It’s not so much about the Bible-version, as the interpretation. To correctly interpret scripture we need the teachings of the Church. Just as the Jews need the Talmud to interpret the Torah. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry has the charism of interpretation.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and agree that interpretation is crucial, Al. I agree wholeheartedly. The issue isn’t just which Bible version we use, but how scripture is understood. Correct interpretation requires the Church’s guidance, much like the Jewish reliance on the Talmud.
My comment was aimed at someone insisting only the 1611 KJV is authentic, which is problematic. While the KJV has historical significance, no single translation holds exclusive authenticity, given the complexity of biblical languages and contexts.
Many blessings to you! I look forward to more dialogue with you in the future! :)
It’s not so much about the Bible-version, as the interpretation. To correctly interpret scripture we need the teachings of the Church. Just as the Jews need the Talmud to interpret the Torah. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry has the charism of interpretation.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and agree that interpretation is crucial, Al. I agree wholeheartedly. The issue isn’t just which Bible version we use, but how scripture is understood. Correct interpretation requires the Church’s guidance, much like the Jewish reliance on the Talmud.
My comment was aimed at someone insisting only the 1611 KJV is authentic, which is problematic. While the KJV has historical significance, no single translation holds exclusive authenticity, given the complexity of biblical languages and contexts.
Many blessings to you! I look forward to more dialogue with you in the future! :)