Catholic/Protestant scripture differences

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamison
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jamison

Guest
Can anyone point me to or give me a list of Catholic Or Protestant Bible versions that differ from one another? Or at least list the ones you know of? Just verses, please do not list the deuterocanonical books missing. Examples: Luke 1:28, calling Mary highly favored as opposed to full of grace. Matthew 18:11 missing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 traditions vs teachings. 1 Timothy 3:15 church “a” pillar of truth vs “the” pillar. 2 Corinthians 2:10 forgiven in “person” of Christ vs “presence”.
Some may differ between Protestant themselves and others may differ between Protestant and Catholic. Please list all if you will.
 
This is a very interesting thread! I cannot wait to hear more!! I find there is a difference with a lot of verses, I use the NAB and a lot of the other bibles to me seem like they have every verse flipped around if you know what I mean!!
The only one you didnt say that I would say someone might mention is Romans 3:28 where Luther added alone (but I dont think thats in the bibles anymore).
When reading John 6 with my friends, sometimes I notice little differences when it comes to the bread of life discourse. But nothing that should allow them NOT to believe in the real presence!!!
 
kristanl said:
This is a very interesting thread! I cannot wait to hear more!! I find there is a difference with a lot of verses, I use the NAB and a lot of the other bibles to me seem like they have every verse flipped around if you know what I mean!!
The only one you didnt say that I would say someone might mention is Romans 3:28 where Luther added alone (but I dont think thats in the bibles anymore).
When reading John 6 with my friends, sometimes I notice little differences when it comes to the bread of life discourse. But nothing that should allow them NOT to believe in the real presence!!!
Click to expand...
Please share the little differencesin John 6. It will be a great start!!
 
There are a number of dogmatic differences which makes me ponder on a question…If the Catholic Church’s teaching is not in line with Christ’s teaching wouldn’t that make Christ a liar since he built his Church on St Peter and proclaimed the gates of Hades would not prevail against it?

God bless,
 
The_Way said:
There are a number of dogmatic differences which makes me ponder on a question…If the Catholic Church’s teaching is not in line with Christ’s teaching wouldn’t that make Christ a liar since he built his Church on St Peter and proclaimed the gates of Hades would not prevail against it?

God bless,
Click to expand...
Um… Yes. I’m aware there’s a difference. That’s why this thread is to point them out. Please do so if you know any.
 
jamison said:
Um… Yes. I’m aware there’s a difference. That’s why this thread is to point them out. Please do so if you know any.
Click to expand...
1 Cor 9:5
Jeromes Vulgate (literal translation)
"numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi
"Do we not have power to take/bring/carry a sister woman around, "

The original Douay-Rheims is basically the same as above, as is the French Jerusalem Bible, the DR Challoner revision changes it up to “a woman, a sister”, and I believe the Confraternity revision agrees with the Challoner. These last two seem to be based off of the Clementine Vulgate, which switched the phrase to “mulierem sororem” (which some denounce as disingenuous).

King James

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife”

Catholic New American Bible and RSV-CE agree here.

Other Protestant translations very widely and some take A LOT of liberty with this passage and give an interpolation or interpretation rather than a translation. I would steer clear of ANY bible that doesnt agree for the most part with ALL the above mentioned translations (woman/wife not withstanding).

Theres an ongoing thread about this passage I started last week.
 
You can compare a number of Protestant translations side-by-side at Bible.cc. It does appear to include the Douay-Rheims (DRB) Catholic translation among the translations.
 
jamison said:
Can anyone point me to or give me a list of Catholic Or Protestant Bible versions that differ from one another? Or at least list the ones you know of? Just verses, please do not list the deuterocanonical books missing. Examples: Luke 1:28, calling Mary highly favored as opposed to full of grace. Matthew 18:11 missing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 traditions vs teachings. 1 Timothy 3:15 church “a” pillar of truth vs “the” pillar. 2 Corinthians 2:10 forgiven in “person” of Christ vs “presence”.
Some may differ between Protestant themselves and others may differ between Protestant and Catholic. Please list all if you will.
Click to expand...
I should have been more clear in my thread. Imlooking for key Catholic verse that different Protestant translations twis around and change meaning of. Please?
 
Here is an infamous change Luther made:
Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[3] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[4] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning. This is a literalist view rather than an literal view of the Bible which is contrary to all other references in the Bible, especially the book of James. [5]
Click to expand...
In “Where We Got the Bible… Our Debt to the Catholic Church” Bishop Grahm (Catholic Convert, originally big time Calvinist) states Lutheran bibles of his day (printed 1911) still had this change. I’m not sure which specific translations are “Lutheran”, I was looking for such a translation online to illistrate the change.
 
The classic controversial issue is in the following verse:

“For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” – Romans 3:28

Catholics believe we can merit rewards in Heaven in union with the merits of Jesus Christ, whereas the Protestants do not. I would like to ask Protestants how they explain the parable of the talents found in Matthew 25:14-30 where merit is clearly stated?

God bless,
 
jamison said:
Can anyone point me to or give me a list of Catholic Or Protestant Bible versions that differ from one another? Or at least list the ones you know of? Just verses, please do not list the deuterocanonical books missing. Examples: Luke 1:28, calling Mary highly favored as opposed to full of grace. Matthew 18:11 missing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 traditions vs teachings. 1 Timothy 3:15 church “a” pillar of truth vs “the” pillar. 2 Corinthians 2:10 forgiven in “person” of Christ vs “presence”.
Some may differ between Protestant themselves and others may differ between Protestant and Catholic. Please list all if you will.
Click to expand...
I think this question confuses two distinct issues.

One, there is a difference in Catholic and Protestant Bible from the books included. This is clear.

Second, there are different translations of the Bible, some of which are typically used only by Catholics, some only by Protestants, and some by both. If you’re asking about New Testament differences, given that there’s no difference in the books themselves among Christians, then you’re asking about different translations which is not simply a Catholic/Protestant issue.
 
The_Way said:
There are a number of dogmatic differences which makes me ponder on a question…If the Catholic Church’s teaching is not in line with Christ’s teaching wouldn’t that make Christ a liar since he built his Church on St Peter and proclaimed the gates of Hades would not prevail against it?

God bless,
Click to expand...
If and only if that’s the correct interpretation of what Christ said.
 
The_Way said:
The classic controversial issue is in the following verse:

“For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” – Romans 3:28

Catholics believe we can merit rewards in Heaven in union with the merits of Jesus Christ, whereas the Protestants do not. I would like to ask Protestants how they explain the parable of the talents found in Matthew 25:14-30 where merit is clearly stated?

God bless,
Click to expand...
Actually, Protestants do believe we’re rewarded in Heaven according to our merits. But we believe justification (i.e., salvation) is by faith alone. Rewards for the saints who’ve done exceptionally well are a different matter than salvation.
 
Izdaari said:
Actually, Protestants do believe we’re rewarded in Heaven according to our merits. But we believe justification (i.e., salvation) is by faith alone. Rewards for the saints who’ve done exceptionally well are a different matter than salvation.
Click to expand...
Brother, we Catholics believe the exact same thing that salvation is attained only by faith in Christ and merit is achieved by good works only by union with the merits of Christ. The only difference is faith without good works is dead faith.

God bless,
 
Izdaari said:
Actually, Protestants do believe we’re rewarded in Heaven according to our merits. But we believe justification (i.e., salvation) is by faith alone. Rewards for the saints who’ve done exceptionally well are a different matter than salvation.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t this bother you regarding not just Sola Scriptura, but also Sola Fide?
Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[3] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[4] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning. This is a literalist view rather than an literal view of the Bible which is contrary to all other references in the Bible, especially the book of James. [5]
Click to expand...
The fact that the bible could (and was) changed for the specific purpose of making it say what Luther wanted it to say?
 
crazzeto said:
Doesn’t this bother you regarding not just Sola Scriptura, but also Sola Fide?

The fact that the bible could (and was) changed for the specific purpose of making it say what Luther wanted it to say?
Click to expand...
Why should Luther’s bad translation bother me? I don’t use it, nor do I base any doctrine on it. I like Luther very much as an author, but I never thought he was much of a translator.

My NASB says: (Romans 3:28) “For we maintain that man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

Compare the NAB: (Romans 3:28) “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”

Hmm, almost identical. And the NASB is one of the most popular translations with evangelicals.

But let’s also compare the NIV (the most popular bible with Protestants, and my denomination’s pew bible): (Romans 3:28) “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.”

Pretty much the same. :cool:
 
The_Way said:
Brother, we Catholics believe the exact same thing that salvation is attained only by faith in Christ and merit is achieved by good works only by union with the merits of Christ. The only difference is faith without good works is dead faith.

God bless,
Click to expand...
Good! We’re in agreement! 👍

Though I happen to be from the Protestant tradition, I have very little quarrel with either Catholics or Orthodox.
 
The_Way said:
So who gets to decide what the correct interpretation is?

God bless,
Click to expand...
Ultimately, each believer gets to decide.

A lot of Protestants (Baptists and fundamentalists in particular) would consider me prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura, because I like to use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, thus allowing a role for tradition, though a subordinate role.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top