Kjv only
Comments
-
I very carefully worded my response with appropriate respect to the wording below:
[quote]
USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics
1983 - Present
The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1). Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese.
What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.
In addition to the translations listed below, any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.Paul said:However, that does not appear to affect the right of an ordinary Catholic to use a particular Bible if they choose to do so as a matter of conscience.
I've not seen that particular argument used with regards to choice of translation/canon before. It is generally a rather high bar. However, there is nothing prohibiting the use of unauthorized translations and there are sometimes good reasons to do so.
However, these forums are not where I would choose to pursue the issue further.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I very carefully worded my response with appropriate respect to the wording below:
[quote]
USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics
1983 - Present
The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1). Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese.
What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.
In addition to the translations listed below, any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒ may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.Paul said:However, that does not appear to affect the right of an ordinary Catholic to use a particular Bible if they choose to do so as a matter of conscience.
I've not seen that particular argument used with regards to choice of translation/canon before. It is generally a rather high bar. However, there is nothing prohibiting the use of unauthorized translations and there are sometimes good reasons to do so.
However, these forums are not where I would choose to pursue the issue further.
Thanks MJ and I appreciate the point you made. My source canon 825 was from "The Code of Canon Law" (Collins Liturgical Publications, London, 1983 so it is the English text of the Code from January 1983. You're right, the question has probably reached the limit for the forum. nevertheless thanks for your reply. Keep well Paul
0 -
David Paul said:
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
Any particular references that you would recommend on the subject?
0 -
It was a line that made me smile but also worry about how others might take it. Books defending an indefensible position that has no solid science behind it. There are numerous things that could be placed as examples but I am not one wanting to criticize differing beliefs. One because this is not the place to debate controvers and two because in some cases it could be argued by atheists who I doubt are here, that many of our books fall into that category.
-dan
0 -
David Paul said:
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
Let's back the truck up, a bit. A sizable portion of Christianity dumped a translation, while assuring everyone the quoters and theology from the same translation were straight from On High. All with a straight face. So, yes, the earth is flat (mostly).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I could give this dismissive attitude to any belief or set of beliefs that looks absurd from my vantage point: large portions of Roman Catholic doctrine, inconsistencies and incoherence within progressive Christianity, etc.
A better approach would be to adopt something like what Alasdair MacIntyre suggests in After Virtue:
"A necessary first step would be for them to come to understand what it is to think in the terms prescribed by that particular rival tradition, to learn how to think as if one were a convinced adherent of that rival tradition. To do this requires the exercise of a capacity for philosophical imagination that is often lacking. A second step is to identify, from the standpoint of the adherents of that rival tradition, its crucially important unresolved issues and unsolved problems—unresolved and unsolved by the standards of that tradition—which now confront those adherents and to enquire how progress might be made in moving towards their resolution and solution."
(Although I'm not saying that KJVO-ism and non-KJVO-ism are incommensurate, which is the context in which MacIntyre gives his advice)
Dismissing certain beliefs by declaring them beyond reasonable consideration is a popular tactic nowadays. And while there are obvious cases of beliefs which are irrational and need no consideration (cf. Alan Jacobs' How To Think), it's also a widely abused method for remaining smug and confirmation bias.
P.S. I know a lot of atheists who would consider every person on this forum to be the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther and would give the snide remark that FaithLife might as well be publishing flat earth content anyway.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
Denise said:
So, yes, the earth is flat (mostly).
Not round here it isn't - the potholes are taking over.
At one time in the UK we drove on the left – now we drive on what's left!
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Ahhh, yes. The broken wing mirrors!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
David Ames said:David Paul said:
This thread has has gotten me wondering...when is Logos going to start carrying resources in support of Flat Earth?
Any particular references that you would recommend on the subject?
Youtube? Facebook? Not sure how those could be bottled for Logos...[*-)]
Fwiw, I've also seen some captivating KJVO material on Youtube. There's this guy that draws elaborate pictures while he preaches. Quite a specimen.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
A better approach would be to adopt something like what Alasdair MacIntyre suggests in After Virtue:
"A necessary first step would be for them to come to understand what it is to think in the terms prescribed by that particular rival tradition, to learn how to think as if one were a convinced adherent of that rival tradition. To do this requires the exercise of a capacity for philosophical imagination that is often lacking. A second step is to identify, from the standpoint of the adherents of that rival tradition, its crucially important unresolved issues and unsolved problems—unresolved and unsolved by the standards of that tradition—which now confront those adherents and to enquire how progress might be made in moving towards their resolution and solution."
this is a good word.
0 -
David Paul said:
Well, there's the historical component, of course. The Western Catholic church used the Latin Vulgate for the majority of their existence. English wasn't even a thought, much less a consideration.
Yeah, like the burning of men who translated into English (Tyndale, and Wycliffe's bones).
0 -
Mike Tourangeau said:
I told my wife, it felt like I had been slurping water off a rock all my life and now I could wade in and dunk my head under the water and drink till my heart was content! I get emotional just thinking of how this first felt.
Thanks for sharing. I too have many KJVO family members.
0 -
Josh Hunt said:
I am looking for a thoughtful discussion of the KJV only debate.
Much on YouTube. As far as Logos- much has already been mentioned (though not "discussions") such as Mark Ward's book, James White's book, and D.A. Carson's. Also, the Mobile Ed course by Dr. Heiser, NT281 "How we got the New Testament" is good at addressing these matters too.
https://www.logos.com/product/144705/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible
https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism
https://www.logos.com/product/54352/mobile-ed-nt281-how-we-got-the-new-testament
0 -
I've seen several suggestions of materials for TR only, but none really for KJV only.
I am KJV only. I'd suggest that the best work today still comes from Peter Ruckman, despite his many detractors. I'd recommend reading a few of his books if you'd like to know the KJV only position, instead of reading what people say ABOUT his books.
I watched your video also. I'll suggest a few books based on what I heard from your position.
First, you point out that we have lots of manuscripts and we can see the textual variants in Logos. Dr. Ruckman discusses those various extant manuscripts from a KJV only position in "Manuscript Evidence": http://a.co/d/d76u0nE
Second, you make the point that we have many brilliant minds in textual scholarship that mostly agree on the issue. Dr. Ruckman would call this an "argument from authority." "The Very Serious People mostly agree, so it can be trusted." For the KJV only argument against using that approach, I'd recommend:"King James Onlyism vs Scholarship Onlyism": http://a.co/d/8bccvPxAnd another on this subject: "Biblical Scholarship": http://a.co/d/cC9pTV8Third, you mention in your video that we have most of the words, and we're only unsure of the readings in a handful of areas- and that none of those areas affect doctrine, so we can be secure knowing generally what the scripture says. But the KJV only approach stems from the idea that we are promised that God would preserve all of his words, not just most of them. "... every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God..." and so on (I won't rehash the argument here, I'm just raising the point). The KJV only emphasis is on every word, not just "most words" and not just "the general idea" or "the major doctrines."So if we're promised that God would preserve every word, the question is raised: where are they today? A simple booklet discussing why Dr. Ruckman believes it is the KJV can be found here:Why I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God: http://a.co/d/6rnR2UJI hope this helps! Please note that I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to answer your initial call for KJV only material.0 -
Tius, thank you for your explanation. It was very informative.
0 -
Let me add that Dr. Ruckman has some problematic stuff, but I hope everyone can read for his points on the above topics, and skip over the material that is not pertinent to the KJV only topic. His off-topic materials and comments can be distracting and have deterred many from reading his good points on the larger issue; please separate the meat from the bones and you'll find some very compelling arguments.
0 -
Speak of Mobile Ed courses, a Mobile Ed course that's not related to the KJVO debate itself but more related to the question of bible translations in general is BI181 - Introducing Bible Translations. I picked this up when they were offering it as part of the free book (course) of the month resources (I think it was one of the add-ons).
It doesn't deal with textual issues as I recall but more so focuses on the differences in translations and on translation methodology. I thought it was really helpful even as someone who's been to seminary, since there are nuggets/tidbits of info that I hadn't come across in school.
https://www.logos.com/product/54353/mobile-ed-bi181-introducing-bible-translations
0 -
Kiyah said:
Speak of Mobile Ed courses, a Mobile Ed course that's not related to the KJVO debate itself but more related to the question of bible translations in general is BI181 - Introducing Bible Translations. I picked this up when they were offering it as part of the free book (course) of the month resources (I think it was one of the add-ons).
It doesn't deal with textual issues as I recall but more so focuses on the differences in translations and on translation methodology. I thought it was really helpful even as someone who's been to seminary, since there are nuggets/tidbits of info that I hadn't come across in school.
https://www.logos.com/product/54353/mobile-ed-bi181-introducing-bible-translations
This is a great course. One of the best i have seen.
0 -
Hi,
I’m a little puzzled. Are you saying that somebody who cannot speak English will have to learn it to read God’s Word? Also, what about Christians who read it in the original languages? I’ve never really understood this fully.
0 -
Anthony,
This debate can be confusing to anyone who hasn't been exposed to it before. First of all, no one is saying that you must learn English to read God's Word, or that you cannot read it in the original languages.
At the risk of going a bit beyond what the forum guidelines allow, I believe there are basically three broad issues involved.
- The correct textual basis for the Bible: in other words, are the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts used in translating the King James Version (and other translations of that period) the inerrant and infallible Word of God, or should we be looking at modern critical texts;
- The reliability of the King James version: in other words, is the translation that the English-speaking world relied on for 400 years the inerrant and infallible Word of God; and
- The status of English translations that differ from the King James: in other words, there are passages in which the newer translations differ significantly from the King James. Are they changing the Word of God?
None of that has anything to do with, for example, the Luther translation into German. Or with the traditional Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox churches, or the traditional Masoretic text used in synagogues. It's really a debate about what to do with modern textual criticism, and whether we have an authoritative English version that we can fully and completely rely on as God's Word - down to the very last word and comma.
Or more fundamentally, can we rely on God's providence to have made sure that the English Bible my grandparents lived by, and that many still study today, is without error. As you might imagine, that can become incredibly important if you have a very high view of Scripture and English is your only language.
0 -
Anthony Dowden said:
Hi,
I’m a little puzzled. Are you saying that somebody who cannot speak English will have to learn it to read God’s Word? Also, what about Christians who read it in the original languages? I’ve never really understood this fully.
The whole debate comes to two resources:
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
Do we accept them as the true word of God or burn them as garbage?
0 -
David Ames said:
The whole debate comes to two resources:
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
Do we accept them as the true word of God or burn them as garbage?
Not to be too aerobic, but would you go for half of two resources? The other inspired half (per the retained other half) got chunked a ways back.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
The other inspired half (per the retained other half) got chunked a ways back.
Do you mean the half where God was left out of one whole book? [[the section that got Chunked about 400 ad?]] [[Another can of worms]]
[[Do we always throw things away after 400 years??]]
0 -
David Ames said:
Do you mean the half where God was left out of one whole book? [[the section that got Chunked about 400 ad?]] [[Another can of worms]]
[[Do we always throw things away after 400 years??]]
The greek jewish Bible.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Titus Wesley said:
I'd suggest that the best work today still comes from Peter Ruckman, despite his many detractors.
There you go...that's his name.
David Paul said:Fwiw, I've also seen some captivating KJVO material on Youtube. There's this guy that draws elaborate pictures while he preaches. Quite a specimen.
Ruckman has a ton of his "chalk talks" on Youtube. They're not all about KJVO topics.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0
