Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed question -- Catholic and Protestant versions compared

[porthos11]

The odd thing is that they left “transgressions” and “transgressors” instead of using “debts” and “debtors” since the Latin uses debitas instead of transgressus.

Trespasses, not transgressions.

 

[Usige]

Trespasses, not transgressions.

Opps, sorry, not sure what I was thinking while typing.

In either case trespass (or transgress) talk about forgiveness of wrongs as opposed to things owed. Not a huge difference with regard to forgiveness and justice, but more that it was odd that they chose things closer to Latin except in this case. I seem to remember they considered changing it, but felt that it would meet too much resistance.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I was listening to EWTN last night before I went to bed and they were reciting the Rosary.
In the part when they recite the ‘Our Father’, I realized that the version I learned also contains “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever, Amen” but the Catholic version doesn’t. I wonder why they are different.

I checked Matthew and sure enough, the part I was adding was not contained in the Lord’s Prayer there. What I thought was an oversight by Catholics now appears to be the adding of something (although reverential and respectful to God) in my version that wasn’t there in the original Gospel account.

Question:
I wonder why it was added? Now I am puzzled. If anyone has any insights, I would appreciate it.

Also, in the Apostles’ Creed, I noticed where the version I learned says, "He descended into hell’ whereas the Catholic version says, “He descended to the dead”.

Question:
Although it appears to be just a small difference on the surface, I was just curious as to the exact difference of the terms.

All insights are appreciated.

Almost all Eastern Catholics and Orthodox pray the “Our Father” with the doxology included. We do not use the Apostles’ Creed, only the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in our worship. The Apostles’ Creed is unique to the Latin Church (and Western protestants), as it originates in the Latin baptismal formula.

 

[po18guy]

I wasn’t aware of any controversy with NIV prior to you mentioning it. I was raised on Revised Standard and still use it on occasion, as well.

Note: I have never seen where the NIV denies Christ’s divinity. If it did, I would throw it away in a heartbeat. My local congregation tends to lean more evangelical, although I wasn’t aware of any major differences with other accepted versions.

Baptists have rejected it for its inclusive language. Fringe groups like KJV-onlyists have raised more serious claims - but they have their own issues.

The Revised English Bible with Deuterocanon/Apocrypha (I pay about $4 for them - used/excellent) is a very good, current translation that any Christian should be able to read and use without reservation.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Good to know. When I heard the ‘Divine Mercy Chaplet’ on EWTN radio, the priest in the recording says, “descended to the dead”, but based on your reply I assume he may be just referring to the older version.

I had also heard someone say that “descended to the dead” means that Jesus visited the place where all the souls of the departed went to sleep and not just those destined for eternal perdition, but I may be wrong on that.

The Apostle’s Creed I learned in the 1950’s said “descended into hell”–this is the older version, I believe, and “descended to the dead” is not something I heard until perhaps the 1970’s. You will hear most older Catholics raised in the 50’s or before saying “descended into hell”.

The doxology is found in the Didache, an ancient Christian document of around the first century, but it is not connected to the Our Father there. From my reading, this was found written in the margins of a manuscript of the Gospel, put there, apparently by a monk copying the manuscript, but there is some dispute about whether it was intended to be part of the text or not. In any case, Catholics are mistaken when they say it is a Protestant thing; it is not–the monk who put it in the margin was, of course, Catholic, and there were no Protestants when the Didache was written. I do not know if the doxology pre-dates the Didache or not, someone with more knowledge than me perhaps can answer that. So we’ve revived the doxology in Mass, but not as a part of the Our Father like the Protestants say it. Personally, I like to add it when I say the Our Father because I think it is a very beautiful doxology, but I’m not trying to imitate our Protestant brethren, I just like it. And, as noted above, it is used by Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Duane1966]

I wasn’t aware of any controversy with NIV prior to you mentioning it. I was raised on Revised Standard and still use it on occasion, as well.

Note: I have never seen where the NIV denies Christ’s divinity. If it did, I would throw it away in a heartbeat. My local congregation tends to lean more evangelical, although I]wasn’t aware of any major differences with other accepted versions.

HI Tommy,

I do not know about the divinity aspect, but I know that the NIV has been criticized for it’s translations of St. Paul’s letters.

From N.T. Wright’s book, Justification

“In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then popular New English Bible, and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans.** Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. **I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.

This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. Yes, the NRSV sometimes lets you down, too, but nowhere near as frequently or as badly as the NIV. And, yes, the NIV has now been replaced with newer adaptations in which some at least of the worst features have, I think, been at least modified. But there are many who, having made the switch to the NIV, are now stuck with reading Romans 3:21-26 like this:

“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known…. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…. [God] did this to demonstrate his justice… he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

In other words, “the righteousness of God” in Romans 3:21 is only allowed to mean “the righteous status which comes to people from God,” whereas the equivalent term in Romans 3:25 and Romans 3:26 clearly refers to God’s own righteousness – which is presumably why the NIV has translated it as “justice,” to avoid having the reader realize the deception. In the following paragraph, a similar telltale translation flaw occurs, to which again we shall return. In Romans 3:29, Paul introduces the question, “Is God the God of Jews only?” with the single-letter word e normally translated “or”; “Or is God the God of Jews only?” –in other words, if the statement of Romans 3:28 were to be challenged, it would look as though God were the God of Jews only. **But the NIV, standing firmly in the tradition that sees no organic connection between justification by faith on the one hand and the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s people on the other, resists this clear implication by omitting the word altogether. Two straws in a clear and strong wind. And those blown along by this wind may well come to forget that they are reading a visibly and demonstrably flawed translation, and imagine that this is what Paul really said.” **(N.T. Wright; Justification, pp. 51-53)

If I recall correctly, every time the Greek word paradosis is used in a negative sense by the New Testament authors, the NIV, along with other translations, translate paradosis as traditions. When that same word, paradosis, is used by the New Testament authors in a positive sense, the NIV translators for some reason translate it as teachings. This gives the sense that the Bible always condemns tradition.

 

[De_Maria]

I was listening to EWTN last night before I went to bed and they were reciting the Rosary.
In the part when they recite the ‘Our Father’, I realized that the version I learned also contains “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever, Amen” but the Catholic version doesn’t. I wonder why they are different.

I checked Matthew and sure enough, the part I was adding was not contained in the Lord’s Prayer there. What I thought was an oversight by Catholics now appears to be the adding of something (although reverential and respectful to God) in my version that wasn’t there in the original Gospel account.

Question:
I wonder why it was added? Now I am puzzled. If anyone has any insights, I would appreciate it.

It is a difference in the Latin Vulgate and the Greek versions. It is considered an addendum erroneously added by the Greeks to the Gospel text.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DOXOLOG.HTM

Also, in the Apostles’ Creed, I noticed where the version I learned says, "He descended into hell’ whereas the Catholic version says, “He descended to the dead”.

Question:
Although it appears to be just a small difference on the surface, I was just curious as to the exact difference of the terms.

All insights are appreciated.

Although most of us define “hell” as the place of the damned (inferno). Originally, hell, meant the place of the dead (sheol). In fact, that is the meaning which it has in Scripture:

blb:
sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
the underworld
blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7585&t=NKJV

Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

Although many here say that “descended to the dead” is the older version, actually, I’m 60 years old and the first version I learned said, “descended into hell.”

I personally prefer “descended to the dead”, however. Because I know that lots of people misunderstand the meaning of the word, “hell”.

 

[Tommy999]

HI Tommy,

I do not know about the divinity aspect, but I know that the NIV has been criticized for it’s translations of St. Paul’s letters.

From N.T. Wright’s book, Justification

If I recall correctly, every time the Greek word paradosis is used in a negative sense by the New Testament authors, the NIV, along with other translations, translate paradosis as traditions. When that same word, paradosis, is used by the New Testament authors in a positive sense, the NIV translators for some reason translate it as teachings. This gives the sense that the Bible always condemns tradition.

I see your point (highlighted in red) – a subtle difference but enough to put a little different “spin” on it, as the politicians say.

I wouldn’t have noticed that on my own or thought much about it. Thanks for supplying an example as evidence of what was meant. I always appreciate examples that help illustrate a point.

 

[po18guy]

Those who condemn tradition follow traditions! The entire faith is a tradition. The word tradition means ‘that which has been handed on.’ Family traditions, Business traditions. Government traditions. Religious traditions.

The bible is a tradition, since it has been handed on to us! And, for probably 1,950 years, no one has seen an autograph (signed original) manuscript of any scripture, either in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Saint Jerome in the late 300s, did not have a single original. He had copies of copies of copies. See why the Church is absolutely necessary to preserve God’s word?

All of Christendom simply must trust the Catholic Church as she preserved and handed the scriptures on. And, if she is trustworthy there, why not then in all matters of faith and morals?

 

[Tommy999]

Those who condemn tradition follow traditions! The entire faith is a tradition. The word tradition means ‘that which has been handed on.’ Family traditions, Business traditions. Government traditions. Religious traditions.

The bible is a tradition, since it has been handed on to us! And, for probably 1,950 years, no one has seen an autograph (signed original) manuscript of any scripture, either in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Saint Jerome in the late 300s, did not have a single original. He had copies of copies of copies. **See why the Church is absolutely necessary to preserve God’s word?

All of Christendom simply must trust the Catholic Church as she preserved and handed the scriptures on. And, if she is trustworthy there, why not then in all matters of faith and morals?/**QUOTE]

Good points to ponder. It’s sort of like trusting the owner’s manual but not the folks who put it together, if I understand your point correctly.

 

[po18guy]

po18guy;14871589:

Those who condemn tradition follow traditions! The entire faith is a tradition. The word tradition means ‘that which has been handed on.’ Family traditions, Business traditions. Government traditions. Religious traditions.

The bible is a tradition

, since it has been handed on to us! And, for probably 1,950 years, no one has seen an autograph (signed original) manuscript of any scripture, either in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Saint Jerome in the late 300s, did not have a single original. He had copies of copies of copies. **See why the Church is absolutely necessary to preserve God’s word?

All of Christendom simply must trust the Catholic Church as she preserved and handed the scriptures on. And, if she is trustworthy there, why not then in all matters of faith and morals?/**QUOTE]

Good points to ponder. It’s sort of like trusting the owner’s manual but not the folks who put it together, if I understand your point correctly. Tommy, you are seeking the truth and God is rewarding you for that. At the time the bible was put together, there was no agenda other than to hand the faith on as accurately as possible. We know that scripture must be interpreted properly, but who on earth has the authority? The guidance of the Holy Spirit? The Lord’s promise that “He who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16)?

There is only one. Exactly as it was with Christ, the teachings of that Church are hard and many walk away. Those who remain, or join, receive consolation above and beyond human understanding.

Always a pleasure to interact with an honest, Christ-loving seeker.

 

[Duane1966]

I see your point (highlighted in red) – a subtle difference but enough to put a little different “spin” on it, as the politicians say.

I wouldn’t have noticed that on my own or thought much about it. Thanks for supplying an example as evidence of what was meant. I always appreciate examples that help illustrate a point.

Hi Tommy,

One more post about the NIV that summarizes why some view it as the most flawed of translations. From a discussion found here: catholicbiblesblog.com/2017/04/choosing-right-bible-for-your-church.html?m=1

In this instance, it is very important to recall that he is on the NIV committee, and the NIV is easily one of the most biased Bible translations on the market today. There are literally dozens of places in NIV text where the translators display a bias in favor of their particular brand of evangelical theology, and trying to make it impossible to adopt any interpretation of the text other than the one favored by the translation committee. There is a deliberate attempt within the NIV to de-Catholicize the New Testament, but not remove any hint of Catholicism, but any hint of sacramentalism or the notion of a church hierarchy. Thus, the NIV tries to impose a low church, Congregationalist, anti-sacramentalist, basically Baptist theology on the New Testament. Not only do they try to make a Catholic interpretation impossible, but they also try to make a Protestant interpretation other than their own low church, Congregationalist views, impossible.

There are entire websites devoted to pointing out places where the NIV displays an evangelical bias. They try to get around this accusation by saying that their translation committee represents ‘many denominations’, but all the denominations are evangelical, there are no Catholics, Orthodox, or even mainline Protestants on that committee, and in fact, the very rules put in place by the ISB make anyone who ISN’T an evangelical automatically ineligible for membership on the committee. So the NIV is not just biased, it is biased by design.

P.S. This was an interesting topic that you started. I always enjoy conversing with you. There is a real humbleness and love of others that comes through in your posts.

 

[Tommy999]

Thanks for the kind words, p018guy and Duane1966.

I’m the one who would like to thank you for taking the time to explain things, especially since you could have ignored my topic altogether or told me to “go read the Catechism” or something like that. But you (and others) took the time to meet me where I was at and help me over an obstacle. I appreciate it very much.

 

[po18guy]

In this instance, it is very important to recall that he is on the NIV committee, and the NIV is easily one of the most biased Bible translations on the market today. There are literally dozens of places in NIV text where the translators display a bias in favor of their particular brand of evangelical theology, and trying to make it impossible to adopt any interpretation of the text other than the one favored by the translation committee. There is a deliberate attempt within the NIV to de-Catholicize the New Testament, but not remove any hint of Catholicism, but any hint of sacramentalism or the notion of a church hierarchy. Thus, the NIV tries to impose a low church, Congregationalist, anti-sacramentalist, basically Baptist theology on the New Testament. Not only do they try to make a Catholic interpretation impossible, but they also try to make a Protestant interpretation other than their own low church, Congregationalist views, impossible.

The NIV represents the stand alone, or nuclear community. It supports the corner pastor and its literary license grants him or her the flexibility to preach that which maintains the interest of the congregation. Pastor replaces Pope. It does not support, but allows if needed, the hierarchy beyond that local pastor - who must preach on tithing for the sake of his or her wherewithal.

Dr. David Anders, Presbyterian convert, speaks of a theologian who maintains that the NIV makes it impossible to know the mind of Saint Paul. Since we know from Peter that Saint Paul was a difficult read, the blurring even of Saint Paul’s inscrutable writing gives pastor even more leeway.

 

[Duane1966]

The NIV represents the stand alone, or nuclear community. It supports the corner pastor and its literary license grants him or her the flexibility to preach that which maintains the interest of the congregation. Pastor replaces Pope. It does not support, but allows if needed, the hierarchy beyond that local pastor - who must preach on tithing for the sake of his or her wherewithal.

Dr. David Anders, Presbyterian convert, speaks of a theologian who maintains that the NIV makes it impossible to know the mind of Saint Paul. Since we know from Peter that Saint Paul was a difficult read, the blurring even of Saint Paul’s inscrutable writing gives pastor even more leeway.

My earlier post quoted N.T. Wright, who is the theologian that Dr. Anders talks about.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for the kind words, p018guy and Duane1966.

I’m the one who would like to thank you for taking the time to explain things, especially since you could have ignored my topic altogether or told me to “go read the Catechism” or something like that. But you (and others) took the time to meet me where I was at and help me over an obstacle. I appreciate it very much.

You are very welcome. You do well to tread the path taken by John Henry Newman. He dug back into Church history, with all of its warts - the gritty reality of it all. He came to the inescapable conclusion that he must quit the Anglican Church and enter the Catholic. He wrote “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” He did so at tremendous personal cost. All of his closest associates, the intellectual elite at Oxford and Cambridge, treated him as a pariah.

Even his new brothers in the Catholic Church treated him with suspicion, due to the very history of the Anglican Church and the English persecution of Catholics - for example, the Douay-Rheims bible was translated in Belgium and France, as the Catholic hierarchy had either been killed, imprisoned, or had fled from England). He suffered from all sides, but stayed the course. The Church currently holds his cause for canonization and that will most likely be accomplished in the next few years.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Tommy, as others have commented, the final doxology (“For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory…”) is an addition to the Lord’s Prayer found in the Gospels. However, it seems to be part of the early tradition of the Church. Not only does it draw from a number of Old Testament references (e.g. Daniel), it also finds its way into the Didache, which is quote early indeed. Note this early rendition of the Lord’s Prayer from the Didache:

“Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever…”