Different Translations of the Bible (NIV)

[darthf]

Hello,

I am Catholic and found a great “Kid’s” Bible it is an Adventure Bible and is the NIV translation. I guess I have 2 questions…why are there so many different translations?

Secondly, is there any reason that my son should not use this version?

Thanks,
David

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello,

I am Catholic and found a great “Kid’s” Bible it is an Adventure Bible and is the NIV translation. I guess I have 2 questions…why are there so many different translations?

Secondly, is there any reason that my son should not use this version?

Thanks,
David

PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

Hiding the condemnation of personal interpretation

2 Peter 1:20

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by **the prophet’s **own interpretation. (NIV adds “the prophet’s”)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (New American Standard)

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (New American Bible)

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for sola scriptura is 2 Peter 1:20-21. That’s hardly surprising. In this passage, Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Then Peter warns: “But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there will be false teacher among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) Note that under divine inspiration, Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies!

The Greek word that is translated as “heresies” comes from the verb haireomai, which means “to take or to choose for one’s self.” In the first century, it had the negative meaning of going off on one’s own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14, some translations render it as “sect”.

The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to the idea of sola scriptura that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus, it appears that the New International Version (NIV) intentionally mistranslates “one’s own interpretation” with “by the prophet’s own interpretation.” However, tou prophetou is not found in the Greek text.

Avoiding Positive References to “Tradition”

Here are a few Greek words and their English equivalents:

paradosis - tradition
didaskalia - teaching
didachi i - teaching doctrine

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “tradition”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a negative light.

Matthew 15:1-5
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the **tradition paradosis] **of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis]? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis].”

Mark 7:1-13
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition paradosis] of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition paradosis] of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions paradosis] of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions paradosis]! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition paradosis] that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Galatians 1:14
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the tradition paradosis] of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition paradosis] and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “teaching”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a positive light.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teaching paradosis], just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching paradosis] you received from us.

Doesn’t it seem curious that the NIV renders the word *“paradosis” *correctly as “tradition” in the ten places where the “tradition” of the Pharisees was condemned but incorrectly translates it as “teaching” in the three places where the “tradition” of the Apostles was extolled?

This is especially puzzling since the correct Greek word for “teaching doctrine” is “didachi i” while the word for “teaching” is “didaskalia i”? To put it plainly, if the New Testament authors had wanted to say “teaching”, they would have written “didachi i” or possibly “didaskalia i”. However, each of the scriptures listed above actually contain the word, *“paradosis”. *The NIV translators had to go out of their way to render this word incorrectly in three separate verses! Why would they do that?

Could it be that the anti-Catholic bias of the translators and publishers of the NIV could not allow them to render the word “paradosis” properly as “tradition” wherever it was portrayed positively because this translation would weaken the arguments of those who get a lot of mileage out of falsely claiming that Catholicism contains little but worthless “traditions of men”?

I understand that Protestant Bibles are incomplete (since they are missing seven canonical books), but it appears that at least one of the major Protestant translations is biased, as well!

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Persona Christi

The Douay-Rheims and King James Versions provide powerful backing for the Catholic doctrine of confession to a priest.

The passage is found in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and hinges upon the translation of the Greek word, prosopon. Here is the passage as seen in context in three major translations.

Douay-Rheims
“For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

King James Version
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

New International Version
The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake

While the first two translations each contain the words “in the person of Christ” or in persona Christi, the modern Protestant translation carefully avoids this phrase. Why is this important?

---

In persona Christi is a Latin phrase which translates literally as “in the person of Christ.” This is an important theological concept of the Catholic Church referring to the action of a priest while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ, or it could be said, the Person of Christ is acting in the performance of the gesture and the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite.

In particular, there are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi. “This is my body.” in the Eucharistic prayer and “I absolve you of your sins” in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are chief examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi

Is this another example of the anti-Catholic bias of the NIV? Or has the NIV, like the NAB and RSV-CE, captured the phrase more accurately?

Works “Missing” in James 2

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:14-18 NIV)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. (James 2:14-18 Douay-Rheims)

 

[SyCarl]

PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

Hiding the condemnation of personal interpretation

2 Peter 1:20

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by **the prophet’s **own interpretation. (NIV adds “the prophet’s”)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (New American Standard)

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (New American Bible)

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for sola scriptura is 2 Peter 1:20-21. That’s hardly surprising. In this passage, Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Then Peter warns: “But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there will be false teacher among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) Note that under divine inspiration, Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies!

I would note though that the Douay Rheims translation seems closer to the NIV.

Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
(2 Peter 1:20-21 DRB)

The wording “is made” seems to relate to the time the prophecy was revealed. Thus it would relate to the prophet not interpreting what he writes in that the prophecy is being given as received by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sabda]

Hello,

I am Catholic and found a great “Kid’s” Bible it is an Adventure Bible and is the NIV translation. I guess I have 2 questions…why are there so many different translations?

Secondly, is there any reason that my son should not use this version?

Thanks,
David

One reason I can think of for why you son should not use it is because it’s not Catholic. It most likely is not even a complete Bible, meaning it doesn’t have the Deutocanonical books in it. There are Catholic Bibles out there for kids.

One that comes to mind is Break Through. If you go to your local Catholic store they should have one. You can also order it online. I know there are several Catholic sites that carry this Bible.

Besides that the NIV is problematic in several areas as Randy Carson has posted above.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I also agree with them on the NIV. It is a plain terrible translation, but yet among many Protestants it is very popular. There are so many translations because of people’s beliefs and the sources that were used in translating it. Some design them for readability over correctness. Depending on age and readability level I recommend different Bibles. Kids starting out I highly recommend the NAB. Adults starting out I recommend the NAB or Jerusalem Bible, if you can find a copy. I would recommend the JB over the NAB. Finally for adults with with some experience and above I recommend the Douay-Rheims. If one wants a real change read the Clementine Vulgate alongside with Douay-Rheims.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Therere are many translations because language varies so much. The translators are trying to most accurately transmit the meaning of the originals to readers. That is really a moving target.

For instance the KJV or DRB really don’t accurately transmit the original to most people now. Oh sure, with study, one can do a pretty good job, but you take a person who isn’t schooled in things and give them one of those and they are going to get a lot of passages wrong for the simple reason that those translations are really written in an English that differs quite a bit from theirs.

For instance the meaning of “let” has greatly changed. “Let the children come to me” and so on sound very different than what is actually being said. It’s a command, not a if you would would you please permit it.

One thing that happens though is that readers really in many ways won’t let some passages be properly tranlated. So “Let there be light” is still that way in all the translations I know, if you changed it to reflect how it’s a definite command, you can expect to get ashes mailed to you by irate readers who accuse you of changing God’s Word.

Anyway, in order to know the English, you need to know the target audience. The NIV has a key word in it “International” it’s not aimed just at the US, it aimed at a wide English speaking audience. So the language isn’t what we’d call elegant. It’s aimed at a very broad audience and so needs to be rather bland. it’s really an amazing work when you consider the size and varience of the intended market.

You also see a gradual development of new translations of other words.

One of the great shifts has been the Greek word monogenes. You would recognize it from John 3:16 as the “only begotten”. There’s a problem with the only begotten, it’s an incorrect translation, one that goes back a long time.

If you take the texts of the Apostles creed, you can see in Greek teh monogenes and the correct word in Latin, unicum, which pretty well perfectly translates as unique. By the time of the Nicene Creed we see the mistake. Monogenes in the Greek is then unigenitum. Unigenitum is perfectly translated only begotten, and we see in the Vulgate for instance that pattern, mongenes in the Greek is translated unigenitum in the Latin.

As newer transltions were done, they followed the Latin, really it was thought that the root of monogenes was the mono, one and the genes the same and we see in for instance gennao, which is repeatedly properly translated as begat in the first chapter of Matthew. We see that root for instance in our English word generate where something is produced.

Unfortunately that’s the wrong root. Instead monogenes has as it root, genus, which we would see in our word for classifying creatures genera or kind.

So it doesn’t mean only begotten, it means one of a kind, unique.

And so we have seen the translations and even the Creeds move from using only begotten to what is most common now is only, which is true in many cases like Jesus being the only Son. But which confuses people because they then complain aren’t we all called sons of God, well yes we are so it would be better to see the complete translation as either one of a kind or unique. The ISV has actually used unique in John 3:16 and they have been under such great criticism for it they have seriously considered changing it back to an incorrect translation.

Another area there is a lot of dispute is on gender neutrality. That is in many places the masculine and neuter forms of a word are the same.

For instance you would see in English that chairman appears to be masculine and is indeed the maculine form of the word, but it’s also the gender neutral form of the word. So a woman could still be referred to as the chairman. Now many people seem to no longer understand that. If they see chairman, they think man and only a man. This is especially common in the NE US with people under 40 years of age.

The translator is left with a problem, English doesn’t really have at this time all the pronouns it needs to handle the situation. So they end up with work arounds to transmit that it isn’t just men in view, but that often makes some other things not quite right.

People don’t often realize that all English translations have a fair degree of gender neutrality, the KJV is about 30% I think. There are many passages in the Bible where they translated the Hebrew word for son as children. That’s correct actually. Newer translations generally go further in their use of gender neutrality because generally their readers require it.

Some do seem to go too far though, where they seem to have an agenda to remove the masculine references completely, that isnt’ correct either, the goal shouldn’t be to add to scripture but to as acurately as possible transmit what was written.

So anyway, that’s a couple of reasons just in the profession of tranlating, language changes, and is different so you get a lot of translations.

There is also worldly reasons. When a publisher produces a lot of books, it’s a rather big pain in the butt to get permission to use someone else’s translation. What’s happened is that the big publishers own a translation or two and so they are free to use it as they please, it makes things quite easy.

You can even see some translations that come right out and say such. That was one big reason for the NET for instance, and so they are very liberal in how they let people use it. They aren’t a big publisher themselves, but they were being cramped by the licenses of such translations as the NIV and the NASB.

So some translations are done to have the right to a translation.

And then there are translations done in response to other translations. The HCSB falls into that, to some extent the ESV do too. The RSV motivated the production of some translations in its’ day too.

That’s probably more than you wanted to know, so I’ll stop.

 

[tobinatorstark]

In response to Jolly Joe

Are you saying that the church didn’t have an accurate Bible for over 1500 years??? The Latin Vulgate was the only Bible for a long long time and to say it isn’t accurate is pretty much rejecting it and as Catholics we aren’t to reject the Vulgate as stated in Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII. Also it encourage the translations from Greek and Hebrew. The so called " original" manuscripts didn’t surface until less and 200 years ago, so how can we be sure that the "original manuscripts are accurate. You won’t catch me reading the NASB, RSV, ISV, ESV and HCSB anytime soon because they aren’t Catholic translations. I stick to the Clementine Vulgate and Doauy-Rheims. If the Latin Vulgate is deemed error free in moral and doctrinal matters as stated in the 4th session of the Council of Trent and reaffirmed in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu annd the Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate, wouldn’t that make the Douay almost equal in moral and doctrinal as the Vulgate?? It can’t be completely equal. Also the NIV is missing some verses so how is that not changing the word of God?

 

[Sabda]

In response to Jolly Joe

Are you saying that the church didn’t have an accurate Bible for over 1500 years??? The Latin Vulgate was the only Bible for a long long time and to say it isn’t accurate is pretty much rejecting it and as Catholics we aren’t to reject the Vulgate as stated in Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII. Also it encourage the translations from Greek and Hebrew. The so called " original" manuscripts didn’t surface until less and 200 years ago, so how can we be sure that the "original manuscripts are accurate. You won’t catch me reading the NASB, RSV, ISV, ESV and HCSB anytime soon because they aren’t Catholic translations. I stick to the Clementine Vulgate and Doauy-Rheims. If the Latin Vulgate is deemed error free in moral and doctrinal matters as stated in the 4th session of the Council of Trent and reaffirmed in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu annd the Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate, wouldn’t that make the Douay almost equal in moral and doctrinal as the Vulgate?? It can’t be completely equal. Also the NIV is missing some verses so how is that not changing the word of God?

If you check Jolly Joe’s profile you’ll find that it says that he is Lutheran.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello,

I am Catholic and found a great “Kid’s” Bible it is an Adventure Bible and is the NIV translation. I guess I have 2 questions…why are there so many different translations?

Different translations rely on different texts, or are intended for different purposes: the AV is not much good for study compared to the RV or RSV. Some give more info about the variant readings than others. The TNB by Kenneth Taylor is a fairly loose modernising paraphrase (“Israelite” becomes “Israeli”), whereas the RSV sticks pretty close to the text, as do its sister-versions the AV-KJV, the RV, ASV, NASB, & RSV-CE. Some Catholic ones are mades from the Vulgate or a translation based thereon ( D-R, Challoner, Knox) & some draw on the Greek as well for the NT (Confraternity Version, Lattey) wheras others are fresh translations from the original languages (Bible de Jerusalem → Jerusalem Bible, NAB)​

Secondly, is there any reason that my son should not use this version?

Thanks,
David

It has an Evangelical slant - & in your position, I should try to find something that avoids taking too many liberties with the text.​

IOW, a fairly “conservative” translation, that does a good job of communicating what the text is driving at: the RSV-CE, say. It’s not perfect, but it does a good job of giving a foundation of Biblical knowledge - the NAB, for all its virtues, is not so good for this, because it looks at the fine detail of the text. Which is excellent if one already knows what sort of book the Bible is - but for a first acquaintance with the Bible, it’s much too detailed; so for a foundation in Bible knowledge - go for the RSV

 

[Fidelis]

Secondly, is there any reason that my son should not use this version?

Regarding the OP’s second question, I have somewhat mixed emotions on this. On the one hand I agree that, all things being equal, Catholics should not use Protestant Bible translations if there are comparable types of Bibles available. In the case of study Bibles for children, however, there is no real good Catholic equivalent to something like the NIV Adventure Bible. If you have never looked through one, it is colorful, informative, and easy to read and navigate through. Also, if you take the time to go through the study notes, there are no blatantly anti-Catholic statements or translation differences that can’t be reconciled with Catholic teaching – especially if the parent takes the time to sit down and study the Bible from a Catholic perspective with his children like he is supposed to.

On the other hand, Catholic “youth” Bibles (at this point) are nothing more than New American Bibles (along with the annoying and adult focused foototes) with a few colorful inserts in them. You almost have to force your kids to read them.

Picking the lesser of two evils, as a Bible and catechetically savvy Catholic parent, I would rather get my child an NIV that they can and will read, while explaining to them that as a Protestant version, it is lacking seven books. My kids, for example, have used these in the past, and have eventually “graduated” to Catholic versions.

Honestly, we Catholics can do a **lot **better, but until Catholic publishing houses get off their duffs and give us some quality, target audience appropriate products that are competitive with Protestant versions, the conscientious and informed Catholic is going to make do with what works best.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

In response to Jolly Joe

Are you saying that the church didn’t have an accurate Bible for over 1500 years??? The Latin Vulgate was the only Bible for a long long time and to say it isn’t accurate is pretty much rejecting it and as Catholics we aren’t to reject the Vulgate as stated in Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII. Also it encourage the translations from Greek and Hebrew. The so called " original" manuscripts didn’t surface until less and 200 years ago, so how can we be sure that the "original manuscripts are accurate. You won’t catch me reading the NASB, RSV, ISV, ESV and HCSB anytime soon because they aren’t Catholic translations. I stick to the Clementine Vulgate and Doauy-Rheims. If the Latin Vulgate is deemed error free in moral and doctrinal matters as stated in the 4th session of the Council of Trent and reaffirmed in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu annd the Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate, wouldn’t that make the Douay almost equal in moral and doctrinal as the Vulgate?? It can’t be completely equal. Also the NIV is missing some verses so how is that not changing the word of God?

I’m saying the Vulgate had some mistakes. The Vulgates in use had more. Additions and such are pretty common in the Vulgate manuscript family.

If you want to proclaim it perfectly infallible go ahead and join the KJO people in proclaiming a translation perfect, even though one never can be. If you actually want to agree with Trent, I have no objection, I never said it had an error in either moral or doctrinal matters, I said it has errors in translation, though are different things.

The Vulgate was a translation, and history would testify a pretty good translation, nothing more.

If you want to proclaim it perfect, explain this mistake to me.

(Heb 11:17 Vulgate) fide obtulit Abraham Isaac cum temptaretur et unigenitum offerebat qui susceperat repromissiones

Notice the use of unigentum concerning Isaac. The verse is accurately translated in the DRB.

(Heb 11:17 DRB) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Do you recognize the error? Isaac never was for one moment the only begotten son of Abraham. If Abraham offered his only begotten son, that would have been Ishmael.

What Isaac was, was the one of a kind, unique son of the promise. Isaac is one of a kind. Isaac is unique. Isaac is not and never was the only begotten.

If you want to proclaim him the only begotten then you have to get rid of Ishmael, something God prevented, and whom was blessed by God by fathering nations.

So if you want to say this would be an error in doctrine or morals then I guess yes, it must be concluded the Vulgate is in such error, but I don’t really see the error being in doctrine or morals but in the translation.

It approaches it though for Muslims who look to this very passage as proof the Jews screwed with the text an substituted Isaac, thus elevating themselves, for Ishmael, the only person who was ever the only begotten of Abraham.

And it approaches doctrine because they jump from this obvious error to thereby thinking that that means Jesus is not the only begotten of the Father, which is a mistake in itself, but one extremely common among Muslims.

Other groups have based their mistaken theology on the same mistake. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses for instance.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’m saying the Vulgate had some mistakes. The Vulgates in use had more. Additions and such are pretty common in the Vulgate manuscript family.

If you want to proclaim it perfectly infallible go ahead and join the KJO people in proclaiming a translation perfect, even though one never can be. If you actually want to agree with Trent, I have no objection, I never said it had an error in either moral or doctrinal matters, I said it has errors in translation, though are different things.

The Vulgate was a translation, and history would testify a pretty good translation, nothing more.

If you want to proclaim it perfect, explain this mistake to me.

(Heb 11:17 Vulgate) fide obtulit Abraham Isaac cum temptaretur et unigenitum offerebat qui susceperat repromissiones

Notice the use of unigentum concerning Isaac. The verse is accurately translated in the DRB.

(Heb 11:17 DRB) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Do you recognize the error? Isaac never was for one moment the only begotten son of Abraham. If Abraham offered his only begotten son, that would have been Ishmael.

What Isaac was, was the one of a kind, unique son of the promise. Isaac is one of a kind. Isaac is unique. Isaac is not and never was the only begotten.

If you want to proclaim him the only begotten then you have to get rid of Ishmael, something God prevented, and whom was blessed by God by fathering nations.

So if you want to say this would be an error in doctrine or morals then I guess yes, it must be concluded the Vulgate is in such error, but I don’t really see the error being in doctrine or morals but in the translation.

It approaches it though for Muslims who look to this very passage as proof the Jews screwed with the text an substituted Isaac, thus elevating themselves, for Ishmael, the only person who was ever the only begotten of Abraham.

And it approaches doctrine because they jump from this obvious error to thereby thinking that that means Jesus is not the only begotten of the Father, which is a mistake in itself, but one extremely common among Muslims.

Other groups have based their mistaken theology on the same mistake. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses for instance.

Yes the Vulgate does have errors. Copyest errors and misspelled words and such. I wish not to follow suit with the KJV-only crowd. Also I don’t believe that the KJV was the best non-Catholic Bible. In my opinion the best non-Catholic Bible was the Wyciffe Bible of 1384. That verse in Hebrews is not a mistake. Issac is the only begotten son of Abraham through God the father. Ishmael couldn’t be the only begotten son of Abraham due to the circumstance of his conception. Take this in consideration from the Haydock Bible Commentary on Hebrews 11:17

Ver. 17. By faith Abraham…offered up Isaac; i.e. was ready and willing to do it, when Isaac was his only son, by whom God had promised to give him a numberless progeny, but by faith he considered that God, who had miraculously given him a son, could if he pleased raise him to life again. (Witham)