Church rules on Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
Another question sorry…

Has there ever been an excommunication for reading or sharing the Protestant translations of the Bible? was it reserved to the Bishop or the Pope or not?

If so, has the canon changed?
 
Probably none since the Index of Forbidden Books was removed in 1965.
 
i would be careful when using protestant bibles because a few of them have broader translations or even go as far as to substitute or leave out words or phrases. :eek:
 
The whole code of canon law was changed in 1983 abbrogating every previous code, so yes, it was changed.
 
Non-Catholic bibles must be chosen carefully, not primarily because of any Church penalty, but because they may lead to error. There is little to fault with the King James Version - even less so if it has the Deuterocanonical books. The NASB to a lesser extent and particularly the NIV are very liberal, anti-Catholic biased translations. The Good News Translation? Don’'t even mention it!
 
To address the general topic at hand, ask yourself how good of an idea it might be to use a Protestant Bible. They are often incomplete and can be severely–or, admittedly, not so–mistranslated, not to mention they are endorsed by individuals and organizations protesting Christ’s Church, ignorance or lack thereof aside. Your best bet is to buy a Bible approved by the Church. Words like “imprimatur,” “imprimi potest,” “censor deputatus,” and the like, on or near the copyright page, are what to look for if you’re not sure or see a new edition you’ve not seen before.
 
The NASB to a lesser extent and particularly the NIV are very liberal, anti-Catholic biased translations. The Good News Translation? Don’'t even mention it!
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the New Living Translation! Sometimes I’ll skim through one at the bookstore just to remind myself how bad it is.
 
I still use the NASB at times. It is by far the most word for word literal translation I know of, at least the NT. My Hebrew is insufficient to determine the literalness of the OT.

As a rule, the more literal a translation is, the less any sort of point of view can drift in, though it still can happen. The more dynamic a translation, the more a point of view can be incorporated in the language. In any translation the footnotes are a prime source of doctrinal insertion.

The best is policy is to stick with a Bible that has an imprimateur.
 
IanGE said:
How does one know, then? Do we look for the imprimatur? Or has that ceased too?
Click to expand...
All books on the Index of Forbidden Books are still forbidden even though the actual Index has ceased.
The effect of them being on the List remains and to be read they would individually and specifically have to be granted approval to be read.
 
smp501 said:
Don’t forget the New Living Translation! Sometimes I’ll skim through one at the bookstore just to remind myself how bad it is.
Click to expand...
I heard that they tossed around the idea of calling it the “New Bigoted Translation”, but that just didn’t roll off the tongue all that well.
 
CMatt25 said:
Is that why my version bears the Imprimatur of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops?
Click to expand...
(in best Gilbert Gottfried voice) Why am I not surprised? The USCCB has come, rightly, under increasing scrutiny recently. Remember those Campaign for Human Development donations that accidentally went to pro-death organizations? Yeah, the same USCCB.

A single example from among many:

John 2:4

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

Protestant King James Version
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Protestant New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.”

“Catholic” Good News Translation (GNT)
4 “You must not tell me what to do,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”

This horrible translation has Jesus rebuking His mother! You should burn it out of respect for Blessed Mary, even virgin.
 
thistle said:
All books on the Index of Forbidden Books are still forbidden even though the actual Index has ceased.
The effect of them being on the List remains and to be read they would individually and specifically have to be granted approval to be read.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, you are in error… the Index Librorum Prohibitorum that I believe you are referring to was abolished by Pope Paul VI by decree and act on 14 June 1966 and the authority of the list removed in its entirety. (I believe that to be here; however, my Latin is a bit weak: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19660614_de-indicis-libr-prohib_lt.html)
That however, doesn’t prevent a local Bishop or the Church from issue such prohibitions in the future.
 
Many years ago I was browsing through a second-hand bookshop and came across a New Testament by J B Philips. It was very cheap, about 30 or 40p, so I bought it to add to my collection of Bibles. I checked Philips’ version of the Lords Prayer and turned to Luke 11. Verse 1 is normally translated as “while Jesus was praying” but J B has “While Jesus was kneeling”. In his notes he justifies, “since people in those days normally kneel while praying…”😛 I thought Jews stood while praying? e.g. at the wailing wall? Anyway, I slung Rev. Philps away.
A spin-off from that justified a friend from interrupting me while I was deep in prayer. “Luke 11.1” he whispered, "the disciples interrupted Jesus while He was praying so its Kosher!:rolleyes:
 
po18guy said:
(in best Gilbert Gottfried voice) Why am I not surprised? The USCCB has come, rightly, under increasing scrutiny recently. Remember those Campaign for Human Development donations that accidentally went to pro-death organizations? Yeah, the same USCCB.

A single example from among many:

John 2:4

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

Protestant King James Version
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Protestant New American Standard Bible (NASB)
4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.”

“Catholic” Good News Translation (GNT)
4 “You must not tell me what to do,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”

This horrible translation has Jesus rebuking His mother! You should burn it out of respect for Blessed Mary, even virgin.
Click to expand...
The Zonderman Greek text has: “What to me and thee, gunai (dear woman)? Not yet has come the hour of me.” This is Jesus’ answer to His Mother’s observation: “wine they have not”. But of course she over-rides Him and tells the servants to do whatever Jesus asks!😃
 
Zenkai said:
So no one wants to tell me why the NLT is so bad?
Click to expand...
On the spectrum of translations, the NLT is probably the furthest towards the “paraphrase” end of any other modern English translation. When a text is so liberally paraphrased, it is much easier for the translator to interpretively translate the text. This makes it much more difficult for the reader to get an accurate grasp of what the bibilical authors actually meant to convey.

I know their intent is to make it more readable. I don’t see what’s so unreadable about other translations like the RSV or the NAB. 🤷
 
Zenkai said:
So no one wants to tell me why the NLT is so bad?
Click to expand...
The qualities of any given translation are best seen only in comparison with other available texts. Here you can compare many versions as well as view a list of various translations of a given verse. As a rule, the newer translations are softer and less focused. They have been finessed by various purpose-driven committees into supporting or not supporting the divergent beliefs in modern Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top