Is ESV appropriate for Catholic study?

[opdsgt]

I have spent the better part of the day comparing verse after verse between the ESV and my RSV.

I’ve also compared the ESV to my NAB.

While I’m no biblical scholar or expert on any of the ancient languages, I honestly have not gotten the impression the ESV falls short of the truth, is misleading, or is anti-Catholic in any way.

No, it doesn’t contain the deuterocanon, but I have those OT books available to me in three bibles at home.

FWIW, I also contacted the Deacon in charge of RCIA at my parish of 9,000. I asked these questions of him and his advice was not to get too hung up on the exact translation, but rather to concentrate on spending time in the Word. He said he’d take a Catholic who read the ESV over a Catholic who never picked up a bible.

This message seems consistent with things I’ve read by Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, and others.

Fingers crossed, but I’m gonna buy an ESV.

Thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut on this one you guys!

j

 

[Reformed1]

I have spent the better part of the day comparing verse after verse between the ESV and my RSV.

I’ve also compared the ESV to my NAB.

While I’m no biblical scholar or expert on any of the ancient languages, I honestly have not gotten the impression the ESV falls short of the truth, is misleading, or is anti-Catholic in any way.

No, it doesn’t contain the deuterocanon, but I have those OT books available to me in three bibles at home.

FWIW, I also contacted the Deacon in charge of RCIA at my parish of 9,000. I asked these questions of him and his advice was not to get too hung up on the exact translation, but rather to concentrate on spending time in the Word. He said he’d take a Catholic who read the ESV over a Catholic who never picked up a bible.

This message seems consistent with things I’ve read by Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, and others.

Fingers crossed, but I’m gonna buy an ESV.

Thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut on this one you guys!

j

I enjoy greatly the ESV and the NASB.

There is no Bible around that doesn’t have some bias in it, whether it’s the DR, NAB, KJV, …whatever.

Most of the sholarly reviews that I have read have nothing but praise for the ESV.

So I say, buy it and enjoy.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I say DON’T buy the ESV because it translates in favor of Protestant doctrines and against Catholic doctrines.

In 2 crinthians 2:10 it the ESV says that Paul forgives the fornicator of the Corinthian church in the PRESENCE of Christ.

The Douay Rheims ACCURATELY translates in the PERSON of Christ.

Why is that important? If you believe the ESV there is not biblical proof of absolution–if you believe in the Douay Rheims there is!

Why should the Douay Rheims be believed over the ESV? Because the very same Greek word in Matthew–prosopon–is translated as person–even by the protestant translations when it refers to Pilate considering Jesus a just PERSON!

So you see the ESV translates the EXACT same word differently in different verses because it cannot bear the biblical truth and proof of ABSOLUTION of the fornicating sinner in the Corinthian church IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST by St. Paul.

Some may say that is just a bias. I say it is an out and out lie!

Now ask yourself this–if absolution is truely taught in God’s word–do you want a version of the bible that does no teach it?

And just think–all you have to do to change one doctrine that is taught in the scriptures is to translate differently just one single word!

If you prefer any translation that translates prospon as presence instead of person–then you prefer a bible that doesn’t convey the biblical proof of absolution!

and for all you protestant believers out there that may think that the Douy rheims is biased–the King James version translates 2 corinthians 2:10 as IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

See sometimes the KJV got things as accurately as the Douay Rheims which was based on the Latin Vulgate.

It would take later Protestant translators such as those of the ESV to further warp the bible!

 

[lak611]

I say DON’T buy the ESV because it translates in favor of Protestant doctrines and against Catholic doctrines.

In 2 crinthians 2:10 it the ESV says that Paul forgives the fornicator of the Corinthian church in the PRESENCE of Christ.

The Douay Rheims ACCURATELY translates in the PERSON of Christ.

Why is that important? If you believe the ESV there is not biblical proof of absolution–if you believe in the Douay Rheims there is!

Why should the Douay Rheims be believed over the ESV? Because the very same Greek word in Matthew–prosopon–is translated as person–even by the protestant translations when it refers to Pilate considering Jesus a just PERSON!

So you see the ESV translates the EXACT same word differently in different verses because it cannot bear the biblical truth and proof of ABSOLUTION of the fornicating sinner in the Corinthian church IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST by St. Paul.

Some may say that is just a bias. I say it is an out and out lie!

Now ask yourself this–if absolution is truely taught in God’s word–do you want a version of the bible that does no teach it?

And just think–all you have to do to change one doctrine that is taught in the scriptures is to translate differently just one single word!

If you prefer any translation that translates prospon as presence instead of person–then you prefer a bible that doesn’t convey the biblical proof of absolution!

and for all you protestant believers out there that may think that the Douy rheims is biased–the King James version translates 2 corinthians 2:10 as IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

See sometimes the KJV got things as accurately as the Douay Rheims which was based on the Latin Vulgate.

It would take later Protestant translators such as those of the ESV to further warp the bible!

He wants a Bible that is easy to read. The Douay-Rheims is not. He has an RSV-CE and finds the language in that one to be difficult. The Douay-Rheims would be worse for a person who has trouble understanding the RSV-CE. Perhaps, he may be ready for a Douay-Rheims someday; but for a person who is just beginning to read the Bible and does not understand archaic language, getting a Douay-Rheims would probably mean it would just collect dust because he would try to read it, become frustrated and set it down on a shelf where it would stay.

 

[porthos11]

I say DON’T buy the ESV because it translates in favor of Protestant doctrines and against Catholic doctrines.

In 2 crinthians 2:10 it the ESV says that Paul forgives the fornicator of the Corinthian church in the PRESENCE of Christ.

The Douay Rheims ACCURATELY translates in the PERSON of Christ.

Why is that important? If you believe the ESV there is not biblical proof of absolution–if you believe in the Douay Rheims there is!

Why should the Douay Rheims be believed over the ESV? Because the very same Greek word in Matthew–prosopon–is translated as person–even by the protestant translations when it refers to Pilate considering Jesus a just PERSON!

So you see the ESV translates the EXACT same word differently in different verses because it cannot bear the biblical truth and proof of ABSOLUTION of the fornicating sinner in the Corinthian church IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST by St. Paul.

Some may say that is just a bias. I say it is an out and out lie!

Calm down. Again, one must go down to the context of the original languages before spewing out accusations such as this.

First of all, let us understand that ‘in persona Christi’ is a Latin expression, developed in the West, and not quite conceived in the Greek churches. So we must look at the Greek and put aside our Latinisms for now. this is truly the Catholic, and not just Roman Catholic way.

The key is in the word ‘prosopon’. In the context of the trinity, prosopon is roughly equivalent to ‘hypostasis’; person. But the word prosopon isn’t necessarily limited to this synonymous meaning. Strictly, prosopon means the external manifestation of an entity that which can be extended by other means. For example, a hammer is part of the prosopon of a carpenter, but not his hypostasis. That’s why sometimes, prosopon is translated as ‘face’ or ‘presence’ and not always ‘person’.

So how should this verse be translated. I prefer ‘in the person of Christ’ more than ‘in the presence’ but that’s only because it sounds better to my Latin ears. ‘Presence’ is still a weaker, but not necessarily false translation, and can still be accomodated to Latin understandings. It simply means that Paul was used as an extension or tool of Christ who did the forgiving, just like a hammer bangs in the nail in the presence ('prosopon")

Now ask yourself this–if absolution is truely taught in God’s word–do you want a version of the bible that does no teach it?

It will still teach it for as long as John 20:22ff still has it as well.

See sometimes the KJV got things as accurately as the Douay Rheims which was based on the Latin Vulgate.

It would take later Protestant translators such as those of the ESV to further warp the bible!

I cringe at statements like these because these are the Catholic equivalents of the kjv-onlyists and we know how intelligent THEY sound. I don’t want us to be the same.

And I think we should really take a step back and exit our Latin shells before we criticize the way the Greeks thought. It’s not wise to attribute malice to the Protestants without seeking to understand the underlying language.

That said, I still like and prefer the power of “in the person of Christ”.

 

[Reformed1]

I say DON’T buy the ESV because it translates in favor of Protestant doctrines and against Catholic doctrines.

In 2 crinthians 2:10 it the ESV says that Paul forgives the fornicator of the Corinthian church in the PRESENCE of Christ.

The Douay Rheims ACCURATELY translates in the PERSON of Christ.

The RSV reads the same as the ESV and last I heard, many Catholic theologians and apologists are fond of the RSV.

ESV
2 Corinthians 2:10 10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,

RSV
2 Corinthians 2:10 10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,

DR
2 Corinthians 2:10 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:

Now, why don’t you present the lexical proof for your assertion that there is an anti-Catholic bias in this text.

 

[Reformed1]

Calm down. Again, one must go down to the context of the original languages before spewing out accusations such as this.

First of all, let us understand that ‘in persona Christi’ is a Latin expression, developed in the West, and not quite conceived in the Greek churches. So we must look at the Greek and put aside our Latinisms for now. this is truly the Catholic, and not just Roman Catholic way.

The key is in the word ‘prosopon’. In the context of the trinity, prosopon is roughly equivalent to ‘hypostasis’; person. But the word prosopon isn’t necessarily limited to this synonymous meaning. Strictly, prosopon means the external manifestation of an entity that which can be extended by other means. For example, a hammer is part of the prosopon of a carpenter, but not his hypostasis. That’s why sometimes, prosopon is translated as ‘face’ or ‘presence’ and not always ‘person’.

So how should this verse be translated. I prefer ‘in the person of Christ’ more than ‘in the presence’ but that’s only because it sounds better to my Latin ears. ‘Presence’ is still a weaker, but not necessarily false translation, and can still be accomodated to Latin understandings. It simply means that Paul was used as an extension or tool of Christ who did the forgiving, just like a hammer bangs in the nail in the presence ('prosopon")

It will still teach it for as long as John 20:22ff still has it as well.

I cringe at statements like these because these are the Catholic equivalents of the kjv-onlyists and we know how intelligent THEY sound. I don’t want us to be the same.

And I think we should really take a step back and exit our Latin shells before we criticize the way the Greeks thought. It’s not wise to attribute malice to the Protestants without seeking to understand the underlying language.

That said, I still like and prefer the power of “in the person of Christ”.

Thanks.

Not every non-Catholic translation is anti-Catholic…sheeesh.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So let me get this straight–for over 1500 years all of Christendom believed that St. Paul forgave the man IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

When the Protestant translators of the King James Version of the bible translated the scriptures they too believed that the correct translation was IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

But late in the 1800s Protestants decided that they could use a different synonym for PROSOPON.

Did the Holy Spirit tell them to do that?

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that their disdain for the sacrament of confession of sins to a priest and the priest giving a person absolution had NOTHING to do with their choice of translation?

At Trent the Latin Vulgate was declared to be free of error in terms of faith and morals.

Now let me ask this–is it an ERROR if someone believes that St. Paul only forgave the man in the presence of Christ versus IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST?

Absolutely!

And why should it be PERSON instead of PRESENCE?

Well look at the context of the story–the fornicating man was banished from the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians chhapter 5 by St.Paul. Why could he do that? Because the apostles were given the power to forgive and RETAIN sins! Remember the man at first wasn’t even sorry for what he had done!

Now ask yourself–when the Corinthians read the 2d letter by St. Paul do you think that THEY thought that St. Paul was fogiving the man in Christ’s presence? Why would they believe that when he had thrown the man out of the church?Would some of them have wondered if Jesus was physically present with Paul when he did that forgiving?

Jesus was present in a spiritual sense in the Corinthian church–why would St.Paul who was not there have to appeal to Christ being present to LOOSE the punishment on the fornicating man?

Now if St. Paul forgave the man in the PERSON of Christ everyone at Corinth would know what he meant. Why? How many people at Corinth do you think had confessed their sins to Christ THROUGH Paul and had been forgiven IN THE PERSON of Christ previously by St. Paul?

How many of the christians at corinth had already been granted absolution by St. Paul?

Now of course personal confession to priests was not well established in the earliest days of the church–public confession was even sometimes the norm but does no one believe that no one at the church of Corinth had ever confessed a single sin to St. Paul?

Now you can do anything you want to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear but the Catholic Church and even the Protestant King James translators knew that PROSOPON in this instance translated as PERSON made more sense than PRESENCE because it better fit the CONTEXT of the biblical story!

Just like Prosopon in Mattew 27:24 fit the context better as person than presence–the very same word–PROSOPON was used in both of these instances!

There are other instances where the Protestant translators of the King James Version MISSED some Catholic truths that slipped through and later on modern Proteastant translators had to go CHANGE the translation to sweep clean Catholic truth.

Which regardless of how much esteem some here have for the RSV-CE–you will notice that the most official text of the Bible according to the Catholic Church is the Nova Vulgata.

When the Catholic Chruch which has the AUTHORITY to translate, write, and interpret the scriptures speaks–you don’t have such heretical lies as these!

Oh and one last thing–I’m not an ignorant Douay Rheims onlysist. The Douay Rheims is not perfect–no translations is–all I’m saying is that when it comes to Catholic doctrine that the Catholic church has taught for almost the last 2,000 years–the Latin Vulgate it is FREE from error in terms of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has not declared that to be true about other translations and my opinion is that they certainly do have errors–that’s why I say DON’T buy the ESV!

The errors that the Latin Vulgate has are not errors of faith and morals. how do we know that is true–the Catholic church with the authority of the holy Spirit has TOLD US SO!

That’s why ultimately translations which do not stray far from the Latin Vulgate are MORE ACCURATE than ones that do!

 

[Reformed1]

So let me get this straight–for over 1500 years all of Christendom believed that St. Paul forgave the man IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

When the Protestant translators of the King James Version of the bible translated the scriptures they too believed that the correct translation was IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

But late in the 1800s Protestants decided that they could use a different synonym for PROSOPON.

Did the Holy Spirit tell them to do that?

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that their disdain for the sacrament of confession of sins to a priest and the priest giving a person absolution had NOTHING to do with their choice of translation?

At Trent the Latin Vulgate was declared to be free of error in terms of faith and morals.

Now let me ask this–is it an ERROR if someone believes that St. Paul only forgave the man in the presence of Christ versus IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST?

Absolutely!

And why should it be PERSON instead of PRESENCE?

Well look at the context of the story–the fornicating man was banished from the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians chhapter 5 by St.Paul. Why could he do that? Because the apostles were given the power to forgive and RETAIN sins! Remember the man at first wasn’t even sorry for what he had done!

Now ask yourself–when the Corinthians read the 2d letter by St. Paul do you think that THEY thought that St. Paul was fogiving the man in Christ’s presence? Why would they believe that when he had thrown the man out of the church?Would some of them have wondered if Jesus was physically present with Paul when he did that forgiving?

Jesus was present in a spiritual sense in the Corinthian church–why would St.Paul who was not there have to appeal to Christ being present to LOOSE the punishment on the fornicating man?

Now if St. Paul forgave the man in the PERSON of Christ everyone at Corinth would know what he meant. Why? How many people at Corinth do you think had confessed their sins to Christ THROUGH Paul and had been forgiven IN THE PERSON of Christ previously by St. Paul?

How many of the christians at corinth had already been granted absolution by St. Paul?

Now of course personal confession to priests was not well established in the earliest days of the church–public confession was even sometimes the norm but does no one believe that no one at the church of Corinth had ever confessed a single sin to St. Paul?

Now you can do anything you want to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear but the Catholic Church and even the Protestant King James translators knew that PROSOPON in this instance translated as PERSON made more sense than PRESENCE because it better fit the CONTEXT of the biblical story!

Just like Prosopon in Mattew 27:24 fit the context better as person than presence–the very same word–PROSOPON was used in both of these instances!

There are other instances where the Protestant translators of the King James Version MISSED some Catholic truths that slipped through and later on modern Proteastant translators had to go CHANGE the translation to sweep clean Catholic truth.

Which regardless of how much esteem some here have for the RSV-CE–you will notice that the most official text of the Bible according to the Catholic Church is the Nova Vulgata.

When the Catholic Chruch which has the AUTHORITY to translate, write, and interpret the scriptures speaks–you don’t have such heretical lies as these!

Oh and one last thing–I’m not an ignorant Douay Rheims onlysist. The Douay Rheims is not perfect–no translations is–all I’m saying is that when it comes to Catholic doctrine that the Catholic church has taught for almost the last 2,000 years–the Latin Vulgate it is FREE from error in terms of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has not declared that to be true about other translations and my opinion is that they certainly do have errors–that’s why I say DON’T buy the ESV!

You have launched a rant defending the sacrament of penance when no one has questioned the sacrament.

You also provided not a single shred of evidence to support your position that the scripture in question is somehow mis-translated.

 

[Reformed1]

At Trent the Latin Vulgate was declared to be free of error in terms of faith and morals.

By the way, the Latin Vulgate could be free from all error and that still would not mean the DR or any other translation based on the LV would ipso facto be free from all error.

 

[porthos11]

So let me get this straight–for over 1500 years all of Christendom believed that St. Paul forgave the man IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

When the Protestant translators of the King James Version of the bible translated the scriptures they too believed that the correct translation was IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

But late in the 1800s Protestants decided that they could use a different synonym for PROSOPON.

Did the Holy Spirit tell them to do that?

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that their disdain for the sacrament of confession of sins to a priest and the priest giving a person absolution had NOTHING to do with their choice of translation?

At Trent the Latin Vulgate was declared to be free of error in terms of faith and morals.

Now let me ask this–is it an ERROR if someone believes that St. Paul only forgave the man in the presence of Christ versus IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST?

Absolutely!

And why should it be PERSON instead of PRESENCE?

Well look at the context of the story–the fornicating man was banished from the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians chhapter 5 by St.Paul. Why could he do that? Because the apostles were given the power to forgive and RETAIN sins! Remember the man at first wasn’t even sorry for what he had done!

Now ask yourself–when the Corinthians read the 2d letter by St. Paul do you think that THEY thought that St. Paul was fogiving the man in Christ’s presence? Why would they believe that when he had thrown the man out of the church?Would some of them have wondered if Jesus was physically present with Paul when he did that forgiving?

Jesus was present in a spiritual sense in the Corinthian church–why would St.Paul who was not there have to appeal to Christ being present to LOOSE the punishment on the fornicating man?

Now if St. Paul forgave the man in the PERSON of Christ everyone at Corinth would know what he meant. Why? How many people at Corinth do you think had confessed their sins to Christ THROUGH Paul and had been forgiven IN THE PERSON of Christ previously by St. Paul?

How many of the christians at corinth had already been granted absolution by St. Paul?

Now of course personal confession to priests was not well established in the earliest days of the church–public confession was even sometimes the norm but does no one believe that no one at the church of Corinth had ever confessed a single sin to St. Paul?

Now you can do anything you want to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear but the Catholic Church and even the Protestant King James translators knew that PROSOPON in this instance translated as PERSON made more sense than PRESENCE because it better fit the CONTEXT of the biblical story!

Just like Prosopon in Mattew 27:24 fit the context better as person than presence–the very same word–PROSOPON was used in both of these instances!

There are other instances where the Protestant translators of the King James Version MISSED some Catholic truths that slipped through and later on modern Proteastant translators had to go CHANGE the translation to sweep clean Catholic truth.

Which regardless of how much esteem some here have for the RSV-CE–you will notice that the most official text of the Bible according to the Catholic Church is the Nova Vulgata.

When the Catholic Chruch which has the AUTHORITY to translate, write, and interpret the scriptures speaks–you don’t have such heretical lies as these!

Oh and one last thing–I’m not an ignorant Douay Rheims onlysist. The Douay Rheims is not perfect–no translations is–all I’m saying is that when it comes to Catholic doctrine that the Catholic church has taught for almost the last 2,000 years–the Latin Vulgate it is FREE from error in terms of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has not declared that to be true about other translations and my opinion is that they certainly do have errors–that’s why I say DON’T buy the ESV!

The errors that the Latin Vulgate has are not errors of faith and morals. how do we know that is true–the Catholic church with the authority of the holy Spirit has TOLD US SO!

That’s why ultimately translations which do not stray far from the Latin Vulgate are MORE ACCURATE than ones that do!

Fine, fine.

 

[Reformed1]

You have launched a rant defending the sacrament of penance when no one has questioned the sacrament.

You also provided not a single shred of LEXICAL evidence to support your position that the scripture in question is somehow mis-translated.

I forgot to place the word “LEXICAL” in the previous post.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Disbelieve the word God if you wish.

List all the saints of the church for over 1500 years that believed that St. Pul didn’t forgive the man IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST!

List all the sainst of the church for over 1500 years that believed that Prosopon in this instance should be translated as presence instead of person!

Where are they?

Or just go ahead and make up the bible any way you want!

That isn’t REFORMED–that’s just personal private interpretation!

That’s the same kind of translating philosophy you get from the NIV that translates paradosis as teachings when it can’t stand to accept the Catholic truth and fact of tradition!

IF there were people for over 1500 years that believed that presence was a better translation then maybe you would have an argument that it was a better synonym.

You won’t find those people.

And tell me why the Protestant King James translators didn’t also believe that it should be presence. They didn’t!

Now tell me what’s the odds of BOTH the Catholic translators and the Protestant translators getting the scripture wrong for over 1800 years and then God telling Protestant translators in the 1800s with the rRvision of the Authorized Version that the word should really be presence instead of person.

That is beyond all credibility!

Now of course I guess that I just don’t sound ecumenically sophisticated but the truth is the truth

The same church that WROTE the bible is the same church that did not object to PERSON being the correct translation instead of PRESENCE.

Basically what it comes down to is this–if the church’s witness and authority counts for nothing then anybody anywhere can translate the bible any way they wish!

Now I’m not against anyone reading any version of the Bible–any bible read is better than a bible not read!

I just think that every once in awhile around here that people that say “I really like such and such a translation cause it’s easy for me to read” need to know WHY there are differences in the way that the scriptures are translated.

If people KNOW THAT and they CHOOSE one translation or another anyway that is fine! What isn’t so fine is when they read a bible with ERROR and then believe that that ERROR is the Word of God when it is only what a translator WANTS IT TO BE!

Now of course anyone can dismiss what I’ve said here and say that I haven’t proven anything. That is to be expected from people that already have their minds made up. Some people here don’t know and are open.

My advice to anyone in picking a bible translation is to first and foremost be concerned with what the translation DOCTRINALLY teaches!

Only when you’re satisfied with that should you worry about readability or style.

“He who has ears to hear–let him hear”!

 

[Reformed1]

Disbelieve the word God if you wish.

List all the saints of the church for over 1500 years that believed that St. Pul didn’t forgive the man IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST!

List all the sainst of the church for over 1500 years that believed that Prosopon in this instance should be translated as presence instead of person!

Where are they?

Or just go ahead and make up the bible any way you want!

That isn’t REFORMED–that’s just personal private interpretation!

That’s the same kind of translating philosophy you get from the NIV that translates paradosis as teachings when it can’t stand to accept the Catholic truth and fact of tradition!

IF there were people for over 1500 years that believed that presence was a better translation then maybe you would have an argument that it was a better synonym.

You won’t find those people.

And tell me why the Protestant King James translators didn’t also believe that it should be presence. They didn’t!

Now tell me what’s the odds of BOTH the Catholic translators and the Protestant translators getting the scripture wrong for over 1800 years and then God telling Protestant translators in the 1800s with the rRvision of the Authorized Version that the word should really be presence instead of person.

That is beyond all credibility!

Now of course I guess that I just don’t sound ecumenically sophisticated but the truth is the truth

The same church that WROTE the bible is the same church that did not object to PERSON being the correct translation instead of PRESENCE.

Basically what it comes down to is this–if the church’s witness and authority counts for nothing then anybody anywhere can translate the bible any way they wish!

Now I’m not against anyone reading any version of the Bible–any bible read is better than a bible not read!

I just think that every once in awhile around here that people that say “I really like such and such a translation cause it’s easy for me to read” need to know WHY there are differences in the way that the scriptures are translated.

If people KNOW THAT and they CHOOSE one translation or another anyway that is fine! What isn’t so fine is when they read a bible with ERROR and then believe that that ERROR is the Word of God when it is only what a translator WANTS IT TO BE!

Now of course anyone can dismiss what I’ve said here and say that I haven’t proven anything. That is to be expected from people that already have their minds made up. Some people here don’t know and are open.

My advice to anyone in picking a bible translation is to first and foremost be concerned with what the translation DOCTRINALLY teaches!

Only when you’re satisfied with that should you worry about readability or style.

“He who has ears to hear–let him hear”!

1.) You still have not provided any lexical back up for your assertion.

2.) Where exactly does the RCC define that the Vulgate is completely free from any and all error? The only place I recall the Vulgate being mentioned at Trent stopped well short of making the claim that there were no errors whatsoever in the text of the Vulgate. Anyway, please provide a link.

3.) Since I am not a KJV onlyist I have no problem accepting that errors are contained within the covers of the KJV.

4.) The NIV, which you apparently disdain, is not a literal translation.

 

[lak611]

My advice to anyone in picking a bible translation is to first and foremost be concerned with what the translation DOCTRINALLY teaches!

Only when you’re satisfied with that should you worry about readability or style.

“He who has ears to hear–let him hear”!

I agree with you about the Douay-Rheims being a better translation. However, the OP is a beginning Bible reader. If he has trouble understanding the RSV-CE, the Douay-Rheims will be much too confusing. He should not pick a translation that is so confusing to him that he will never read it. Maybe the NRSV-CE or NAB would be better choices for him than the ESV since they are Catholic translations. Yes they have inclusive language and are less literal than the RSV-CE and Douay-Rheims; but the key here is that the OP gets a Bible that he actually reads because he is able to understand it. I would have no use for a Nova Vulgata, although it is doctrinally correct, since I cannot read Latin; the Nova Vulgata would be a nice looking expensive dust-collector.

 

[Reformed1]

Maybe the NRSV-CE or NAB would be better choices for him than the ESV since they are Catholic translations.

Even with the infamous footnotes, you would recomend the NAB?

 

[lak611]

Even with the infamous footnotes, you would recomend the NAB?

Not really. I’m actually suggesting that option to Jerry, since he is against any non-Catholic Bible. I prefer the RSV-CE or even the NRSV-CE (in spite of the inclusive language). The NAB is my least favourite Catholic translation. But it is Catholic, unlike the ESV.

I don’t think Catholics should adopt the “Douay-Rheims only” thought just like Protestants should not adopt the “KJV only” thought.

 

[Reformed1]

Not really. I’m actually suggesting that option to Jerry, since he is against any non-Catholic Bible. I prefer the RSV-CE or even the NRSV-CE (in spite of the inclusive language). The NAB is my least favourite Catholic translation. But it is Catholic, unlike the ESV.

I don’t think Catholics should adopt the “Douay-Rheims only” thought just like Protestants should not adopt the “KJV only” thought.

Gotcha.

Personally, I think it’s a good idea to take a look at several different versions…just to see what the differences are.

If someone wants to be active in apologetics it would be a necessity.

KJV-onlyist get on everyones nerves…Catholic or Protestant.

 

[porthos11]

Disbelieve the word God if you wish.

List all the saints of the church for over 1500 years that believed that St. Pul didn’t forgive the man IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST!

List all the sainst of the church for over 1500 years that believed that Prosopon in this instance should be translated as presence instead of person!

Where are they?

Or just go ahead and make up the bible any way you want!

That isn’t REFORMED–that’s just personal private interpretation!

That’s the same kind of translating philosophy you get from the NIV that translates paradosis as teachings when it can’t stand to accept the Catholic truth and fact of tradition!

IF there were people for over 1500 years that believed that presence was a better translation then maybe you would have an argument that it was a better synonym.

You won’t find those people.

And tell me why the Protestant King James translators didn’t also believe that it should be presence. They didn’t!

Now tell me what’s the odds of BOTH the Catholic translators and the Protestant translators getting the scripture wrong for over 1800 years and then God telling Protestant translators in the 1800s with the rRvision of the Authorized Version that the word should really be presence instead of person.

That is beyond all credibility!

Now of course I guess that I just don’t sound ecumenically sophisticated but the truth is the truth

The same church that WROTE the bible is the same church that did not object to PERSON being the correct translation instead of PRESENCE.

Basically what it comes down to is this–if the church’s witness and authority counts for nothing then anybody anywhere can translate the bible any way they wish!

Now I’m not against anyone reading any version of the Bible–any bible read is better than a bible not read!

I just think that every once in awhile around here that people that say “I really like such and such a translation cause it’s easy for me to read” need to know WHY there are differences in the way that the scriptures are translated.

If people KNOW THAT and they CHOOSE one translation or another anyway that is fine! What isn’t so fine is when they read a bible with ERROR and then believe that that ERROR is the Word of God when it is only what a translator WANTS IT TO BE!

Now of course anyone can dismiss what I’ve said here and say that I haven’t proven anything. That is to be expected from people that already have their minds made up. Some people here don’t know and are open.

My advice to anyone in picking a bible translation is to first and foremost be concerned with what the translation DOCTRINALLY teaches!

Only when you’re satisfied with that should you worry about readability or style.

“He who has ears to hear–let him hear”!

Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Very well then. I therefore reject the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims as unfaithful to the inspired originals for claiming that the woman will crush the serpent’s head. It is very clear that it is the Messiah who crushes the serpent’s head.

 

[opdsgt]

Man, did I throw a hand grenade in here or what?!

All kidding aside, I certainly appreciate the passion individual forumites have for their respective positions.

I have a few more thoughts after my RCIA class last night. Before and after class as well as during the break, I had discussions with the head pastor and two deacons on the subject of this thread.

The consensus seemed to be this: while they acknowledged the ESV isn’t a C-E bible and it omits the Second Canon, they all thought the translation flowed and read well. After searching through some salient scripture passages, the group felt like the ESV read something like an “RSV Lite.”

Father said it best last night when he told me, so long as I believe in the profession of the Catholic Faith (the creed) and so long as I engage in the sacraments, continue to strengthen my prayer life, worship on Sundays and HDofO, then it hardly matters what translation I use for day-in, day-out reading because (a) I have three C-E bibles at home for reference and (b) we have the magisterial teaching authority of the Church to help us clarify and understand the intent of the scriptures.

(I think that’s a fair paraphrase of what Fr. told me last night.)