This is a revision to the boiok of Jude I did, tell me what you think?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004

Answers

Jude 1

1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2. Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6. And the angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10. But these speak evil of those things that they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11. Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withers, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to who is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaks great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These are they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25. To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

This is a revision to the book of Jude I did, tell me what you think?

Well, you asked, so please be willing to accept sharp criticism.

You call this a "revision to the book," but actually no one is authorized to revise the Epistle of St. Jude. Perhaps you meant to say that you have created a new paraphrase of the King James protestant translation of this epistle. Or perhaps you meant to say that you created a new translation, from scratch, from the Greek.

We can tell you what we "think" of your words, but our opinions do not really matter. It is the Catholic Church's judgment of your translation/paraphrase that would matter.

What I "think" of your translation/paraphrase is not positive. It is in a tough-to-understand, archaic kind of English that is not appealing to me or to millions of other speakers of our language. Moreover, it may contain translation errors.

There are already at least three easier-to-understand, accurate, English translations of the Epistle of St. Jude that have been approved by the Catholic Church. (I will provide more information about them, if anyone desires it.) We don't really need an unofficial replacement for them.

What you have done is not sinful, sir, but only unnecessary.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 26, 2004.

1: Its neiher a Paraphrase of the KJV nor a New translation. its a revision of the KJV, which itsself is a formal equivolency. I ran it through a word proccessor programme and made the words more in keeping with the modern usage while retaining the archane language where it had not become intrusive. Thus, its not a paraphrase since the bulk of he mateiral is stil in tact and not re-rendered, and htta which is re-rendered is corrected for modern Grsammatical use.

2: The Douay-Rheims ALSO is in archaic langiuage.

3: The Three official Cahtolic Versiosn you menitoned? Only three? Good heavens, I know of 5! The New Revised standard Version. Mainy in use in Canada. The New American bible, mainly in the USA. The Douay- Rheims, mainly in use by Traditionalisst for home study. Jerusalem Bible- mainly out of use, but still available and accepted in the Catholic Chruch. he New Jerusalem, used in most english speakign countres outside of N. America.

Oddly you call mine a Paraphrase... however, the New American is more a Paraphrase. Indeed, it IS a paraphrase. it uses " Dynamic Equivolence' rather than Formal. That to you is beter than an updated KJV style Languisitc whikch is NOT a paraphrase?

3: There where no translational alteratosn in my revision, therefore there are no tranlational erors on my part. The KJV is not rellay rife with errors. ( You may acuse it of such, and even find list on the inernet, but they do pan out, and its less error riden than most English Bibles... togu soem errors in all Bibles, even the Cahtolic ones, appear.)

4: I was only wonderign if it where a nice read, please take thigns easier.

5: Beig the reedent Non-Catolic, I need to remidn you that ther are over 200 Bible translaitosn in english curently... I dare say that what i am doing is not only not sinful nor not nessiary, btu its also not relaly relevantfor you to make that kind of critisism...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 26, 2004.

Ah, I see that you are incredibly thin-skinned, Mr. Zarove. You are so sensitive and over-protective of your "revision/paraphrase" that you forgot to read my words with care. Had you been more careful and humble, you would have admitted that what I said was correct. Instead you jumped to wrong conclusions and resorted to whining at me. As I reminded you at the beginning of my message, you asked us to "tell" you "what" we "think." But as soon as I tried to "tell" you "what" I "think," you lost control of your temper. I recommend that you make a resolution to act in a more adult manner henceforward.

For the benefit of others who may have thought there was some merit in your reply to me, I will explain your errors.

1: Its neiher a Paraphrase of the KJV nor a New translation. its a revision of the KJV, which itsself is a formal equivolency.

Mr. Zarove's first mistake is to fail to apologize for the error in his original message, wherein he said that he had done "a revision to the book of Jude." I pointed out that error (that he cannot revise the Word or God), but he then failed to say, "You are right," to me.

His second mistake was to say that he had given us a "revision of the KJV." He has no authority to "revise" the KJV.

He says that his words are not "a new translation." Now, since that is true, it follows that his words can be nothing other than a paraphrase of the KJV -- a re-rendering of the KJV with small modifications.

2: The Douay-Rheims ALSO is in archaic langiuage.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I neither approved of nor even mentioned the Douay-Rheims version. Therefore Mr. Zarove was wrong to mention this matter, which is irrelevant to me. Like millions of other Catholics, I don't like the archaic language of the Douay-Rheims any more than that of the KJV. It is as though Mr. Zarove is saying, "How dare you criticize the archaisms of the KJV?! The Catholic Douay-Rheims has the same kind of language, and surely you love it?" No, I do not! I much prefer up-to-date English, though a good compromise is found in the Revised Standard Version, which uses archaic formal pronouns (e.g., "Thou") in addressing God. It would be a good step forward for all who now like the KJV to take a giant leap forward by jettisoning the KJV for the RSV (Catholic Edition, which has all 73 divinely inspired books).

3: The Three official Cahtolic Versiosn you menitoned? Only three? Good heavens, I know of 5!

Now let's look at what I ACTUALLY wrote, which the sarcastic Mr. Zarove was apparently too angry to read carefully:
"There are already at least three easier-to-understand, accurate, English translations of the Epistle of St. Jude that have been approved by the Catholic Church."

Clearly, I did not speak of "only three" translations! Instead I spoke of "at least three" -- the opposite of the notion expressed by "only three"! I was thinking of the Jerusalem Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Bible, the only (to my knowledge) three versions from which Latin Rite lectionaries were permitted to be prepared about 35 years ago.

Perhaps Mr. Zarove's dyslexia results not only in his sometimes reversing the order of letters in spelling, but also in his sometimes contorting the meaning of what others write. If so, I will have to cut him more slack. (I mean this sincerely, not as a joke or insult.) On the other hand, if his dyslexia can result in his badly misunderstanding and misstating of what others write, that would probably indicate that Mr. Zarove ought only to read here and not write any more.

The New Revised standard Version. Mainy in use in Canada.

The New Revised Standard Version went into use without proper authorization. The Holy See has rejected it as the basis of a permanent lectionary, because it was judged to be theologically unreliable. Zarove excitedly mentions the NRSV as one of five official Catholic versions that he "knows" of. But he is wrong about the NRSV, which is not officially approved by the Vatican. (Ditto for the New Jerusalem Bible, with its similarly poor renditions, so harmed by radical feminist influences.)

Then Mr. Zarove mentions the Douay-Rheims, as though I did not know about it. Had he carefully read what I wrote, he would not have mentioned the Douay-Rheims, because I spoke of "at least three easier- to-understand, accurate, English translations". He should have realized that I don't consider the Douay-Rheims (vintage 1600) to be "easier-to-understand" than the KJV. After all, parts of the archaic KJV were copied from the Douay-Rheims. To sum up, the point is that I was talking about understandability, not official/unofficial status. If I had been intending to list all officially approved English translations, I would have mentioned the Douay-Rheims.

Oddly you call mine a Paraphrase... however, the New American is more a Paraphrase. Indeed, it IS a paraphrase. it uses "Dynamic Equivolence' rather than Formal. That to you is beter than an updated KJV style Languisitc whikch is NOT a paraphrase?

First of all, I didn't "call" Mr. Zarove's words a "paraphrase." I ASKED him if they were a paraphrase! Not only that, but I asked him if they were a paraphrase of the KJV, not a paraphrastic translation of the Greek! In his oversensitivity, he jumped to the conclusion that I was accusing him of creating a shabby, very loose translation of the Greek. Instead I was asking him whether he had taken the old KJV wording and paraphrased it (e.g., inserting synonyms here and there). That is what he now admits having done, but he doesn't want this to be called a "paraphrase of the KJV." But it does deserve to be called that, since Mr. Zarove did not make a new translation from scratch.

Mr. Zarove's next error was to shout that the New American Bible "IS a paraphrase." The majority of the verses in the NAB are sufficiently literal translations that they can be called "formal equivalents." Intelligent analysts of bible translations would NEVER call the NAB a "paraphrastic translation." That pejorative term is used only for the loosest imaginable, "popular" versions of scripture that have been created by Protestants for students and other beginners.

Mr. Zarove asks whether I consider the NAB to be "better" than the KJV (in original form or as paraphrased by him). If we ignore the NAB's footnotes, the answer is "Absolutely!" The Catholic Church -- the only Church that Jesus founded -- has approved of the NAB, but not the error-laden, incomplete KJV. Obviously the NAB is "better."

3: ... The KJV is not rellay rife with errors. ( You may acuse it of such, and even find list on the inernet, but they do pan out, and its less error riden than most English Bibles... togu soem errors in all Bibles, even the Cahtolic ones, appear.)

There is not much point in a serious Catholic trying to carry on a conversation with someone like Mr. Zarove, who is so prejudiced in favor of the KJV. The KJV is known to contain thousands of translation errors. Far worse than that, most editions fail to contain seven Old Testament books, and old editions that contain the seven books falsely state that they are not divinely inspired. I am not saying that the KJV is useless or evil, but only that it should not be a Christian's only (or primary) bible translation.

It is usually said that folks who like archaic English find a pleasing "poetry" in the language of the KJV. So be it, but let such folks realize that they need to supplement their enjoyment of the poetry with something like the RSV-CE, so that they are getting an accurate, more understandable translation, with all 73 books present.

5: Beig the reedent Non-Catolic

Does this mean "resident non-Catholic"? If so, I would say that only Catholics can be "resident" at a "Catholic" discussion board. Mr. Zarove would be better called a "tolerated frequent visitor," since he is not even an inquirer showing any interest in becoming Catholic. He sometimes attacks things Catholic. He is no "resident."

I need to remidn you that ther are over 200 Bible translaitosn in english curently...

Remind? Mr. Zarove cannot "remind" me of something I never knew. Moreover, I could not care less if there are 20, 200, or 2000 English translations, because the number is irrelevant. All that really matters is which relatively few translations are complete and approved by the Catholic Church.

I dare say that what i am doing is not only not sinful nor not nessiary, btu its also not relaly relevant for you to make that kind of critisism...

This is incorrect. My criticism is totally "relevant," because I have the right and duty to try to protect myself and my fellow Catholics, at a Catholic forum, from unauthorized translations/paraphrases of God's holy Word.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), October 28, 2004.

you asked for opinions zarove. if you wanted only praise, you should have said so.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 28, 2004.

Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com) responded to a message you left in the Catholic bboard: Subject: Response to JUDE REVISION Ah, I see that you are incredibly thin-skinned, Mr. Zarove. {You havnt read many threads where I post have you?}-Zarove You are so sensitive and over-protective of your "revision/paraphrase" that you forgot to read my words with care. {Funny that this is a diatribe of complaint agaisnt me, perosnally, and yet the major flaw you say I have is ignorign your words, where you igore mine. he above reivionn is not a paraphrase. a paraphrase is reowrsing the text, which I didnt do... I revised it...seakign on a textual level a paraphrase is radiclaly different than a revision.}- Zarove Had you been more careful and humble, you would have admitted that what I said was correct. Instead you jumped to wrong conclusions and resorted to whining at me. {I didnt whine, and you most certainly arent corrc in callign his a paraphrase...}-Zarove As I reminded you at the beginning of my message, you asked us to "tell" you "what" we "think." But as soon as I tried to "tell" you "what" I "think," you lost control of your temper. {No I didnt. I havent lost contorle of my temper at all in this thread. But the overall tone of your post is Hostile, and not very charitable.}-Zarove I recommend that you make a resolution to act in a more adult manner henceforward.

{I am acting in an adult manner. I ask you not to make unfounded personal disparagences agaisnt me that serv eonly to shift blame of your own conduct onto me. relaly this is quiet pathetic. You arent een critisising the work, hou are resortign to a personal attack in order to make it appear that your case is stornger , when in fact its not.}-Zarove For the benefit of others who may have thought there was some merit in your reply to me, I will explain your errors.

{why is it you insist on disparaging me personally? And my words? why not just comment on the thread?}-Zarove 1: Its neiher a Paraphrase of the KJV nor a New translation. its a revision of the KJV, which itsself is a formal equivolency.

Mr. Zarove's first mistake is to fail to apologize for the error in his original message, wherein he said that he had done "a revision to the book of Jude." I pointed out that error (that he cannot revise the Word or God), but he then failed to say, "You are right," to me.

{Maybe because its irrelevant? I do beelive everyoen knew I meant a revsion to an english translation...}-Zarove His second mistake was to say that he had given us a "revision of the KJV." He has no authority to "revise" the KJV.

{Yes I do. its public domain. I can also revise shakespeeare or Huckelberry finn if I want.}-Zarove He says that his words are not "a new translation." Now, since that is true, it follows that his words can be nothing other than a paraphrase of the KJV -- a re-rendering of the KJV with small modifications.

{That sit the accepted definiiton of Parphrasing though. a paraphrase when dealign with a translated text is reworfding the sentences to convey the idea, but not exaclty as it was rendered. A revision often just pdates the language makign modification where needed to correct an error or an archane delivery. since I did NOT change the text of the origional KJV to reflect a loose approcximation of the origional Greek behind it, but rathe eupdated the Grammer, its not a paraphrase.}-Zarove 2: The Douay-Rheims ALSO is in archaic langiuage.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I neither approved of nor even mentioned the Douay-Rheims version. Therefore Mr. Zarove was wrong to mention this matter, which is irrelevant to me. Like millions of other Catholics, I don't like the archaic language of the Douay-Rheims any more than that of the KJV. {The pijt was that there are Catholcis who do, and stil use the DR...}-Zarove It is as though Mr. Zarove is saying, "How dare you criticize the archaisms of the KJV?! The Catholic Douay-Rheims has the same kind of language, and surely you love it?" No, I do not! {What i wacutlaly said, and meant to convey, was hat na accepted Catholci Bible, itsself revised several times, is in current use...}- Zarove I much prefer up-to-date English, though a good compromise is found in the Revised Standard Version, which uses archaic formal pronouns (e.g., "Thou") in addressing God. {Thats noce, but your preferences can be expressed in a nicer manner. Likewise, this text isnt goign to suit everyones preferences.}-Zarove It would be a good step forward for all who now like the KJV to take a giant leap forward by jettisoning the KJV for the RSV (Catholic Edition, which has all 73 divinely inspired books). {Why? because it suits your prefeences? Other than the fact that it has archaic langage, what is yor problem, exaclty? Likewise, many who like the KJV like the archaic language, and dont liek the RSV, any edition. I am among them. I prefer the 16th century High english for its pose and poetry...}-Zarove

3: The Three official Cahtolic Versiosn you menitoned? Only three? Good heavens, I know of 5!

Now let's look at what I ACTUALLY wrote, which the sarcastic Mr. Zarove was apparently too angry to read carefully:
{I wasnt angry, I did get a chucle though...}-Zarove "There are already at least three easier-to-understand, accurate, English translations of the Epistle of St. Jude that have been approved by the Catholic Church."

Clearly, I did not speak of "only three" translations! {if you had not had haste, you woudl have realised that I said you can mention only three. The fac that you seemed ifgnorant of the others was beign cited.}-Zarove Instead I spoke of "at least three" -- the opposite of the notion expressed by "only three"! {In context though my sentence meant that you can name only three, not that you said only three existed...}-Zarove I was thinking of the Jerusalem Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Bible, the only (to my knowledge) three versions from which Latin Rite lectionaries were permitted to be prepared about 35 years ago.

{Yet, yo spacificlaly said translations of, accepted by the Catholci Church...}-Zarove Perhaps Mr. Zarove's dyslexia results not only in his sometimes reversing the order of letters in spelling, but also in his sometimes contorting the meaning of what others write. {Or perhaps your contortions are evident here. Lets face reality all you have doen is disparage me and make false ciritisms and accusaitosn of my anger blindign me.}-Zarove If so, I will have to cut him more slack. (I mean this sincerely, not as a joke or insult.) {I hardly doubt this can be seen as anythign but insult...}-Zarove On the other hand, if his dyslexia can result in his badly misunderstanding and misstating of what others write, that would probably indicate that Mr. Zarove ought only to read here and not write any more.

{Nice way to say, subtly, that you want me removed form the board and bared form posting... what, exaclty, did I do wrogn to you?}-Zarove The New Revised standard Version. Mainy in use in Canada.

The New Revised Standard Version went into use without proper authorization. The Holy See has rejected it as the basis of a permanent lectionary, because it was judged to be theologically unreliable. Zarove excitedly mentions the NRSV as one of five official Catholic versions that he "knows" of. {excitedly is rather bizzaree...thi is etext. its rather sedate. And to be hoenst I was sedate when answering... also, t is still in use in Canada and is fgiven an Imprimateur for regular use, if not for lecianaries...}-Zarove But he is wrong about the NRSV, which is not officially approved by the Vatican. (Ditto for the New Jerusalem Bible, with its similarly poor renditions, so harmed by radical feminist influences.)

{From my knowledge, it is noentheless approved by several Bishps and in accepted use by the vatican in private study.}-Zarove Then Mr. Zarove mentions the Douay-Rheims, as though I did not know about it. Had he carefully read what I wrote, he would not have mentioned the Douay-Rheims, because I spoke of "at least three easier- to-understand, accurate, English translations". {The DR is eas to read, and as far as compared tot he vulgate, accurate.}-Zarove He should have realized that I don't consider the Douay-Rheims (vintage 1600) to be "easier-to-understand" than the KJV. {1608... and I do consider it easy, I grew up wuththe KJV... not that much a difference.}-Zarove After all, parts of the archaic KJV were copied from the Douay-Rheims. {Other way round laddie... common charge from Catholcis is that the KJV used the Rheims New Testament, however, no clear evidence exists for this. Likewise, you commited a lie of ommisison. You forgot the Bishop Challenors revision borrowed Liberally from the authirised version. Not that you woudl want to admit that. Heaven forbid the Douat-Rheims borrow form a protestant bible!}-Zarove To sum up, the point is that I was talking about understandability, not official/unofficial status. {easy to understand by whose standards though? Isnt that subjective?}- Zarove If I had been intending to list all officially approved English translations, I would have mentioned the Douay-Rheims.

{which is irrelevant...}-Zarove Oddly you call mine a Paraphrase... however, the New American is more a Paraphrase. Indeed, it IS a paraphrase. it uses "Dynamic Equivolence' rather than Formal. That to you is beter than an updated KJV style Languisitc whikch is NOT a paraphrase?

First of all, I didn't "call" Mr. Zarove's words a "paraphrase." I ASKED him if they were a paraphrase! {Above you defended yorself for callign it a paraphrase, so make up your mind...}-Zarove Not only that, but I asked him if they were a paraphrase of the KJV, not a paraphrastic translation of the Greek! In his oversensitivity, he jumped to the conclusion that I was accusing him of creating a shabby, very loose translation of the Greek. {You know my motives now? when did God grant you these revelations, and ar you sure it was God?}-Zarove Instead I was asking him whether he had taken the old KJV wording and paraphrased it (e.g., inserting synonyms here and there). That is what he now admits having done, but he doesn't want this to be called a "paraphrase of the KJV." {Paraphrase translations have a dfferent meanign than revision. And I didnt replace any word in Jude at all... even if I did, its stil a revision, and not a paraphrase. do I have to expalin what a paraphrase is?}-Zarove But it does deserve to be called that, since Mr. Zarove did not make a new translation from scratch.

{So if its not a new transltion its a paraphrase? Sorry, liek websters Bible and the 21st Cent. KJV, its a R-E-V-I-S-O=N. Heck the New American Bible has even been reised, does that make the crrent edition a paraphrase of the older NAB? Of course not!}-Zarove Mr. Zarove's next error was to shout that the New American Bible "IS a paraphrase." The majority of the verses in the NAB are sufficiently literal translations that they can be called "formal equivalents." {Its officially listed as Dysnamic toug, sice it fesnt follow line for lien an exact tranlational effect...}-Zarove Intelligent analysts of bible translations would NEVER call the NAB a "paraphrastic translation." That pejorative term is used only for the loosest imaginable, "popular" versions of scripture that have been created by Protestants for students and other beginners.

{Any Dynamic equivlence Bibel is called a Paraphrase... NAB Is dynamic equivolence.}-Zarove Mr. Zarove asks whether I consider the NAB to be "better" than the KJV (in original form or as paraphrased by him). {Again, I iddnt paraphrase the KJV. I revised it. Just lie the NAB you most likely use is a revision of the origional one form the 1980's. If my KJV reivision is a paraphrase then your NAB is a paraphrase for the same reason. revision is not eequel to paraphrase. And I didnt ask if you liekd it beter, I asked if a paraphrase is better than a frmal equivolence.}-Zarove If we ignore the NAB's footnotes, the answer is "Absolutely!" The Catholic Church -- the only Church that Jesus founded -- has approved of the NAB, but not the error-laden, incomplete KJV. Obviously the NAB is "better."

{First off, the KJV isnt error laden. I hear this charge all the time, but it has fewer errors than its accusors do. Secondly, rathe or not the Catholci Chruch approved of a protestant Bibel is irrelevant. Tirdly, the KJV has ooks in it even your Bible lacks... 12 additional books in all, apaet from the 66 of the protestant standard... Now, if you are ignorant of the fact that the KJV wa initialy punlished with all of the books, and stil is in amny aprts fo the world, why shoudl we beelive anyhtign else you say? You clealry just have a vendetta agaisnt the KJV for soem reason. The error laden remark confirms this.}-Zarove 3: ... The KJV is not rellay rife with errors. ( You may acuse it of such, and even find list on the inernet, but they do pan out, and its less error riden than most English Bibles... togu soem errors in all Bibles, even the Cahtolic ones, appear.)

There is not much point in a serious Catholic trying to carry on a conversation with someone like Mr. Zarove, who is so prejudiced in favor of the KJV. {You call sayign it isnt as full of errors as it is commonly charged predjudiced? And your remarks arent predjudiced?}-Zarove The KJV is known to contain thousands of translation errors. { No, its not... those who make this charge usualy eithe cant sppoty this claim ir make false charges abotu errors that arent there...}- Zarove Far worse than that, most editions fail to contain seven Old Testament books, and old editions that contain the seven books falsely state that they are not divinely inspired. {Actually, new editions from Cambride contain them as well... not just odler ones. Likewise, their classed as Apocrypha, not as " Not insoired." Likewise, that a theolgical difference of persoective, not relaly concerned withthe work.}-Zarove I am not saying that the KJV is useless or evil, but only that it should not be a Christian's only (or primary) bible translation.

{ But yu woudl be OK withthe NAB as the onlh one, right? even the modern paraphrase of the NAB form the oformer first editions?}-Zarove It is usually said that folks who like archaic English find a pleasing "poetry" in the language of the KJV. So be it, but let such folks realize that they need to supplement their enjoyment of the poetry with something like the RSV-CE, so that they are getting an accurate, more understandable translation, with all 73 books present.

{1": the KJV I use has 78 books. 2: I not only appriciate the beuty of the post, I also understand the language. Its nto at all hard for me to understand what is meant. I also undertsand Shakespere with ease. 3: Sup;limentaiton is unnessisary ince I also have the mesoratic hebrew and stepahnus and scriveners Textus recipitus as well as the Nestles text, 27th edition.}-Zarove 5: Beig the reedent Non-Catolic

Does this mean "resident non-Catholic"? If so, I would say that only Catholics can be "resident" at a "Catholic" discussion board. {Resedent means I am a rgular poster...}-Zarove Mr. Zarove would be better called a "tolerated frequent visitor," since he is not even an inquirer showing any interest in becoming Catholic. { Isnt this just cheap personal semantic desigend to disparage?}- Zarove He sometimes attacks things Catholic. He is no "resident."

{What have I attacked thats Catholic?}-Zarove I need to remidn you that ther are over 200 Bible translaitosn in english curently...

Remind? Mr. Zarove cannot "remind" me of something I never knew. {Figure of speech...}-Zarove Moreover, I could not care less if there are 20, 200, or 2000 English translations, because the number is irrelevant. All that really matters is which relatively few translations are complete and approved by the Catholic Church.

{Which doesnt relaly seak to the work I did.}-Zarove I dare say that what i am doing is not only not sinful nor not nessiary, btu its also not relaly relevant for you to make that kind of critisism...

This is incorrect. My criticism is totally "relevant," because I have the right and duty to try to protect myself and my fellow Catholics, at a Catholic forum, from unauthorized translations/paraphrases of God's holy Word. {Again, its not a paraphrase, pelase learn the difference, and I doubt that beign protected form a standard Bible translation is posisble...}-Zarove Paul H- Surely you see he made many perosnal attakces dsigned to poison peoepl aaisnt me that often relied only on personal attack, and luittle actual substance is in his post. I welcoem constirctive critisism, btu attacks with no provcation, followed by on my charecter are not wlecomed. ----------------- To post a response, come back to the bulletin board at http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Catholic ------------- If you are no longer interested in this thread, simply go to the following URL and you will no longer get these notifications: http://greenspun.com/bboard/shut-up.tcl?msg_id=00CTva ------------- Note: this message was sent by a robot.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 28, 2004.