Bible translations

[themattman]

I have a queastion about the whether all translation are true to some exstent? Or is there there some that are not true and are being made to confuse the truth. In order to understand. Part of this question you will most likely have to had come from the protestant faith. That’s unless you are very knowledgeable and study these things.
If you have not mee me, I am a Lutheran (LCMS), and have come across this debate several times in my life. Now that I an curious about the RCC, I would like to know what the history is that follows your translation.
Thanks
Matthew

 

[Theophorus]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses scriptures, The New World Translation, is purposely mistranslated in order to back up their theological view that Jesus was a created being and not God.

Otherwise I don’t know of any bible that grievously mistranslates any of the 73 books contained their-in.

 

[Zenas]

I think it can be said that all translations are true—to some extent, and most of them to a great extent. The only one I would absolutely denounce is the New World Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. I say this because it is translated in such a way as to deny the Holy Trinity.

In all the other bibles about 99% of the material has the same meaning. It’s the other 1% that raises difficulties, and sometime presents opposite theological concepts from the same chapter and verse. Here are a couple of examples:

Isaiah 7:14

RSV Catholic Edition: Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

RSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.

Luke 1:28

RSV Catholic Edition: And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

RSV: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

Now here is an example of two protestant bibles translating the same verse:

James 5:20

New American Standard: Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

New International Version: Remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

 

[bogeydogg]

The “KJV” used by the LDS group is also redacted to back up LDS teaching.

Concerning the truth of translations.

Most try to be faithful but I would avoid those that are paraphrases such as The Message, The Living Bible, etc. You can usually spot these sort of things because they will say things like, “New and updated for easier reading.” Scripture is not hard to read, but it can be hard to understand for even the most erudite scholar, so to read a translation that makes all of the Bible into play school because the meaning of some passages is obscured is not going to make those passages anymore clearer, and will only serve to try and hide that what the translators are doing is offering not a translation but an interpretation.

Understand Greek and Hebrew to English are interpretations because their are linguistics difficulties which cannot be translated one-to-one, furthermore there are certain words like koinania which some will translate participate, others as communion, etc. Both are technically right but the way it is translated sometimes depends on what the translator is trying to convey by his/her translation.

So what you do is find a word for word translation, I prefer the ESV, and for the Deuteros the NJB ← but pay no attention to the footnotes for this one, and then get a good commentary and/or a catechism and as you read your Bible consult the teaching materials offered by the Church to help you understand it.

I would stay away form NIV because the latest edition is very liberal and even those who backed this translation a generation ago now shrink form it, the KJV/NKJV because these were translated with a decidedly anti-Roman slant and have inaccuracies because of it, and then of course as I mentioned above the paraphrases.

Good hunting and God Bless

 

[StevenFrancis]

I have a queastion about the whether all translation are true to some exstent? Or is there there some that are not true and are being made to confuse the truth. In order to understand. Part of this question you will most likely have to had come from the protestant faith. That’s unless you are very knowledgeable and study these things.
If you have not mee me, I am a Lutheran (LCMS), and have come across this debate several times in my life. Now that I an curious about the RCC, I would like to know what the history is that follows your translation.
Thanks
Matthew

Hi Matthew:

Even within Catholicism alone there are many translations of the bible. They are all “true” in the same sense that all the protestant translations are true. I personally read and use many different bibles, including a Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, The Sacra Biblia Vulgata (Latin Vulgate), The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, The Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition, The Douay Rheims (my favorite English translation. The one including the Haydock commentaries), The New American Bible (used in most parishes in the U.S. for Liturgy - (not one of my favorites because of the footnotes, and some of the language), and I even have an NASB and a King James. I like the King James sometimes because of the familiar language of the Psalms and the nativity story in Luke matches the Charlie Brown Christmas speech by Linus.

I am aware of only one bible translation which is so far out and heavily doctored that it radically changes the meaning of scripture in a heretical way. (NWT), but it is not used outside of one particular faith group to my knowledge, and that group are not trinitarian Christians.

So apart from that, the only difference in Catholic and protestant translations, at their heart, happens in that for a bible to be considered Catholic, it contains more books in the Old Testament as divinely inspired. Many protestant bible also include these books as apocrypha, but Catholic bibles include them in the general canon of scripture. There is no difference in the New Testament among tinitarian Christians of all stripes. Some bible translations have simplified the language for a younger audience, while trying to maintain the integral message. Some translations use modern language de-emphasizing male and female imagery and typology. This type of translation is called “inclusive language”. I don’t personally care for those too much. But all of them, apart from the NWT are true, in the sense that they tell our story as Christians from the creation, through the convenants made between God and the patriarchs, the Jews, the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of God Among Us, Jesus Christ, the formation and early building of His Bride Church.

Try all the above, and, but from this newbie Catholic, I don’t think I could give a better recommendation then a Douay Rheims bible with Haydock commentary, accompanied by a Vulgate, Dictionary of Ecclesial Latin, a Greek NT, and a basic course in Ecclesial Latin and Greek. For Latin I bought Wheelock’s Latin and the workbook, and for the Greek, I found a course on You Tube. They’re both basic, but that’s all you need. The bible doesn’t have than many words. You’ll also want a concordance keyed to the Greek, such as Strongs. (I haven’t found a DR concordance).

Anyway, They are all true and alive. Holy Scripture is awesome, and a big part of my life now. You’ll find one’s you’ll like better than others, but really, as long as you’re using some comparison methods so that you’re sure you have the heart message of each controversial passage, then you can’t really go too wrong.

Remember that while scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the apostles, patriarchs and prophets wrote down a great deal of information, that the bible itself is a collection in writing of oral traditions written by many authors over centuries. As the apostle John says in his gospel, if all the words of Jesus were collected in books, the world itself couldn’t contain them all. I mention this, because you may also want to have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, which combines scripture, tradition, the Church Fathers, and the Popes into a unified system. It’s very helpful to have a Catechism handy when studying scripture, and vice versa. One neat thing I found recently was a compendium of the Catechsm of the Catholic Church. This compendium is awesome. It has all the scripture, papal encyclical material, Church fathers writing etc. which the CCC footnotes in their entirety. With those two things, and your favorite bible, you have pretty much everything you need to know about living the Christian life.

May God bless you in your discernment,

Steven

 

[Telstar]

I think it can be said that all translations are true—to some extent, and most of them to a great extent. The only one I would absolutely denounce is the New World Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. I say this because it is translated in such a way as to deny the Holy Trinity.

In all the other bibles about 99% of the material has the same meaning. It’s the other 1% that raises difficulties, and sometime presents opposite theological concepts from the same chapter and verse. Here are a couple of examples:

I admit that I tend to be a bit persnickety when it comes to different translations because they can be manipulated to mean almost the same thing, but not quite. I’m one of those that tends to use the Douay-Rheims version because it’s the oldest English version from the RCC and has been in use the longest. I think its translation was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, with very little ‘manipulation’ done to promote anyone’s personal perceptions of what it should say.

Isaiah 7:14

RSV Catholic Edition: Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

RSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.

*DR: [14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.*I think the fact that there’s a huge difference between a “young woman” and a “virgin” is the biggest problem I see, here. It’s impossible for any “virgin” to conceive, but just any “young woman” is another story, entirely.

Luke 1:28

RSV Catholic Edition: And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

RSV: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

*DR:[28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.*There are several problems here, even with the Catholic edition that leaves out, “blessed art thou among women”. Am I being picky? Maybe, but it does make a very slight difference.

Now here is an example of two protestant bibles translating the same verse:

James 5:20

New American Standard: Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

New International Version: Remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

*DR:[20] He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins. *
Most of the real difference is in punctuation between the NAS and DR, but the NIS makes a change in the pronouns used, which changes the possible interpretations. In the DR version, it’s very possible that “shall save his soul” may refer to the effect on the one that causes a sinner to be converted, and not necessarily on the one being converted. It also implies that the “multitude of sins” covered might also be those of the one that converts another, as a reward for that charitable action taken by them. The NIS eliminates that possibility, and clearly implies that it’s all related to the one being converted.

In the end, every small change in translation might seem to be insignificant at first glance, but it can have repercussions over time, when errors begin to slowly creep into our understanding of Scripture. After a while, it gets watered down a little at a time until it has very little left of the original meaning. Then what?

 

[martininthefiel]

If you are Catholic, you should read an approved version. For one thing, Protestant Bibles, at least in the US, do not generally include all the same books.The exception, of course, would be those used in the Episcopal Church, which generally do include the Apocrypha, but the books are not in the same order as in the Catholic Bible.

It’s not that the other translations are wrong. Translating ancient texts from one language to another is a complicated process, involving several techniques. Different translators make different choices. English has a richer vocabulary than almost any other language, and makes distinctions that may not exist in other languages (In Hebrew, for instance, there is no word for virgin, per se, so there is room for debate whether Isiah means ‘virgin’ or ‘young girl’.) No translation is a perfect rendering.

There is also the problem that English usage has changed over time. For example, the word ‘very’ can mean ‘true’, or it can be used as an intensifier. The meaning ‘true’ is rarely used in modern English, but in the KJV, this is its primary meaning.

Read the following:

catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=374494

 

[AdesteFideles]

I have a queastion about the whether all translation are true to some exstent?

I think the more pertinent question should be whether or not all translations are defective to some extent; and I think, moreover, the answer is always affirmative.

We do not teach our children Hebrew, and we do not teach them Greek. Nonetheless, if we love God, and if we seek to understand what he says to us, I am of the opinion that it is always best to understand God’s revelation in the language that it was revealed. All “translations” are basically a paraphrase of the translator; and each of them will hold on to the biases of the scholar who is doing the work. The Jewish people, for example, consider so many of the most popular and widely-used English OT translations to be riddled with biases, mistranslations, and even apparent deception. If a Jew should be reading these words, they will easily be able to understand what I am referring to.

If you really want to know what a text says, you will have to read it for yourself. If learning the language it is written in is something you refuse to do, then you must likewise admit to yourself that you are always going to be reliant on others to tell you: a) what the text in questions reads; and b) what the text in question means. Even so much as changing a plural word to a singular word can drastically change the overall meaning of a passage; and this is something which should always be borne in mind.

 

[martininthefiel]

The most widely used Protestant Bible in mainstream denominations is the NIV, which I do not like very much. I suppose it is accurate, but it is poetically challenged, and to my ear uninspiring.The Episcopal Church, of which I used to be a member, mostly uses the RSV and NRSV, both of which retain the poetic tone of the KJV, and thus seem more familiar. (The Episcopal Church does not use the Psalter from either of these in public worship, but rather a separate translation that appears in the Book of Common Prayer. The exception to this is that the KJV version of the 23rd Psalm is often used in funeral services. Contrary to popular belief, the older BCP didn’t use the KJV Psalter, either. It also had a specially written version.)

The trouble with both the Douay-Rheims and the KJV is that the language is archaic, and may convey misleading meanings to modern readers. They are also difficult for some readers. I find many of the OT passages in both downright soporific–I seldom can stay awake through an entire chapter.But the language is familiar to many readers, and is very poetic in tone. In some cases, e.g. the Luke Christmas Gospel, the language is so familiar that no other translation seems as comfortable. (The NT is generally more readable in both.)

I used to have a Bible that had parallel translations from four different versions–2 Protestant and 2 Catholic. It was interesting to compare the different renderings. I often was able to derive meanings by this method that were not previously obvious to me. (“Oh, I get it! Duh!”)

It is true that some translations seem to have axes to grind in one way or another. I mostly don’t mind inclusive language, so long as it isn’t heavy handed. (The use of ‘brothers and sisters’, as opposed to ‘brethren’ seems innocuous enough.) I would avoid reading Bibles that are written for non-Trinitarian denominations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, because these clearly have agenda. Some ‘plain English’ translations, while useful in special circumstance, are too pedestrian to my ear. Scripture is supposed to inspire.

The real key in my mind is to read a version that you find comprehensible, and to rely on authoritative interpretations of what one reads. The Catholic Church is not Sola Scriptura. Reason, and the Magisterium of the Church also have weight. This is true in the Episcopal Church and in ELCA as well, although it is stated slightly differently–a three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. If you belong to a Sola Scriptura denomination, it would be best to choose a version of scripture that comports with their teaching. Or maybe reading a Catholic version will lead you out of darkness into the light, so to speak.

 

[Zenas]

I think the fact that there’s a huge difference between a “young woman” and a “virgin” is the biggest problem I see, here. It’s impossible for any “virgin” to conceive, but just any “young woman” is another story, entirely.

Well, it’s true that there is no Hebrew word that translates “virgin” (see martininthefiel’s post on this thread). But a young woman bringing forth a son is no sign at all. It happens every day. The implication is clearly a virgin, especially when you link it up with Matthew 1:22-23.

There are several problems here, even with the Catholic edition that leaves out, “blessed art thou among women”. Am I being picky? Maybe, but it does make a very slight difference.

No you’re not being picky but this particular omission comes about because the old translations (DR, KJV) are derived from the Byzantine text-type, which has this language in Luke 1:28. The modern versions (RSV, RSV Catholic Ed., New American Standard, New Int’l Version and New American Bible) are derived from the Alexandrian text-type which omits “blessed art thou among women” from this particular passage. The Alexandrian text-type does include this language in Luke 1:42 (the visitation). For what it’s worth, the oldest known manuscripts are the Alexandrian, althouth there are more of the Byzantine manuscripts in existence.

Most of the real difference is in punctuation between the NAS and DR, but the NIS makes a change in the pronouns used, which changes the possible interpretations. In the DR version, it’s very possible that “shall save his soul” may refer to the effect on the one that causes a sinner to be converted, and not necessarily on the one being converted. It also implies that the “multitude of sins” covered might also be those of the one that converts another, as a reward for that charitable action taken by them. The NIS eliminates that possibility, and clearly implies that it’s all related to the one being converted.

What really happened here is that the publishers of the NIV and several other similar versions are adherents of “Once Saved Always Saved”. When read in context with the preceding verse 19, the correct translation of the material repudiates OSAS. Therefore they changed the wording to neutralize this perceived scriptural problem.

 

[Zenas]

The most widely used Protestant Bible in mainstream denominations is the NIV, which I do not like very much. I suppose it is accurate, but it is poetically challenged, and to my ear uninspiring.The Episcopal Church, of which I used to be a member, mostly uses the RSV and NRSV, both of which retain the poetic tone of the KJV, and thus seem more familiar. (The Episcopal Church does not use the Psalter from either of these in public worship, but rather a separate translation that appears in the Book of Common Prayer. The exception to this is that the KJV version of the 23rd Psalm is often used in funeral services. Contrary to popular belief, the older BCP didn’t use the KJV Psalter, either. It also had a specially written version.)

The trouble with both the Douay-Rheims and the KJV is that the language is archaic, and may convey misleading meanings to modern readers. They are also difficult for some readers. I find many of the OT passages in both downright soporific–I seldom can stay awake through an entire chapter.But the language is familiar to many readers, and is very poetic in tone. In some cases, e.g. the Luke Christmas Gospel, the language is so familiar that no other translation seems as comfortable. (The NT is generally more readable in both.)

I used to have a Bible that had parallel translations from four different versions–2 Protestant and 2 Catholic. It was interesting to compare the different renderings. I often was able to derive meanings by this method that were not previously obvious to me. (“Oh, I get it! Duh!”)

It is true that some translations seem to have axes to grind in one way or another. I mostly don’t mind inclusive language, so long as it isn’t heavy handed. (The use of ‘brothers and sisters’, as opposed to ‘brethren’ seems innocuous enough.) I would avoid reading Bibles that are written for non-Trinitarian denominations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, because these clearly have agenda. Some ‘plain English’ translations, while useful in special circumstance, are too pedestrian to my ear. Scripture is supposed to inspire.

The real key in my mind is to read a version that you find comprehensible, and to rely on authoritative interpretations of what one reads. The Catholic Church is not Sola Scriptura. Reason, and the Magisterium of the Church also have weight. This is true in the Episcopal Church and in ELCA as well, although it is stated slightly differently–a three-legged stool of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. If you belong to a Sola Scriptura denomination, it would be best to choose a version of scripture that comports with their teaching. Or maybe reading a Catholic version will lead you out of darkness into the light, so to speak.

I would only take issue with your idea that the NIV is accurate. I have found so many deviations from the more literal translations that I no longer trust it.

 

[Telstar]

Well, it’s true that there is no Hebrew word that translates “virgin” (see martininthefiel’s post on this thread). But a young woman bringing forth a son is no sign at all. It happens every day. The implication is clearly a virgin, especially when you link it up with Matthew 1:22-23.

That’s exactly why I have a real problem with that particular version. If you take away the concept of the mother being a virgin, then you reduce it to being any young woman having a baby that has no special circumstance related to his birth. What would be the point of the prophecy, and what would be the distinction between that child and any other? There really wouldn’t be any at all.

No you’re not being picky but this particular omission comes about because the old translations (DR, KJV) are derived from the Byzantine text-type, which has this language in Luke 1:28. The modern versions (RSV, RSV Catholic Ed., New American Standard, New Int’l Version and New American Bible) are derived from the Alexandrian text-type which omits “blessed art thou among women” from this particular passage. The Alexandrian text-type does include this language in Luke 1:42 (the visitation). For what it’s worth, the oldest known manuscripts are the Alexandrian, althouth there are more of the Byzantine manuscripts in existence.

I think this is one of those times when St. Jerome’s translation of the original manuscripts into Latin might come into play. As I understand it, the DR English version is mostly based on the Latin Vulgate that he translated. His understanding of the most common interpretations of his time, as well as his experience with those other languages, had a lot to do with how he translated those very early texts. Unfortunately, many of the earliest texts are no longer available to compare with the ones that are left.

What really happened here is that the publishers of the NIV and several other similar versions are adherents of “Once Saved Always Saved”. When read in context with the preceding verse 19, the correct translation of the material repudiates OSAS. Therefore they changed the wording to neutralize this perceived scriptural problem.

That’s the kind of thing that I was referring to with ‘watering down’ the scriptures to the point that they are not consistent with the original translations. It’s a slippery slope that over time can erode the whole meaning of scripture. That’s why it’s so important for the Magisterium of the Church to protect it from ambiguous interpretations and translations, in order to protect the true Faith from being ‘lost in translation’.

 

[Bran_Stark]

The most widely used Protestant Bible in mainstream denominations is the NIV, which I do not like very much. I suppose it is accurate, but it is poetically challenged, and to my ear uninspiring.

I agree that the NIV is bland. But is it really the commenest among mainline churches? I thought they usually use the NRSV, while the NIV is favored by more Evangelical groups.

 

[Zenas]

I agree that the NIV is bland. But is it really the commenest among mainline churches? I thought they usually use the NRSV, while the NIV is favored by more Evangelical groups.

I think you’re right about that and it probably has to do with the copyrights. Zondervan Publishing owns all the copyrights to the various editions of the NIV. Its materials are written for and mostly sold to evangelicals. The RSV/NRSV copyrights are owned by the National Council of Churches, which is mostly made up of main line protestants.

 

[icamay]

Most scholars and Bible professors agree that we should have several translations at our disposal for this reason. The family Bibles that have been handed down to me are KJV and NIV; the study Bibles that I use for RCIA and listen to in my car are NAS; I use DR to cross-reference subjects as I study them in-depth.

As has been said here, the only Bible I refuse to give merit to is NWT. It is very helpful to be educated in KJV and NIV for all these years when I am discussing my Catholic faith with my family, as I can see where their perspective lies. Those versions are not that different at all, and the faith in them is still the same, but the nit-picky details tend to come from just one or two words in an entire chapter and how they have been translated.

 

[Candlepower]

All of our church lectionary is read from the NRSV with the Apocrypha. I personally read from the NIV with study guide as I have for years now. I have also heard very positive things about the ESV (English Standard Version). I also agree with rejection of the New World Translations. It’s clearly manipulated and distorted to fit an agenda. Bad deal.

 

[themattman]

I have several translations that i reference to, but the main one would have to be the ESV. I have found that i like the way it reads, and it seems to be a very good translation to use. I know in the fall, there is a ESV version to the Apocrypha coming out. The publisher is CPH. It’s a Lutheran publication.
Yes the NWT is wrong and is bad. So at least we know of one being very bad. Maybe since most of you on here are Catholic you don’t run into this issue as much as the Protestants do. There is always one is better and bla bla bla. It’s no wonder there is so many different churches and beliefs.
Matthew

 

[Publisher]

I agree that the NIV is bland. But is it really the commenest among mainline churches? I thought they usually use the NRSV, while the NIV is favored by more Evangelical groups.

 

[15thClub]

One thing that has to be kept in mind at all times is that languages like Latin, Greek, and Hebrew do not directly translate to English. Furthermore, we also have to understand the historical times in which the text is written. Take for instance Jesus’s words, “Behold the Kingdom of God is at hand!” In the first episode of Catholicism, Father Robert Barron cites these words and speaks to this in the context of that term. What Jesus’s first audience would understand by these words, “The tribes are being gathered.” I’ve discussed this with Catholic Priests and they have to formulate their homilies by going back both to the original text language and the history of that time. I know LCMS pastors have to do a similar analysis. I was once LCMS myself. This is a proper way to understand scripture. Obviously, the text certainly has applicability to today but its also important to understand the past. Taking scripture literally from the English only may not be sufficient.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I realise, of course, this is going back a century, but one Catholic priest claimed there was a convention of Protestants who wished to make a new translation of the Bible.

According to him (at this article):

The proceedings of the convention were published daily in the Missouri Republican.

A very learned Presbyterian, I think it was, stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less than thirty thousand errors…

Another preacher stood up in the convention – I think he was a Baptist – and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said for thirty years past the world was without the word of God, for the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.

Here are your own preachers for you. You all read the newspapers, no doubt, my friends, and must know what happened in England a few years ago. A petition was sent to parliament for an allowance of a few thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new translation of the Bible. And that movement was headed and carried on by Protestant bishops and clergymen.

The source of the article is, of course, Catholic. Any recollection of such an event?
Or are there any Bible scholars out there who can verify that the KJV, poetic as it is, does contain so many errors? I have heard it contains many errors, and I know it contains at least one (however small):

Luke 2:14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (KJV)
Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. (D-RB)
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” (NIV)
“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” (NASB)

:-/