Which translation do you use and why?

Philip · Apr 11, 2005

JohnJones said:
saying that the church forms no doctrine from them but they are used for edification and instruction in manner as well as understanding the Jews of Jesus' time.

Oblio said:
That is rather Roman Catholic of Luther, to ascribe to one person the infallibity to chose his canon. Or perhaps he was establishing a precedent of picking and choosing those things he agreed with to be the gospel truth.

Indeed. It is also rather Western to think that the Church forms any doctrines, whether from Scripture or another source.

jim62 · Apr 11, 2005

KJV-Onlyism

Biblical or Cultic?

There are many today, often very sincere and well-meaning, who are seeking to promote a double inspiration theory. They teach that not only were the original manuscripts inspired by God, but also that the King James Bible translation has been miraculously preserved and translated with the result that it is absolutely perfect and flawless.

This view is stated clearly by one of its defenders: We believe that the same God who gave the original Scriptures has the power and authority to PRESERVE them through the years of time and give them to us in our languageinfallible and without possibility of error. We believe that Almighty God through the power of the Holy Spirit has INSPIRED and PRESERVED (emphasis his) one and only one translation and version in the English language as the infallible and inerrant Holy Scriptures. That version is the King James Authorized Version of 1611 (written by Mark A. Underwood, president and founder of THE KING JAMES BIBLE MINISTRY, a ministry which was founded for the purpose of promoting and defending the KJV of 1611 as the infallible and inspired Holy Scriptures; the above quotations are from Underwoods brochure in which he tells about his ministry and presents his statement of faith).

I, also, am King James Only in the sense that I use only the King James Bible in my reading and study of the Word. I love and honor and respect this translation of the Bible, and recognize that it has been greatly used of God since its first edition in 1611. I also recognize that there are serious problems involving the multitude of modern translations that are on the market today and that these problems must be faced and dealt with. But it is my position, and the historic position of Bible believers, that it is only the original manuscripts (autographs) which have been given by inspiration of God and that no translation, not even the revered KJV, is absolutely flawless and perfect. A translation is accurate only to the extent that it faithfully gives an accurate rendering of the original text. I am thankful that in general the KJV does this and does it very well. (Adapted from a 5/9/98 pastors e-mail.)

One can certainly appreciate the point that many modern translations are suspect because of the heterodoxy of the translators. Still, insisting on retreat to a less than perfect translation of 1611, as all translations must be (and in fact usually using a 1769 tenth edition of that translation, which alleviates some of the earlier nine editions imperfections), is still retreat, not an advance for the Kingdom of God. We can continue to appreciate and use the KJV (tenth edition) without making it into an idol that is as detestable to God as any other idol.

Background Information

The Old Testament (OT) was almost all originally written in Hebrew with a few portions in Aramaic. The New Testament (NT) was written in Greek. The OT: Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (1947-1956), the earliest hand copied manuscript of the Hebrew OT was dated about A.D. 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls provided manuscripts that were copied from 100 B.C. - A.D. 200. These manuscripts were about 1,000 years older than any previously known copies of Hebrew OT texts. The remarkable thing was that a comparison proved the amazing similarity of the texts. The only variation involved what scholars termed incidental matters. Today, there is little debate over the OT text.

The NT: There are three major sources to examine to try and determine the actual text of the original writings of the Greek New Testament. They are the Greek Manuscripts (about 5,300), the versions which are earlier translations (about 8,000) and Bible quotations in the writings of the early church fathers.

Greek manuscripts have two primary text-type families. The debate over the preferred (or non-corrupted, if you are KJV-Only) text centers around the Byzantine and the Alexandrian text-types. The Byzantine text-type was the Greek text used during the Byzantine period (A.D. 312-1453). The King James translation was based on a few (about 6) of these manuscripts. Those few manuscripts became the basis for what became known as the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century (cf. THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE by D.A. Carson, pp. 35-36). The earliest Byzantine texts are from the 4th century. The Alexandrian text-type has fewer manuscripts but they are older. They were discovered after the translation of the KJV. Modern translations are based primarily on these older manuscripts.

<B>Facts of the Matter

Borealis · Apr 11, 2005

JohnJones said:
And also because JEROME, the CATHOLIC translator of the Latin Vulgate denied their inspiration but included them in the Vulgate for purely historical purposes, saying that the church forms no doctrine from them but they are used for edification and instruction in manner as well as understanding the Jews of Jesus' time.

I forgot this one would get brought up. Silly me...

St. Jerome was a brilliant translator and a very learned man. However, St. Jerome did NOT speak for the Church. See, Catholics are permitted to disagree with the Church; that's part of that whole 'free will' thing God gave us a while back. However, the Church IS the authority, as instituted by Jesus Christ. Individual Catholics do not decide what is and what is not the truth as taught by the Church; the Church decides that.

It's like an eight-year old and his parents; you don't have to like what they're telling you, and you can argue you're opinion all you want, but in the end you either do as your parents say, or you get sent to your room. Parents are the authority in a child's life. So too the Church is the authority in a Christian's life.

Jerome disagreed with the Magesterium on what was to be included with Scripture. He was entitled to do so. However, the Church instructed him that they were to be included with the protocanonical books, and so he did as he was told, because unlike Martin Luther, he did not place his own ideas above the teachings of the Church. Also, he didn't want to get sent to his room.

As for 'no doctrines from the deuterocanonicals,' Purgatory is one doctrine that we get from those books (Maccabees). And anyone who claims that the Book of Wisdom (or Ecclesiasticus) is not Scripture hasn't read it. Read Chapter 2 of Wisdom and try saying with a straight face that it wasn't inspired.

BTW, do you know where Jerome got the idea that the deuterocanonicals weren't really Scripture? I'll give you a hint: he went there to study the Hebrew language. Now, do you think that the keepers of the Jewish traditions, who vehemently denied that Christ was the Messiah, were going to say, 'Sure, those prophecies about the Messiah that refer to Jesus Christ? They're all inspired scripture.'

Jerome was a brilliant man; he was not infallible, nor was he the final authority on all matters scriptural. He did, however, provide us with an utterly beautiful translation, one that blows the KJV away.

BInC · Apr 11, 2005

I use ESV, English Standard Verson. I guess I use it because I just like the way it words some things. I use that one regularly, but I also have a KJV, Amplified, NIV, Message, TNIV, ISV, and ASV for bible studies or for trying to get a different perspective on a certain verse.

JohnJones · Apr 11, 2005

Borealis said:
I forgot this one would get brought up. Silly me...

St. Jerome was a brilliant translator and a very learned man. However, St. Jerome did NOT speak for the Church. See, Catholics are permitted to disagree with the Church; that's part of that whole 'free will' thing God gave us a while back.

If JEROME had the rigft to disagree, then why can't WE disagree? Why won't you drop the Apocrypha issue, seeing by your admission it isn't even important and there is a right to disagree on it?

Borealis said:
However, the Church instructed him that they were to be included with the protocanonical books, and so he did as he was told, because unlike Martin Luther, he did not place his own ideas above the teachings of the Church.

Do you have any proof that he was strong-armed into including the Apocrypha? I thought he did it on his own accord because of the historical value. The Apocrypha teaches us a lot about the corruption of Judaism in the time of Christ and just prior--after all they were forging 'scripture' and what's more corrupt than that?

Borealis said:
As for 'no doctrines from the deuterocanonicals,' Purgatory is one doctrine that we get from those books (Maccabees).

Apparently Jerome didn't think so. Anyway, Tertullian created the doctrine of purgatory by accident in his Treatise On the Soul, ie DE ANIMA. He was disputing with a reincarnationist who misinterpreted a passage in Matthew by allegorizing it. After telling the reincarnationist that the passage should be taken literally, he said "if you must take it as an allegory" and gave an alternative allegorical interpretation terminated by the words "what a better interpretation!" Thus, in providing "a better" allegorical interpretation which he himself did not even believe in (he himself said the passage was literal) he accidentally created the doctrine of purgatory. So, obviously Jerome is right--purgatory doesn't come from Maccabees, but from Tertullian's accidental allegory.

BTW, do you know where Jerome got the idea that the deuterocanonicals weren't really Scripture? I'll give you a hint: he went there to study the Hebrew language. Now, do you think that the keepers of the Jewish traditions, who vehemently denied that Christ was the Messiah, were going to say, 'Sure, those prophecies about the Messiah that refer to Jesus Christ? They're all inspired scripture.'

The only Apocrypha with prophecies of Christ is the book of Wisdom. There's none in the additions to Daniel or additions to Esther nor in the prayer of Mannasse or 3rd and 4th Esdras, etc. BTW, 3rd Esdras condemns drinking--that's the only reason why the RCC doesn't accept it as deuterocanonical whereas the Greek Orthodox do, and the Protestants who use Apocrypha hold it equal to all other Apocrypha (not as lessor Apocrypha like the RCC).

Jerome was a brilliant man; he was not infallible, nor was he the final authority on all matters scriptural.

He was a good linguist, but brilliant may be going too far. After all, brilliant people don't often result to insulting their opponents' intelligence in debates, but rather use ACTUAL ARGUMENTS--but insult was ALL that Jerome knew how to do (besides translate). Vigilantius believed the Scripture that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" and "have faithful children" just as Paul wrote, and because Jerome's doctrine was founded on shifting sand rather than Scripture, Jerome could not bring forth any coherant argument against Vigilantius but could only spew forth venemous insults. Jerome's writings are quite a shame.

He did, however, provide us with an utterly beautiful translation, one that blows the KJV away.

I've read a bit of it. It's better than the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NLT, NCV, BBE, and all modern translations other than the NKJV, but its certainly not better than the KJV. And as far as accuracy, the Latin Vulgate doesn't come anywhere close to the KJV, as the Vulgate has no definite articles and does not clearly distinguish between the words HIS and HERS. IF Jerome had been a better translator he would have invented a definite article and a way to distinguish clearly between HIS and HERS, but he didn't.

Borealis · Apr 12, 2005

JohnJones said:
If JEROME had the rigft to disagree, then why can't WE disagree? Why won't you drop the Apocrypha issue, seeing by your admission it isn't even important and there is a right to disagree on it?

Because the Church has made an infallible decree that confirmed what everyone already knew. The Canon was set by the Church in 382 A.D. Jerome went along with it, because while he disagreed (due to Jewish influence), he knew better than to tell the Church where to go. Then at the Council of Trent, the official decree was made, which affirmed that the deuterocanonicals were part of the Bible, had always been, and always would be.

You can contrast Jerome and Luther quite simply: how many Jeromite churches have you seen?

Do you have any proof that he was strong-armed into including the Apocrypha? I thought he did it on his own accord because of the historical value. The Apocrypha teaches us a lot about the corruption of Judaism in the time of Christ and just prior--after all they were forging 'scripture' and what's more corrupt than that?

Of course he wasn't strong-armed. I never said he was. I said that he did what the Church asked, because unlike some people, he knew that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit, and would not be permitted to err in such a vital matter. And kindly quit referring to them as the Apocrypha; they are nothing of the kind. The Gospel of Thomas is Apocrypha; Wisdom is not.

Apparently Jerome didn't think so. Anyway, Tertullian created the doctrine of purgatory by accident in his Treatise On the Soul, ie DE ANIMA. He was disputing with a reincarnationist who misinterpreted a passage in Matthew by allegorizing it. After telling the reincarnationist that the passage should be taken literally, he said "if you must take it as an allegory" and gave an alternative allegorical interpretation terminated by the words "what a better interpretation!" Thus, in providing "a better" allegorical interpretation which he himself did not even believe in (he himself said the passage was literal) he accidentally created the doctrine of purgatory. So, obviously Jerome is right--purgatory doesn't come from Maccabees, but from Tertullian's accidental allegory.

Whatever. The Church does not invent doctrines. Everything comes from Apostolic times. Your ignorance of Church history notwithstanding.

The only Apocrypha with prophecies of Christ is the book of Wisdom. There's none in the additions to Daniel or additions to Esther nor in the prayer of Mannasse or 3rd and 4th Esdras, etc. BTW, 3rd Esdras condemns drinking--that's the only reason why the RCC doesn't accept it as deuterocanonical whereas the Greek Orthodox do, and the Protestants who use Apocrypha hold it equal to all other Apocrypha (not as lessor Apocrypha like the RCC).

So why do you ignore Wisdom, then? Why don't you include it in Scripture? Because Martin Luther took it out. He also took out Revelation, Jude, James, and Hebrews. The Jews who gave him the canon he used excluded the rest of the New Testament, as well. So who will you believe? The Church that Christ founded, or the Jews who rejected him?

He was a good linguist, but brilliant may be going too far. After all, brilliant people don't often result to insulting their opponents' intelligence in debates, but rather use ACTUAL ARGUMENTS--but insult was ALL that Jerome knew how to do (besides translate). Vigilantius believed the Scripture that an elder must be the "husband of one wife" and "have faithful children" just as Paul wrote, and because Jerome's doctrine was founded on shifting sand rather than Scripture, Jerome could not bring forth any coherant argument against Vigilantius but could only spew forth venemous insults. Jerome's writings are quite a shame.

I'll ignore your attacks on one of the most beloved saints in the Church and say only this: I've seen many brilliant people resort to insult and injury in debate. Including on this message board.

I've read a bit of it. It's better than the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NLT, NCV, BBE, and all modern translations other than the NKJV, but its certainly not better than the KJV. And as far as accuracy, the Latin Vulgate doesn't come anywhere close to the KJV, as the Vulgate has no definite articles and does not clearly distinguish between the words HIS and HERS. IF Jerome had been a better translator he would have invented a definite article and a way to distinguish clearly between HIS and HERS, but he didn't.

Obviously it wasn't needed; Latin was the common language of the time, and people were able to understand it just fine.

brandplucked · Apr 12, 2005

Borealis posts: " The Bible is not the only Early Church literature that matches the Septuagint. Many of the writings of the earliest fathers of the Church (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) also quoted from it....ALL the Early Church Fathers quoted from the Septuagint, including the ones who lived long before Origen (in Apostolic times, in fact)."

Hi Bor, I have heard this allegation many times before. I have also seen actual charts of the "quotes" of Clement and other church fathers. It has been shown that they often do not match either the alleged LXX or the New Testament. They were often quite free with their Bible references.

John Burgon collected over 85,000 quotes from the church fathers, and his conclusion was (regarding the differences between the Traditional Text and the Critical texts) that not only did the Traditional Text exist, but it pre-dominated.

Dr. Thomas Holland has a list of Clement's "quotes" and clearly shows that most of them do not match either the LXX or the Hebrew texts. They often gave rather free paraphrases or vague references.

Let's boil it all down to this one simple question. After all your research and theories, have you come to the conlcusion that there is now an inspired, complete, inerrant Bible in any language or any single text that exists today?

Do you believe any Bible in any language IS NOW the inerrant and complete word of God? Yes or No. If Yes, then please identify it for us so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy.

If No, then your only final authority for the written words of God is your own mind and understanding, and your particular "bible" differs from everybody else's.

Please tell us very clearly how you stand on this vital issue. Thanks,

Will

Rolf Ernst · Apr 12, 2005

jim62--I appreciate your "onlyism." Besides the KJV, I have used the ASV, NKJV, NASB and ESV. When I consider them all, it occurs to me--which would I be most comfortable with if I were to be stranded on an isle with no concordance, no original language text, and no lexicon. When a man makes that consideration, he comes down to where the rubber really meets the road; and I can't imagine any choiceother than the KJV. The ASV would be my second choice.

brandplucked · Apr 12, 2005

jim62 said:
KJV-Onlyism

Biblical or Cultic?

There are many today, often very sincere and well-meaning, who are seeking to promote a double inspiration theory. They teach that not only were the original manuscripts inspired by God, but also that the King James Bible translation has been miraculously preserved and translated with the result that it is absolutely perfect and flawless.

Hi Jim, you start off with a false assumption. God's true words ARE inspired, even if they are preserved in a translation. The Bible itself clearly teaches by many examples that a translation CAN BE inspired.

Jim continues: I, also, am King James Only in the sense that I use only the King James Bible in my reading and study of the Word. I love and honor and respect this translation of the Bible, and recognize that it has been greatly used of God since its first edition in 1611. I also recognize that there are serious problems involving the multitude of modern translations that are on the market today and that these problems must be faced and dealt with. But it is my position, and the historic position of Bible believers, that it is only the original manuscripts (autographs) which have been given by inspiration of God and that no translation, not even the revered KJV, is absolutely flawless and perfect. A translation is accurate only to the extent that it faithfully gives an accurate rendering of the original text. I am thankful that in general the KJV does this and does it very well. "

Jim, the "historic position" is NOT that only the originals were inspired. This whole thing of "only inspired in the originals" is a recent position. I can prove this.

Secondly, you probably know that we do not have the "originals" and there is widespread and considerable difference of opinions as to what they really said in both the Old Testament and the New. So, your whole position is built on shifting sand. Bottom line is - you do not have an inerrant Bible and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised.

Also, your post about the Dead Sea Scrolls is bogus. There were at least three different kinds of Hebrew texts found, and many, many portions of other books that never formed part of the Hebrew canon. The atheists love to bring up the DSS to show the utter confusion that exists about the accuracy of the Christians and Jews Bible.

" The King James translation was based on a few (about 6) of these manuscripts. Those few manuscripts became the basis for what became known as the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century (cf. THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE by D.A. Carson, pp. 35-36).

Jim, Carson does not believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God, and saying that the KJB is based on about 6 manuscripts is a shameless lie. You should know this. Why do you post such nonsense?

Same question for you as to Borealis. Do you believe any Bible or text in any language is NOW the inerrant, complete, infallible words of God?

Will K

Borealis · Apr 12, 2005

brandplucked said:
Hi Bor, I have heard this allegation many times before. I have also seen actual charts of the "quotes" of Clement and other church fathers. It has been shown that they often do not match either the alleged LXX or the New Testament. They were often quite free with their Bible references.

Really? Have you done so using the actual Greek? I'd ask Oblio or Philip, who likely have more knowledge of Koine than I do. Don't do an English translation of it, do the actual original writings, in Greek.

Let's boil it all down to this one simple question. After all your research and theories, have you come to the conlcusion that there is now an inspired, complete, inerrant Bible in any language or any single text that exists today?

Yes.

Do you believe any Bible in any language IS NOW the inerrant and complete word of God? Yes or No. If Yes, then please identify it for us so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy.

The Vulgate. Translated to the Douay-Rheims, which is as close to a perfect translation as we're likely to get. And it wasn't commissioned by an anti-Catholic king.

If No, then your only final authority for the written words of God is your own mind and understanding, and your particular "bible" differs from everybody else's.

You forget, I don't buy into the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.

Please tell us very clearly how you stand on this vital issue. Thanks,

Will

I follow the teachings of the Church, who have authorized exactly ONE Bible as being the official and unerring Word of God, and that is the Vulgate. No English translation, no French, German, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Egyptian, Aramaic, Syrian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Carthaginian, or any OTHER translation has EVER been officially authorized and pronounced as inerrant by the Catholic Church.

However, we are permitted to use translations that are approved (not authorized), of which the three I'm familiar with are the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, and the RSV-CE, which is the translation used by Canadian Catholic churches.

Clear enough for you?

GL2814 · Apr 12, 2005

NIV--Nearly Inerrant Version.

Albion · Apr 13, 2005

jim62--I appreciate your "onlyism." Besides the KJV, I have used the ASV, NKJV, NASB and ESV. When I consider them all, it occurs to me--which would I be most comfortable with if I were to be stranded on an isle with no concordance, no original language text, and no lexicon. When a man makes that consideration, he comes down to where the rubber really meets the road; and I can't imagine any choiceother than the KJV. The ASV would be my second choice.

Rolf, that about sums up my own view and preferences, too.

brandplucked · Apr 13, 2005

Borealis posts:I follow the teachings of the Church, who have authorized exactly ONE Bible as being the official and unerring Word of God, and that is the Vulgate. No English translation, no French, German, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Egyptian, Aramaic, Syrian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Carthaginian, or any OTHER translation has EVER been officially authorized and pronounced as inerrant by the Catholic Church.

However, we are permitted to use translations that are approved (not authorized), of which the three I'm familiar with are the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, and the RSV-CE, which is the translation used by Canadian Catholic churches.

Clear enough for you?

Hi Bor, thanks for the answer. Yes, it is clear. So when your Douay includes 6 whole extra verses in Psalm 13 (Ps. 14 in Hebrew and KJB, nasb, niv), and the Douay includes 1 John 5:7, but the NAB omits the extra 6 verses in the Psalm and omits "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" in 1 John 5:7, then you have conflicting "authorized versions" - but, Hey, What difference does it make, anyway? Right?

Anyway, thanks for clarifying what your position is.

Will

brandplucked · Apr 13, 2005

"When a man makes that consideration, he comes down to where the rubber really meets the road; and I can't imagine any choiceother than the KJV. The ASV would be my second choice."

"Rolf, that about sums up my own view and preferences, too."

Hi guys, are you both unaware that the King James Bible and the ASV are based on very different Greek texts?

Here is a little chart that is very easy to follow. Check out what is missing from the ASV.

The chart is in two parts, but very easy to read. Please see both parts. Now, if these differences are not important to you, then there is little point in continuing the conversation.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Will Kinney

Knowledge3 · Apr 13, 2005

Right now am focusing on learning the original english of the 1611 KJV. It has a better emphasis on flow and Scripture.

AVBunyan · Apr 13, 2005

Knowledge3 said:
Right now am focusing on learning the original english of the 1611 KJV. It has a better emphasis on flow and Scripture.

Good for you - you will be able to pick up and plus the Lord will bless your efforts.

God bless

Borealis · Apr 13, 2005

brandplucked said:
Borealis posts:I follow the teachings of the Church, who have authorized exactly ONE Bible as being the official and unerring Word of God, and that is the Vulgate. No English translation, no French, German, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Egyptian, Aramaic, Syrian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Carthaginian, or any OTHER translation has EVER been officially authorized and pronounced as inerrant by the Catholic Church.

However, we are permitted to use translations that are approved (not authorized), of which the three I'm familiar with are the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, and the RSV-CE, which is the translation used by Canadian Catholic churches.

Clear enough for you?

Hi Bor, thanks for the answer. Yes, it is clear. So when your Douay includes 6 whole extra verses in Psalm 13 (Ps. 14 in Hebrew and KJB, nasb, niv), and the Douay includes 1 John 5:7, but the NAB omits the extra 6 verses in the Psalm and omits "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" in 1 John 5:7, then you have conflicting "authorized versions" - but, Hey, What difference does it make, anyway? Right?

Anyway, thanks for clarifying what your position is.

Will

Apparently it wasn't clear enough. I've bolded the part you obviously skimmed right past. THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. Is that clear enough?

THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED.

They are accepted, not authorized. Again, not authorized. Only the Vulgate, the Latin translation done by St. Jerome that includes the deuterocanonicals because the Church stated they were sacred scripture, the Bible that was used by virtually all Christians in the West for centuries until the Church started making translations in regional languages (starting with German), the Bible that was translated using sources that weren't available in the late 16th century, the Bible that the KJV translators cribbed from to check their own work, was authorized.

Authorization is a KJV conceit that doesn't mean what they pretend it does. It wasn't authorized by God; it was not authorized by a divine King, only a human one (and an anti-Catholic, to boot).

As for the 'missing verses' in the Psalm...perhaps you should read them again, assuming you've actually read them. There's nothing in the (not authorized) Douay-Rheims Psalms that isn't in the (not authorized) NAB.

As for 1 John 5:7...since the words you're quoting aren't in the Greek Bible, why should they be in the (not authorized) NAB? As to why the (not authorized) Douay-Rheims includes them, good question. I'll have to look around for an explanation. I will note, however, that the Vulgate DOES NOT INCLUDE those words in 1 John 5:7.

Don't believe me? Try this:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bi...155&query=chapter=#135&layout=&loc=I John 4.1

You might not be able to read the Greek, but if you remember that 'kai' is 'and' in Classical and Koine Greek, you should be able to find your way around the pertinent verses. The word 'kai' occurs three times in verse 6, and three times in verse 8. Not once in verse 7. If that doesn't work for you, just click on the English translation link at the top of the section, and see for yourself.

Or, if the Latin alphabet is easier to recognize, take a look at this.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/john1.html

6 Hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas. 7 Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant: 8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt.

My Latin is sketchy at best, but this part's easy: 'sunt' is 'there are', 'dant' is 'they give,' and 'testimonium' should be self-explanatory.

And the New Vulgate, which is again the only official Bible authorized by the Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_epist-i-ioannis_lt.html

6 Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Iesus Christus; non in aqua solum sed in aqua et in sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam Spiritus est veritas.
7 Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur:
8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt.

That's it, in its entirety. Now, earlier you came at me with Jerome not liking the Deuterocanonicals. That's right, he didn't. But he put them in, because the Church told him they belonged in there. So why didn't he include those famous words in that verse? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BELONG IN THERE. Now, if you're going to seriously tell me that Jerome just didn't have access to those manuscripts but the KJV translators, 1100 YEARS later, did, then you're going to have some serious logic twisting to work around.

And yes, I'm aware that several Church fathers (Cyprian, St. Leo, and Tertullian among others) did in fact quote the 'Johannine comma.' Jerome is alleged to have also done so in the 'Prefaces to the Canonical Epistles.' However, that's not a proven fact. Regardless of whether or not Jerome quoted it, he DID NOT include it in the Vulgate.

BTW, thanks for the challenge; I had to do some serious research on this topic, but I learned a lot about the subject in the process. Next time someone throws this one at me, I'll be better able to deal with it.

tqpix · Apr 13, 2005

My copy of An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest arrived in the mail today. This translation uses as many words as necessary to fully convey the meaning of the Greek words. I get the feeling this could be my primary Bible from now on.

I also use the King James Version (KJV) for its accuracy and the fact that it used the Textus Receptus; and the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) by Jay P. Green, because in some areas, it is more accurate than the KJV, and it, too, is based on the Textus Receptus.

PaladinValer · Apr 13, 2005

Borealis, Henry VIII was no anti-Vatican Catholic. He demanded a celibate clergy (Archbishop Cranmer literally had to hide his wife), believed that the Deuterocanon was Scripture, and said that Latin had to be the language in all Masses. Hardly anti-Vatican Catholic.

In addition, the NAB is the authorized translation for Vatican Catholics in the US.

tqpix, do realize that the KJV is not an authorized translation in your Vatican Catholic Church, not to mention it doesn't contain the Deuterocanon anymore, which is not good.

tqpix · Apr 13, 2005

PaladinValer said:
tqpix, do realize that the KJV is not an authorized translation in your Vatican Catholic Church, not to mention it doesn't contain the Deuterocanon anymore, which is not good.

But I have three reprint copies of the original 1611 edition which do have the deuterocanon.

Which translation do you use and why?

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Active Member

Catholic Homeschool Dad

Brother In Christ

Well-Known Member

Catholic Homeschool Dad

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Catholic Homeschool Dad

The Green Lantern

Facilitator

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Catholic Homeschool Dad

Deist

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Deist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency