James as a compromise, preferring the Geneva Bible.

Now, Agreed that one can get the meaning by the context. Even the KJV mistranslation can be rectified by a careful study of the context. That does not change the fact that the KJV omits the Greek definite article "ho" which can be translated "the, this, or that"  and has thus caused a MAJOR stumbling block for centuries in the English speaking world, because it is badly mistranslated, become easy for people to take away from the context and misuse.

The point is that the KJV here is a worse translation than the Geneva Bible available at about the same time, and worse than most other translations, even the NIV, which I call a paraphrase.
Click to expand...


Well I'm glad you became aware of the falsities of KJVOs.

Comparing one version against another is not the proper way to try a translation, according to Miles Smith a translation should be tried against the original Hebrew and Greek, the Golden Pipes.
Click to expand...

Hey! You can't correct him...he's a genius!  ;)
 
Steven Avery said:
The homogeneity of the Greek mss line will show the historic accepted Greek text
Click to expand...


According to sound, consistent, just textual measures, were the Greek NT manuscripts on which the printed TR editions were based actually whole, completely homogeneous, and nearly perfect (nothing added, nothing omitted, nothing changed and with absolutely no significant copying errors involving whole verses, whole clauses, whole phrases, or whole words and with only insignificant spelling variations)?

On what sound basis can it be suggested that conjectures or readings found in no known Greek NT manuscripts that were introduced in TR editions can be claimed to present the historic accepted Greek text?
 
Saved people are different and it shows in their works (life). A new creation will be different than it had been. The thinking man has no other option but to respond with "duh".

I am still trying to figure out how teaching this concept got Johnny Mac in so much hot water.
 
logos1560 said:
were the Greek NT manuscripts on which the printed TR editions were based actually whole, completely homogeneous, and nearly perfect
Click to expand...
Of course not.  Try to follow the discussion. The Greek text received improvement by the Reformation BIble dynamic of utilizing the historic Latin lines, the ECW and faith-consistent textual analysis.

Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
logos1560 said:
Quote from: Steven Avery on December 25, 2014, 09:31:49 PM

The homogeneity of the Greek mss line will show the historic accepted Greek text 
Click to expand...

According to sound, consistent, just textual measures, were the Greek NT manuscripts on which the printed TR editions were based actually whole, completely homogeneous, and nearly perfect (nothing added, nothing omitted, nothing changed and with absolutely no significant copying errors involving whole verses, whole clauses, whole phrases, or whole words and with only insignificant spelling variations)?

On what sound basis can it be suggested that conjectures or readings found in no known Greek NT manuscripts that were introduced in TR editions can be claimed to present the historic accepted Greek text?
Click to expand...
Of course not.  Try to follow the discussion. The Greek text received improvement by the Reformation BIble dynamic of utilizing the historic Latin lines, the ECW and faith-consistent textual analysis.
Click to expand...

You ignore my valid point and question asking about your very own term ["historic accepted Greek text"] and thus fail to follow the discussion.  Evidently you may reject the actual, historic accepted Greek text if you assert that it supposedly needed "improvement" based on no clear, consistent, just textual measures. 

Are you in effect showing that you hold no consistent view of Bible preservation and that you likely hold to no clear, consistent, just textual measures or standards?

You present no consistent, just textual analysis that you can demonstrate was clearly actually followed by the makers of the inconsistent, varying printed Textus Receptus editions.

Based on no stated, clear, consistent, just textual measures, do you arbitrarily seek to advocate textual emendations and conjectures that ignore the Greek mss line and that were made to the historic accepted Greek text by a non-Reformer, Roman Catholic--Erasmus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top