OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 07:05:39 PM *
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: Which Bible?  (Read 4610 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Wolf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 95


« on: April 07, 2006, 10:19:04 AM »

Which bible do the English speaking Orthodox use in Litergy and bible study etc?
I heard it was the NKJV it that true?
Is there and Orthodox edition of it?
Or do you use a Catholic edition rather than a Protestant one say Jerusalem version or Douay-Rheims Bible?

Thanks for sharing.
Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

Euripides: Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2006, 10:36:07 AM »

Depends on the jurisdiction.  Antiochians tend to use KJV or NKJV.  OCA uses RSV (not NRSV though).  I prefer the KJV since it is based on the Byzantine manuscripts.  We need an Orthodox edition though in English (there are attempts so far that have met with frustration) that also includes the additional Deuterocanonicals that we have and Catholics don't (such as 3 Macabees).

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,217


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2006, 11:30:23 AM »

Yeah, while the deuterocanonical books in the Catholic versions seem to be a plus, the problem with using a Catholic version is that it's usually influenced by Jerome's version of the Hebrew (with all but two of the deuterocanonical being added after Jerome's death, since Jerome didn't consider the deuterocanonical books worthy of inclusion). I wonder what the response of people will be to the fruits of the LXX project, and whether Orthodox jurisdictions will accept it for usage in the Churches. And after that... *opens can of worms* ...it would be nice if the jurisdictions could get their linguistic act together, so that someone could go to an English-speaking Church in any jurisdiction and hear the same terminology. At the very least the creed, antiphons, etc. could be standardized.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2006, 11:31:43 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,929


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2006, 01:19:35 PM »

Depends on the jurisdiction.  Antiochians tend to use KJV or NKJV.  OCA uses RSV (not NRSV though).

The OCA has actually forbidden the use of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) in public liturgy because of how the version destroys the fundamental meaning of the biblical texts with such things as its gender-neutral language and language that takes God out of key events, such as the Creation.

For example, this from Genesis Chapter 1: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV)

Compare this to the RSV: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

My priest had this to say about the NRSV rendering--should I say perversion--of the text.  "The NRSV makes it sound as if God had a case of flatulence when He created the heavens and the earth."
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2006, 02:21:54 PM »

For personal study, I use the KJV, NIV, DR, and Sir Brenton's Septuagint. I also am fluent in Latin, so I use the Vulgate, too.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2006, 12:30:34 AM »

Depends on the jurisdiction.  Antiochians tend to use KJV or NKJV.  

The official Gospel that is use in all of the Antiochian parishes use the RSV (with some minor corrections where theyare needed) for the text. A lot of the older service book use KJV or NKJV or something similar to that style for their scripture references. The Liturgikon uses the Psalter published by that group in Boston. NKJV gets associated with the Antiochian Archdiocese becuase of it use in the Orthodox Study Bible.

As for me I have become a big fan of the edition put of by Holy Apostles in Colorado. It is very literal to the Greek uses italics for words that need to be added in English because they are implied by the case and number  in the Greek.
Logged

Joseph
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2006, 12:46:30 AM »

 I prefer the KJV since it is based on the Byzantine manuscripts.
Anastasios

Really?  I've never heard that before!
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2009, 11:30:50 PM »

I saw this post and figured instead of making a new one i'd revive it. Does anyone use this translation now? More importantly, is it used in liturgy?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247887362&sr=8-2   

Also, I'm curious what septuagint translation is used mostly in liturgy?  It is Brenton's? I can't find a copy that only includes English (I'm not a greek scholar so I don't need the colinear).

Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2009, 11:35:46 PM »

I use the OSB, however in a recent podcast, Dr. Jeannie Constantinou emphasized that in her opinion, translations don't matter as long as you can guard yourself against any errors that might be present in the translation.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2009, 11:54:09 PM »

I saw this post and figured instead of making a new one I'd revive it. Does anyone use this translation now? More importantly, is it used in liturgy?

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-New-Testament-Translated-Leatherette/dp/0944359256/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247887362&sr=8-2   

Also, I'm curious what septuagint translation is used mostly in liturgy?  It is Brenton's? I can't find a copy that only includes English (I'm not a greek scholar so I don't need the colinear).

I have a set of two New Testaments (Gospels and Epistles, etc) which was put out by Holy Apostles Convent. If this is the same two books in one, I wouldn't recommend it. The translation from the Greek is somewhat eccentric; being so absolutely literal that the text, cumbersome and archaic, is quite horrible to read. The footnotes are useful, but are found at the end of each book, rather than the bottom of the page; making them inconvenient to view.

This is my opinion, of course, but I think it would pay you to check this book out thoroughly before you buy. If it's as unreadable as the translation I have, you could find that it's basically of little use and you would have wasted money.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 12:00:59 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
def.williams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3


« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2009, 12:13:17 AM »

I use the OSB, however in a recent podcast, Dr. Jeannie Constantinou emphasized that in her opinion, translations don't matter as long as you can guard yourself against any errors that might be present in the translation.

Since Ms Constantinou is on record as saying she doesn't believe Peter wrote 2 Peter, I wouldn't be worried what she thinks. I mean, if the apostles didn't write it, the wording can't matter much.

Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2009, 05:24:06 PM »

Quote
Since Ms Constantinou is on record as saying she doesn't believe Peter wrote 2 Peter, I wouldn't be worried what she thinks. I mean, if the apostles didn't write it, the wording can't matter much.

What does it matter if he wrote it? It's still inspired scripture. Moses didn't write Genesis or Exodus. He told them, but they weren't written down until much later.

If we discredit 2 Peter just because Peter didn't write it, then we ought to discredit everything the Church Fathers wrote because none of the Apostles actually wrote those things. However, we know the teachings of the Church Fathers is the same as the Apostles because it came down from them.

Also, we must recognize most of the Epistles were not "written" by any of the Apostles themselves, rather they were dictated to someone else who wrote for them. Example, in the Corinthian letters, we have examples of what we can see as the writer telling Paul about something he missed, and so it is added.

Also, most of the Epistles, and even the Gospels have parts that have been added to them after the Apostles were gone. Does that mean it isn't inspired or isn't trustworthy? No, the Church has deemed it also to be Holy Scripture and inspired by God.

We don't use authorship to determine authenticity or validity.

Finally, sorry for this detour, but this really needed to be cleared up.

(Also, just a minor correction that really has nothing to do with the debate, She's Mrs. Constantinou, as she's married to a GO Priest)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 05:27:32 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2009, 11:05:57 PM »

Just thought I'd let you guys know about a analytical-literal new testament translation that I came upon (based on Byzantine majority text) translated by Gary Zeolla that I think is exceptional and quite readable. The companion volume provides quite a bit of insight into the translation effort.


This is the website.

http://www.dtl.org/alt/

Here is a google book preview.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqtjJ4kCuF4C&dq=gary+zeolla+new+testament&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=LZjUu62t9Y&sig=smzx0xITj_6lJmC5JFDHFqjomCw&hl=en&ei=io5iSpjxGMrBtwe19f3-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Here is the amazon link.

http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Literal-Translation-New-Testament-Third/dp/0615167519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247972172&sr=8-1#reader

« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 11:12:09 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2009, 12:43:36 AM »

Depends on the jurisdiction.  Antiochians tend to use KJV or NKJV.  OCA uses RSV (not NRSV though).  I prefer the KJV since it is based on the Byzantine manuscripts.  We need an Orthodox edition though in English (there are attempts so far that have met with frustration) that also includes the additional Deuterocanonicals that we have and Catholics don't (such as 3 Macabees).

Anastasios

I am also an advocate for the KJV here. I also like the Douay-Rheims Bible also and I use the Brenton Septuagint as well. I am praying for an Orthodox Bible to come out that has KJV like language since thats the type I like.
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2009, 12:50:05 PM »

As for Orthodox Bibles in English, we have:

Orthodox Study Bible:
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/

And soon, the Eastern Orthodox Bible will be out:
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/

The OSB is based upon existing translations of the NT and OT while correcting the errors in those translation based upon our Septuagint, as well as adding commentary by Church Fathers & Saints.
The EOB is going to be an entire translation based upon the Septuagint and Greek versions that are based off the Septuagint and apparently will be independent of the Masoretic versions of Protestant Bibles.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2009, 01:45:50 PM »

Just thought I'd let you guys know about a analytical-literal new testament translation that I came upon (based on Byzantine majority text) translated by Gary Zeolla that I think is exceptional and quite readable. The companion volume provides quite a bit of insight into the translation effort.


This is the website.

http://www.dtl.org/alt/

Here is a google book preview.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqtjJ4kCuF4C&dq=gary+zeolla+new+testament&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=LZjUu62t9Y&sig=smzx0xITj_6lJmC5JFDHFqjomCw&hl=en&ei=io5iSpjxGMrBtwe19f3-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Here is the amazon link.

http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Literal-Translation-New-Testament-Third/dp/0615167519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247972172&sr=8-1#reader



I just took a glance: it translates "magoi" as "learned astrologers." Yikh!!!  For some reason it translates "Biblos" as "scroll."  Unnecessary.

Btw, since no one has mentioned the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), I will (the link has the full texts, etc.)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2009, 02:40:41 PM »

I use the OSB, however in a recent podcast, Dr. Jeannie Constantinou emphasized that in her opinion, translations don't matter as long as you can guard yourself against any errors that might be present in the translation.

Since Ms Constantinou is on record as saying she doesn't believe Peter wrote 2 Peter, I wouldn't be worried what she thinks. I mean, if the apostles didn't write it, the wording can't matter much.



It's an Orthodox tradition that John didn't write the Gospel of John, but that it was dictated orally and written down by another, one of  his disciples. A number of Icons even depict this tradition. I mean, even in Holy Tradition we say "the Gospel ACCORDING to St. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John...) Not the Gospel written by said saints. The Church fathers don't even know who wrote Hebrews, yet it's Scripture. Luke and Mark were not even technically Apostles...and the Church fathers weren't quite sure who wrote Revelation....there's no need to take a Fundamentalist Protestant approach to authorship since the Church did just fine long before anything like our modern Bible was even assembled.

Anyhoo....as the saying goes, the best translation is the one you read. Some of the really new ones are really pretty horrible and awkward (even though they claim to be "modern" english...) I find the NRSV horrible along with the one the Catholic Church is now using, but some people like them, to each his own I guess.

I personally prefer NKJV and NLT as they are the ones I actually READ the most. I like the OSB for study and reading the OT as well, but find its good to read a different translation from time to time just to shake things up a bit.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 02:43:46 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2009, 04:12:20 PM »

Personally I'd love to see a mini pocket type version of the OSB, it probably wouldn't have the commentary, but it'd be wonderful to have it nonetheless.

I used to use the KJV all the time, but gave it to my parents for their church when I became Orthodox. After giving them all my non-Orthodox literature (of course, excluding college texts & architecture books) I have thus found I read scripture even less than I once did... (that is, if I ever read it, outside of hearing it in church)

So I would say it would be better to use a non-Orthodox translation than to not read scripture at all...
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2009, 05:42:24 PM »

Quote
Luke and Mark were not even technically Apostles

Northern Pines, Luke and Mark were indeed Apostles, of the Seventy.  police
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2009, 06:53:49 PM »

Just thought I'd let you guys know about a analytical-literal new testament translation that I came upon (based on Byzantine majority text) translated by Gary Zeolla that I think is exceptional and quite readable. The companion volume provides quite a bit of insight into the translation effort.


This is the website.

http://www.dtl.org/alt/

Here is a google book preview.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqtjJ4kCuF4C&dq=gary+zeolla+new+testament&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=LZjUu62t9Y&sig=smzx0xITj_6lJmC5JFDHFqjomCw&hl=en&ei=io5iSpjxGMrBtwe19f3-Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Here is the amazon link.

http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Literal-Translation-New-Testament-Third/dp/0615167519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247972172&sr=8-1#reader



I just took a glance: it translates "magoi" as "learned astrologers." Yikh!!!  For some reason it translates "Biblos" as "scroll."  Unnecessary.

Btw, since no one has mentioned the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), I will (the link has the full texts, etc.)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

Well perhaps he could have stuck with the wise men translation, although I’ve heard that learned astrologer may not be too far off from what they actually were in that day.

As far as the NETS goes, I’ve heard some rather unflattering critiques about this translation.  All I had to read was the translation of the “Spirit of God” translated to “divine wind” (kamikaze??) in Genesis to realize that there is much to be desired here.

Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2009, 11:13:59 PM »



And soon, the Eastern Orthodox Bible will be out:
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/


I think the website said this has been pushed up to 2010.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2009, 02:14:49 AM »

Personally I'd love to see a mini pocket type version of the OSB, it probably wouldn't have the commentary, but it'd be wonderful to have it nonetheless.


Here is a pocket version of the New Testament approved by SCOBA:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=19242
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,408


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2009, 03:53:50 AM »

My brother-in-law is a Fundamentalist Baptist. I mean, that's literally the name of his denomination- "Fundamentalist Baptist." He is adamant that the King James Bible is the only accurate source of Christian authority. I personally like the King James Bible fine, but I have many English versions of the Bible that I use including the OSB and the Catholic version (New American Bible). Can anyone give me some good arguments against the "King James only" philosophy that many fundamentalist Protestants proclaim? (Of course I know that ultimately we Orthodox have a different basis of Christian authority than the Protestants [i.e. Holy Tradition which includes the Bible], but at this time I am just looking for some specific challenges to the "King James only" mentality.) Here are some arguments that I have heard agains the "KJV only" view:

1. The only truly "inspired, infallible, inerrant, and uncorrupted" Word of God is to be found in the original languages of the Scriptures, which are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

2. The King James Bible was perverted by some of King James's subjective prejudices and cultural biases.

3. The King James Bible is incomplete because it is devoid of many of the inspired Scriptures that were decreed canonical by the early Church councils.

I hope my question is not too off topic. I would appreciate any insight anyone could provide. Thank you.

Selam 
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 03:54:54 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2009, 05:19:33 AM »

Try this.

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2009, 05:29:08 AM »

Personally I'd love to see a mini pocket type version of the OSB, it probably wouldn't have the commentary, but it'd be wonderful to have it nonetheless.


Here is a pocket version of the New Testament approved by SCOBA:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=19242

The only problem with this translation is that it is based on the critical text. (RSV) The KJV or NKJV would be the closest mainstream bible translation one could get that ressembles the greek patriarchal text. It is useful to have the Orthodox prayers all in one package though.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 05:31:54 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2009, 05:30:19 AM »

.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2009, 05:31:01 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,524



« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2009, 09:21:09 AM »

To follow up on your suggestion, Ortho_cat: your reference does indeed counter KJV-only, but that website is anti-everything-except-maybe-ourselves. Not one that I would recommend, except to show to what extent belief can fall as one moves away from the Orthodox faith.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2009, 09:56:36 AM »

Personally I'd love to see a mini pocket type version of the OSB, it probably wouldn't have the commentary, but it'd be wonderful to have it nonetheless.


Here is a pocket version of the New Testament approved by SCOBA:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=19242

The only problem with this translation is that it is based on the critical text. (RSV) The KJV or NKJV would be the closest mainstream bible translation one could get that ressembles the greek patriarchal text. It is useful to have the Orthodox prayers all in one package though.

No, the Douay Rheims is the closest, as its Psalms (like the Latin Psalter) is based on the Septuagint.

My understanding is that the Greek Patriarchal text is like the Textus Receptus of KJV in conception, only later.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2009, 10:17:32 AM »

My brother-in-law is a Fundamentalist Baptist. I mean, that's literally the name of his denomination- "Fundamentalist Baptist." He is adamant that the King James Bible is the only accurate source of Christian authority. I personally like the King James Bible fine, but I have many English versions of the Bible that I use including the OSB and the Catholic version (New American Bible). Can anyone give me some good arguments against the "King James only" philosophy that many fundamentalist Protestants proclaim? (Of course I know that ultimately we Orthodox have a different basis of Christian authority than the Protestants [i.e. Holy Tradition which includes the Bible], but at this time I am just looking for some specific challenges to the "King James only" mentality.) Here are some arguments that I have heard agains the "KJV only" view:

1. The only truly "inspired, infallible, inerrant, and uncorrupted" Word of God is to be found in the original languages of the Scriptures, which are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

2. The King James Bible was perverted by some of King James's subjective prejudices and cultural biases.

3. The King James Bible is incomplete because it is devoid of many of the inspired Scriptures that were decreed canonical by the early Church councils.

I hope my question is not too off topic. I would appreciate any insight anyone could provide. Thank you.

Selam 

One thing you can point out is that the original King James Version had books that the Fundamentalist Baptists I am sure denounce as Apocrypha in them.  In fact, it was a punishable offense to omit them.  Here's the original table of contents, were they are called Apocrypha:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36

It even mandates readings from the the "Apocrypha" during Church services:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=26

A Psalter (I am always amazed how little scripture, aside from prooftexting, goes on in Evangelical/Baptist "services"):
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=34

And a Paschalion:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=29

It also lists saints days and other holidays:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=35

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

So by all means, they should use the King James Version.  All of it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,408


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2009, 06:44:10 PM »

My brother-in-law is a Fundamentalist Baptist. I mean, that's literally the name of his denomination- "Fundamentalist Baptist." He is adamant that the King James Bible is the only accurate source of Christian authority. I personally like the King James Bible fine, but I have many English versions of the Bible that I use including the OSB and the Catholic version (New American Bible). Can anyone give me some good arguments against the "King James only" philosophy that many fundamentalist Protestants proclaim? (Of course I know that ultimately we Orthodox have a different basis of Christian authority than the Protestants [i.e. Holy Tradition which includes the Bible], but at this time I am just looking for some specific challenges to the "King James only" mentality.) Here are some arguments that I have heard agains the "KJV only" view:

1. The only truly "inspired, infallible, inerrant, and uncorrupted" Word of God is to be found in the original languages of the Scriptures, which are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

2. The King James Bible was perverted by some of King James's subjective prejudices and cultural biases.

3. The King James Bible is incomplete because it is devoid of many of the inspired Scriptures that were decreed canonical by the early Church councils.

I hope my question is not too off topic. I would appreciate any insight anyone could provide. Thank you.

Selam 

One thing you can point out is that the original King James Version had books that the Fundamentalist Baptists I am sure denounce as Apocrypha in them.  In fact, it was a punishable offense to omit them.  Here's the original table of contents, were they are called Apocrypha:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36

It even mandates readings from the the "Apocrypha" during Church services:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=26

A Psalter (I am always amazed how little scripture, aside from prooftexting, goes on in Evangelical/Baptist "services"):
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=34

And a Paschalion:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=29

It also lists saints days and other holidays:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=35

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

So by all means, they should use the King James Version.  All of it.

Thanks!

Forgive my ignorance, but would it be accurate to say that the KJV is the product of the Anglican Church? If so, wouldn't this be a good argument against the fundamentalist "KJV only" position? I mean, the Anglican Church wasn't exactly established upon a morally sound foundation; and we see the foul fruit that it is producing today.

Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2009, 04:48:11 AM »

Personally I'd love to see a mini pocket type version of the OSB, it probably wouldn't have the commentary, but it'd be wonderful to have it nonetheless.


Here is a pocket version of the New Testament approved by SCOBA:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=19242

The only problem with this translation is that it is based on the critical text. (RSV) The KJV or NKJV would be the closest mainstream bible translation one could get that ressembles the greek patriarchal text. It is useful to have the Orthodox prayers all in one package though.

No, the Douay Rheims is the closest, as its Psalms (like the Latin Psalter) is based on the Septuagint.

My understanding is that the Greek Patriarchal text is like the Textus Receptus of KJV in conception, only later.

I was just referring to the new testament.
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2009, 10:14:57 AM »

Quote
Luke and Mark were not even technically Apostles

Northern Pines, Luke and Mark were indeed Apostles, of the Seventy.  police

Oh yeah, I forgot about the 70 "Apostles"...Smiley When I think of the word "Apostles" I always think of the 12, sorry 'bout that! Cheesy

Wait, was Luke one of the 70? I didn't realize that. I knew Mark was, but hadn't realized Luke was. Interesting bit of information indeed.
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2009, 10:50:02 AM »

Can anyone give me some good arguments against the "King James only" philosophy that many fundamentalist Protestants proclaim?

The biggest one for me is "which KJV?" The actual original version is full of archaic and bizarre spellings of words, which is NOT what we have when we go buy a copy of the "KJV" today! I think it was updated in the late 1700's as well as corrected in some places and THAT KJV is the one you can go out and buy today in a book store. The one originally released in 1611 is  full of weird phrasings and spellings it's really difficult to understand, even to some people who grew up with the KJV and won't read anything else. The true original KJV might as well be in another language as far as I'm concerned. If you've never seen a copy, I think there is, or used to be, a version of it online. At first glance it simply doesn't even LOOK like modern English...and in fact, it's really not IMO. But I suppose some people can read it and just love it. I'm willing to bet your brother in law isn't one of those people though. The common version of the KJV that everyone uses is simply not the same one printed in 1611.


Quote
Here are some arguments that I have heard agains the "KJV only" view:

1. The only truly "inspired, infallible, inerrant, and uncorrupted" Word of God is to be found in the original languages of the Scriptures, which are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

That's a good one, but if I recall KJV only folks are not monolithic. (believe it or not) I've read arguments that YES the Hebrew and Greek original are still inspired, but that the KJV is the ONLY one to be used for the English language. Others argue since we don't have the originals anymore so God inspired the KJV to be the new inspired version. There are all sorts of arguments out there, I'm not sure where your brother in law would fit it.

You could try and point out that Jesus didn't speak English, as well, believe it or not, some KJV only people actually DO think Jesus spoke English. That may not be common anymore, but even 25 years ago, it was an assumption made by some.


Quote
2. The King James Bible was perverted by some of King James's subjective prejudices and cultural biases.

I wouldn't use words like "perverted", as we don't like those terms when Islamic scholars say that about the New Testament. Smiley

I would simply point out that none of the KJV translators EVER said that it was an inspired translation, and that such a belief is simply a "tradition of men"....(or simply a tradition if you want to be really diplomatic). It would be interesting to find out when the "inspiration" of the KJV was first claimed, I have a feeling it would be somewhat recently, maybe within the last 100 years. And it probably was an anti Catholic argument if I were to guess.

I mean really, the question is WHO says the KJV is inspired? The translators never claimed it, the bible does not say in 1611 a newly inspired version of the bible will come out, just where do they get this idea?


Quote
3. The King James Bible is incomplete because it is devoid of many of the inspired Scriptures that were decreed canonical by the early Church councils.

Considering he is a "Fundamentalist Baptist" I wouldn't argue ancient Councils or anything like that. And I would not try and tear down the KJV, as it really is a pretty good translation and loved by millions of people worldwide. I know Orthodox we grew up with it, and won't read anything else because they simply love it. It's a personal preference for many, and its a good translation for those who can understand it. However it's totally foreign to those who didn't grow up with it, and the actual original is even more foreign than what we all are familiar with. ironically the KJV only crowd are going down the same route that the medieval Catholic Church did, claiming that a translation is the "real" version of the bible, when in fact the "real" version still exists. No, we don't have the "autographs" but we don't have the actual "autographs" of the KJV Bible either, so in the end it's all tradition.

Some KJV only people argue "but it's so reverent"...indeed it is, but frankly the New Testament was written in the "common" tongue, and many who spoke higher Greek, like philosophers thought that koine was basically sub par. Christ comes down to us, and became a "common" human being, not a king in a palace, and so even if the KJV WERE inspired, most of the world does not speak English and many Americans simply do not understand the KJV well, and so concessions should be allowed. I don't know how reasonable of a person he is though, so who knows what arguments would work. Only you can decide that in the end. Just keep in mind, he IS family, so be civil and don't trash that KJV because while I do not use it or read very often, it IS beautiful, even though I realize the actual NT was far from beautiful and poetic in the original language, however he may not know that.







Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,408


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2009, 05:51:02 PM »

Can anyone give me some good arguments against the "King James only" philosophy that many fundamentalist Protestants proclaim?

The biggest one for me is "which KJV?" The actual original version is full of archaic and bizarre spellings of words, which is NOT what we have when we go buy a copy of the "KJV" today! I think it was updated in the late 1700's as well as corrected in some places and THAT KJV is the one you can go out and buy today in a book store. The one originally released in 1611 is  full of weird phrasings and spellings it's really difficult to understand, even to some people who grew up with the KJV and won't read anything else. The true original KJV might as well be in another language as far as I'm concerned. If you've never seen a copy, I think there is, or used to be, a version of it online. At first glance it simply doesn't even LOOK like modern English...and in fact, it's really not IMO. But I suppose some people can read it and just love it. I'm willing to bet your brother in law isn't one of those people though. The common version of the KJV that everyone uses is simply not the same one printed in 1611.


Quote
Here are some arguments that I have heard agains the "KJV only" view:

1. The only truly "inspired, infallible, inerrant, and uncorrupted" Word of God is to be found in the original languages of the Scriptures, which are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

That's a good one, but if I recall KJV only folks are not monolithic. (believe it or not) I've read arguments that YES the Hebrew and Greek original are still inspired, but that the KJV is the ONLY one to be used for the English language. Others argue since we don't have the originals anymore so God inspired the KJV to be the new inspired version. There are all sorts of arguments out there, I'm not sure where your brother in law would fit it.

You could try and point out that Jesus didn't speak English, as well, believe it or not, some KJV only people actually DO think Jesus spoke English. That may not be common anymore, but even 25 years ago, it was an assumption made by some.


Quote
2. The King James Bible was perverted by some of King James's subjective prejudices and cultural biases.

I wouldn't use words like "perverted", as we don't like those terms when Islamic scholars say that about the New Testament. Smiley

I would simply point out that none of the KJV translators EVER said that it was an inspired translation, and that such a belief is simply a "tradition of men"....(or simply a tradition if you want to be really diplomatic). It would be interesting to find out when the "inspiration" of the KJV was first claimed, I have a feeling it would be somewhat recently, maybe within the last 100 years. And it probably was an anti Catholic argument if I were to guess.

I mean really, the question is WHO says the KJV is inspired? The translators never claimed it, the bible does not say in 1611 a newly inspired version of the bible will come out, just where do they get this idea?


Quote
3. The King James Bible is incomplete because it is devoid of many of the inspired Scriptures that were decreed canonical by the early Church councils.

Considering he is a "Fundamentalist Baptist" I wouldn't argue ancient Councils or anything like that. And I would not try and tear down the KJV, as it really is a pretty good translation and loved by millions of people worldwide. I know Orthodox we grew up with it, and won't read anything else because they simply love it. It's a personal preference for many, and its a good translation for those who can understand it. However it's totally foreign to those who didn't grow up with it, and the actual original is even more foreign than what we all are familiar with. ironically the KJV only crowd are going down the same route that the medieval Catholic Church did, claiming that a translation is the "real" version of the bible, when in fact the "real" version still exists. No, we don't have the "autographs" but we don't have the actual "autographs" of the KJV Bible either, so in the end it's all tradition.

Some KJV only people argue "but it's so reverent"...indeed it is, but frankly the New Testament was written in the "common" tongue, and many who spoke higher Greek, like philosophers thought that koine was basically sub par. Christ comes down to us, and became a "common" human being, not a king in a palace, and so even if the KJV WERE inspired, most of the world does not speak English and many Americans simply do not understand the KJV well, and so concessions should be allowed. I don't know how reasonable of a person he is though, so who knows what arguments would work. Only you can decide that in the end. Just keep in mind, he IS family, so be civil and don't trash that KJV because while I do not use it or read very often, it IS beautiful, even though I realize the actual NT was far from beautiful and poetic in the original language, however he may not know that.


Thanks! Great comments.

I should have pointed out in my earlier post that my brother-in-law is a great guy. He and I have very similar personalities, although very different beliefs. But in the end he and I both cling to the Cross and worship Our Lord Jesus Christ, thus we are friends and brothers. I think we both try to steer clear of debates, but sometimes one of our children will ask us a question that sparks a discussion. For example, the other day my kids and his kids were debating whether or not the Book of Enoch was in the Bible. He told them "no" and of course I said "yes." Then our diplomatic wives quickly stepped in and changed the subject before we headed down an argumentative path. laugh

I also want to say that I too admire the KJV, and would never try to put it down or diminish its value. I'm only trying to counter the idea that the KJV is THE source of true Christian authority.

By the way, what about the argument that the KJV is a product of Anglicanism. Is that true, and if so couldn't this be used as an argument against the KJV fundamentalists? I mean, the Evangelical Fundamentalists certainly don't want to be lumped in with the Episcopalians.

Selam
« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 05:53:35 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Tags:
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 0.147 seconds with 61 queries.