Heretical Bible Translation?

[TimL]

I recently became aware of the Amplified Bible on another (unfriendly to Catholics) website. Matthew 16:19 was quoted from this Bible and the meaning of the verse was reversed. You can look up any verse in the Amplified Bible on studybibleforum.com. This is the Amplified Bible Matthew 16:19:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven and whatever you loose (declare unlawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven. (Isa 22:22)”

Of course, what any real Bible says is that Peter was promised that he could bind and loose and then it would be bound or loosed in heaven. This version of the “truth” indicates that Peter could only bind and loose after it was already so in heaven. Of course, in the interest of Scriptural consistancy, Matthew 18:18 is similarly massacured.

In the Amplified version, Peter must have been guided by the Holy Spirit or else how would he know what he was allowed to bind and loose? In the traditional (more than 50 years old) scriptures, Peter could decide (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) what to bind and loose and this decision would then be ratified in heaven.

This may seem like splitting hairs but the larger point is this; Is it acceptable to produce a “translation” of the Bible and knowingly and intentionally add text to the very words of Christ to make the meaning of what He said, the exact opposite of what was intended?

If this is acceptable, then what is next? Does the next Bible eliminate Matthew 16:13-19 completely since it does not conform to Protestant doctrine? Does the next version after that then eliminate the Gospels and then have a New Testament of only Paul’s letters? I would like to know if this bothers others as much as it bothers me.

God Bless You All, Tim

 

[TimL]

It’s really hard for me to believe that all of the people who looked at this post are not upset with the fact that people are starting to produce “Bibles” that change the actual words of Christ to suit their doctrine.

Comments anyone?
God Bless You All, Tim

 

[yochumjy]

Of course it is wrong to knowingly mistranslate and thus mislead people!

So, I have a strange question with this specific translation. As heaven is outside of time, how does this relate realistically? I assume it would relate to us only along our (earthly) timeline?

So, something bound upon people at time/year X, would imply it was not bound to people at time/year X-1.

Is then correct to say that by the Amplified Bible we are bound by that which has not yet been officially bound on earth?

I think I’m confusing myself.

John

 

[Trad_Catholic]

That is just the reason the Church in times past (too bad it is not preached any longer from the hierarchy) that if one is to find a non-Catholic Bible, it is to be burned. What has happened here is just as what Luther did with Romans (added “alone” after “faith” to make the statement read that we are saved by faith alone). Some little trivia: the only place the Bible says faith alone is in St. James chapter 2: “A man is NOT justified by faith alone.”

 

[Calvin]

TimL:

It’s really hard for me to believe that all of the people who looked at this post are not upset with the fact that people are starting to produce “Bibles” that change the actual words of Christ to suit their doctrine.

Comments anyone?
God Bless You All, Tim

It is not that straightforward. This is not an example of Protestants trying to purge Catholic evidences from Scripture.

The translation of this verse is very complicated. What makes this verse complicated is that the words “bound” (deo) and “loose” (luo) are in the perfect tense (meaning the action has already been completed in the past) but the word “shall” (esomai) is in the future tense. If you wanted to translate the Greek literally into English it would read something like: “…whatever you loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven.”

Now almost every Protestant Bible translates this verse in a way Catholics would recognize. The goal of the Amplified Bible (if you read the introduction) is a little different. The translators of the Amplified Bible tried to render the original languages into English as closely to the original sense as possible. That is why you get such a strange looking sentence (which looks like the one I wrote above). It is not because they are trying to purge Catholic doctrine but because they are trying to translate as closely to the originals (specifically, in this case, in terms of tense) as possible.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.

-C

P.S. Don’t get so wound up in the future. Protestants are looking for truth just like everyone else. It may take us a little longer to get there since we don’t have the fullness of Catholic doctrine but we are trying. I generally try to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt and assume the best motives not the worst…

 

[Bernard_Jones]

The Amplified Bible is designed to make the difficult bits accessible to the reader. This is done by translating loosely, rather than using the sometimes puzzling language of the original. Another example is The Message. The problem with this, of course, is that the translator’s belief system strongly colours the resultant text. The Protestant translator was not being deliberately deceitful; he was expounding a Protestant interpretation of this passage, and making it accessible to the reader. He believed that he was helping the reader to understand this “difficult” passage. Unlike Luther, who added “alone” to the passage in Romans to support his novel theology, this translator has no doubt been brought up since childhood to understand this passage in exactly the way in which he rendered it.

Of course, this does not make the text very helpful for someone who is trying to understand the text.

 

[Bernard_Jones]

You just beat me to the post, Calvin; I am a bit worried that I have mis-remembered the nature of the Amplified Bible: but that’s what this forum is for, isn’t it? To cross-check each other’s ideas?

 

[Calvin]

Bernard Jones:

The Amplified Bible is designed to make the difficult bits accessible to the reader. This is done by translating loosely, rather than using the sometimes puzzling language of the original.

No actually it is not. The Amplified Bible is much more difficult to read than a paraphrase translation like the Message because it has a different goal. Paraphrase translations (which I hate) are the ones that translate loosley. The Amplified Bible tries to translate as close to the sense of the original language as posible.

From the Introduction:

*The use of amplification merely helps the reader comprehend what the Hebrew and Greek listener instinctively understood (as a matter of course). *

*Parentheses ( ) signify additional phases of meaning included in the original word, phrase, or clause of the original language. *

If you read my last post about the tenses and go back and read the “offending” translation and note the part above from the introduction about parentheses you will see what they were trying to do.

They are not trying to obscure Catholic traching or gloss their own views in but are trying to give the sense of the original language than a native speaker would have.

-C

 

[Bernard_Jones]

Calvin, we’re playing “message tennis” here; I’ve chased up what you said, and have found this:

The Amplified Bible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice. It is a translation from the accepted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts into literary English. It is based on the American Standard Version of 1901, Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament as well as the best Hebrew and Greek lexicons available at the time. Cognate languages, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Greek works were also consulted. The Septuagint and other versions were compared for interpretation of textual differences.

I’ve learned something today; thanks.

 

[Calvin]

Bernard Jones:

You just beat me to the post, Calvin; I am a bit worried that I have mis-remembered the nature of the Amplified Bible: but that’s what this forum is for, isn’t it? To cross-check each other’s ideas?

Yeah, isn’t cross-posting fun.

I used to use the Amplified Bible (before I studied greek) so I know what it is all about. It is easy to misunderstand what they are trying to do but they actually have a noble goal in mind!

As the token former-fundamentalist I figured I had to share my knowledge of Protestant heretical translations.

Cheers,
-C

 

[Calvin]

Bernard Jones:

Calvin, we’re playing “message tennis” here; I’ve chased up what you said, and have found this:

The Amplified Bible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice.

I love message tennis!

But in fairness to my Catholic colleagues, I will be the first to note that, despite this disclaimer, no translation is totally free of personal interpretation. I’ve done Chinese-English and Greek-English translations and translation is an inherantly personal activity. So there is a point to be made that we should translate in harmony with the Church.

(I just didn’t like the burn Protestant Bibles reference!)

-C

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Tim it turns out that the AMP version got it correct because the phrase is the periphrastic future perfect passive construction.

The expressions “will be bound in heaven” and “will be loosed in heaven,” are examples in Greek of the periphrastic future perfect passive construction and should, therefore, be translated “will have been bound already” and “will have been loosed already” in heaven. The pronouncement of “binding” or “loosing” is dependent upon what heaven has already willed, rather than earth’s giving direction to heaven. It’s illogical and unscriptural to think that heaven is subject to earth and must follow what it directs; earth is always subject to heaven, and only that which heaven has already willed can be done on earth.

“But these participles are not simple future verbs. They are fulture perfect passive participles, and in light of this, the translation of Matthew 16:19 would go like this: ‘I will give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but whatever you bind [deseis, aorist active subjective] on earth shall have been bound estai dedemenon, periphrastic future perfect passive ] in heaven, and whatever you may loose luseis aroist active subjuncitive ] on earth shall have been loosed [estai lelumenon, periphrastic future perfect passive ] in heaven.’ Likewise the translation of Matthew 18:18 is: ‘Verily I say to you plural personal pronoun ], whatsoever you may bind desete, aorist active subjective ] upon earth shall have been bound estai dedemena, periphrastic fulture perfect passive ] in heaven, and whatsoever you may loose [lusete, aorist active subjunctive] upon earth shall have been loosed [estai lelumena, periphrastic future perfect passive ] in heaven’ Thus Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 are seen to be in harmony with the general tenor of the New Testament which nowhere teaches sacerdotalism. … Professor Mantey has pointed out that Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 were rendered incorrectly in the Latin Vulgate version by Jerome about a.d. 400. Was Peter A Pope, page 51 ]” ( Light from the Greek New Testament by Boyce W. Blackwelder, MA THD page 75 )

I listed many other scholars quotes including catholic on this at
p197.ezboard.com/fformercatholicsforchristfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=5913.topic&start=1&stop=20

 

[Todd_Easton]

TimL:

This is the Amplified Bible Matthew 16:19:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven and whatever you loose (declare unlawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven. (Isa 22:22)”

Personally, I don’t have a difficulty with this translation. To me it means that there is objective truth (that which is already bound or loosed in heaven) and Peter and his successors, the popes, are the authorized instruments through whom that objective truth will be made known. Unlike the president of the Latter Day Saints, for instance, who, as I understand it, is considered a living prophet and can change LDS church doctrine whenever he wants, Peter and his successors, the popes, are servants of objective truth, their dogmatic pronouncements represent objective truth that cannot later be contradicted. In other words, because Peter and his successors, the popes, are the authorized instruments through whom objective truth is to be made known, their dogmatic pronouncements are infallible. Or, Jesus said:

13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)

 

[TOME525]

I have a difficulty and I disagree with the translation presented by Calvin and it’s over one word, “ALREADY”. First, I fail to see the word in Greek., Second, the Greek word for “already” as it is used in every other passage in the NT signifies an action that is an immediate effect of another action, not a pre-existing condition.

I also find difficulty of the use of “Already” as presented for another reason. There is strong internal evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and from this it is reasonable to assume that Matthew’s Gospel developed in a Christian Church that was primarily Jewish of Palestinian origin. First Century Palestinian Jewish thought and theology at this time did not have a developed metaphysics. We know from scriptural studies and other non biblical literature that the development of a metaphysics in Judaism began around the time of the Macabees and their exposure to Greek thought, but this philosophical was very much in its developmental stage at the time of Christ and the early Apostolic Church, but to use the word “Already” in the context that is being presented, reflects Platonic metaphysics , something still quite foreign to Jewish thought at the time of the composition of the Gospel of Matthew.

So I really cannot see how the inclusion of the word “Already” can be justified, and if it is removed, I think the translation of Matthew 16, as found in the RSV and NAB is the accurate translation in the literal sense and in the contextual sense as well…

 

[Trelow]

Eh, either way, God is outside of time. So if Pope George Ringo the 46th makes a declaration of a dogma what we don’t understand yet, when does it affect heaven? It’s an absurd question, time is irrelevant outside of our mortal existence.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Tom simply look up periphrastic future perfect passive construction in a greek grammar book.

Concerning time, the passage relates to time from our earthly perspective.

 

[TEME525]

Daniel, again, my main disagreement with the suggested translation is the inclusion of the word "Already. I find no difficulty with the the use of the future perfect as used by the RSV. Also, as I wrote before, in the other books of the NT, the word, “Already” is a particular word, not and word that is implied or understood. And if you use the other text of the NT, as I wrote before, “Already” when used indicated that one action is the immediate effect of another, therefore, to bind on earth would have the immediate effect in heaven, it does not mean that the action here on Earth (Binding etc) reflects a pre-existing condition in heaven.

This could raise the question of the relationship of Time and Eternity but I think that should be a Thread onto itself.

 

[Mystophilus]

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven and whatever you loose (declare unlawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.”

As Daniel Marsh has pointed out, the Greek uses the future perfect, i.e., it says “will have been bound … will have been loosed”. However, with all due respect to the good D.M., I think that there is a distinct difference in the AV translation.

“kai ho ean dêsêis epi tês gês estai dedemenon en tois ouranois, kai ho ean lusêis epi tês gês estai lelumenon en tois ouranois” (Westcott-Hort)

ho ean (“whatever”) dêsêis (“you may bind”)… estai dedemenon (“will have been bound”); there is one receiver (ho ean) of both “you may bind” and “will have been bound”. Thus, it is the same thing for both verbal forms.

In the AV, “whatever you bind … must be what is already bound in heaven,” they have idiosyncratically chosen to have two separate receivers, separating them with a deontic auxiliary (“must”), directly implying the possibility that a disciple could bind (or attempt to bind) something on earth which is different from that which is bound in Heaven. The Greek does not present any such difference, and apparently assumes that the disciple would only bind what Heaven has bound already.

I would suggest that this makes the translation of the verse poor, rather than “heretical”.

If this is acceptable, then what is next? Does the next Bible eliminate Matthew 16:13-19 completely since it does not conform to Protestant doctrine? Does the next version after that then eliminate the Gospels and then have a New Testament of only Paul’s letters? I would like to know if this bothers others as much as it bothers me.

Protestants have no problems with Matthew 16:13-9, although they do often read these in ways which differ from the most popular contemporary Catholic one, frequently (and ironically!) tending more towards the readings of the Fathers.

 

[Mystophilus]

TEME525:

Daniel, again, my main disagreement with the suggested translation is the inclusion of the word “Already”. I find no difficulty with the the use of the future perfect as used by the RSV.

“already” is a reasonable insertion for a perfect aspect; by itself, it does not alter the sense of a perfect in any way. However, I would suggest that the problem with the AV lies in the number of receivers, as posted to the OP.

 

[TEME525]

Mystophilus, again thanks for your contribution, I was hoping to hear from you in this thread, and I hope all those who have contributed to this thread read your post.

Going, from what I believe was the original intent of this thread, I’m going to continue to say I have trouble with the inclusion of the word “Already”. Grammically I’m sure it is acceptable, however, (and this is where I think we experience the difficulty of making the best translation possible) for the important verse in understanding this particular passage lies in vs.17. He Christ reveals that Peter is operating from a special grace from the Father. Perhaps this is what you meant by the emphasis on the Father?

I believe that if this verse forms the basis for Christ’s declaration to Peter, then it would make sense that what Peter would declare or do happened Already in that Peter is acting according to the Will of the Father because of the special Charism given Peter.

For me, the RSV translation brings this out better than the AV and therefore is the more accurate translation given the context of the whole situation.