Ruckmanism: the 1611 KJV is "new (or the only) revelation".
#11
(12-28-2011, 06:42 PM)Nic Wrote:
(12-27-2011, 08:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-27-2011, 06:02 PM)Nic Wrote: Besides, it is missing 7 books (I call these B.LO.s - Bible like objects).

The original KJV did contain the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha.

And some versions today still do.

They may contain them, but they plainly refer to them as not part of the true canon.  Anyway, the KJV is among the worst of translations - maybe only the New American Bible (NAB) is worse, but that is mostly due to near-heretical and anti-Traditional side-notes.

My NAB's notes are a mixed bag, but the translation itself I actually like.  For the most part.

if anyone's ever attempted to read the NRSV, it's the worst "catholic" "bible" imaginable.  Many of the footnotes advocate feminism, there's at least one in my copy that insinuates that the bible contradicts itself, and there are several intros to different books that explicitly describe them as "hebrew mythology".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)