Are Bibles Biased?

[Tyler1234]

I typically use the King James Version… and when I need clarity on a verse, I switch to the New International Version to read that verse in modern English.

Now, I understand that most Bibles are, in some way or another, meant to lean towards one denomination.

I’ve heard from many different sources that the NIV is fairly biased, in the lean towards Protestants.

I’m not sure about the KJV.

If the KJV is biased, then which Bible do Catholics typically use?

Thanks

 

[Equites_Christi]

The KJV is a Protestant favorite. Which is a downer, because it has all that pretty old english

Any Bible translation which says it’s Catholic should be fine (usually it says so on the binding or within the first few pages.)

If you like the language of the KJV, try the Douay-Rheims translation.

 

[promethius]

I typically use the King James Version… and when I need clarity on a verse, I switch to the New International Version to read that verse in modern English.

Now, I understand that most Bibles are, in some way or another, meant to lean towards one denomination.

I’ve heard from many different sources that the NIV is fairly biased, in the lean towards Protestants.

I’m not sure about the KJV.

If the KJV is biased, then which Bible do Catholics typically use?

Thanks

I personally dispose of any KJVs that come my way. The KJV has a few added words that change the meaning of the scriptures (particularly versions that have added in Eph 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith alone… when we know that the word alone does not appear there). I own a NIV, which I deliberately use when discussing/debating with protestants… but in my experience it’s a pretty garbage copy (mainly I’m more disappointed with the margin notes which inject all sorts of heresy as though it is authentic interpretation)

The Douay-Rhiems, the Ignatius, and the NAB are all good translations. The DR happens to be my personal favority for the language and accuracy!

 

[garysibio]

I typically use the King James Version… and when I need clarity on a verse, I switch to the New International Version to read that verse in modern English.

Now, I understand that most Bibles are, in some way or another, meant to lean towards one denomination.

I’ve heard from many different sources that the NIV is fairly biased, in the lean towards Protestants.

I’m not sure about the KJV.

If the KJV is biased, then which Bible do Catholics typically use?

Thanks

The KJV is biased in some ways. It was influenced by King James I who would occasionally override the work of the translators.

The NIV is not prejudiced toward a particular denomination but it is prejudiced against Catholicism. There are some good links about this online. Interestingly a new version of the NIV has been released and it includes inclusive language. This has raised the ire of the Southern Baptists who passed a resolution advising their members not to move to the new version and asking Lifeways Books, their publishing arm which runs a chain of bookstore, to not sell it.

I like the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible). It is a Catholic translation so it has the entire OT but is very accurate. I also use the English Standard Version which is more literal and also accurate but, being a Protestant translation, lacks some of the OT. There is one edition of the ESV which includes the deuterocanonical books plus a few more in a separate section.

 

[puzzleannie]

no the bible is not biased, but a particular translation might be, if the translators did there work with a specific agenda in mind
for instance many modern translations used by some Protestant denominations were translated with a deliberate intent to choose language that downplayed or downright changed traditional Catholic interpretation of those words and usages. some modern translations have been deliberately gender inclusive in language referring to humans, or even the Deity. Some translators have deliberatly put a social justice spin on some passages. And that is just the translations. the study notes and articles are another area where the authors may deviate from the Catholic understanding

there is a sticky on this forum regarding bible translations and a good article on the CA homepages so not really relevant to debate that topic here.

 

[jcrichton]

I typically use the King James Version… and when I need clarity on a verse, I switch to the New International Version to read that verse in modern English.

Now, I understand that most Bibles are, in some way or another, meant to lean towards one denomination.

I’ve heard from many different sources that the NIV is fairly biased, in the lean towards Protestants.

I’m not sure about the KJV.

If the KJV is biased, then which Bible do Catholics typically use?

Thanks

…unless you have one of the original copies of the KJV (or unless the group that commissioned it decided to include them in your version) you are missing 7 books from the Old Testament (and a portion of two others); when Luther and his followers determined to create their group/s they took upon themselves the task of removing seven books (Luther went as far as seeking to remove some books from the New Testament as well); the Septuagint, the compilation of the books of the Old Testament translated (3rd and 2nd centuries BC) into Greek and used at the time of Jesus, was rejected by the Protestants–the 73 books in the Catholic Bibles are the correct number of books.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[amber_lux]

you are missing 7 books from the Old Testament (and a portion of two others);

Learn to count. The contemporary Protestant Canon KJV lacks ten books that are found in the 1611 KJV and 1769 KJV.

when Luther and his followers determined to create their group/s they took upon themselves the task of removing seven books

Luther can be credited with removing one book from the Bible. A book that is not found in the Catholic Canon, but is found in the Canon of one of the Orthdox Christian Churches.

There were around fifteen books whose validity as sacred canon Luther questioned, but he not reject them.

 

[garysibio]

Learn to count.

Was that really necessary?

 

[DianaCC]

Was that really necessary?

No, but it seems everybody was having a bad day yesterday. Now what ten books were those? I count seven missing books and fifteen parts of other books, and I teach mathematics for a living.

 

[jcrichton]

Learn to count. The contemporary Protestant Canon KJV lacks ten books that are found in the 1611 KJV and 1769 KJV.

…lets see… Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees… yeah I can understand why your count is correct!

Luther can be credited with removing one book from the Bible. A book that is not found in the Catholic Canon, but is found in the Canon of one of the Orthdox Christian Churches.

There were around fifteen books whose validity as sacred canon Luther questioned, but he not reject them.

…so you’re stating that Luther compelled his followers to maintain all of the books mentioned above and that he had no problems with St. James and Apocalypse?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

=Tyler1234;8264632]I typically use the King James Version… and when I need clarity on a verse, I switch to the New International Version to read that verse in modern English.

Now, I understand that most Bibles are, in some way or another, meant to lean towards one denomination.

I’ve heard from many different sources that the NIV is fairly biased, in the lean towards Protestants.

I’m not sure about the KJV.

If the KJV is biased, then which Bible do Catholics typically use?

Thanks

Number 1 The Latin Vulgate, 2. Douay Rheims [after this there is much debate]… the New American is what Catholics use at Mass, but I prefer th RSV.

And as a FYI: The KJ Bible was written to COMPETE with Catholism, was shorted seven entire books and had numerous verbage changes to accomidate Luthers New Faith.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Angela77]

I personally use the New American Bible (NAB). It said it was a Catholic Bible.

 

[Zenas]

The KJV has a few added words that change the meaning of the scriptures (particularly versions that have added in Eph 2:8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith alone… when we know that the word alone does not appear there). I own a NIV, which I deliberately use when discussing/debating with protestants… but in my experience it’s a pretty garbage copy (mainly I’m more disappointed with the margin notes which inject all sorts of heresy as though it is authentic interpretation)

Really? Which version says “through faith alone”?

 

[Tyler1234]

I recently went rummaging around in my bookshelf in my basement, and I came across a bible cLled New American Standard Version Bible. I’m hoping this has all of the books?

 

[Zenas]

When James I assumed the throne of England, there were two competing English language bibles. The Bishops Bible was preferred by the Church of England but it was a bad translation. The Geneva Bible had been developed by Calvin and his followers and was an excellent translation. However, it contained footnotes that were deemed heretical by the church. James saw the need for a quality bible that was acceptable for use in the church. Thus, he commissioned the translation of the authorized version, which would come to bear his name. In addition to the 66 books of the traditional Protestant Bible, it contained these books between the testaments:

• The First Book of Esdras
• The Second Book of Esdras
• Tobit
• Judith
• The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee
• The Wisdom of Solomon
• The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclisiasticus
• Baruch
• The Song of the Three Holy Children
• The History of Susanna
• The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon
• The Prayer of Mannases
• The First Book of the Maccabees
• The Second Book of the Maccabees

As you can see, these do not line up exactly with the Catholic Bible. Incidentally, this year marks the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible

 

[jcrichton]

When James I assumed the throne of England, there were two competing English language bibles. The Bishops Bible was preferred by the Church of England but it was a bad translation. The Geneva Bible had been developed by Calvin and his followers and was an excellent translation. However, it contained footnotes that were deemed heretical by the church. James saw the need for a quality bible that was acceptable for use in the church. Thus, he commissioned the translation of the authorized version, which would come to bear his name. In addition to the 66 books of the traditional Protestant Bible, it contained these books between the testaments:

• The First Book of Esdras
• The Second Book of Esdras
• Tobit
• Judith
• The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee
• The Wisdom of Solomon
• The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclisiasticus
• Baruch
• The Song of the Three Holy Children
• The History of Susanna
• The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon
• The Prayer of Mannases
• The First Book of the Maccabees
• The Second Book of the Maccabees

As you can see, these do not line up exactly with the Catholic Bible. Incidentally, this year marks the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible

…but does the current KJV and NKJV contain the material quoted above?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Zenas]

I recently went rummaging around in my bookshelf in my basement, and I came across a bible cLled New American Standard Version Bible. I’m hoping this has all of the books?

No it doesn’t. The NASB is probably the best of the newer translations but it doesn’t now and never will contain the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[Zenas]

…but does the current KJV and NKJV contain the material quoted above?

Maran atha!

Angel

Depends on the publisher. A KJV that contains the Deuterocanonicals would be hard to find in the USA, but not impossible. Probably more available in the UK. I doubt if any NKJV bibles have the extra books.