• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edit the King James Bible?

Should the King James Bible be edited by anyone within or without of the church?


  • Total voters
    12
I am laughing about extremely poor education of some liberals, go to any Bookstore and see how many Bibles are there, e.g.

NKJV, ESV, NASB etc., all are revised KJB. The most worst of those is the NIV, some information about

king_james_bible.gif


is here:

The King James Bible Defended!
 
What do you care about the King James, Alfons? This isn't even your mother tongue, and the Luther Bible predates the King James by a century.
 
I am laughing about extremely poor education of some liberals, go to any Bookstore and see how many Bibles are there, e.g.
NKJV, ESV, NASB etc., all are revised KJB. The most worst of those is the NIV, some information about
king_james_bible.gif

is here:
The King James Bible Defended!
Wow. The author of that site has a web stalker fer sure. If I were David J Stewart, I think I would have contacted an attorney about all of the defamatory accusations out there from his stalker.
 
What do you care about the King James, Alfons? This isn't even your mother tongue, and the Luther Bible predates the King James by a century.

Yep, English is not my mother tongue ( only my fifth and worst language ), but KJV is my Bible ( and NKJV ) because I can feel the Holy Spirit while the reading and the Translation is more true to the Original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.So-called Luther Bible has a lot of wrong translations.
 
Yep, English is not my mother tongue ( only my fifth and worst language ), but KJV is my Bible ( and NKJV ) because I can feel the Holy Spirit while the reading and the Translation is more true to the Original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.So-called Luther Bible has a lot of wrong translations.

I cannot argue that. I have my own preferred translations of my holy texts as well. I just find it curious that you would be most moved by a text that is in neither the original nor in your preferred tongue.
 
The only editing I would do is to RESTORE the books and passages that Martin Luther and the Deformers took out because it didn't meet their theological muster...

The earliest incarnations of the Catholic Church, for 400 years after Jesus, were editing the New Testament and removing books and passages that they didn't like. And even before that, Jewish priests were doing the same thing for the Old Testament.
 
The earliest incarnations of the Catholic Church, for 400 years after Jesus, were editing the New Testament and removing books and passages that they didn't like. And even before that, Jewish priests were doing the same thing for the Old Testament.

And then Catholic scholars came together and decided on a canon that was definitively consistent with the teachings of Christ and the prophesies of the Old Testament. Luther just took out books and passages that didn't fit with his personal view of the Christian faith. Significant difference...
 
And then Catholic scholars came together and decided on a canon that was definitively consistent with the teachings of Christ and the prophesies of the Old Testament. Luther just took out books and passages that didn't fit with his personal view of the Christian faith. Significant difference...

I'm not sure I see the difference. Why is it OK for the Catholic Church to edit and remove books and passages that they believed weren't "consistent with the teachings of Christ and the prophesies of the Old Testament," but it isn't OK for Luther to do exactly the same thing?
 
I'm not sure I see the difference. Why is it OK for the Catholic Church to edit and remove books and passages that they believed weren't "consistent with the teachings of Christ and the prophesies of the Old Testament," but it isn't OK for Luther to do exactly the same thing?

Except that was one man and that isn't what he did. Do you know the primary reason why Catholics believe in faith and works while most Protestants believe in Faith Alone?

Also, as for KJV, I wouldn't trust a version from the head of a religion that was created for the sole purpose of granting a king an annulment from a marriage...
 
Except that was one man

What does the number of people have to do with it? If anything that makes it worse. At least if it's just one guy editing it, you'll get the gist of his interpretation. But if it's hundreds of guys editing it over the course of hundreds of years, it's like a game of telephone, where more and more information is lost and/or misinterpreted.

ludahai said:
and that isn't what he did.

You said that the Catholic scholars "decided on a canon that was definitively consistent with the teachings of Christ and the prophesies of the Old Testament," whereas Martin Luther merely "took out books and passages that didn't fit with his personal view of the Christian faith." As a non-Christian who has no dog in the fight between Catholic interpretations and Protestant interpretations, those actions sound identical to me...aside from the fact that you obviously agree with the former more than the latter.
 
What does the number of people have to do with it? If anything that makes it worse. At least if it's just one guy editing it, you'll get the gist of his interpretation. But if it's hundreds of guys editing it over the course of hundreds of years, it's like a game of telephone, where more and more information is lost and/or misinterpreted.

The canon was chosen by a collection of Catholic scholars at one time, not over a course of hundreds of years... you are misrepresenting reality...

You said that the Catholic scholars "decided on a canon that was definitively consistent with the teachings of Christ and the prophesies of the Old Testament," whereas Martin Luther merely "took out books and passages that didn't fit with his personal view of the Christian faith." As a non-Christian who has no dog in the fight between Catholic interpretations and Protestant interpretations, those actions sound identical to me...aside from the fact that you obviously agree with the former more than the latter.

I would trust a collection of scholars looking at the epistles to ensure that they are consistant with what was known about the teaching's of Christ as told in the accounts of Christ's life and teachings over that of a single man who had a grudge and made unilateral changes to the canon.
 
Which books are you referring to specifically?

The Gnostic Gospels, primarily, particularly those of Judas and Mary. The Christianity of my mother's line is heavily Gnostic in character, and I feel Gnosticism represents the best route to reaching an understanding of Jesus' nature, as opposed to only his teachings.

I am endlessly curious about the prophets. I can't resolve in my own mind which of your sects is worshiping your god most properly, and it baffles me.
 
The canon was chosen by a collection of Catholic scholars at one time, not over a course of hundreds of years... you are misrepresenting reality...

No. There may have been an official declaration by the Catholic Church at some point in time, but the canon itself was being tinkered with for nearly 400 years.
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ludahai said:
I would trust a collection of scholars looking at the epistles

I'm still not seeing why a collection of scholars is able to do this better than a single individual.

ludahai said:
to ensure that they are consistant with what was known about the teaching's of Christ as told in the accounts of Christ's life and teachings

This is a circular argument. You trust them to determine the canon because they're trying to make sure it's consistent with the canon. "The accounts of Christ's life and teachings" to which you refer ARE the canon.

ludahai said:
over that of a single man who had a grudge and made unilateral changes to the canon.

A grudge against what? The Catholic Church? OK...and the Catholic Church had grudges against other sects of Christians, and made unilateral changes to reflect THEIR beliefs. It makes no logical sense that one is better than the other.
 
I don't think we should do anything.. If people are stupid enough to take it literal.. Why should we make it say something smart so they sound smart?? They are still idiots for not thinking for themselves..

I seriously doubt god wanted people to blindly believe the bible and live by it's rules.. Christians always talk about faith and being tested.. Did it ever occur to them that maybe the bible itself was a test and the real lesson was to think for themselves?? After all.. To truly know god takes prayer.. Not the bible..
 
I just find it curious that you would be most moved by a text that is in neither the original nor in your preferred tongue.

You are wrong, KJV is one of the best World Translations!
 
Fair enough, just thought I'd ask, as the KJV was written specifically to suit the Church of England.

I'm not a Christian any more, and much as it pains me, I have to agree with Alfons to a degree. I think the KJV, and more specifically the NKJ, is a terrific translation. If you are reading it for clarity and poetry, it can't be beaten. There are some who believe that Shakespeare had a hand in the rewriting. I'm pretty sure that's a myth, but clearly the language is consistent with the era of Shakespeare even if the vocabulary of the KJV is much, much more limited than that of Shakespeare's oeuvre.

As far as discussing which one has the correct translations of the original Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew, I've no idea. I think Ludahai's prejudice against Luther's work on the bible (not just carried out by him, btw) is amusing given the amount of tinkering the Catholic church did and continues to do to the bible over the centuries. To be consistent, the RCs ought to be using the Septuagint and Greek vulgate. I think it's not that Ludahai wants an authentic version, just one untouched by the protestant heresy.
 
I've nothing against the KJV, or the NKJ, or any of the translations, I just think arguing that one is more correct is ridiculous, they were all translated with an agenda, and I don't see how one agenda is more correct than another.
 
I've nothing against the KJV, or the NKJ, or any of the translations, I just think arguing that one is more correct is ridiculous, they were all translated with an agenda, and I don't see how one agenda is more correct than another.

Spot on. Whisper it, but the Moslems have a certain edge over the Christians when it comes to claims of Koranic authority. You can't claim a book is the literal word of God if you're going to allow constant tinkering with its meaning through multiple translations and into languages which cannot necessarily be assumed to have precise semantic analogues with ancient semitic and Greek languages.

Go for the one that makes you feel better when you read it, the one that fits more closely to your take on the world. That's what everyone has always done, why change the habit of two millenium?
 
Back
Top Bottom