OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 05:21:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha  (Read 5043 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« on: August 13, 2010, 08:07:40 AM »

Been looking for a single column KJV (1611 version) with apocrypha for a while. This is all I can find. Any experience with it?



http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0521843863/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

From what I can tell, the changes made to the language are simply orthographical, to bring spelling up to date.

Was raised for better and worse on the Old Scofield Reference Bible.

Nowadays, I drag with me a single column NKJV with a rubber cover that holds up well to the abuse it has to take. It lacks the "Apocrypha". I use the primarily Harper Collins Study NRSV at home to read what NKJV lacks.

Would be nice to have 1611 single column.

The KJV New Cambridge is hefty both in weight and price tag, so was wondering if anyone here as seen it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2010, 08:37:38 AM »

I was given a Cambridge Bible a few years back, magnificently bound in leather.

BUT..... open it up to Matthew 1:25 and if it says  "...and Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born...."   then bury it deep in your bookshelf where nobody will find it.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2010, 08:50:39 AM »

I believe the 1611 text goes:

Quote
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2010, 09:00:23 AM »

From An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible:

Quote
Recommendations
 
          So in the light of all that has been said, which translation of the Scriptures should we use?  Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer for English speakers at present.  I will address the question first in terms of the best options available for personal use, then the best options for liturgical use, and say a few words about how one can make use of the various translations available in their personal study of the Bible.
 
Options for Personal Use:
 
A. The King James Version
 
          Generally speaking, the King James Version is where all English translations of Scripture should begin… and it remains one of the best options available, even without any revision.  The pronouns and verbal forms that it uses are not hard to learn.  The primary problem with it is the occasional translation that needs to be corrected, and the occasional word that is likely to confuse most contemporary readers.  Most readers could easily remedy the second problem by simply expanding their vocabulary by about 200 or so words.
 
          The best edition of the KJV available currently is the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha, which has modern spelling, punctuation, and formatting, and includes the Deuterocanonical books.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2010, 10:06:43 AM »

I was given a Cambridge Bible a few years back, magnificently bound in leather.

BUT..... open it up to Matthew 1:25 and if it says  "...and Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born...."   then bury it deep in your bookshelf where nobody will find it.

Dear Father Ambrose--I quickly checked many English versions, as well as Bulgarian, Macedonian, French, English and Russian Bibles. They end up saying essentially the same thing (no marital relations, or other language that means the same, until Jesus was born), with one exception--the Russian Synodal Bible where a period is inserted after "And he knew her not." (My source was Bible Gateway).
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2010, 10:15:18 AM »

I think the Point Fr. Ambrose was making though is in *that* translation the meaning is not ambiguous.

All the philology about the Greek to English translation of till aside. I think the ambiguity introduced in the KJV could have been quite intentional so that those wishing to read it one way or another would find enough evidence for their reading. A middle way translation for the English speakers living in those turbulent times.

But this is just idle speculation, as I really know nothing I am about talking about.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2010, 10:18:48 AM »

If you hunt around, you can find public-domain copies of the Noah Webster New Testament. Of all the archaic-language revisions of the KJV I've seen, that one is arguably the best.. There's a lightly-edited version in use by an Orthodox priest in China.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,392



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2010, 06:00:51 PM »

How much is the Septuagint Apocrypha considered part of Scripture?

The book of 2nd Maccabees was written by Jewish rabbis in the greek language in the community of Ellenic Jews in Egypt. It contains perspectives of the Jewish rabbis and became part of the Greek septuagint read mainly by Ellenic/Greek Jews in the Roman empire. It was written after the Maccabean revolts, I think in the 2nd century BC after the Old Testament proper had already been written.

The Hebrew Tanakh is the Old Testament. TANAKH (T.N.K) stands for TORAH (the first five books of the Old Testament), Nevim (the prophetic books like Isaiah and Jeremiah), and Ketuvim (the writings, as in the book of Daniel and the Psalms). The Greek Septuagint Apocrypha like 2nd Maccabees is not part of the Hebrew Tanakh. Paul wrote his letters in the middle of the 1st century AD. In 90 AD, the Judaic Rabbis decided to exclude 2nd Maccabees and the Apocrypha from the Old Testament. Early Christian saints debated among themselves whether the apocrypha was canonical. I think that for a long time in the west they were called deuterocanonical, or semi-canonical.

In the middle ages, the Catholic Church decided that some books like 2 Maccabees were fully canonical, while the protestants disagreed among themselves about whether to even include the apocrypha in their printings of the Bible.

2 Maccabees 7 - the Prefigurement of Christ

Judaism claims that no such thing as a person acting as an atonement is possible in Scripture.

2 Maccabees 7 relates a story when seven brothers were killed by a pagan king because they refused to eat pork. The pagan king gave the youngest brother a choice to eat the pork or die. The youngest brother's mother told him to refuse in order to follow God's rules. The youngest brother told the king that they were sinners, but hoped that their deaths would persuade God to have mercy on His people and sooner stop His punishment of them.

So here we have the concept of an atoning sacrifice in scripture, despite what modern Judaism proposes to the contrary.

Of course, 2 Maccabees claims to be more of a historical narration, which records the brothers' words. It doesn't literally say that God accepted the brothers' request. After all, Moses made a request to be an atoning sacrifice for His people, but God denied Moses' request. So we don't know whether God accepted the brothers' request.

On one hand, the youngest brother explicitly said that they were suffering for their own sins. Yet the lambs and Christ were sinless, so the brothers might not have matched the requirement for a perfect sinless sacrifice. On the other hand, I think that the Maccabean revolt against the pagans was eventually successful and a Judean government was restored, wasn't it?

Either way, 2 Maccabees 7 at least presents the concept of an atoning sacrifice, a prefigurement of Christ.

The martyrs of 2 Maccabees 7 are martyrs in the Orthodox Church. It seems that St Paul refers to the mother's sons' martyrdom in Hebrews 11:35 when he talks about the persecution of Old Testament saints in Hebrews 11:32-40,

Hebrews 11:35: women received their own dead ones as resurrected, others were tortured, not accepting freedom, in order to receive a better resurrection.


Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2013, 12:13:13 AM »

Shame this is out of print, the sample on amazon.com looked really nice.

Did you ever get this orthonorm? Are you still using the NOAB RSV?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tags: Bible  KJV 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.072 seconds with 36 queries.