Gimme some education

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:56 am

I need some historical facts, please.

As I understand it, Calvinists translated and published a Bible in Geneva, thus called the Geneva Bible. King James didn't think it friendly enough to Catholicism, so he had his translators publish their own version, now known as the King James version.

My question: Did both of these translations come from the same source? What was it/they?

That's enough to get the ball rolling, I think. This is really regarding the New Testament exclusively, since the old Testament's roots are pretty firm.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:59 am

Accountable;1357238 wrote: I need some historical facts, please.

As I understand it, Calvinists translated and published a Bible in Geneva, thus called the Geneva Bible. King James didn't think it friendly enough to Catholicism, so he had his translators publish their own version, now known as the King James version.

My question: Did both of these translations come from the same source? What was it/they?

That's enough to get the ball rolling, I think. This is really regarding the New Testament exclusively, since the old Testament's roots are pretty firm.

Oh dear. James wasn't a catholic - which is one of the reasons he got on to the the throne in the first place. The reason was rather the opposite.

brief history of the king kames bible.

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puritan equates (broadly) to christian fundamentalists.

Every 5th of November in the UK we burn in effigy to remind ourselves the catholic that tried to blow up him and his parliament and restore a catholic monarchy.

Remember, remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder, treason and plot

I see no reason why gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent

To blow up the King and the Parliament

Three score barrels of powder below

Poor old England to overthrow

By God's providence he was catched

With a dark lantern and burning match

Holloa boys, holloa boys

God save the King!

Hip hip hooray!

Hip hip hooray!

A penny loaf to feed ol' Pope

A farthing cheese to choke him

A pint of beer to rinse it down

A faggot of sticks to burn him

Burn him in a tub of tar

Burn him like a blazing star

Burn his body from his head

Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.

Hip hip hooray!

Hip hip hooray!

Be fair to say feelings ran high at the time.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:46 am

gmc;1357250 wrote: Oh dear. James wasn't a catholic - which is one of the reasons he got on to the the throne in the first place. The reason was rather the opposite.
James got the throne because he said he was a Protestant- and because there was nobody else eligible. In reality, he had highly Catholic, right-wing leanings, desiring to rule Britain through bishops as his own appointees, as English and indeed French monarchs had done for centuries previously. That was in order to leave him personally with a life of wasteful luxury and indolence, except perhaps for buggering the court favourites he lavished money on.

It is more than possible that he and his minister Cecil engineered the Gunpowder Plot, because the aftermath was directed more against democratic Protestants than it was against Catholics, whose recusancy was usually treated with indulgence, despite the 'danger'.

Authorised

There is no record of authorisation of the so-called 'King James' Bible by either monarch or Parliament, anywhere, at any time. This book was sold under false pretences under this description until quite recently, when Americans- who are now, in terror of the NIV, very much taken with this archaic version- realised that their government is still, ethically at least, in rebellion against the British Crown and Parliament, and they can hardly describe this Bible as Authorised.

British sellers are now amending their descriptions.

In fact this 'Bible' has no name, as the more fastidious booksellers acknowledge. But if it is named after the appalling James, in the opinion of many the most disastrous English monarch ever, it perhaps makes for an appropriate title. As this book includes several parts that are not regarded as Scripture by the great majority of scholars, the word 'Bible' barely applies to it. One cannot really call it a translation, either, because it was largely a compilation of existing translations, usually by people whose expertise in source languages is completely unrecorded (people who were never paid for their services, at any rate). Most Greek and Hebrew experts had fled the country by the time this project got under way, and the most prominent Greek scholar who remained would have nothing to do with it, and indeed poured scorn on it. Almost all the records of the meetings of these people have unaccountably disappeared, which could be explained by a desire to hide incompetence and political influence- the latter is evident in the final text.

Puritan equates (broadly) to christian fundamentalists.
'Puritan' approximates to 'Calvinist'; and neither is Christian- nor even fundamentalist, by the modern use of the term.

James' opposition to the Geneva Bible was to some extent justified, because the Calvinists had included notes that were seditious in places. The obvious solution was to remove the sedition, or the notes altogether. But James wanted the Bible to be as much like the old Catholic Latin Vulgate as possible, difficult to read and without any competitors, so that regular hearers became inured to the text that was not even understood- which was exactly what happened.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:42 pm

Okay, so whether King James was actually Catholic or not, the Catholic Church uses that version of the Bible, does it not? I don't know, not being Catholic.

I do know that it is the primary version accepted by the lion's share of American Protestants. Even the other popular versions such as the NIV only differ in vernacular, and agree on the fundamentals, right?

And even with all that, the source is in question. What authority went through the letters, notes, diaries, journals, post-its, restaurant napkins, missig audio tapes, security camera video, police interrogation logs, TV interviews, high school essay contest entries, and verbal accounts of drunken confessions at the local pub, with the wisdom to retain the pure "Truth" (capital T) while filtering out the looks-the-same-as-Truth?

Who got to choose the story of Jesus saving the harlot from being stoned (He who is without sin cast the first stone) and reject the story of Jesus picking up the harlot while being stoned (We heard shouts & crashed in the fir store)?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:08 pm

Accountable;1357254 wrote: Okay, so whether King James was actually Catholic or not, the Catholic Church uses that version of the Bible, does it not? I don't know, not being Catholic.
The 'King James' is a Church of England production, copyrighted by the Crown, so it can hardly be used officially by the RCC. Having said that, it is remarkable how often English-speaking RC clerics quote the 'KJ'V in preference to their own translations! It's no surprise at all to those politically aware, though.

I do know that it is the primary version accepted by the lion's share of American Protestants.
Since the devil goes around like a roaring lion, that's a pretty apt metaphor.

Do you know that? The NIV outsells all other versions globally, and the US market makes a big part of the whole. I think it is mainly US fundamentalists who use the KJV, as well as atheists and various antichrists. The weird thing is, the 'KJ' went into great decline everywhere, including the USA, when the RSV and other more modern versions were published. The KJV-only movement started after the NIV was published in America. The 'King James' became 'what you will bloody well read' only when affluent Americans realised what the Bible actually said, and panicked. But that's America, crazy and creepy.

Even the other popular versions such as the NIV only differ in vernacular, and agree on the fundamentals, right?
That depends on what one means by the fundamentals. Why do you think 'KJ'V enthusiasts insist that only their version is 'God's Word'?

And even with all that, the source is in question.
Losers move goalposts.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:03 pm

xyz;1357255 wrote: The 'King James' is a Church of England production, copyrighted by the Crown, so it can hardly be used officially by the RCC. Having said that, it is remarkable how often English-speaking RC clerics quote the 'KJ'V in preference to their own translations! It's no surprise at all to those politically aware, though. Okay, so what is the RCC version called? I'd like to get my hands on one to compare. Did it use the same source(s) as the Protestant versions?

xyz wrote: Do you know that? The NIV outsells all other versions globally, and the US market makes a big part of the whole. I think it is mainly US fundamentalists who use the KJV, as well as atheists and various antichrists. The weird thing is, the 'KJ' went into great decline everywhere, including the USA, when the RSV and other more modern versions were published. The KJV-only movement started after the NIV was published in America. The 'King James' became 'what you will bloody well read' only when affluent Americans realised what the Bible actually said, and panicked. But that's America, crazy and creepy.LOL @ 'various antichrists.'

My church experience is in more fundamentalist circles, and I haven't been to church in over a decade, so I'll happily yield to your knowledge as more current.

xyz wrote: That depends on what one means by the fundamentals. Why do you think 'KJ'V enthusiasts insist that only their version is 'God's Word'?Not a clue. That's why I asked the question.

xyz wrote: Losers move goalposts.I'm absolutely certain that means something to someone.

Who lost? What did they lose? I don't get it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:05 pm

[QUOTE=Accountable;1357267]Okay, so what is the RCC version called? I'd like to get my hands on one to compare. Did it use the same source(s) as the Protestant versions?

Common name is "The Jerusalem Bible"

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:08 am

posted by xyz

James got the throne because he said he was a Protestant- and because there was nobody else eligible. In reality, he had highly Catholic, right-wing leanings, desiring to rule Britain through bishops as his own appointees, as English and indeed French monarchs had done for centuries previously. That was in order to leave him personally with a life of wasteful luxury and indolence, except perhaps for buggering the court favourites he lavished money on.

You need to read up on the history of the anglican church church and the differences between it and the catholic church and what was going on at the time. Episcopcy is a featiure of the roman catholic church just as it is the anglican one but it is not as simple as he was a closet cathlic. He might have believed in the divine right of kings but that didn't mean he was going to accept the authprity of the pope. However that's off topic.

posted by xyz

There is no record of authorisation of the so-called 'King James' Bible by either monarch or Parliament, anywhere, at any time. This book was sold under false pretences under this description until quite recently, when Americans- who are now, in terror of the NIV, very much taken with this archaic version- realised that their government is still, ethically at least, in rebellion against the British Crown and Parliament, and they can hardly describe this Bible as Authorised. British sellers are now amending their descriptions.

We've had this discussion before. Authorise means to give official permission for or to approve. He was the king, he authorised the translation it that is why it eventually became known as the king James authorised version. He didn't need anyone elses permission to do so no matter what obscure american academics might like to argue. Outside of america nobody actually wonders who gave him the authority because the clue is in the word king. If you don't like the name don't use it but cut the crap about how he didn't have the authority to commission it.

posted by xyz

'Puritan' approximates to 'Calvinist'; and neither is Christian- nor even fundamentalist, by the modern use of the term.

The puritans wanted a purer form of christianity. The modern day christian fundamentalists have a direct lineage back to the puritan movement and the fact that there are more christian sects than there are grains of sand and you donlt like the norion doesn't alter that fact. They were fighting about who is the more christian then and they still are today. Accordibng to the catholic church unless you follow their teachings you are not a proper christian anyway so you can take it up with them.

posted by accountable

And even with all that, the source is in question. What authority went through the letters, notes, diaries, journals, post-its, restaurant napkins, missig audio tapes, security camera video, police interrogation logs, TV interviews, high school essay contest entries, and verbal accounts of drunken confessions at the local pub, with the wisdom to retain the pure "Truth" (capital T) while filtering out the looks-the-same-as-Truth?

Who got to choose the story of Jesus saving the harlot from being stoned (He who is without sin cast the first stone) and reject the story of Jesus picking up the harlot while being stoned (We heard shouts & crashed in the fir store)?

The basic answer to your question was in that link I posted. If you are looking for nice simple trail from the time of JC to the present day showing how the truth and accuracy of the bible was preserved you are wasting your time. You can now have fun debating whether they actually had the authority to translate it in the first place and why it now needs to be rewritte.

Do bear in mind it wasn't that long before the king James version that protestant and catholic were taking turns burning each other at the stake, in fact some of the bloodiest conflicts were still to come. It's hard to understand the hatred religion can inspire that leads the followers to commit the most awful atrocities on each other.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:08 am

gmc;1357282 wrote: You need to read up on the history of the anglican church church
Is that so, gmc? I'll give you this, you're predictable. I just knew, somehow, that there would be a silence, interrupted by the word 'You'. I don't need to be a prophet, or a worker of miracles. I can rely on you.

Episcopcy is a featiure of the roman catholic church just as it is the anglican one
And James wanted to use it as Catholics did, in the medieval fashion, not as applies in England now, although there is of course a controversial relic of medievalism still in the political system. Why don't you open a relevant history book, and you'll see what I mean.

but it is not as simple as he was a closet cathlic. He might have believed in the divine right of kings but that didn't mean he was going to accept the authprity of the pope.
Because, like Henry VIII, he wanted himself as pope! Let's not be silly. When Henry died, the religious practice of the ordinary English person was exactly the same as it had been when he came to the throne. It is clear from his recorded actions and attitudes that James would have returned everything to that same Catholic condition, had he got his way. Parliament stood in that way.

Actually, I tell a lie- because it is not true that he would not have accepted the pope's authority. As those who have actually studied the period are aware, James attempted to marry the monarchy back into papalist faith. He even signed a marriage contract, but Parliament would not ratify it, because it would have meant English acceptance of the pope's authority. There was general relief in the country when this attempt failed. James' failure saved his neck, probably.

Such a good idea to not blabber one's mouth about others being ignorant before one has done a bit of work oneself, eh, gmc? "Gimme some education," well you're getting it, chum.

However that's off topic.
Does gmc appear to repent of his trolling, or is he just keen to change the subject?

We've had this discussion before.
Quite, and you always lose.

Authorise means to give official permission for or to approve. He was the king, he authorised the translation
In which document? Where exists just one copy of the notice of authorisation sent to bishops or parishes?

it that is why it eventually became known as the king James authorised version.
Only inside your head.

He didn't need anyone elses permission to do so no matter what obscure american academics might like to argue.
He did, actually, as even beginner historians know; James had a lot of trouble getting his will approved by Parliament, particularly in religious matters, as did his similarly foolish son; but you haven't heard of the Civil Wars, have you.

You have to produce documentary evidence of authorisation, by any monarch to the present day, or by any parliament, anywhere. You'll need a miracle, methinks. That wretched bit of political trash called a Bible has never been authorised- which is an embarrassment, if you think about it. Perhaps you have, already. Perhaps not. If you would do a smidgeon of basic reading, you would not talk in this absurd way, because historians admit this very absence, and its significance. I really ought to charge you for wasting time again.

The puritans wanted a purer form of christianity.
Nonsense. They wanted a more respectable form of fake Christianity, because the RCC had scandalised Europe with its appalling behaviour, so a more credible form of 'Christianity' was needed. Hence the word 're-formation'.

The modern day christian fundamentalists
That's contradiction in terms.

Do bear in mind it wasn't that long before the king James version that protestant and catholic were taking turns burning each other at the stake,
They prosecuted for different reasons. Catholics prosecuted for personal religious belief, legitimate Protestant authorities prosecuted for political beliefs, or rather actions- actions of real and present danger- treason, to be exact. The death penalty for treason was then general, and is still applicable in some countries. Believing in transubstantiation is not now required by law, but from some of the appalling right-wing posts that one reads, one might suppose that some people think that very regrettable.

in fact some of the bloodiest conflicts were still to come. It's hard to understand the hatred religion can inspire that leads the followers to commit the most awful atrocities on each other.
There's no hatred like that of those who hate themselves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:03 am

Awright boys. Neutral corners.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:13 am

Accountable;1357288 wrote: Awright boys. Neutral corners.
Shut

up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:18 am

Okay. I'm finding that most of my preconceptions about the New Testament are wrong, so I'm forced to start again from a new place.

I'm pretty sure I posted my general religious beliefs here somewhere. I choose to believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and therefore God Himself. The background to this is irrelevant at this point, but I am choosing from this point (knowing that I am liable and free to change at any time I see the sense in it) to accept only the quoted words of Christ as my guide. I won't discuss the NT books after the Book of John because I believe them to be writings of flawed human beings giving their interpretation of the teachings of Christ, and I can give a flawed interpretation with the best of 'em.

Having said that, I'm asking if you (all Gardeners) are aware if the various interpretations/translations of the four Books - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - into English are significantly different? The translations I have access to right now are the NIV, King James, and I can get my hands on a New Jerusalem Bible. I also have a Geneva Bible online. I'm asking mostly to save time because if I can avoid the headache of reading two versions of Shakespearean Bible verse I will.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:25 am

I am not sure how significant the differences are. There are some differences that may be cultural in nature, given the differences in time for the translations.

Conveying an idea via the written word is always subject to interpretation.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:06 am

Accountable;1357305 wrote: Okay. I'm finding that most of my preconceptions about the New Testament are wrong, so I'm forced to start again from a new place.

I'm pretty sure I posted my general religious beliefs here somewhere. I choose to believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and therefore God Himself. The background to this is irrelevant at this point, but I am choosing from this point (knowing that I am liable and free to change at any time I see the sense in it) to accept only the quoted words of Christ as my guide. I won't discuss the NT books after the Book of John because I believe them to be writings of flawed human beings giving their interpretation of the teachings of Christ, and I can give a flawed interpretation with the best of 'em.

Having said that, I'm asking if you (all Gardeners) are aware if the various interpretations/translations of the four Books - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - into English are significantly different? The translations I have access to right now are the NIV, King James, and I can get my hands on a New Jerusalem Bible. I also have a Geneva Bible online. I'm asking mostly to save time because if I can avoid the headache of reading two versions of Shakespearean Bible verse I will.

I am but whether the differences are significant or not I suggest you make up your own mind. Arguing about whose version is correct seems rather to miss the point of it all imo. No doubt there are others who will go round the houses with you on their own particular hobby horse on which version is the right one. There is even, allegedly, a move afoot to produce a translation removing all the liberal bias of christ's teachings. It's daft enough to be true. Personally I enjoy the irony of those who insist in the literal truth of the bible - with the various translators being guided by god - wanting to rewrite it to make sure he correct message is put across.

Why So Many Bible Translations?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:40 am

Accountable;1357305 wrote: I can give a flawed interpretation with the best of 'em.
Who cares? Do you want education, or do you want to give vent to tedious hormones, Accountable?

It would be such a change to get a serious thread here. Truly, a miracle.

If people don't accept the whole NT, nobody gives a cuss what they think. As we all know. Even James and the popes had to admit that all of the NT was to be read, and they had no shortage of motives to slice large bits out. What neither they nor anyone else could or can argue with is the fact that homosexuality is unacceptable in the NT. That's the usual reason for cutting out the later NT these days, though actually, Jesus condemned buggery as much as anything. Just in case anyone imagines otherwise.

I'm asking if you (all Gardeners) are aware if the various interpretations/translations of the four Books - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - into English are significantly different?
Interpretations differ like night differs from day. So two people can take the same translation and draw opposite views from them. As you well know. Translations of the gospels, otoh, have fairly constant meanings from translation to translation, as is well known. The differences tend to come in readibility, style and occasionally, bias. But the interesting part is how the gospels were put into action, as seen in the Acts and the letters, where the bias really sets in. Our friend here has snipped those out of his personal canon, sadly- and he's not the first.

The translations I have access to right now are the NIV, King James, and I can get my hands on a New Jerusalem Bible.
And of course complete NTs differ more in the letters, don't they. And maybe its the papist notes of the NJB, of fascist association, that you want people to read? And maybe it's the KJV, commissioned by a homosexual, that makes the rule against homosexuality less than obvious, that you prefer people to accept? There are plenty of normal, modern, scholarly Bibles, without pagan notes, to choose from, besides the NIV that I have almost made you choose. They are much more readily available online than the Geneva, more up-to-date, and easier to read. What a strange medley of choices.

Of those three, the NIV is what people should read if they want to know more or less what the Hebrew and Greek texts actually say, and what will be most widely accepted by people who matter academically- as distinct from unwary casual readers here. It's not chosen by scholars, with reputations to protect, and people who really are accountable, without good reason. But nevertheless, it has some horrible heresies, and people won't know where they are unless they use original languages. If they're actually interested. Nobody serious talks translations.

But some have to use them, or not read the Bible at all. The NJB is actually quite a decent translation, the first that ever came out of Catholicism in 1700 years! Catholics rarely actually use it, though (or any other, much), because it is too truthful for them. It's mainly used, as far as I can see, to show Protestants that Catholics really do like the Bible, they really do. Is that why it's been mentioned here? Why has the clapped out KJV been mentioned again, having been condemned here as clapped out, full of right-wing propaganda, and mistakes? Because it's clapped out, full of right-wing propaganda, and mistakes?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:17 pm

xyz;1357313 wrote: Who cares? Do you want education, or do you want to give vent to tedious hormones, Accountable?

It would be such a change to get a serious thread here. Truly, a miracle.

If people don't accept the whole NT, nobody gives a cuss what they think. As we all know.That's the whole point right now. Which "whole NT" am I to accept? You've indicated there are real and major differences between them, though you haven't really laid them out. You come in dukes up like your're ready for a fight when I've simply asked for information. Please, tell me why you think Paul, who never actually met Jesus, should be taken as the Messiah's main spokesman, over any of the Twelve who actually knew Him.

Is it because he's in the Bible? If so, then we're back to the original question: who decided to put him there? (BTW, gmc, that link wasn't real helpful in answering that question)

xyz wrote: Even James and the popes had to admit that all of the NT was to be read, and they had no shortage of motives to slice large bits out. What neither they nor anyone else could or can argue with is the fact that homosexuality is unacceptable in the NT. That's the usual reason for cutting out the later NT these days, though actually, Jesus condemned buggery as much as anything. Just in case anyone imagines otherwise.

Interpretations differ like night differs from day. So two people can take the same translation and draw opposite views from them. As you well know. Translations of the gospels, otoh, have fairly constant meanings from translation to translation, as is well known. The differences tend to come in readibility, style and occasionally, bias. But the interesting part is how the gospels were put into action, as seen in the Acts and the letters, where the bias really sets in. Our friend here has snipped those out of his personal canon, sadly- and he's not the first.

And of course complete NTs differ more in the letters, don't they. And maybe its the papist notes of the NJB, of fascist association, that you want people to read? And maybe it's the KJV, commissioned by a homosexual, that makes the rule against homosexuality less than obvious, that you prefer people to accept? There are plenty of normal, modern, scholarly Bibles, without pagan notes, to choose from, besides the NIV that I have almost made you choose. They are much more readily available online than the Geneva, more up-to-date, and easier to read. What a strange medley of choices.

Of those three, the NIV is what people should read if they want to know more or less what the Hebrew and Greek texts actually say, and what will be most widely accepted by people who matter academically- as distinct from unwary casual readers here. It's not chosen by scholars, with reputations to protect, and people who really are accountable, without good reason. But nevertheless, it has some horrible heresies, and people won't know where they are unless they use original languages. If they're actually interested. Nobody serious talks translations.Okay. Thanks for that answer. All the various English translations use the same sources and only differ in nuance based on the translator's bias, is that a good general summary?

xyz wrote: But some have to use them, or not read the Bible at all. The NJB is actually quite a decent translation, the first that ever came out of Catholicism in 1700 years! Catholics rarely actually use it, though (or any other, much), because it is too truthful for them. It's mainly used, as far as I can see, to show Protestants that Catholics really do like the Bible, they really do. Is that why it's been mentioned here? Why has the clapped out KJV been mentioned again, having been condemned here as clapped out, full of right-wing propaganda, and mistakes? Because it's clapped out, full of right-wing propaganda, and mistakes?Please stop looking for ulterior motives. My bookshelf has a King James, an NIV Study Bible, and a Japanese translation (that I might be holding upside down for all I know). San Antonio is overwhelmingly Catholic, at least among my circle of friends & acquaintences, so it would be an easy thing for me to get a copy of their Bible. I'd learned very recently while boning up for a World History lesson plan that the King James Bible was published in response to the Calvinists' Bible, so it intrigued me enough to find it.

There's your motives.

As for reading all or nothing, I have free will and can read what I choose. I choose to believe Jesus is the Christ. I also choose to believe, like you, that people often have motives behind motives for doing things. So I choose to believe the Words Jesus spoke, and verify all else.

I value what you say, even though I feel I have to filter through all the anger and misplaced suspicion. You're educating me. Thanks.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:51 pm

Accountable;1357327 wrote: That's the whole point right now. Which "whole NT" am I to accept?
The one found in your Catholic Bible, and in your Protestant one. The Greek texts are the same.

Next time you start a thread, try to make the title reflect what you really want to say.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:50 pm

posted by accountable

That's the whole point right now. Which "whole NT" am I to accept? You've indicated there are real and major differences between them, though you haven't really laid them out. You come in dukes up like your're ready for a fight when I've simply asked for information. Please, tell me why you think Paul, who never actually met Jesus, should be taken as the Messiah's main spokesman, over any of the Twelve who actually knew Him.

Is it because he's in the Bible? If so, then we're back to the original question: who decided to put him there? (BTW, gmc, that link wasn't real helpful in answering that question)

That wasn't quite the question you asked - or rather I didn't take it that way I thouht you meant what did the KJV translaters use for their source.

That goes back to the early days of the church when they were arguing abouit whether Jesus was actually god, the son of god or merely a man, or put another way was jesus God, and God's son, rather than a creation of god.

Paul was an advocate of him being god a point of view that suited the roman emperors of the day. (that's the cynical version). There was a series of ecumenical councils where they sat down and decided which versions of the story were to be kept in the bible, which books were in and which out what one had to b elieve to be a proper christian. It really is as simple as that.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nicene creed is still recited today and if you don't believe it you are a heretic and not a proper christian - so there.:sneaky:

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:31 pm

gmc;1357332 wrote: That goes back to the early days of the church when they were arguing abouit whether Jesus was actually god, the son of god or merely a man
No, that was the criminal classes who set up a red herring, to make themselves look like honest men. One cannot be a Christian and be in any doubt about that.

Paul was an advocate of him being god a point of view that suited the roman emperors of the day. (that's the cynical version).
It's a joke version. gmc is aiming to take over from Bob Hope.

There was a series of ecumenical councils where they sat down and decided which versions of the story were to be kept in the bible, which books were in and which out what one had to b elieve to be a proper christian.
Any educated people who say with a straight face that any of these councils was Christian are going to be beaten to pulp, several times a day. They know that much, but their stomachs and their sexual organs control their minds.

The nicene creed is still recited today
By paederasts and the Mafia.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:41 pm

Accountable;1357254 wrote: Okay, so whether King James was actually Catholic or not, the Catholic Church uses that version of the Bible, does it not? I don't know, not being Catholic.I have not been following this thread or I would have posted earlier.

No, the RCC does not and never has used the KJV. It's preferred version was the Vulgate, in Latin, and the earliest sanctioned version in English was the Douay-Rheims, which was in preparation concurrently with the KJV.

Nowadays most mainline translations are the product of interdenominational scholarship, so that sectarian bias is virtually eliminated.

The 'Three Great Creeds", the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian (which I hope I spelled correctly) are the basis of belief in Catholicism and most 'mainline' Protestant denominations.

Oddball sects and cults, like the one to which another poster to this thread belongs but is so ashamed of that (s)he refuses to identify it, are a whole 'nother ball game.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:50 pm

xyz;1357328 wrote: The one found in your Catholic Bible, and in your Protestant one. The Greek texts are the same.

Next time you start a thread, try to make the title reflect what you really want to say.
I did. This was probably the best, most concise, most accurate title I've come up with in a long time. Look, I don't want to tax you. Feel free to unsubscribe.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:13 pm

gmc;1357332 wrote: posted by accountable

That wasn't quite the question you asked - or rather I didn't take it that way I thouht you meant what did the KJV translaters use for their source.

That goes back to the early days of the church when they were arguing abouit whether Jesus was actually god, the son of god or merely a man, or put another way was jesus God, and God's son, rather than a creation of god.

Paul was an advocate of him being god a point of view that suited the roman emperors of the day. (that's the cynical version). There was a series of ecumenical councils where they sat down and decided which versions of the story were to be kept in the bible, which books were in and which out what one had to b elieve to be a proper christian. It really is as simple as that.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nicene creed is still recited today and if you don't believe it you are a heretic and not a proper christian - so there.:sneaky:
I'd meant who compiled the original New Testament, since all these English translations came from there. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I've heard of the creed. Probably something from my childhood. Sinc xyz is only interested in tearing down, possibly someone else knows what the "real" story is? Until then, I've got some reading to do.

Thanks, gmc

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:42 pm

Mark Aspam;1357355 wrote: I have not been following this thread or I would have posted earlier.

No, the RCC does not and never has used the KJV. It's preferred version was the Vulgate, in Latin, and the earliest sanctioned version in English was the Douay-Rheims, which was in preparation concurrently with the KJV.

Nowadays most mainline translations are the product of interdenominational scholarship, so that sectarian bias is virtually eliminated.

The 'Three Great Creeds", the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian (which I hope I spelled correctly) are the basis of belief in Catholicism and most 'mainline' Protestant denominations.

Oddball sects and cults, like the one to which another poster to this thread belongs but is so ashamed of that (s)he refuses to identify it, are a whole 'nother ball game.
Thanks, Mark. And nice to meet you. I don't think we've conversed before.

The insults are so ... "unchristian", dontcha think? It's a freakin mine field here.

Okay, so all the Western Christian versions of the Bible stem from the same source(s), which took some stories and rejected others based on who-knows-what, but it doesn't matter because everybody west of Rome has taken their decision as Gospel, to put a really fine point on it.

Thanks everyone for the lessons. It gives me a direction to study at least.

Anybody know off the top of their head about the Eastern Orthodox Bible? Does it mesh or conflict with the Western?

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:00 am

Accountable;1357367 wrote: 1. Thanks, Mark. And nice to meet you. I don't think we've conversed before.

2. The insults are so ... "unchristian", dontcha think? It's a freakin mine field here.

3. Okay, so all the Western Christian versions of the Bible stem from the same source(s), which took some stories and rejected others based on who-knows-what, but it doesn't matter because everybody west of Rome has taken their decision as Gospel, to put a really fine point on it.

4. Anybody know of the top of their head about the Eastern Orthodox Bible? Does it mesh or conflict with the Western?1. Likewise, Acc.

2. I am not here to insult anyone. One poster to this and other threads keeps espousing a view of Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, so bizarre and untenable that it has the effect of stultifying intelligent conversation. That is, I believe, in computer parlance, called 'trolling'.

3. Well, sort of. The Septuagint, assembled while the Hebrew canon was still open-ended, contains several books that were later removed by the Jews as being of too recent origin. By that time, Christianity was well-established, not as a sect of Judaism but as a separate religion, and these books were retained by Christians as an integral part of Scripture.

Many centuries later, along came the so-called Protestant Reformation, and these books were, for reasons now obscure, viewed differently by different aspects of Protestantism, favorably by Anglicans and Lutherans, less so by Calvinists and some others.

All of the early versions of the KJV contained these books (dubbed "deuterocanonical", that is, "of the second(ary) canon"), later a version of the KJV was prepared for Calvinists which excluded them. Today nearly all state-of-the-art modern translations include the deutrocanonicals.

So the distinction is not based on 'who-knows-what', its history is well-established. The books were separated from the Jewish canon solely on the basis of date. It had nothing to do with content.

4. I am not an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is my understanding that the

KJV is still the version of choice by many Orthodox Churches in English-speaking countries.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:19 am

Mark Aspam;1357355 wrote: I have not been following this thread or I would have posted earlier.
What coincidental timing. Good you came, though.

No, the RCC does not and never has used the KJV.
It has. Many times, even in teaching material published by bishops in English-speaking countries. But that book is never officially ok'd back at the Vatican. It can't do that of a publication of that type that it didn't originate. It's the same old double-speak. The KJV is the 'Bible' of choice for those who preferred the Bible in Latin when only the puppets of murderous oppressors could read Latin, and of those who wished that that sodding turd Jesus had never darkened their lives. Now that the Bible cannot be kept locked up in Latin, the KJV is the next best thing. In fact, due to historic accident, it's used to put people off Christianity in a way that the Vulgate could not.

It's preferred version was the Vulgate, in Latin, and the earliest sanctioned version in English was the Douay-Rheims, which was in preparation concurrently with the KJV.
The D-R NT, translated not from Greek but from Latin into very difficult English, was one of the versions stipulated by the treacherous James to be used to 'crib' from when cobbling the KJV together. With the later D-R OT it was heavily annotated with Catholic views, which meant that James had no objection to Bibles with notes as a genre.

Nowadays most mainline translations are the product of interdenominational scholarship, so that sectarian bias is virtually eliminated.
Not so, because Catholics are still not allowed to read the Bible legitimately without the Vatican's notes, that in the Protestant view invert the Bible's meanings.

It's true, in these days of mass apostasy and brainlessness, that translations tend to be the productions of those who claim to be Catholics and Protestants; but any who will even eat with Catholics are not Protestants, as the Bible they see fit to translate actually tells them is so. In reality, they are all Catholics, of one sort or another. The thing about Catholicism today is that it's ok to believe any damn thing, liberalism, Buddhism, even agnosticism, and stay a Catholic. Just don't believe the unedited Bible in toto, or you're out.

The 'Three Great Creeds", the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian (which I hope I spelled correctly) are the basis of belief in Catholicism
That's not true. The basis of belief in Romanism currently is the belief that Ratzinger is virtually God. As 'God' historically has spoken to his faithful infallibly only twice, in each case about Mary, the only thing that Catholics are sure of is that Mary is to be venerated if not worshipped, which makes Romanism not Christianity, but Marianity. Or, that Mary is Christ (which is the practical outcome). There is no need for Catholics to accept that there even is a Bible. The 'theology' of Romanism (or Vaticanism) is such an incompetent jumble of logic, it's hardly worth serious thought. Had it not been for brute force and ignorance, Catholicism would never have got beyond a 'hypothetical joke' stage.

Many Protestants do not use creeds (and few have even read the heretical Athanasian, that Mark knows very well how to spell), because they believe that to recite one does not make anyone a Christian. The devil can recite a creed, without a blink, as can his ministers. The Protestants who use creeds are those only partially removed from Romanism, and are not fully Protestant.

It goes further than this. The horrifying record of murder and other public, wilful sins of Catholic leaders, who all recited creeds, as well as received the 'real body' of Christ at Mass, makes use of both creeds and mass not only nonsensical, but also dangerous, giving a false sense of spirituality. Christians believe that every Catholic needs Christ as much as the most sin-sunk pagan, and Catholics recite creeds regularly.

and most 'mainline' Protestant denominations.
Isn't it strange, how Catholics change their tune! One moment, Protestants are vilified because they hold to sola Scriptura, the next moment they are like Catholics- depending on wind direction.

Oddball sects and cults, like the one to which another poster to this thread belongs but is so ashamed of that (s)he refuses to identify it, are a whole 'nother ball game.
Mark is terrified, it seems.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:43 am

Accountable;1357367 wrote: Okay, so all the Western Christian versions of the Bible stem from the same source(s), which took some stories and rejected others based on who-knows-what, but it doesn't matter because everybody west of Rome has taken their decision as Gospel, to put a really fine point on it.
"Scratch an atheist, find a Catholic."

Christians do not accept the canon of those they believe to stand in need of salvation. Just look inside your NJB. It contains works that Christians say are antichrist.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:30 am

This is a really odd thread, acc. In terms of the peculiar information you've been given so far.

The Roman Catholic official bible is called the Jerome version, or Vulgate, and it's in Latin.

There are various translations into English. If they're recognized by the Roman Catholic Church they'll have the words "nihil obstat" inside the front cover, meaning the church department responsible for censorship has no objection to it being published.

The one I have and enjoy reading was translated by Ronald Knox. He also wrote a description of what translating it involved and why and how he did it, called "On Englishing The Bible" and I have a copy open before me. The Protestant version of the bible, in contrast, was best translated, in my opinion, by a Scot, James Moffatt though there's a very fine readable edition around somewhere called The Bible As Literature.

Historically, the Roman Catholics came out with a bible in English about thirty years before the King James and used it well into the 20th century, it's the Douai Bible.

Accountable wrote: Did both of these translations come from the same source? What was it/they?The Knox is a translation of the Vulgate. http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/a ... ranslation is the first chapter of On Englishing The Bible and he's quite specific on what he did - it answers your question about Roman Catholic requirements:Let us be precise; when I talk about translating the Bible, I mean translating the Vulgate. I have every respect for the patient scholarship which is giving us the Westminster Version, and I have sometimes found myself envying its compilers their liberty. But, it is well known for all official purposes a Bible translation must take the Vulgate as its standard. I have been translating, these last three years, from the Vulgate text, relegating other readings, however plausible, to the foot of the page. I have even denied myself the privilege claimed by the latest American revisers, of going back behind the Clementine edition, and taking the Vulgate as its stands (say) in Wordsworth and White’s collation of it. The American version, for example, in Acts 17:6, has "these men who are setting the world in an uproar". That is quite certainly the true reading; but a bad copyist has written urbem instead of orbem, and the Clementine follows this tradition. So I have rendered, "who turn the state upside down"; that is how the thing stands in every Vulgate in the world nowadays, and it is no part of the translator’s business to alter, on however good grounds, his original.If you look at the essay you'll find he then goes on to describe the material which Jerome translated from - the Greek Septaguint for the Old Testament and a whole assortment of Greek variants for the New. If you want the New Testament in Greek there's a useful copy called the Nestle, if I remember right, which summarizes the alternative readings and puts the Greek on the left hand page and an English cheetsheet on the right.

I have just re-read Knox's paragraph beginning "So much for sentences; and now, what of phrases?". It is beautiful.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:13 am

xyz;1357406 wrote: Catholics are still not allowed to read the Bible legitimately without the Vatican's notes... Most of what xyz posts here is so ridiculous, as I said in the previous post, pure trolling, that it doesn't merit a reply.

Lest others be misled, however, the statement quoted above is absolute nonsense. In earlier times Catholics were, if not forbidden, at least strongly discouraged from reading Protestant translations of the Bible due to sectarian bias and the fact that many such Bibles were loaded with hereticcal footnotes and appendices. But this applied only to casual or devotional reading; scholarly research was not forbidden.

Today there is no such prohibition, and I own several Protestant translations and several other non-sectarian versions, the result of combined Jewish, Catholic and Protestant scholarship, the best of these being the Anchor Bible, the true state-of-the art, originally published by Doubleday and now owned by Yale University. I own only three volumes of the Anchor, Genesis, 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah; for access to the others I must visit the local library.

I have no objection to criticism of Catholicism by anyone who has at least a fundamental knowledge of what s/he is talking about, a requirement that excludes poster xyz, who hasn't a clue, and I engage in such criticism myself regularly, especially in such areas as its restriction of the priesthood to males and its views in the area of human sexuality and family planning.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:51 am

Mark Aspam;1357413 wrote: In earlier times Catholics were, if not forbidden, at least strongly discouraged from reading Protestant translations of the Bible due to sectarian bias
But Protestants were never forbidden from reading Catholic versions. Why was that?

and the fact that many such Bibles were loaded with hereticcal footnotes and appendices.
The point is that most Protestant versions had no notes at all. The KJV had no notes. The ASV, the RSV, the GNB, all without notes. The general rule, as most Westerners are aware, is that Proddy versions come neat, unadorned; the Cat-lick ones come with 'guidance'. The English Catholics pinched the popular RSV and put notes in it to explain away the Protestant parts, parts that Catholics now have finally admitted after 1700 years is correct translation, because they've been forced to by scholarship. That's farce.

But this applied only to casual or devotional reading; scholarly research was not forbidden.
Scholarship and the Catholic peasant. Wow.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:22 am

xyz;1357415 wrote: The point is that most Protestant versions had no notes at all. The KJV had no notes. The ASV, the RSV, the GNB, all without notes. Anyone can go into any bookstore, especially Christian bookstores such as the Berean chain, and find all manner of the above mentioned translations, particularly the KJV, with extensive footnotes and commentary.

Of modern versions, the best footnotes are probably in the Good News Bible, subtitled 'Today's English Version' which has extensive cross-references and notes on etymology and on variations among ancient MSS. Highly recommended, and with no sectarian bias whatever. The NT-only version is titled "Good News for Modern Man".

I understand that the GNB has recently undergone considerable revision, which I have yet to explore.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:36 am

Mark Aspam;1357418 wrote: Anyone can go into any bookstore, especially Christian bookstores such as the Berean chain, and find all manner of the above mentioned translations, particularly the KJV, with extensive footnotes and commentary.
Does the Berean chain go back to Constantine? Or just Tyndale?

This is plain misrepresentation.

Of modern versions, the best footnotes are probably in the Good News Bible
But they are only technical. Not sectarian, as Catholic notes are. And the GNB has been openly vilified by many Catholics, and of course does not have the Catholic imprimatur. So poor Mark's not being very straightforward, here, either.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:40 am

Scots were and are presbytarians. The KJV has a longer version of the Gospel of Mark than the NIV and most others. And this whole question is moot. Whatever the version you use, with the spirit of enquiry and can be taught, all you need to know is contained in the one line that is in all of them. 'ALL who call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.' PERIOD!

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:49 am

Raven;1357420 wrote: The KJV has a longer version of the Gospel of Mark than the NIV and most others.
The Marcan Appendix is used for heretical purposes, which is one reason why the KJV is still in use. The Eastern Orthodox also like the KJV because it has a spurious verse that 'justifies' their thing about fasting. So it's the dinosaurs' bible.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:07 am

xyz;1357419 wrote: 1. This is plain misrepresentation.

2. But they are only technical. Not sectarian, as Catholic notes are.

3. And the GNB has been openly vilified by many Catholics, and of course does not have the Catholic imprimatur.

4. So poor Mark's not being very straightforward, here, either.1. If you're referring to your own assertions, quite so.

2. That is correct. I have several Catholic Bibles with footnotes, notably the Confraternity New Testament and the New American, the footnotes are the work of the annotaters, they are hardly identical, though they certainly represent Catholic teaching, obviously, as opposed to the footnotes in the various Protestant editions, which, by contrast, are 'all over the place'. So, your point is what?

3. I have my paperback copy of the GNB right here. On the half-title page is the following handwritten note:To Nancy B_____ , Many thanks for your special help this year at St. John's. You share Christ beautifully. May God be with you always. May 21, 1980 Father William M G_____.On the reverse of the title page:

Good News Bible

with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha

The Bible in

Today's English Version

Imprimatur: John Francis Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford

Censor deputatus: The Reverend Kenneth H. Shiner

May 15, 1978So much for xyz's expertise on matters Biblical.

A later, hardcover edition of the GNB in my library lacks the Imprimatur, since by that time it was no longer required.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:26 am

Mark Aspam;1357425 wrote:

2. That is correct. I have several Catholic Bibles with footnotes, notably the Confraternity New Testament and the New American, the footnotes are the work of the annotaters, they are hardly identical, though they certainly represent Catholic teaching, obviously, as opposed to the footnotes in the various Protestant editions, which, by contrast, are 'all over the place'. So, your point is what?

3. I have my paperback copy of the GNB right here. On the half-title page is the following handwritten note:On the reverse of the title page:So much for xyz's expertise on matters Biblical.

A later, hardcover edition of the GNB in my library lacks the Imprimatur, since by that time it was no longer required.
My apologies for not keeping up with those who strangled and burned Tyndale, but realised they had had lost the credibility war, so had to copy him. Catholic Bible scholarship was truly primitive before the Reformation, and still would be, but for the deep shame caused by Protestantism. Even today, most Catholics are afraid of opening a Bible. Aspam is just a propagandist. Like other cults like JWs and Mormons, Catholics belatedly copy Protestants, in all aspects, then say that it was all their idea! But then that's only to be expected of those who murdered and cheated their way into existence.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:21 am

xyz;1357426 wrote: My apologies for not keeping up with those who strangled and burned Tyndale, but realised they had had lost the credibility war, so had to copy him. Catholic Bible scholarship was truly primitive before the Reformation, and still would be, but for the deep shame caused by Protestantism. Even today, most Catholics are afraid of opening a Bible. Aspam is just a propagandist. Like other cults like JWs and Mormons, Catholics belatedly copy Protestants, in all aspects, then say that it was all their idea! But then that's only to be expected of those who murdered and cheated their way into existence.

Are you by any chance a knuckle dragger from the orange lodge? You're not much of a credit to your organisation if you are.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:02 am

xyz;1357426 wrote: My apologies for not keeping up with those who strangled and burned Tyndale, but realised they had had lost the credibility war, so had to copy him. Catholic Bible scholarship was truly primitive before the Reformation, and still would be, but for the deep shame caused by Protestantism. Even today, most Catholics are afraid of opening a Bible. Aspam is just a propagandist. Like other cults like JWs and Mormons, Catholics belatedly copy Protestants, in all aspects, then say that it was all their idea! But then that's only to be expected of those who murdered and cheated their way into existence.I will just add a couple of parting observations, which will probably be my last contribution to this thread.

No one ever claimed that Tyndale's translation wasn't a good one; it was, in fact, excellent for its time. His sole purpose in producing it, though, seems to have been to wrap it in his own heretical rantings, and these were the source of his troubles with the law, for he was opposed by the English Church as much or more than by Catholicism.

He also is renowned for his absurd remark that he wished every plowboy to have a copy in scripture in his pocket, ignoring in his own erudition the fact that very few plowboys of his time could read!

Tyndale was such a loose cannon that he was betrayed to the authorities not by Catholics nor Anglicans, but by his own heretical cohorts - he was dangerous to have around.

Now, speaking of absurdities, xyz's remark that Catholic bible scholarship was primitive prior to the Reformation has to win some sort of prize. Since there was no other NT scholarship prior thereto, it seems a rather meaningless statement.

Most Catholics afraid to open a Bible? What nonsense. I am 70 years old, and a lifelong Catholic. I was reading the Bible as soon as I was old enough to read, and have been doing so ever since. This is an old canard among Protestants, particularly among those hanging on to the outdated KJV as the untimate authority in English ("Where the original languages differ from the KJV, the original languages are wrong!"). To these jokers, Catholics were not allowed to read the KJV, therefore they were not allowed to read the Bible. Outrageous. An entire year of religion class in Catholic high schools is devoted exclusively to Bible history.

Lastly, I will point out just once more what I have mentioned several times previously. I have identified myself clearly as a Catholic, other posters to these forums have just as proudly identified their denominational preferences. Poster xyz has steadfastly refused to name his/her affiliation, and forum rules, as far as I know, do not require that. But it seems to me only fair that one whose only purpose here seems to be to disparage other forms of Christianity should at least identify his/her own so that others here can call into question that group's beliefs, prejudices and errors.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:25 am

Mark Aspam;1357428 wrote: I will just add a couple of parting observations, which will probably be my last contribution to this thread.
So the high and mighty Apostolic, Holy Catholic Church is calling it a day? Oh, well.

That's what people down to their last lies say. Surely the RCC does not tell lies?

No one ever claimed that Tyndale's translation wasn't a good one
I'm sure they did, though not very much in public, as it was manifestly an excellent translation that Catholics, absurdly, were later forced to use.

His sole purpose in producing it, though, seems to have been to wrap it in his own heretical rantings
What a predictable reply. Reader, search as you may, you won't find a serious historian making that sort of comment. It's irresponsible, it's disrespectful, it's false, it's completely asinine to anyone who knows the facts, and is not a bigot. We must assume that, as usual, Mark knows not what he doeth. Serious historians are agreed that Tyndale died for his translating activity, quite apart from any views that he had. The only reason that Catholics can logically have for not burning Protestants today is that they cannot do so without getting arrested. It can be assumed that, were they to regain political power (and many of them want it), Protestants and others would indeed be murdered by them again. Quite possibly, some homosexuals would be pleased about that, until they realised that they could be next in line- unless they were discreet, as many medieval Catholics were.

and these were the source of his troubles with the law, for he was opposed by the English Church as much or more than by Catholicism.
That's not the case. The English Crown pleaded for his life, but without effect. And because some value is supported by law, does not make it acceptable. The RCC presided over the legalising of its own acts of murder.

He also is renowned for his absurd remark that he wished every plowboy to have a copy in scripture in his pocket, ignoring in his own erudition the fact that very few plowboys of his time could read!
But they could read, ever since the Lollards had taught them to.

Tyndale was such a loose cannon that he was betrayed to the authorities not by Catholics nor Anglicans, but by his own heretical cohorts - he was dangerous to have around.
What was dangerous was murderous Catholics, who thought fit to kill people merely for contradicting them. Whether that murder was for translation or for expressing an opinion, it makes no difference. The RCC was and remains guilty of his murder, and for the murders of many more who only wanted to read what Aspam admits was a good translation.

Now, speaking of absurdities, xyz's remark that Catholic bible scholarship was primitive prior to the Reformation has to win some sort of prize. Since there was no other NT scholarship prior thereto, it seems a rather meaningless statement.
Ah, so it is admitted that the RCC was not the original church. That seems to be the coup de grâce.

Most Catholics afraid to open a Bible? What nonsense. I am 70 years old, and a lifelong Catholic.
How interesting. That's the level that Mark has reached. No wonder he's making for the door.

This is an old canard among Protestants
It's a very fresh experience of those who have been on even recent mission to faithfully Catholic countries. Opening a Bible, even a Catholic one, often makes Catholics nervy. Many of them say it is only for their clergy to read. Ex-Catholics in Christian churches often say that they were never encouraged to read the Bible except under direct supervision. Many Catholics in Western countries show no interest in the Bible- but then they don't go to Mass much, either.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:04 pm

posted by xyz

What was dangerous was murderous Catholics, who thought fit to kill people merely for contradicting them. Whether that murder was for translation or for expressing an opinion, it makes no difference. The RCC was and remains guilty of his murder, and for the murders of many more who only wanted to read what Aspam admits was a good translation.

Why just have a go at the catholics? The puritans could give the catholics lessons in religious hatred and bigotry - Cromwell and his ilk weren't exactly a cuddly type of christian were they? Good grief they even cancelled christmas because people were enjoying themselves. Laugh and the devil gets in how often have you heard that one from some bible thumping moron? Religion is a serious business, get it wrong and you go to hell, that would spoil anyones fun. Same with the copncept of original sin. You can have sex but if you enjoy it you are in trouble, what idiot dreamt that one up?.

Why the big hang up about homosexuals? I only ask because you've mentioned them twice.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:14 pm

Raven;1357420 wrote: Whatever the version you use, with the spirit of enquiry and can be taught, all you need to know is contained in the one line that is in all of them. 'ALL who call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.' PERIOD! :DIt isn't the fate of all who call upon the name of the LORD that troubles people, Raven, it's the fate of those who don't. Because if they're not treated graciously then the goodness of the LORD is at least questionable.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:16 pm

Apropos my earlier post I've found a full copy of On Englishing The Bible online. I spent a couple of hours with my hardback this afternoon reminding myself how impressed I was the first time I read it: Knox's style, in his essays as in his Bible, is cut crystal. I strongly recommend at least the first chapter, Acc, it's bang on topic for you.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:21 pm

*cough cough*

*HACK!* *cough*

*futilely tries to wave the smoke away; uprights a table and pulls up a serviceable chair*

Didn't expect a holy war, but I guess I should have.

I did some cursory reading on Constantine & the Councils. My initial impression isn't good, given my propensity to cynicism.

Slight change of subject!

Is anyone aware of any dispute about the words & teachings of Jesus? Are the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the only records of Him?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:23 pm

spot;1357478 wrote: Apropos my earlier post I've found a full copy of On Englishing The Bible online. I spent a couple of hours with my hardback this afternoon reminding myself how impressed I was the first time I read it: Knox's style, in his essays as in his Bible, is cut crystal. I strongly recommend at least the first chapter, Acc, it's bang on topic for you.
Thanks, Spot. I'll check it out.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:44 pm

Accountable;1357479 wrote:

Slight change of subject!

Is anyone aware of any dispute about the words & teachings of Jesus? Are the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the only records of Him?
The world's full of literalists. Jesus is as much a fictional composite character as Nasreddin, Socrates or Brer Rabbit, the very impossibility of uncovering a historical figure has kept the religious publishing industry alive for the last hundred and fifty years. If you talk to a KJV fundamentalist you'll get a very different tale than if you talk to someone both pragmatic and sane.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:52 pm

Accountable;1357481 wrote: Thanks, Spot. I'll check it out.

You may well find my first post to the thread says more than you wanted to know in that direction. Reading Knox's essay is more an appreciation of fine English than anything else.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:12 am

gmc;1357444 wrote: The puritans could give the catholics lessons in religious hatred and bigotry - Cromwell and his ilk weren't exactly a cuddly type of christian were they?
They were no more Christians than they were bluebottles.

But you are right about hatred.

Good grief they even cancelled christmas because people were enjoying themselves.
They cancelled it because it is pagan. That didn't mean that they were not pagan.

As we know.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:18 am

xyz;1357505 wrote: They were no more Christians than they were bluebottles.

But you are right about hatred.

They cancelled it because it is pagan. That didn't mean that they were not pagan.

As we know.

So which particular sect do you claim membership of? You're very good at slagging all the protestant denominations as being pagan, you presumably are not catholic, you dodged my question about the orange lodge which may mean either you really are a knuckle dragger or you didn't understand the question. So what are you wee free, church of the stony path, a moonie, can't be a ranter since they rejected the divinity of christ even though the name seems to fit yiour style, what are you? If you can't answer that's OK. The constant I am holier than thou and you're not a proper christian but I am gets a bit monotonous. You come across as some kind of fundamentalist, I'm right and you're wrong you're all going to hell.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:02 pm

gmc;1357522 wrote: So which particular sect do you claim membership of? You're very good at slagging all the protestant denominations as being pagan, you presumably are not catholic, you dodged my question about the orange lodge which may mean either you really are a knuckle dragger or you didn't understand the question. So what are you wee free, church of the stony path, a moonie, can't be a ranter since they rejected the divinity of christ even though the name seems to fit yiour style, what are you? If you can't answer that's OK. The constant I am holier than thou and you're not a proper christian but I am gets a bit monotonous. You come across as some kind of fundamentalist, I'm right and you're wrong you're all going to hell.

To be honest (s)he comes across as a total boor who's spoilt an otherwise interesting thread. Many thanks to all of you who've tried to keep it going in the face of such tedious provocation.

Loyal · Post by **Loyal** » Sun May 08, 2011 11:14 am

Accountable;1357238 wrote: I need some historical facts, please.

As I understand it, Calvinists translated and published a Bible in Geneva, thus called the Geneva Bible. King James didn't think it friendly enough to Catholicism, so he had his translators publish their own version, now known as the King James version.

My question: Did both of these translations come from the same source? What was it/they?

That's enough to get the ball rolling, I think. This is really regarding the New Testament exclusively, since the old Testament's roots are pretty firm.

"All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial." 2nd. timothy 3:16===== this is the Old Testament and the New. The Bible's internal harmony is significant. This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years: so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the samllest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally, and use your reasoning abilities.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 09, 2011 3:12 pm

Loyal;1359098 wrote: "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial." 2nd. timothy 3:16===== this is the Old Testament and the New. The Bible's internal harmony is significant. This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years: so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the samllest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally, and use your reasoning abilities.

Having done this and having then attempted to derive a harmonious timeline for Jesus' ministry from His baptism until the crucifixion my reasoning abilities suggested that even the synoptics disagreed and John was significantly out of step.

If they cannot agree on such a simple matter of where He went and when then what level of accuracy can we rely on in their description of His thoughts and intentions?