'Adios' to my Protestant Bibles

[KingAlfred]

The day has finally come. After years of reading and analyzing one particular, leather-bound Protestant Bible of mine, I’m saying ‘adios’ to it, and reading only Catholic Bibles. It hurts. I invested *hundreds *of hours in reading and making marginal notations in it. But…it’s high time to end this disparity of cult.

 

[bauerice]

Don’t be rash, Just put it away. There may come a time you may need to make reference to a note you know is in a margin. I speak from experience.

 

[Glorfindel]

Actually many Catholics DO keep old Protestant Bibles. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath-water! Say 60% of your notes (at worst) might not be if full agreement with Church Doctrine another 40% might agree, OR it may be “topical” material that deals with history, political landscape during the time of scriptures, in other words things that really are not doctrinal and thus having no conflict with the Church. :twocents: :bible1: :twocents:

 

[latin_rite]

i Have one old torn and battered Protestant bible. That i won’t throw out. It was given to my daughter by her youth group. ( i lived in a small town at the time and there were no catholic youth groups there) when i had to take her to another town for a mri. it was the only thing i had to read while waiting. it provided a huge comfort. and although i know it isn’t a complete bible in the true sence of the word. i just can’t find it in my heart to throw it out. it has too much sentimental value. It’s amazing how much comfort a bible can give, once you get past all the “is this bible complete?” business…even a children’s bible.

 

[Newbie2]

The day has finally come. After years of reading and analyzing one particular, leather-bound Protestant Bible of mine, I’m saying ‘adios’ to it, and reading only Catholic Bibles. It hurts. I invested *hundreds *of hours in reading and making marginal notations in it. But…it’s high time to end this disparity of cult.

What do you mean by “Protestant Bible”? If you’re referring to a version without the deuterocanonical books, just get one with them included.

Unless you’ve got notes and such that are contrary to Catholic interpretation, or if you no longer like that version, why not keep it around for reference? Some of the best biblical theologians are Protestants; we can learn a thing or two from them, as long as we’re not setting aside Catholic dogma and doctrine.

 

[Christy_Beth]

I have a protestant NKJV that I keep nearby. Sometimes I prefer the wording in there over the “New Catholic Answers” NAB. I guess it’s just because I’m more use to the one than the other. But I like to keep both nearby. Especially when I’m on the internet. It seems like I’m usually looking something up.

 

[KingAlfred]

What do you mean by “Protestant Bible”? If you’re referring to a version without the deuterocanonical books, just get one with them included.

Unless you’ve got notes and such that are contrary to Catholic interpretation, or if you no longer like that version, why not keep it around for reference? Some of the best biblical theologians are Protestants; we can learn a thing or two from them, as long as we’re not setting aside Catholic dogma and doctrine.

Careful comparisons reveal many more differences than just the missing books. *Of course *Protestant Bibles are going to be written so as to promote Protestant theology, namely, sole of authority of scripture and salvation by faith.

 

[KingAlfred]

As Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, US Army Special Forces, eastern Cambodia, said, in *“Apocalypse Now”, *“Then it struck me…like a crystal bullet between the eyes”…
that I shouldn’t be reading Protestant Bibles as a Catholic. It’s a bit treasonous, in a way. STILL…I put years worth of work into my leather-bound Protestant Bible. I mean years. Starting over with a brand-new, crisp, book-store-scented Catholic Bible is going to be difficult, to say the least.

 

[Christy_Beth]

You think that there’s that much difference between Catholic bibles and Protestant one? In wording, no. In interpretation, yes. And, yes, there’s been times when I’ve compared the two. Like I said, I have a NKJV and a NAB version right by my computer. And that’s for good reason.

One difference I’ve noticed between different versions of the bible is, what word is used for “sin.” It may be that, or iniquities or trespasses. Who’s to say which word is best?

I think that there isn’t going to be too much of a problem for somoene who cares to study the bible in light of Catholic teachings.

 

[Newbie2]

You think that there’s that much difference between Catholic bibles and Protestant one? In wording, no. In interpretation, yes. And, yes, there’s been times when I’ve compared the two. Like I said, I have a NKJV and a NAB version right by my computer. And that’s for good reason.

One difference I’ve noticed between different versions of the bible is, what word is used for “sin.” It may be that, or iniquities or trespasses. Who’s to say which word is best?

I think that there isn’t going to be too much of a problem for somoene who cares to study the bible in light of Catholic teachings.

I agree, and actually prefer my Oxford NRSV with apocrypha over the NAB, in terms of wording.

I think the OP could find a parallel version interesting…

 

[KingAlfred]

Language is everything to human understanding. Yes…there are differences in wording. If not, why did King James commission the KJV in 1611? Answer: to produce a Bible that promoted Protestantism (e.g., Calvinism). Why was the DR Bible produced? Answer: to promote the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

As we say down here in south Texas, “C’mon now, yall.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Language is everything to human understanding. Yes…there are differences in wording. If not, why did King James commission the KJV in 1611? Answer: to produce a Bible that promoted Protestantism (e.g., Calvinism). Why was the DR Bible produced? Answer: to promote the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

As we say down here in south Texas, “C’mon now, yall.”

For your information, the Douay Rheims Bible predates the King James Bible.

The Douay-Rheims Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douai Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609–10 in two volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate.

 

[KingAlfred]

For your information, the Douay Rheims Bible predates the King James Bible.

The Douay-Rheims Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douai Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609–10 in two volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate.

Okay.

 

[SyCarl]

Language is everything to human understanding. Yes…there are differences in wording. If not, why did King James commission the KJV in 1611? Answer: to produce a Bible that promoted Protestantism (e.g., Calvinism). Why was the DR Bible produced? Answer: to promote the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

As we say down here in south Texas, “C’mon now, yall.”

Actually he commisioned it because at the time the most popular bible was the Geneva Bible. He detested the notes and commentary in that Bible which could sanction disobediance to the King and were strongly Calvinist. Hence when a proposal for a new translation was made, he approved it but directed that it have no commentary.

More than the translations themselves, the notes and commentaries have been the tools of including ideology in bible translations.

 

[KingAlfred]

Actually he commisioned it because at the time the most popular bible was the Geneva Bible. He detested the notes and commentary in that Bible which could sanction disobediance to the King and were strongly Calvinist. Hence when a proposal for a new translation was made, he approved it but directed that it have no commentary.

More than the translations themselves, the notes and commentaries have been the tools of including ideology in bible translations.

Hmmm…that’s the first I’ve heard of that particular interpretation. When it comes to the Bible, the single most important document in the life of Western Man and Christians worldwide, we have to scrutinize carefully our sources of information. The Bible is too close to our hearts for us to comment on it objectively.

 

[kotek]

The KJV translators were Anglicans, not Reformed Calvinists. If you study English history you will see that Anglicans and the Reformed had strong disagreements. Richard Hookers “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” was in many ways a polemic against the Reformed view.

As far as Bible translations go modern textual scholarship is pretty much on a level playing field. Whether the scholar be Catholic or Protestants the field of languages and linguistics has a consensus of agreement. Personally I use the New Revised Standard Version because 1. It was done by BOTH Catholics and Protestants and I believe there were a couple of Eastern Orthodox scholars as well. So it has a broad range of scholarship.
2. Because of its “neutrality” in translating the texts with no “axes to grind” it is probably the most accurate translation available. The whole gender thing is a non-starter. Because the translators were honest enough to translate the text neutrally they were unfairly criticised of having a “feminist agenda”. If one is familiar with the source texts (greek, hebrew, latin, syriac) one will quickly see that for the most part the NRSV is pretty accurate and faithful to what the source texts say. The NRSV isn’t perfect, like any translation there is room for improvement, but at the end of the day the NRSV is the best translation available in modern English.

 

[Newbie2]

I would say that for most “casual” Catholic readers of the bible, the version makes little difference; they should read the version that flows the best for them.

For example, the NAB Genesis 25:30 reads, "He said to Jacob, “Let me gulp down some of that red stuff; I’m starving.” . I can’t help but to snicker when I read “gulp down”, and I’m sure the author didn’t intend it to be funny.

More discerning, or “advanced” readers, like the OP seems to be:thumbsup: , are probably more aware of the nuiances of scripture.

Perhaps the most important point, methinks, is that Catholics aren’t “Bible-only”; we are guided by Church doctrine and dogma, which is based on scripture, and not by scripture alone…especially where scripture is silent on matters.

Remember, it does not say anywhere in Scripture that Scripture itself is the sole authority on matters of faith…so if “Protestant” bibles were written to promote the Protestant faith, you’d think that if it were possible their translations would reflect that.

There’s only so much one can do with a translation. Sure, in some cases one word can make a huge difference i.e. Luther and “only”, but if one is going to argue over a word then one needs to go back to the original greek or hebrew, and then argue over what that greek or hebrew word means…and these aren’t “casual” bible readers who do this.

The rejection, no offense to the OP, of protestant bibles in general or protestant scriptural study methinks, disposes of a valuable resource as long as we study scripture in light of Catholic Tradition.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I would say that for most “casual” Catholic readers of the bible, the version makes little difference; they should read the version that flows the best for them.

very true, but serious readers the version means a world of difference

 

[KingAlfred]

The KJV translators were Anglicans, not Reformed Calvinists. If you study English history you will see that Anglicans and the Reformed had strong disagreements. Richard Hookers “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” was in many ways a polemic against the Reformed view.

As far as Bible translations go modern textual scholarship is pretty much on a level playing field. Whether the scholar be Catholic or Protestants the field of languages and linguistics has a consensus of agreement. Personally I use the New Revised Standard Version because 1. It was done by BOTH Catholics and Protestants and I believe there were a couple of Eastern Orthodox scholars as well. So it has a broad range of scholarship.
2. Because of its “neutrality” in translating the texts with no “axes to grind” it is probably the most accurate translation available. The whole gender thing is a non-starter. Because the translators were honest enough to translate the text neutrally they were unfairly criticised of having a “feminist agenda”. If one is familiar with the source texts (greek, hebrew, latin, syriac) one will quickly see that for the most part the NRSV is pretty accurate and faithful to what the source texts say. The NRSV isn’t perfect, like any translation there is room for improvement, but at the end of the day the NRSV is the best translation available in modern English.

To me, Catholic Bibles read very differently. In fact, their language, imagery and overall gist are rather strikingly different. It’s obvious to me that they’ve been written / editted to promote themselves as part of a much greater whole, while Protestant versions lay claim to being an end in themselves.

 

[juliasmith]

As Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, US Army Special Forces, eastern Cambodia, said, in *“Apocalypse Now”, *“Then it struck me…like a crystal bullet between the eyes”…
that I shouldn’t be reading Protestant Bibles as a Catholic. It’s a bit treasonous, in a way. STILL…I put years worth of work into my leather-bound Protestant Bible. I mean years. Starting over with a brand-new, crisp, book-store-scented Catholic Bible is going to be difficult, to say the least.

Oh how I remember that day, myself.
I could not find a leather bound Catholic Bible at the bookstore I was shopping. I settled for a the Catholic Women’s Devotional NAB. I continue to this day to look for a beautiful leather bound Bible.
My prayers go out to you. It can be daunting.
And I, too, have one of those Protestant bibles with lots of notes. Keep it. You will miss it horribly one day.