Bible Questions?

Such as?

 

But the Church clearly has no problem with it and there's this guy working for them who is infallible.

 

I don't know what "the Church" you are talking about but if you are talking about the Catholic Church, as you seem to imply, they do not use the KJV and I don't believe they ever did. In any case I am not Catholic.

 

I would disagree with this.

So are you implying that there is one version of the bible that trumps them all, or are you saying that your faith is an amalgam of multiple versions of the same book?

If your answer is the later of the two, why does it take multiple books all apparently translated to some extent incorrectly to fragment the stories together into some kind of semblance of a coherent story?

 

This is contradictory to your, "you need to consider the entire context".

 

So KJV is not the official "deep" version of Gods' word?

 

Odd, I was raised Catholic...and in services, classes, etc, the KJV was used. It's what they gave to us to study with and all that jazz.

 

The KJV is, never was, nor ever will be the official text of the Catholic Church.

The official text of the Church is the Latin Vulgate (is, was, and always will be). The first official English edition was a translation from French known as the Douay-Rheims Version. A current translation that many seem to like is the Jerusalem Bible. Another that the USCCB uses is the NAB. The CCCB (Canadian Bishops) use a Revised NRSV (CE). I like both the DRV and also the RSV (CE).

I know a priest who likes the KJV for its language.

I do not care what you did in Catholic school, but the KJV is and always will be a Protestant Bible. You also did not hear it in Mass, there is no way because readings come from a Lectionary, not a Bible.

 

ayayayyyyy! its all about what you like, Grim

 

Hey, it's not that big a deal to me - they all have more or less the same message, and they're all missing the most important books.

I was more bringing it up to argue OWB; as he is very firm in saying that the Bible was absolutely created by God 100%...yet there seem to be numerous acceptable versions, countless edits and omissions, etc...which means the lord may be a might schizophrenic.

 

Liking it is not the point.

My overall point in the post was that Grim was wrong. My secondary point was that the Latin text is the text used by the Church for her official documents.

The reason I use the RSV for scholarly work (or in other words: why I like it) is because I find it to be an accurate translation without muddying up some of the language that happens in the NRSV (gender neutral language is inserted where it does not exist previously). My RSV also indicates when Hebrew words are translated but that no real translation is known.

I often use the DRV for spiritual reasons for similar reasons why people use the KJV: I like the style of language. I always will cross reference things that seems different from other translations.

 

Such as...

maybe you mean the ones written 200, 300, 400 years after the life of Christ?

Gospel of Judas: ~ad250 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

Hell, almost everything found within the Nag Hammadi library seems to be tainted with 2nd Century gnosticism. Even Plato's Republic!

You can argue that the canonical Gospels are not reliable sources for Jesus' life and death, but you cannot argue that these are any more suited to telling the "real story".

 

100 years is cool with you, but 200 isn't?

 

Don't forget about the gospel of Joseph Smith (given to him from an angel - just like Mohammed, ay).

 

Go ahead.

Neither.

I'm not looking for a "story", the Bible contains the truth.

 

No.

 

Some think so but it's not.

 

No.

 

100 years is within the life time of eyewitnesses that could agree or disagree with the writer but 200 hundred years later, no eyewitnesses would still be around to testify to the truth of what was written.

 

which eyewitnesses were around 100 years later ?