Re: Catholic Bible + King Jim

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg and fa,

In my study I use about 6 different translations of the Bible....because I do

not know ancient Greek or Hebrew or Latin anymore.

It continually amazes me how different the same thought comes out in the

different versions.

The " King " is beautiful. The words flow and of course that is what many

older people where brought up on, so they want to continue an old favorite.To me

the " Revised standard " is OK but missing wonderful cadence for strict

translation.The " New International version " is great for the people who want

modern up to date vocabulary, and the " New English version " sounds to me like a

compromise. I enjoy it.

But the " Jerusalem Bible " is my textbook, I have faith in it. " The New American

(catholic) Bible " is pedestrian, but used in all the liturgies so one might as

well get used to it.

And now we have found some new writings that perhaps should have been included.

Now if I only studied Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, I could go to the

sources used myself. Then I would be a Biblical Scholar! Too late.

One reason my coffee table is so crowded.

There are many new studies coming out on the different approaches to the

translations and how they have been compromised. One I just bought but have not

opened is " the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture " sub titled " The Effect of early

Christological Controversies on the text of the New testament "

Lots more in the works.

My most favorite Scripture Scholar died recently, E, Brown who got in

and out of trouble with his superiors and the Church hierarchy for telling it

like it is.

love,

Toni

Re: Catholic Bible + King Jim

--- fa wrote:

> Please excuse my ignorance, but I did not know that

> the Catholic Bible differed from the Protestant

> one. My husband has a Protestant Bible (King

> version) from his schooldays.

Dear fa,

Others have responded to you question about the

non-cannonical " bible " that is out there, but seldom

preached on Sunday mournings [sic]. But there is also

a problem with the interpration of the words of Jesus,

as handed to us in the King version, one that

has created many of the problems associated with the

exoteric Christian religion as it has evolved.

As one such example of this problem, I share the

following reference to the writing of the King

version by Walter Wink in his wonderful book THE

POWERS THAT BE (pg 100-101):

" The Bible tranlators working in the hire of King

on what came to be known as the King

Version knew that the king did not want people to

conclude that they had any recourse against his or any

other sovereign's tryanny. had explicitly

commissioned a new translation of the Bible because of

what he regarded as " seditous....dangerous, and

tryanous " tendencies in the marginal notes printed in

the Geneva Bible, which included endorsement of the

right to disobey a tyrant. Therefore the public had

to be made to believe that there are two alternatives,

and only two: flight or fight. And Jesus is made to

command us, according to these king's men, to resist

not. Jesus appears to authorize monarchical abolutism,

Submission is the will of God. And most modern

translators have meekly followed in that path....Jesus

is not telling us to submit to evil, but to refuse to

oppose it on its own terms. And not to let the

opponent dictate the methods of our opposition. He is

urging us to transcend both passivity and violence by

finding a third way, one that is at once still

preserved in the earliest renditions of this saying

found in the NT: " Do not repay evil for evil " (Rom

12:17). The Scholars Version of Matt. 5:39a is

superb: " Don't react violently against the one who is

evil. "

A quite different connotation indeed! Yet we cling to

the meek notion of flight, thanks to King Jim and his

scholars.

Greg