A Question for Protestants:

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrZetterlund

Guest
Recently I have been peacing together Biblical arguments to educate non-Catholic Christians about what the Church believes, practices and why. I find that merely informing people of the Catholic religion is the fastest road in to Rome. I’m beginning to realize that in essense, my arguments are merely the process of educating. I’m trying to write a book on the Catholic faith, I believe I’m going to start with a pamphlet and work my way up. Perhaps a Watchtower-styled approach to Catholic beliefs, so that when a JW comes up to a Catholic’s door, the Catholic can say, “I’ll read yours if you read mine.” 😛

My question is this, if I were to cite the same Bible translation in all the quotes I make in this book/pamphlet, then which translation should I use? I don’t think that it’s entirely fair to use the KJV since it’s difficult to comprehend to those who aren’t accustomed to it’s language, and it’s not fair to confuse the majority to appeal to the KJV-onlyist minority. I thought that perhaps I could use the NKJV since it seems to be in wide usage in a lot of Protestant churches in the states. It does have choppy grammer in a lot of its aspects, but its much easier to understand than the KJV. Or should I use the NAB so that there is no confusion about what the Catholic Bible says as compared to the KJV or NKJV?

Protestants, what do you think?

Thank you, and God Bless… 👍
 
Go with what your church uses…is what I think

Good luck with the idea but I hope people be able to live what you intend to write and let the actions match up to the words. Then the message to JW is clear.
 
rhiannonh said:
Go with what your church uses…is what I think

Good luck with the idea but I hope people be able to live what you intend to write and let the actions match up to the words. Then the message to JW is clear.
Click to expand...
That is very true!!
-Thank you. 🙂
 
RSV-CE would be my choice…I use the RSV as do most of those of my acquaintences in other faith traditions. I’m not a fan of NKJV.
 
Publisher said:
RSV-CE would be my choice…I use the RSV as do most of those of my acquaintences in other faith traditions. I’m not a fan of NKJV.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless. 🙂
 
MrZetterlund said:
My question is this, if I were to cite the same Bible translation in all the quotes I make in this book/pamphlet, then which translation should I use? I don’t think that it’s entirely fair to use the KJV since it’s difficult to comprehend to those who aren’t accustomed to it’s language, and it’s not fair to confuse the majority to appeal to the KJV-onlyist minority.
Click to expand...
Although your question was addressed to Protestants, I thought I would give some (name removed by moderator)ut (and, FWIW, I am a former Protestant).

I recommend the RSV because (generally speaking) most Protestant and Catholic Scripture scholars believe that it is the English translation which is the closest representation of the original Hebrew & Greek. And, as you stated, the KJV-only position is a minority one among Christians.
MrZetterlund said:
Or should I use the NAB so that there is no confusion about what the Catholic Bible says as compared to the KJV or NKJV?
Click to expand...
A Catholic edition of the RSV can still be used in this regard. Whereas the NAB is an officially approved English translation for Catholic liturgies, the RSV is still considered a valid translation for the purposes of Catholic Bible study and discussions of Catholic doctrines. For example, the official English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses Scripture quotes adapted from the RSV (and the NRSV). Moreover, the Ignatius Study Bible and the Navarre Bible commentaries are Catholic publications which use the RSV.

As a side note, I can appreciate your desire to offer to swap literature with the JWs. I attempted to do this myself but the two people who came knocking at my door flat out refused to take the copy of Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth that I offered them. One even said that she would, indeed, accept it if I made it a condition for me taking their Watchtower, but that she would not actually read it, but “throw it in the trash”. Later someone told me that the JWs are specifically instructed not to accept religious material from other people. I admit that I have not verified this from an official JW source, but on other internet forums I have seen others mention that the JWs who visited them likewise refused to accept any of their religious literature.

I understand that you want to deign material with a universal Christian application, rather than something exclusively for JWs, and that you were mentioning the JWs in your OP as just one of many possible examples. So I brought up this phenomena with the JWs simply to affirm your intention for your material to have a broad application. After all, there is a good chance (unfortunately) that few, if any, JWs would actually read it (but “hope springs eternal”).
 
I think you have a good idea. 70,000 were brought back to the church in France by slipping flyiers under the doors of people’s homes.

I’ve often thought that a leaflet with the heading, “Do you know what the Catholic Church really believes in?”
Then giving a number of reference websites with topics which are misunderstood the most.

Or even to help our own Catholics who are in the dark and are not sure anymore if some beliefs were changed or removed.
Something like,“Are you Catholic and are unsure about some things in you faith now?”
Then give a number of reference websites which have question and answer format.

Just a thought, and good wishes for yours.
 
ESV is used by a of Reformed churches such as Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist.

RSV is pretty broadly used by folks who want a literal translation that is a little more readable than the ESV

NIV is probably the most common but it is a paraphrase (thought for thought rather than word for word) and so while it is still very popular it os also falling out of favor in some circles.

God Bless
 
I would suggest you use whatever Catholic version you feel is best, but avoid (as much as possible) using the Deuterocanonicals (since many Prostestants don’t accept them as Scripture), and advise anyone reading your work to feel free to use their own version of Scriptures to compare with the Catholic version. If your main goal is to reach JW’s, remember, they have their own version and may not even read your quotes (or even your pamphlet).
 
MrZetterlund said:
There are many advocates of the RSV, but how about the NRSV? 🤷
Click to expand...
I, too, would recommend using the RSV. The inclusive language of the NRSV is tolerable at a surface level, but on a deeper lever a lot of the typology pointing to Christ is washed out.
 
akasseb said:
MrZetterlund;9004968:
There are many advocates of the RSV, but how about the NRSV? 🤷
Click to expand...
I, too, would recommend using the RSV. The inclusive language of the NRSV is tolerable at a surface level, but on a deeper lever a lot of the typology pointing to Christ is washed out.
Click to expand...
Let me take a moment to illustrate what akasseb has correctly pointed out.

As we all know, in the gospels Jesus often called himself “the Son of Man.” For example:

RSV’s version of Matthew 25:31
“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.”

NRSV’s version of Matthew 25:31
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.”

As you can see, these two verses are almost completely identical. In particular, notice that Jesus’ self-title is rendered in both versions as “the Son of man.” In ancient Jewish literature, the phrase, “son of man” was usually a poetic way of referring to a human being (male or female, despite the designation of “son”). Nevertheless, the Prophet Daniel had a vision of a human being who was gloried by the Eternal God and granted dominion. So whereas the title “son of man” in the Bible can be interpreted as another way of saying, “human being”, Jesus probably adopted this title to indicate that he is not simply a human being (in his human nature), but rather the specific human being that Daniel saw in his vision.

The gospels never tell us exactly why Jesus calls himself the “Son of man”, but we can put it all together when reading the Old Testament’s usage of the phrase, “son of man”, especially when it pops up in Daniel:

RSV’s translation of Daniel 7:13
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him. (emphasis added)

But look how the NRSV (in the interest of providing inclusive language) presents the exact same verse…

NRSV’s translation of Daniel 7:13
As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. (emphasis added)

Therefore, although the NRSV is not (objectively speaking) giving an incorrect interpretation of this section of Daniel, a reader may still miss the connection between this passage and Jesus’ use of the term “Son of man.”

For other issues concerning the distinction between the RSV and the NRSV, consider the comments made in this article.
 
Lol, so its settled then? The RSV? Great, now all I need is to actually get the RSV. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top