Opinion: The speaker reads the Trump Bible, while Pope Leo uses the King James Version, which teaches love, compassion, and acceptance, writes John Casey.
The basis of the issue had much to do with vernacular translations themselves. The practice of using various vernaculars overall meant different sermons, parables, lessons, etc. Fundamentally this meant churches were not considered in communion if they weren’t using Latin, and especially not if they weren’t using a Church approved Bible.
So ultimately a monarch, the English king, specifically commissioning a vernacular Bible, was acting in direct defiance to the church and throwing fuel into that fire.
I don’t think the Catholic church ever ‘accepted’ or ‘approved’ that version, or would.
My background is protestant, so I think of the transition to a bible in the vernacular as a triumph of individualism and literacy, but I just sort of assumed eventually the Catholics got around to approving a bunch of bibles in living languages, and the kjv made the list. I don’t have a lot of respect for the kjv as a faithful reproduction of the source material, but I do think of it as an aesthetically pleasing work in its own right, so I’m mildly surprised, I suppose — I don’t think of any Christian sect as being particularly exacting about the accuracy of their translation, but I see a lot of them being in favor of documents that are difficult for the layperson to understand, which the kjv certainly is.
I mean they sort of did. The church never wavered from ‘approved list only’ but the vernacular question of teachings definitely lightened up. However, that also didn’t prevent or undo centuries of bloodshed and misery. It’s all very ‘proper channels for that’ to arrive at the same conclusions anyway.
I was gonna say, Trump has never had an original cartoon villain scheme in his life, because this was the original Trump Bible. The translation work actually started with Henry VIII. He did it because he wanted a theologically justified excuse for his tyranny and cruelty, so the arrogant son of a bitch said “If the Bible doesn’t agree with me, I’ll write my own version that says I can.”
Here is a great article all about it. The short version is, it was monarchist propaganda commissioned by a monarchy. Shock and awe, under modern readings by the political right, it justifies and encourages using unilateral absolute authority and backing it up with force and divine punishment.
However, I think it’s a hilarious and ironic twist that they cite BYU, given Mormonism’s own endeavor to “translate” their own so-called “ancient scripture.” Speaking as an ex-Mormon, BYU’s department of religious studies is indeed rigorous and authoritative on the contemporary history of the writing of the English Bible. That said, stop paying attention to anything they say after the calendar rolls over into the 19th century, because that’s when they start glazing their cult leader.
The basis of the issue had much to do with vernacular translations themselves. The practice of using various vernaculars overall meant different sermons, parables, lessons, etc. Fundamentally this meant churches were not considered in communion if they weren’t using Latin, and especially not if they weren’t using a Church approved Bible.
So ultimately a monarch, the English king, specifically commissioning a vernacular Bible, was acting in direct defiance to the church and throwing fuel into that fire.
I don’t think the Catholic church ever ‘accepted’ or ‘approved’ that version, or would.
My background is protestant, so I think of the transition to a bible in the vernacular as a triumph of individualism and literacy, but I just sort of assumed eventually the Catholics got around to approving a bunch of bibles in living languages, and the kjv made the list. I don’t have a lot of respect for the kjv as a faithful reproduction of the source material, but I do think of it as an aesthetically pleasing work in its own right, so I’m mildly surprised, I suppose — I don’t think of any Christian sect as being particularly exacting about the accuracy of their translation, but I see a lot of them being in favor of documents that are difficult for the layperson to understand, which the kjv certainly is.
I mean they sort of did. The church never wavered from ‘approved list only’ but the vernacular question of teachings definitely lightened up. However, that also didn’t prevent or undo centuries of bloodshed and misery. It’s all very ‘proper channels for that’ to arrive at the same conclusions anyway.
I was gonna say, Trump has never had an original cartoon villain scheme in his life, because this was the original Trump Bible. The translation work actually started with Henry VIII. He did it because he wanted a theologically justified excuse for his tyranny and cruelty, so the arrogant son of a bitch said “If the Bible doesn’t agree with me, I’ll write my own version that says I can.”
Here is a great article all about it. The short version is, it was monarchist propaganda commissioned by a monarchy. Shock and awe, under modern readings by the political right, it justifies and encourages using unilateral absolute authority and backing it up with force and divine punishment.
However, I think it’s a hilarious and ironic twist that they cite BYU, given Mormonism’s own endeavor to “translate” their own so-called “ancient scripture.” Speaking as an ex-Mormon, BYU’s department of religious studies is indeed rigorous and authoritative on the contemporary history of the writing of the English Bible. That said, stop paying attention to anything they say after the calendar rolls over into the 19th century, because that’s when they start glazing their cult leader.