Need Bible help, literally, I need help buying a Bible. Autiographical junk included!

[Nate]

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm

Oh! That's awesome! I didn't know the 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha in them. I think I might get a Catholic Bible and read those books. That's kinda neat.

[Arnobius]

Oh! That's awesome! I didn't know the 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha in them. I think I might get a Catholic Bible and read those books. That's kinda neat.

Depending who you ask, the New American Bible (NAB) or the RSV (Catholic Edition) are most widely regarded. Just don't confuse NAB with NASB as they're two different translations.

[GhostontheNet]

Animeheretic: Indeed, nobody who does not know at least one of the Biblical languages has any right to complain about purity or impurity of YHWH's word. Also, out of curiousity, what is the difference between standard and Catholic versions of specific Bible translations, is it simply that the Apocrypha is included as a part of the Canon?

Sonicrose: I would have prefered you made the minimal effort of looking up "criticism" in the dictionary before ranting about allegded wrongdoing of textual criticism. If you had made this effort, you would have found that among the definitions are "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works." All the textual critics are doing is giving the data of the Biblical texts a thorough anylasis to get as close as possible to the original texts, not launching a campaign to pervert the texts. Also, considering the Books of the Bible were not a unified whole codex for such a long time, but were instead a group of stand-alone scolls, it seems to me to not be fair game to apply the Revelation text to an entire collection of scrolls. It will not do to use logical fallacies like Guilt by Association to slander the New International Version, and it falls out of the bounds of thread as declared by the mods, so please cut it out.

Azier the Swordsman: How would you explain the existence of perverted "translations" like those used by The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, which are far from on the way to being destroyed, but are in fresh supply?

[Ashley]

Guys, we asked nicely to keep this from becoming a debate on translations. Now we're going to ask again (for the final time) : Get back onto the topic at hand, and NOT which versions are or are not acceptable.

[Arnobius]

Animeheretic: Indeed, nobody who does not know at least one of the Biblical languages has any right to complain about purity or impurity of YHWH's word. Also, out of curiousity, what is the difference between standard and Catholic versions of specific Bible translations, is it simply that the Apocrypha is included as a part of the Canon?

You mean the RSV (Which is the only translation I'm aware of that is shared by Catholics and Protestants)? Well, trying to avoid any controversial statements, the Deuterocanonical books are part of it, and the rest is over disagreement between Catholic and Protestant scholars of the connotations of some things in scriptures.

And as for the NAB and NASB, the NAB is a Catholic bible, which I personally prefer. the NASB is a Protestant Bible that has nothing to do with the NAB, and I know nothing about the quality or accuracy of it... since kaemmerite was asking about Catholic Bibles, I thought I should mention that so he didn't get confused.

[GhostontheNet]

You mean the RSV (Which is the only translation I'm aware of that is shared by Catholics and Protestants)? Well, trying to avoid any controversial statements, the Deuterocanonical books are part of it, and the rest is over disagreement between Catholic and Protestant scholars of the connotations of some things in scriptures.

And as for the NAB and NASB, the NAB is a Catholic bible, which I personally prefer. the NASB is a Protestant Bible that has nothing to do with the NAB, and I know nothing about the quality or accuracy of it... since kaemmerite was asking about Catholic Bibles, I thought I should mention that so he didn't get confused.

So in other words its a matter of which Bibles are beholden to which pet translations in areas of Protestant-Catholic dispute? I think I understand, although my idealism prevents me from agreeing with allowing idiological presuppositions to color one's translation, with the only exception being where there are multiple historic meanings of particular words and one must determine which to choose (a good time for footnotes), though in absence of proper knowledge, I will accuse neither the Protestants nor the Catholics of this. This will suffice publicly, if you wish to discuss this further by P.M., go ahead.

Ashley: Let it be known I did not wish to fuel debates on this subject, merely to comment upon deeper methods of good translation that even the King James Version used, which was in turn subverted in a way I did not intend and I had to defend the legitimacy of these methods in Biblical translation against misrepresentation. My discussion of the New International Version was merely an archtype for Bible translations as a whole, even though the New International Version is one of my least favorite translations I have ever encountered.

[Mithrandir]

I'm certain you didn't mean it to come across this way, but that seemed quite like a rationalization.

shooby was very specific in what he said should be posted:

Helpful suggestions about a particular Bible Professor K can use are still solicited, without the slams on other translations.

Mithrandir's Miscelaneous Haiku 2:
post in self defense
if meditation precedes
lest you seem to whine.

[SonicRose]

If you want an in depth FYI of why I prefer the KJ Bible... I strongly suggest you go visit here..

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

Concerning Text Criticism... You guys sound like a broken record to me. The reason the King James Bible was made in English, was so that the People wouldn't have to rely on the "Holy Church Fathers" (in the Catholic Church) to tell them What Scripture Means.

Critical Text theory entails the following...

1. Only scholars properly equipped with training and a thorough knowledge of Greek and the ancient manuscripts are qualified to sit in judgment over God's Word.

2. A trained critic may through his superior knowledge know better than all witness that have gone before. He knows better than the ancient copyists.

3. Without the Holy Ghost or any evidence what-ever the trained critic can improve God's Word.

Hort and Wescott, little known, but "important Bible Scholars" who began the modern methods of organizing Text Families (A THEORY, never proven), says that basically the Oldest Texts are the Best. As we do not have the original Texts - noone can for sure know God's Word, only close to that. And that they know better than anyone else. Above is their beliefs on the bible in a nutshell. They were heretics to be honest about it (the way I see it), and furthermore they were occultists.

Now, you think God would trust the preservation of His Word to His people in the Church? Or a couple of charlatins dabbling with the Devil?

[Nate]

NOTE: This is NOT, NOT, NOT an attack on the KJV...in fact, in order to prove that, I am going to withold the link...but I have a site that contains a scanned copy of the original 1611 KJV preface, which is not in most modern editions, and it contains some very interesting statements, and if anyone is interested in it, PM me for the link.

That said, carry on smartly. ^^

[Azier the Swordsman]

Azier the Swordsman: How would you explain the existence of perverted "translations" like those used by The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, which are far from on the way to being destroyed, but are in fresh supply?

To clarify a little better, I was referring specifically to Bible's that are in use within the Christian Church/Community. Those other Bible's you mention are cultish in nature and are not accepted by the Christian Church. God would not have allowed the NIV to exist in the Christian Church/Community either if it were 'perverted', because it would be misleading those true Christians seeking God's Word, and thus it would be an 'outcast translation.

Anyways, any more debating like this should probably be through PM. I have a feeling this thread won't be around longer anyways....

[GhostontheNet]

If you want an in depth FYI of why I prefer the KJ Bible... I strongly suggest you go visit here..

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

Concerning Text Criticism... You guys sound like a broken record to me. The reason the King James Bible was made in English, was so that the People wouldn't have to rely on the "Holy Church Fathers" (in the Catholic Church) to tell them What Scripture Means.

Critical Text theory entails the following...

1. Only scholars properly equipped with training and a thorough knowledge of Greek and the ancient manuscripts are qualified to sit in judgment over God's Word.

2. A trained critic may through his superior knowledge know better than all witness that have gone before. He knows better than the ancient copyists.

3. Without the Holy Ghost or any evidence what-ever the trained critic can improve God's Word.

Hort and Wescott, little known, but "important Bible Scholars" who began the modern methods of organizing Text Families (A THEORY, never proven), says that basically the Oldest Texts are the Best. As we do not have the original Texts - noone can for sure know God's Word, only close to that. And that they know better than anyone else. Above is their beliefs on the bible in a nutshell. They were heretics to be honest about it (the way I see it), and furthermore they were occultists.

Now, you think God would trust the preservation of His Word to His people in the Church? Or a couple of charlatins dabbling with the Devil?

Pearls before swine. Here is where I back off rather than doing a refutation of your straw man burning exercises. Have you so little respect for the mods that after they say "slow down" you say "speed up"? Indeed, what little I did do was amusingly hit by a haiku. No, I will do my part to keep Professor K's thread up even if you try to get it locked.

Azier: That is close enough to my position that it is not worth taking any issue, save for my previously stated "scroll complaint".

[inkhana]

I think things have gone far enough here. Since people can't seem to get back on the original topic, it's going to have to be locked.