'Adios' to my Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingAlfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
caspianrex said:
For what it’s worth, I’d like to share a Protestant viewpoint. Although I have been a Protestant all my life, among my many Bible translations, I have several Catholic translations. I learn much from every different version I have…even the bad ones. (And I’m not calling the Catholic ones bad; I’ve got a Jehovah’s Witness translation in my collection that’s pretty awful.)
If it’s just the translation itself you’re worried about, I would say there aren’t many significant differences between Protestant translations and Catholic ones. Sure, you’ll find a lot of Latinate constructions in a good ol’ Douay-Rheims, but the NAB is pretty close to most Prot translations.
As far as study notes go, yes, you will find a distinct Protestant slant in Protestant Bibles, but there is also a pretty wide spectrum of theological positions among different Catholic Bibles. The notes in the Jerusalem Bible, for example, are pretty different in tone from the notes in a Douay-Rheims printed in the early 20th century. (My grandmother’s old Douay-Rheims has some great anti-Protestant polemics in the notes!)
So, as long as you have a Bible somewhere in your collection that contains the deuterocanonicals, and has an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, I don’t think having a couple Protestant Bibles would hurt. And from what I’ve seen on this forum, I would guess many Catholics would agree with me.

Peace,
Cory Howell
Nashville, TN 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree, I have a copy of the ESV (English Standard Version) which is a re-do of the RSV for Evangelicals, which is actually quite good. I bought it before the RSV 2CE came out, I now use that Bible. I have kept the ESV to quote when speaking about scripture with Protestant friends so they don’t think that I am trying to persuade them with a ‘Catholic Bible’.
 
KingAlfred said:
Indeed, I will, and I miss it. Its red printing of everything Jesus said was very useful. My Catholic Bible is a bulky soft-bound book, with no highlighting. Still, I must seek total alignment of authoritative sources.
Click to expand...
I have a a red letter edition NAB bible with zipper enclosure (World Bible publishers - 2405Z) so there is still hope in the world. I hope this eases the pain a little.
 
KingAlfred said:
Well done, but the fact remains that the particular strain of the Protestant Reformation that ‘caught on’ in England in the 16th Century was Calvinism. Anglicanism therefore has a strong Calvinist sub-current coarsing through its veins. Yes…it also has a ‘high-church’, semi-Catholic strain, but the legacy of John Calvin is part of its story, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Yes, kotek is overstating things considerably. Seven years after the publication of the KJV, the Church of England sent representatives to the Synod of Dort, which codified what we now know as Calvinism. And one of those representatives is quoted here as having said: “Blessed be God, there is no difference, in any essential point, between the Church of England and her sister Reformed Churches.” (I cite this with some caution since I have not verified it.) The differences between the established Church of England and the Puritans were about church government and worship and did not translate into a breach between Anglicanism and the broader Reformed tradition–not immediately anyway. Only with the accession of Laud in 1633, in my opinion, can we really start to talk about such a breach, though of course Laud and others of similar views had been an active part of the Church of England before 1633.

I completely disagree with the claim that Hooker was engaging in polemic against the Reformed position. I think Hooker would be horrified to hear such a thing. In a sense, the Puritans have won what Hooker would have seen as at least one important aspect of the debate–i.e., over whether Hooker’s position was authentically Reformed.

I would say that the Church of England was (at least under Elizabeth and James) Reformed but never Calvinist. That is perhaps a fine distinction–my point is that it was part of a broadly Reformed family of national/regional churches but never conformed to the specific pattern emanating from Geneva.

Edwin
 
CalCatholic said:
I have a a red letter edition NAB bible with zipper enclosure (World Bible publishers - 2405Z) so there is still hope in the world. I hope this eases the pain a little.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! I didn’t know such a thing existed! 👍
 
CalCatholic said:
I agree, I have a copy of the ESV (English Standard Version) which is a re-do of the RSV for Evangelicals, which is actually quite good. I bought it before the RSV 2CE came out, I now use that Bible. I have kept the ESV to quote when speaking about scripture with Protestant friends so they don’t think that I am trying to persuade them with a ‘Catholic Bible’.
Click to expand...
I sort of like the ESV, it IS an update of the RSV with 4% changes most minor some helpful to both Catholic and Protestant the famous Isaiah prophecy in the RSV: a young MAID shall be with child. ESV:a Virgin shall be with child. …This is important given that Isaiah was giving a prophetic utterance of a future miracle, a miracle is out of the norm, any woman can be with child…but a Virgin…Thank you ESV!
 
Contarini said:
Yes, kotek is overstating things considerably. Seven years after the publication of the KJV, the Church of England sent representatives to the Synod of Dort, which codified what we now know as Calvinism. And one of those representatives is quoted here as having said: “Blessed be God, there is no difference, in any essential point, between the Church of England and her sister Reformed Churches.” (I cite this with some caution since I have not verified it.) The differences between the established Church of England and the Puritans were about church government and worship and did not translate into a breach between Anglicanism and the broader Reformed tradition–not immediately anyway. Only with the accession of Laud in 1633, in my opinion, can we really start to talk about such a breach, though of course Laud and others of similar views had been an active part of the Church of England before 1633.

I completely disagree with the claim that Hooker was engaging in polemic against the Reformed position. I think Hooker would be horrified to hear such a thing. In a sense, the Puritans have won what Hooker would have seen as at least one important aspect of the debate–i.e., over whether Hooker’s position was authentically Reformed.

I would say that the Church of England was (at least under Elizabeth and James) Reformed but never Calvinist. That is perhaps a fine distinction–my point is that it was part of a broadly Reformed family of national/regional churches but never conformed to the specific pattern emanating from Geneva.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis. Personally, I believe John Calvin caused immeasurable damage to Christianity.
 
Glorfindel said:
I sort of like the ESV, it IS an update of the RSV with 4% changes most minor some helpful to both Catholic and Protestant the famous Isaiah prophecy in the RSV: a young MAID shall be with child. ESV:a Virgin shall be with child. …This is important given that Isaiah was giving a prophetic utterance of a future miracle, a miracle is out of the norm, any woman can be with child…but a Virgin…Thank you ESV!
Click to expand...
The RSV 2CE also made this change back to virgin, as it is in the Septuagint.
 
I have 1 Catholic Bible that’s difficult to read for me (text too small but I guess it’s normal size for everyone else). I have eSword, purchased different things for it like the Amplified (have that in book form too), the Living Bible which I was given for free back in HS and my iLumina Gold software… but do have Catholic Bible software now too… I love iLumina Gold as it shows different areas in the Holy Land… but yeah, want to get back to being Catholic, have to ignore my ‘feelings’ regarding ‘feeling out of place’ yet.
 
My Catholic Bible isn’t as easy to read as its Protestant counter-part, but I feel better now that I’ve aligned my theological and spiritual sources of inspiration.
 
Introduction
By the publisher
The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version
With Challoner Revisions 1749-52
1899 Edition of the John Murphy Company
Click to expand...
IMPRIMATUR:
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.
Click to expand...
I found this interesting, explains the differences in Bible numbering.

I remember back in the 80’s borrowing an ‘Apocrypha’ from a friend and it had more in it than just the books Martin Luther removed unless I misunderstood something. I know in the 80’s … well, I was a goofy teenager etc.
 
I have used many bibles over a number of years and have found none as authentic and readable as the New American Standard Bible. It is a protestant bible and therefore lacks the DC’s so if you want to read Tobit, Sirach, etc. you must pick up another version. But for the 66 books it covers, it has no equal. Unlike the New International Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the editors of the NASB have no agenda. The translation is as true to the original Greek as is possible, considering that none of the original manuscripts are still available.
 
Zenas said:
I have used many bibles over a number of years and have found none as authentic and readable as the New American Standard Bible. It is a protestant bible and therefore lacks the DC’s so if you want to read Tobit, Sirach, etc. you must pick up another version. But for the 66 books it covers, it has no equal. Unlike the New International Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the editors of the NASB have no agenda. The translation is as true to the original Greek as is possible, considering that none of the original manuscripts are still available.
Click to expand...
That was my favorite translation when I got over my KJV-only-ness.
 
I have NASB in software for eSword, isn’t DRB much like the KJV as far as the time it was put together, and old English etc. I do have software seperate from eSword & iLumina Gold for the Catholic version… New American Bible (I think?).
 
Roza said:
I have NASB in software for eSword, isn’t DRB much like the KJV as far as the time it was put together, and old English etc. I do have software seperate from eSword & iLumina Gold for the Catholic version… New American Bible (I think?).
Click to expand...
Yes, the D-R was translated about 5 years before the KJV. You can read it at www.biblegateway.com if you edit your preferences to include Bibles that contain the DC. I prefer it over the NAB, which can be read online here.
 
OR, the link I included. 🙂 Douay-Rheims Bible, they have the Latin Vulgate there too. I had one teacher that tried to teach me a bit of Latin and I think an English class taught a little too trying to show where roots of words came from but I’ve forgotten most of it.
 
KingAlfred said:
My Catholic Bible isn’t as easy to read as its Protestant counter-part, but I feel better now that I’ve aligned my theological and spiritual sources of inspiration.
Click to expand...
Excellent.

Does that mean you’re gonna keep it? 😃
 
Sure. I’ll keep it, but right now I’m determined to read only the Catholic Bible. A major theme in my life at this point is to become more devout.
 
KingAlfred said:
Sure. I’ll keep it, but right now I’m determined to read only the Catholic Bible. A major theme in my life at this point is to become more devout.
Click to expand...
I agree with those that say not to throw the Bible away…

unless of course it was the “Bible” of a cult, like the “New World Translation” (JW’s Bible) or another cult.
 
Roza said:
I have NASB in software for eSword, isn’t DRB much …
Click to expand...
The DRB is available for e-Sword.
Roza said:
I found this interesting, explains the differences in Bible numbering.
Click to expand...
Back then, it probably would have been an Anglican Bible. (Those also include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and PrMan.)

There is a remote possibility that it was an Orthodox Bible, and included the Anagignoskomena:
*** Daniel 13: (The Story of Susanna)
*** Daniel 14: (Bel and the Dragon)
** Tobit
** Judith
** 1 Macabees
** 2 Macabees
** Wisdom
** Sirach
** Baruch
*** Baruch 6: (Epistle of Jeremiah)
** 1 Esdras
** 2 Esdras
** Prayer of Manasses
  • Psalms 151
  • 3 Macabees
  • 4 Macabees
xan

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top