Do we have too many Bibles?

[patrick457]

I don’t think I have too many, although I do have quite a few between study, readers, different sizes etc.

I DO feel that Christians have far too many translations however. It would be great if we could at least decide on one common translation that all agreed was the true standard. Even the Catholic Church has too many as you traverse the globe. I’ve had friends from other religions ask in casual conversation why we as Christians can’t decide which one is right. Heck, we can’t even agree on which books should be included!

Honestly, as far the Catholic Church, I think they should have stuck with the DR as the “standard” world wide.

Not every Catholic in the world speaks English.

I don’t think it’s translations themselves that are the problem (well, most of the time, anyway): in fact, I’d say that the existence of multiple translations are beneficial in a way*. Personally, I think it’s more those countless varieties and formats of Bibles you’ll find: leather covers, metal covers, paperback, hardback, men’s Bibles, women’s Bibles, soldiers’ Bibles, cowboy’s Bibles, students’ Bibles, children’s Bibles, waterproof Bibles, duct-taped Bibles. I’ll admit, thinking outside the box I find the very existence of these ‘specialty edition’ Bibles ridiculous, even. It’s probably just us Christians that fetishize and market the Bible to this extent. Muslims don’t publish ‘specialty’ Qu’rans AFAIK; you won’t find a ‘cowboy’s Dhammapada’ in the Buddhist section of the bookstore.

• That being said, it’s a little disappointing that the majority of the popular translations available on the market are too ‘conventional’: they’re too influenced in various degrees by the KJV and rely on the same ways of rendering passages and terminologies. (Can’t be helped I guess.) Sure, I realize many Christians prefer the traditional wording (because it’s what they’re familiar with) and will complain when, say, they find out their Bible says something like ‘Covenant Chest’ instead of ‘Ark of the Covenant’, but I don’t think the existence of a little variety will hurt. As long as it’s still a reasonably faithful translation.

 

[Ignatius]

So, I was talking to someone recently about a previous mission trip he was on in communist countries

Specifically what communist countries? Have you fact checked that claim? There really are only three or four in the whole world. How can you not know which communist countries? Are you making this up?

A false premise results in a false conclusion. Always fact check this kind of claim.

 

[patrick457]

I do not think so; I think we have to many translations and the reason for so much confusion.

The reason for confusion IMHO is not translations (though they can contribute to the confusion). It’s mainly the popular image of what the Bible must be like (a self-interpreting, complete-in-itself infallible manual of divine answers), which doesn’t reflect, and clashes with, what the Bible actually is like. Readers have this preconceived notion in their heads about what the Bible is and are bewildered when they see the reality: that the Bible isn’t as clear or as easy to understand as popular culture had made it out to be. I think one of the advantages of Catholicism is that it recognizes sola scriptura (which this popular idea of the Bible is a deritative of) to be an unworkable model.

I just gave away my Ignatius New Testament Study Bible. Something is wrong when we open the pages of a “Bible” and 75% of the page is covered by something other than the word of God.

-Tim-

Another quote from Beal’s book that stood out to me (pp. 68-69):

[T]hese values, whether conservative or liberal, are simply not “there” in the Bible itself. They are interpretational add-ins meant to make the Bible closer to what people expect from it. These value-added, values-added products are not simply Bibles but biblical interpretations. …]
“If you put chocolate coating on an Oreo, it’s a different cookie, and you ought to be able to charge more,” says Paul J. Caminiti, a vice president at Zondervan. “The packaging has to scream that this is something really new: First time! Fudge-dipped! Chocolate coated!” If I follow this metaphor correctly, the Bible is the Oreo, and the fudge dip is the extra stuff that the publisher adds. As we’ve seen, there’s at least as much double-stuffing as there is fudge-dipping. In any case, as he himself says, “it’s a different cookie.” Is it still an Oreo?

 

[COPLAND_3]

I dont think you can have too much of a great thing. Even those of us who like to collect them will eventually die and the Bibles get passed down. I think that Bible production that spreads heretical garbage that is sacraligous is a problem to some extent. But even then oftentimes those kinds of things can lead people on a road of truth who would probably not do so had they never picked up a “bad Bible”. Truth seekers are capable of finding **** but keep digging until they find treasure.

 

[mleonetti1991]

The problem isn’t with the translation (sometimes it is) but usually with the footnotes, which can be ambiguous if not heretical. If you compare Haydock with the NAB, it’s like night and day. Even the confraternity version was not the best.

For one thing, the footnote for Revelation 12:1, it mentions that the Woman is not Mary, But by “accommodation” can represent her. But the NAB states that the verse has nothing to do with Mary, But the idea of giving birth to the savior deals with a Babylonian myth involving a serpent monster devouring a goddess’ child.

The RSV-CE is more orthodox than the NAB (even though it’s an updated version of the bible used by the Church of England with changes to say the correct, Catholic version). But Genesis 1’s footnotes makes it seem that creationism can’t be a possibility, which, if you read saint Basil’s writings, The works of Leo XIII and the Theological commission of 1907 (I think) essentially says evolution cannot be accepted. St. John Paul II, when making his statements, was not speaking infallibly regarding evolution. (I’m not at all saying he’s a heretic, just throwing this out there.)

The DRV is a good bible translation, and I think there should be a New translation based on the DRV for modern English.

 

[Pulvis]

I voted maybe. The one problem in so many offerings boils down to how the original manuscripts are translated. For me, i steer away from dynamic equivalence translations. Coming from a southern baptist heritage, i have no problems reading the Douay-Rheims or King James, but i understand that for some this is difficult. There are good modern language editions out there, if you can get one that has not gone down the inclusive language path.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I dont think you can have too much of a great thing. Even those of us who like to collect them will eventually die and the Bibles get passed down.

My sentiments too!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The irony is, that the modern Bible publishing industry has its roots in the 19th century Evangelical ideal of printing and distributing Bibles “without note or comment” (so the American Bible Society’s manifesto). Quite ironic that many modern Bible publishers end up doing the opposite of said ideal, really.

I have to disagree with you there Patrick.

In fact the episode you are referencing was a brief aberration BECAUSE all bibles were SO polemical in their notes. In fact it was very easy for the English Protestant’s (and likewise the American Protestants) to take the “high road” of no notes, because their religion was established by Law, or in America, overwhelming. But the oppressed minority English and Irish Catholic had to continually fight the “Protestantization” of their church. (something I sometimes feel that the American Catholic Church seems to have given up on.) So there is nothing “ideal” in any respect, whether cultural, historic or polemic, in a noteless Bible.

In fact, the Pope (I don’t remember which one right now, but in the early 19th c.) was sorely vexed with all of these English and American “Bible Societies” spreading their King James Bibles to everyone that would accept it. Many Catholic immigrants promptly burnt or trashed the ones that were pressed into their hands when coming to America.

So while you are correct when you say " (the Bible as self-interpreting manual of answers and solution for every problem)," which you suppose gave birth to the Bible having notes and supplements.

For the Catholic it was the place for answers to all of these Protestant Bibles (and Protestants) who would challenge Catholics based on the Bible. Catholics NEEDED to know HOW the Catholic Church viewed these passages in controversy.

So BOTH sides needed or wanted the notes and supplements, and publishers were aware of that since the 16th century. (virtually since the invention of printing itself.) Today’s bibles are just the latest in the GRAND TRADITION of printed bibles.

 

[patrick457]

So while you are correct when you say " (the Bible as self-interpreting manual of answers and solution for every problem)," which you suppose gave birth to the Bible having notes and supplements.

No, the opposite actually. Since the Bible according to 19th century evangelicalism is a self-interpreting, infallible ‘book of answers’ that is in no way difficult to understand, you don’t need to put any kind of note or explanatory on it, because (in this line of thinking) that would be redundant.

So you’re right, it is a break in the up-to-then common English ‘tradition’ of adding columns of notes and such to Bibles, which Christians on both sides practiced, but then again this pre-modern evangelical mentality is a kind of radical departure from the traditional Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura, which does not go as far as this. (Note - referring back to that post - that Nevin describes this idea as if it was just new in his time, and then proceeds to condemn it.)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Patrick457:

No, the opposite actually. Since the Bible according to 19th century evangelicalism is a self-interpreting, infallible ‘book of answers’ that is in no way difficult to understand, you don’t need to put any kind of note or explanatory on it, because (in this line of thinking) that would be redundant.

Ah, I see. But, if you’ll allow me to add: it was also the aim of the early 19th c. Bible societies to dispense as far and wide as possible the Protestant KJV Bible, including even in Catholic Ireland. This was (probably) the real reason for losing the notes. So if we suppose that the Bible Societies were altruistic in their motives, then removing the notes would almost be required as a minimum condition for passing them out among the Catholics.

On the other hand, this inflamed Catholics, who more than ever, wanted their own Bibles replete with Catholic notes.

Witness the “Bible riots” of Phila. in 1844, and the bitter politics of that era in America, as the Catholics sought to have Catholic Bibles available to their own Catholic children while in school. Believe it or not, in America, in this period, the KJV Bible was a PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOK!

Ultimately cities completely eliminated bibles from the classroom rather than allow the D/R bibles into them. This contest also had more to do with the institution of Parochial Schools in the USA than anything else!

 

[Faith1960]

Not every Catholic in the world speaks English.

I don’t think it’s translations themselves that are the problem (well, most of the time, anyway): in fact, I’d say that the existence of multiple translations are beneficial in a way*. Personally, I think it’s more those countless varieties and formats of Bibles you’ll find: leather covers, metal covers, paperback, hardback, men’s Bibles, women’s Bibles, soldiers’ Bibles, cowboy’s Bibles, students’ Bibles, children’s Bibles, waterproof Bibles, duct-taped Bibles. I’ll admit, thinking outside the box I find the very existence of these ‘specialty edition’ Bibles ridiculous, even. It’s probably just us Christians that fetishize and market the Bible to this extent. Muslims don’t publish ‘specialty’ Qu’rans AFAIK; you won’t find a ‘cowboy’s Dhammapada’ in the Buddhist section of the bookstore.

• That being said, it’s a little disappointing that the majority of the popular translations available on the market are too ‘conventional’: they’re too influenced in various degrees by the KJV and rely on the same ways of rendering passages and terminologies. (Can’t be helped I guess.) Sure, I realize many Christians prefer the traditional wording (because it’s what they’re familiar with) and will complain when, say, they find out their Bible says something like ‘Covenant Chest’ instead of ‘Ark of the Covenant’, but I don’t think the existence of a little variety will hurt. As long as it’s still a reasonably faithful translation.

Duct taped Bibles???

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Duct taped Bibles???

LOL! I restored one of those! It was an NIV study bible, a cheap mass produced hardback from the 1970’s. It was held together with duct tape and rubber bands. An Evangelical friend had filled it with his personal notes and asked me to restore it. Without sounding too immodest, it came out very nice.

http://emblemagic.com/Apicturehost/Mybook/Bible rebind 002.jpg

You can still make out the remnants of the duct tape residue. I rebacked the spine with extra heavy navy blue cloth, then re-applied the original spine and boards.

http://emblemagic.com/Apicturehost/Mybook/Bible rebind 004.jpg

Inside the front cover.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Duct taped Bibles???

Well, I use and cross reference mine enough that eventually I need duct tape to hold them together. I usually use the nice white stfff, rather than the traditional silver stuff.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[ProVobis]

I voted maybe. The one problem in so many offerings boils down to how the original manuscripts are translated. For me, i steer away from dynamic equivalence translations. Coming from a southern baptist heritage, i have no problems reading the Douay-Rheims or King James, but i understand that for some this is difficult. There are good modern language editions out there, if you can get one that has not gone down the inclusive language path.

FWIW, Thomas Jefferson reportedly wrote a Bible too. Actually he clipped all the passages from the KJV that he liked and pasted them as part of the philosophy of Christ.

I don’t know if I’d include this in my collection of English Bibles.

But just think how many Bibles of such kind have been written or assembled, never making it to the printing press.

 

[friardchips]

So, I was talking to someone recently about a previous mission trip he was on in communist countries (don’t remember which one). At the time, it was illegal to have a Bible; any found Bibles would be burned. So, at a hidden meeting, after reading a passage from his Bible, he casually put it behind him on a table. The locals were appalled by his actions, since the Bible was a rarity and deeply sought possession.

So, it got me thinking; do you think we have too many Bibles today? I live with my parents and 2 brothers. In our house, there are probably 15 Bibles, easily. Is there such a thing as too many Bibles?

Not enough Bibles, but too many translations of Latin into English, with translations getting lazier by the minute.

So no, we don’t need less Bibles, we actually need more Bibles, in more languages, and more Christians reading those Bibles, everywhere.

 

[patmiron]

=TxGodfollower;12673750]So, I was talking to someone recently about a previous mission trip he was on in communist countries (don’t remember which one). At the time, it was illegal to have a Bible; any found Bibles would be burned. So, at a hidden meeting, after reading a passage from his Bible, he casually put it behind him on a table. The locals were appalled by his actions, since the Bible was a rarity and deeply sought possession.

So, it got me thinking; do you think we have too many Bibles today? I live with my parents and 2 brothers. In our house, there are probably 15 Bibles, easily. Is there such a thing as too many Bibles?

If God is One [he is}

Then How can God have more than jst one set of faith beliefs? [He can’t and He does not]

Than how can their be more tha just One TRUE, with ALL of God’s TRUE Teachings Bible?

Where, when and WHY does God ever seek our Opinion? He doesn’t; just our obedience and faith.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[patrick457]

FWIW, Thomas Jefferson reportedly wrote a Bible too. Actually he clipped all the passages from the KJV that he liked and pasted them as part of the philosophy of Christ.

I don’t know if I’d include this in my collection of English Bibles.

But just think how many Bibles of such kind have been written or assembled, never making it to the printing press.

Jefferson was a Deist, and he never really believed in miracles, so he basically cut-and-pasted the gospels to remove any trace of the supernatural or the miraculous. It was more of a personal thing (he made it for his own satisfaction); he did share it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime.

 

[robertericleech]

I voted no. My wife makes fun of me for having so many bibles and prayer books. I make fun of her back for being a typical cradle Catholic who never reads the Bible. Ha!

I use almost all of them frequently…they’re all different translations, and I read them on a daily basis. Different translations serve different moods and purposes. At last count I think I had about 13? Most of them I found on Ebay and at book sales for practically nothing, as I am not only Catholic, but cheap.

 

[patrick457]

Duct taped Bibles???

Yep. A Bible wrapped in duct tape.

amazon.com/Duct-Tape-Bible-Thomas-Nelson/dp/0718018249

The way the Bible is (over-) marketed right now I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future they actually manage to make a fireproof Bible (can survive even molten lava! )

 

[WT1]

Ok I misunderstood the question. I thought what was being asked is do we have too many different translations of the bible and to that I would say yes.