Authorised King James Version

[Nick_Loves_Abba]

So are you saying the best translation we have to date for those who speak English and only English is the KJV?

 

[VOW]

To Rjano:

Whoops. It wasn't ILLEGAL to possess Sacred Scripture, according to the Council of Trent. It was illegal to print, distribute or possess Scripture which hadn't been APPROVED.

it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors.

Link: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

The Church did not want Scripture twisted and manipulated for diabolical or profane purposes. Sounds reasonable to me.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Sonds like a communist thing to me!
God never said...Kill people for reading my word if its not apporved by the leaders of the church.
Its unbiblical...therefore is unresonable to me.
Whats new!
GEL

 

[VOW]

COMMUNIST?????????



The Council is talking about PROOFREADING, Greenie!

How would you like someone to take your KJV, misspell words, rearrange sentences, twist the Ten Commandments around so you CAN commit adultery, and then slap "Authorized King James Version" on the cover and sell it?

Folks didn't HAVE the "copywrite" in those days!

Sheesh!



Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

Communists at the Council of Trent???

Maybe they had to use cell phones to talk to Luther up there in Freddie's Castle; I heard that his fax machine was broken.

George Washington meant to attend, but he unfortunately was on the stagecoach to Dodge City to attend a cattle drive and couldn't make it.

The Apostle Paul sent his regets, too, because he was spending two months aboard MIR, right after he got back from attending the talks at the Treaty of Versailles.

Okay, boys and girls---can you say "anachronistic"? I knew you could!

 

[LouisBooth]

ya'll keep the barbs to a minimum..I know ya'll are joking, but just make sure to keep it to a minimum.

 

[Thunderchild]

No indeed - the AKJV was produced in a time when copyright laws did not exist - which is why the original was patented.
Later versions were copyrighted however, with the rights vested in the crown.

Actually there was a (very) limited print run of the AKJV, which came to be termed the unrighteous Bible. .... The "not" was accidentally omitted from "thou shalt not commit adultery."

 

[Thunderchild]

Philippians 2:6 KJV: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" - in fact, a poor (even false, as some would insist) translation. "To be equal" has been translated from "being equal" and could accurately be rendered even as "though equal" - but "thought it not robbery TO BE equal" definitely carries unwarranted implications.

"did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" is definitely an improvement on the AKJV: though it does not literally match the TR, it at least preserves the intent of the passage - which the AV does not achieve.

Moreover, the passage in both versions affirms the deity of the Christ - the claim that either did not would be based either in perfidy or illiteracy.

I'll have to leave the Isaiah reference til later - though at first sight it seems to be a valid claim that there is conflict, the site I use for primary comparisons is misbehaving, and I am out of time.

It remains a fact - and in some countries was so until the middle of the twentieth century (at least), that the Bible was banned, by the Church of Rome, from general use. It was indeed at one time included in the list of books dangerous to the faith (Does it remain so, I wonder?).

 

[Nick_Loves_Abba]

So is the AKJV the most accurate translation for those who only speak English?

 

[VOW]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
It remains a fact - and in some countries was so until the middle of the twentieth century (at least), that the Bible was banned, by the Church of Rome, from general use. It was indeed at one time included in the list of books dangerous to the faith (Does it remain so, I wonder?).

This is NOT a fact, this is an often-repeated, Catholic-bashing LIE.

Verify your information before perpetuating lies, please.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[AlphaPhi]

Certain translations of the Bible, mainly those concocted by anti-Catholics, were "banned." The Bible itself, nor legitimate translations, were never banned by the Church (though some bishops in France did do so for a brief period in a misguided attempt to ward off a pernicious heresy that used twisted interpretations of scripture passages, but this was only for a few years, and only applied to three or four southern departments in France).

 

[KC Catholic]

Moderator Hat ON

Guys,we need to stop the arguing about the Catholic Church banning their members from reading the bible.

Catholics are allowed to read the bible, any version that they want - so lets let the dead horse die a peaceful death and move on.

Moderator Hat OFF

 

[KC Catholic]

Hmm...

 

[VOW]

To KC:

I hope you bought several cases of that award!!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[GreenEyedLady]

LOL..how funny!
Ya....don;t you think most of these topics are beating a dead horse in here?
LOL
GEL

 

[Thunderchild]

In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians. What these decrees (e.g., of the synod of Toulouse in 1129, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular. A general prohibition was never in existence.

...by the Bull "Apostolicæ Sedis" (12 Oct, 1869) Pius IX reorganized the ecclesiastical censures (penal laws of the Church) he abolished the punishment of excommunication which, both in the Tridentine (1564) and Clementine (1596) indexes, was inflicted upon printers as well as authors not submitting their works for ecclesiastical censorship. Since the publication of that Bull only three definite classes of books are still forbidden under pain of excommunication (see below).

ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS IN OPERATION SINCE 1900

The third and last group also comprehends several classes of forbidden books. To these belong, in the first place, all editions and versions of Holy Writ not approved by competent ecclesiastical authorities. For by paragraphs 5, 6, and 8, leave to use editions and versions published by non-Catholics, provided they do not attack Catholic dogmas either in the preface or the annotations, is given only to such as are occupied with theological or Biblical studies. And by paragraph 7, all venacular versions, even those prepared by Catholic authors, are prohibited if they are not, on the one hand, approved by the Apostolic See, or, on the other, are not supplied with annotations taken from the works of the Holy Fathers and learned Catholic writers and accompanied by an episcopal approbation.

Ah - but what do the "competent ecclesiastical authorities" use as the determining factor for approving a copy of Holy Writ?

it would be likewise the violation of one of the first principles of the Catholic Faith — a principle arrived at through observation as well as by revelation — the insufficiency of the Scriptures alone to convey to the general reader a sure knowledge of faith and morals.

(citing Pope Pius IX)The pope then urges the bishops to admonish their flocks that owing to human temerity, more harm than good may come from indiscriminate Bible-reading.

Source: The Catholic Encyclopaedia itself. Other matters are referred to, which I have not had time to look at as yet.

But don't rely just on the written admissions of the Church of Rome, nor yet on the accusations of its critics - refer your attention to the statements of living people, wholehearted supporters of Rome, who are 60 years or more old. (and in some cases, younger - especially for those born and raised in such places as Malta)

 

[Thunderchild]

In countries where the Church of Rome does not have the power to prevent the importation and dissemination of Bibles, it does indeed approve and encourage reading the Bible.

 

[VOW]

To Thunderchild:

Just gotta give that pore ole horse one last kick, huh?


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[KC Catholic]

From "Truth Tracts" at catholicexchange.com:

Question: I was told the Church, in the past, strongly discouraged reading scripture. How can I respond?

Answer: Usually the words "Details, please?" work wonders. The Church, in certain times, and places, did discourage scripture reading among lay people on occasion.

However, what is usually left out of the story by critics of the Church is the particular pastoral situation faced by the Church. For example, during the Albigensian heresy in the 13th Century, some bishops in Southern France (not the whole Church, mind you) restricted the reading of Scripture to the mass and forbade lay Bible study, not because they feared the Bible itself, but because they were concerned that Albigensians were using snatches of Scripture to "prove" such things as the idea that the world was created by an evil god, that Jesus forbade obedience to the civil government and other such highly destructive notions.

The majority of times, however, the Church encouraged the reading of Scripture (though with caution since most people were illiterate). In fact, one of the best kept secrets of anti-catholic polemicists is that there were literally thousands of translations of Scripture done in all the vernacular languages of Europe for centuries before the Reformation.

If the Church wanted to discourage Scripture reading, why did it encourage all these translations into English, French, Italian, Polish, German, Spanish and all the rest?

From the Catechism...
2835. "This petition, with the responsibility it involves, also applies to another hunger from which men are perishing: 'Man does not live by bread alone, but . . . by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,'[Deut 8:3 ; Mt 4:4 .] that is, by the Word he speaks and the Spirit he breathes forth.

Christians must make every effort 'to proclaim the GOOD NEWS to the poor.' There is a famine on earth, 'not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.'[Am 8:11 .] For this reason the specifically Christian sense of this fourth petition concerns the Bread of Life: The Word of God accepted in faith, the Body of Christ received in the Eucharist.[Cf. Jn 6:26-58 .]"

Hmm...guess we have to read the bible in order to proclaim the "Good News".

 

[Thunderchild]

· Rule No. 7 - No Public Disagreements with Staff

7) 1) You will only disagree with the decisions of the Administrators or Moderators in private, either by email or private messaging, and never in a public forum. All decisions to edit, move or delete a post or thread are based on this set of rules listed here.


Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"

2) You will not post any messages that are primarily aimed at aggravating, provoking, insulting, offending or inflaming Christians, Christian denominations or their beliefs, just to get a reaction. This does not mean you cannot post controversial topics, or start threads that disagree with doctrines from other denominations, as long as this is done in a polite manner.

Does the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA not qualify as a valid source of information about the Church of Rome? It does carry the imprimatur of the Holy See. Should I attend the official statements of the church itself, or the words of someone else regarding the teachings and practices of that same church? Having been advised to attend the actual teachings of the church, and having done so, am I to stand "corrected" by those who deny the statements of the church itself?

While certain parties may feel free to continue the debate on the teachings of the Church of Rome - I have been informed that any attempt to rebut and/or enter into debate with those parties will render me liable to suspension.