What about the "new" NIV 2011

PaladinValer · Mar 6, 2012

I refuse to worship the Bible...

I also refuse to believe a word of this unhistoric psuedohistoric drivel...

...the next thing is that the Vatican has a secret Library and is behind Mormonism, Islam, communism, etc...

...nothing new. Onward with real truth: that the KJV is obsolete, that modern Bibles are based on the best texts, and that KJV-Onlyism is nothing more than idolatry.

Keachian · Mar 6, 2012

Paladin, does the Anglican Church have a current Authorised Version?

Unix · Mar 6, 2012

Not the most recent ones for Isaiah.

PaladinValer said:
that modern Bibles are based on the best texts

PaladinValer · Mar 6, 2012

progmonk said:
Paladin, does the Anglican Church have a current Authorised Version?

Several, actually. Which depends on the province you are in.

Unix said:
Not the most recent ones for Isaiah.

Incorrect according to all real experts, including those in your own Vatican Catholic Church.

brandplucked · Mar 6, 2012

PaladinValer said:
I refuse to worship the Bible...

I also refuse to believe a word of this unhistoric psuedohistoric drivel...

...the next thing is that the Vatican has a secret Library and is behind Mormonism, Islam, communism, etc...

...nothing new. Onward with real truth: that the KJV is obsolete, that modern Bibles are based on the best texts, and that KJV-Onlyism is nothing more than idolatry.

Why is it that every time you bible agnostics run into a real Bible believer you accuse us of "worshiping the Bible" or of "idolatry"? Oh, wait. I know. It's so you can think you are right for not believing in any Bible as the infallible words of God and justify your sin of unbelief to yourselves.

I do not have an alter with candles and incense burning before my King James Bible. I do not pray to it nor bow down to it. I have spilled coffee on it and I write in the margins. However I DO believe it and believe every word is the inspired and infallible words of God. Not one of you Bible of the Month Club modern versionists believe your favorite version is God's infallible words and when other versions differ in either texts or meanings, then yours is right and the others are wrong. No, you will not take a stand on any Bible as being the infallible words of God and the Standard of written Truth.

Here is a guy quoting from one of the liberal, pro-Catholic versions (NRSV) which has basically passed off the scene (thankfully) only to be replaced by other Vatican Version Flavors of the Month like the ESV, NIV and the fast disappearing NASB. Then he claims the modern (per)versions are based on the best texts! Yeah, sure they are. Do you even know what these so called "oldest and best texts" actually SAY? Probably not. You are just repeating the same ol' bible agnostic mantra.

Here is what your "best texts" are really like - Enjoy reading the FACTS.

Oldest and Best Mss? - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will Kinney

Unix · Mar 6, 2012

So You think an ADDITIONAL time-span of exactly 45 years while NO new manuscripts finds have been made, has been needed for obtaining better understanding of how Isaiah should be translated from Hebrew and Greek to English and footnoted in a regular Bible?

PaladinValer said:
Incorrect according to all real experts,

What do You mean by that? OR how come the RCC in Europe still uses the 1966 version?

PaladinValer said:
Including those in your own Vatican Catholic Church.

PaladinValer · Mar 6, 2012

brandplucked said:
Why is it that every time you bible agnostics run into a real Bible believer you accuse us of "worshiping the Bible" or of "idolatry"? Oh, wait. I know. It's so you can think you are right for not believing in any Bible as the infallible words of God and justify your sin of unbelief to yourselves.

Your definition of infallibility isn't even historically Christian. I have no interest in pop-theology.

I do not have an alter with candles and incense burning before my King James Bible. I do not pray to it nor bow down to it. I have spilled coffee on it and I write in the margins. However I DO believe it and believe every word is the inspired and infallible words of God.

One doesn't don't need an altar, candles, or incense to be worshiping it.

Not one of you Bible of the Month Club modern versionists believe your favorite version is God's infallible words and when other versions differ in either texts or meanings, then yours is right and the others are wrong. No, you will not take a stand on any Bible as being the infallible words of God and the Standard of written Truth.

Historically, there have always been alternative readings, especially when you translate it into different languages.

Sorry; your ideas are psuedohistorical and therefore are always wrong.

Here is a guy quoting from one of the liberal, pro-Catholic versions (NRSV) which has basically passed off the scene (thankfully) only to be replaced by other Vatican Version Flavors of the Month like the ESV, NIV and the fast disappearing NASB. Then he claims the modern (per)versions are based on the best texts! Yeah, sure they are. Do you even know what these so called "oldest and best texts" actually SAY? Probably not. You are just repeating the same ol' bible agnostic mantra.

The NRSV is one of the most popular versions in mainline Protestantism and is popular among Vatican Catholics as well.

The NASB isn't disappearing either.

The Vatican isn't even behind the ESV, NIV, or the NASB in their translation.

Furthermore, who the heck is "he"?

Here is what your "best texts" are really like - Enjoy reading the FACTS.

Oldest and Best Mss? - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will Kinney

I'm not interested in fiction. Nor Bibliolatry.

As for your accusations of "Biblical agnosticism," get a clue. Learn what the Church historically taught about the authority of the Bible before flinging around ridiculous, nonsense words.

Furthermore, I'll say it again: Don't tell an Anglican about the KJV. Our translation, not yours'. We know it, not you.

Unix said:
So You think an ADDITIONAL time-span of exactly 45 years while NO new manuscripts finds have been made, has been needed for obtaining better understanding of how Isaiah should be translated from Hebrew and Greek to English and footnoted in a regular Bible?

I have no clue what you are talking about. Define.

What do You mean by that? OR how come the RCC in Europe still uses the 1966 version?

Then you're claiming hypocrisy of your own church. Cannot have both p and ~p both be true. So therefore, your understanding must be incorrect, because the Vatican has a great deal of respect for Biblical scholarship and translation.

Unix · Mar 6, 2012

Isaiah isn't the hardest book in the Bible to translate. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was the first version ever to use the Qumran scrolls. HOW would it take another 45 years between 1966 until end of 2011 to improve it? It can't take THAT long time now can it? I really don't believe there are that many, or any, new insights after 1966 regarding Isaiah.

PaladinValer said:
I have no clue what you are talking about. Define.

Completely true. How come then the 1966 Jerusalem Bible hasn't been discarded yet?

PaladinValer said:
Then you're claiming hypocrisy of your own church. Cannot have both p and ~p both be true. So therefore, your understanding must be incorrect, because the Vatican has a great deal of respect for Biblical scholarship and translation.

PaladinValer · Mar 6, 2012

Unix said:
Isaiah isn't the hardest book in the Bible to translate. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was the first version ever to use the Qumran scrolls. HOW would it take another 45 years between 1966 until end of 2011 to improve it? It can't take THAT long time now can it? I really don't believe there are that many, or any, new insights after 1966 regarding Isaiah.

What are you talking about?

Furthermore, when you are replying to a quote, it is customary to have your reply follow the quote, not precede it. That confused me a bit.

Completely true. How come then the 1966 Jerusalem Bible hasn't been discarded yet?

It by and large has. The NJB has replaced it, although there has been an update to the original JB in 2007 to conform better to liturgies in Wales and England of the Roman Catholic Church.

Godsappointedtime · Mar 6, 2012

I have Esword and I currently use 34 translations.
I trust the Holy Spirit to teach and reveal.

Keachian · Mar 6, 2012

Unix said:
Isaiah isn't the hardest book in the Bible to translate. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was the first version ever to use the Qumran scrolls. HOW would it take another 45 years between 1966 until end of 2011 to improve it? It can't take THAT long time now can it? I really don't believe there are that many, or any, new insights after 1966 regarding Isaiah.

Are you talking about the transition from the Jerusalem Bible to that of the "Bible In Its Traditions"(BIIT) which is the 2nd major update to come along of that heritage? In which case from what I've seen of BIIT it appears to be a contemporary update of language in line with most 20 year updates and large expansions on the study notes, almost to full exegesis and hermeneutic level. Including parallels between the Hebrew, Greek and Vulgate, looks really interesting, I'll have to have a look at it when it is finished.

For those interested the project website is here: http://www.bibest.org/

Unix · Mar 6, 2012

How slow can the Bible translators be allowed to work? 23 years between 1966 to 1989 when the NRSV came which You favour, is too long time. I mean really there's not needed revision upon revision. Yes I know very well the NRSV was an update of the RSV-2, that's not the point. The point is that new translations of Isaiah are not needed at all since I can't imagine there being THAT MUCH insight within 23 years or within 45 years to call for a new translation.

PaladinValer said:
What are you talking about?

No You've got it all wrong. The NJB is not an update of the JB, there's so much difference between the two in many ways that NJB is a stand-alone translation. The CTS New Catholic Bible (did it come in 2007 I don't know, sometime in the '00s anyway) is the update of the JB, the notes and introductions are also revamped in it. The Jerusalem Bible English Version is being used also in Italy, French, Spain, Sweden, in any English language Mass, so pretty many use it. At the local cathedral here we have Mass in Swedish, English, Spanish, Polish, etc., etc., not that far from here in Finnish. There's no Catholic version in Swedish and Finnish, the local languages. A little bit Off Topic, sorry for that.

PaladinValer said:
It by and large has. The NJB has replaced it, although there has been an update to the original JB in 2007 to conform better to liturgies in Wales and England of the Roman Catholic Church.

No, never heard of.

progmonk said:
Are you talking about the transition from the Jerusalem Bible to that of the "Bible In Its Traditions"(BIIT)

Keachian · Mar 6, 2012

From a quick look around there is no difference between the CTS NCB and the NJB on the text that they share other than changing Yahweh to The LORD(small caps) I wouldn't say that this in any way encompasses a revision at all and is the same text exactly.

EDIT: Correction the Psalms are translated to align with the Catholic Liturgy, other than that the text is the same.

Unix · Mar 6, 2012

You've got it all wrong there. The CTS New Catolic Bible is definately not an update of the NJB, the text does NOT resemble the NJB, it resembles the JB closely but it's still an update so there are changes. I really wonder how come all the wrong information is floating around!? Obviously not many actually tries to find out correct facts or doesn't care.

However, thanks for the input, progmonk, if it DOES look close to NJB in many places, I'm not going to buy it.

progmonk said:
From a quick look around there is no difference between the CTS NCB and the NJB

Keachian · Mar 6, 2012

Sorry I meant JB

apache1 · Mar 6, 2012

You know what I like best about the King James Version? I love all the Shakespeare-era terms like thee, thou, verily, etc., sounds fancy. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, etc. It just plain sounds cool.

Keachian · Mar 6, 2012

Here's where I got the information:
CTS New Catholic Bible - Catholic Answers Forums

And may I say from the sounds of it it's probably quite a good version of the JB for the liturgically minded

Unix · Mar 6, 2012

Then, for the NT, better go with the 1865 Common English New Testament if You want one which has no influence from Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and has no omissions. I have since many years.
Or the 1941 NT 1961 OT Confraternity Version if You can stand a Catholic slant and Vulgate basis (difficult to obtain, but easier to obtain than the Common English New Testament which You have to order from a library page-by-page and can have maximally 25% of the work due to copyright still valid).

I know I'm being hard here, but anyway KJV is OLDER.

apache1 said:
You know what I like best about the King James Version? I love all the Shakespeare-era terms like thee, thou, verily, etc., sounds fancy. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, etc. It just plain sounds cool.

brandplucked · Mar 7, 2012

PaladinValer said:
The Vatican isn't even behind the ESV, NIV, or the NASB in their translation.

Oh really? Well check this out.

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (if you are a modern version promoter, you probably do have one). Open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They both admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself in not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

For undeniable proof the ESV, NIV, NASBs are the new "Catholic" Vatican Versions see the clear evidence here in this study.

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

Then go on to Part 2 where I list hundreds of words that have been omitted by them all. You cannot get around this evidence.

ESV,=Catholic Part 2 - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

Keachian · Mar 7, 2012

The difference being that the Catholic versions you actually site have Catholic only translators, while for the most part the translators for most if not all non-catholic translations do not have Catholic Scholars on their board of translators. For the most part from my understanding Catholic translations have followed the Vulgate and it is only with the Bibles produced in the last century that they followed Protestant example and went back to the original languages. Even when comparing the JB family of translations to the KJV I find no doctrinal difference.

I also don't understand what exactly is wrong with a translation being Catholic, if you are trying to sell it off as a bad thing then you're kind of presenting the wrong translation to be doing so with, go to Tyndale's translation, then we'll talk.

What about the "new" NIV 2011

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

On Sabbatical

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Member

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Watching for His return

On Sabbatical

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

On Sabbatical

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

On Sabbatical

Junior Member

On Sabbatical

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Member

On Sabbatical

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency