Modern Translation of the Vulgate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crimson_Seraph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I most certainly am not a King James onlyist nor am I a Latin Vulgate onlyist either. I can accept any Catholic edition, but I don’t recommend every Catholic edition. The only ones I can recommend for anyone are the Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rhiems, Confraternity Edition and Ronald Knox Translation. People are free to read the other translations approved by the Catholic Church. BTW the King James not only omitted 7 books from the OT and subtracted from the book of Esther and Daniel, but it added to Matthew 6:13
 
I don’t think the world would end if there were more English translations of the Vulgate.

I don’t think the world would end if an Elgish translation bible was pubnlished that used St. Jerome’s 3d attempt at translating the Psalms.

I don’t think the world would end if an English translation of the Vulgate used Anglicanized names.

I don’t think the world would end if the Nova Vulgata was translated into English.

Course I also don’t think the world would end if the EF of the Mass was celebrated in English either.

I do though think that if any of these things happened that they would upset the agendas of alot of people.

It really is a pitty that no translations of the Vulgate since the Confraternity version has been attempted.

The best though imperfect English translation of the Vulgate in my opinion is the Confraternity New Testament–the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–and any Psalters that are post CCD 1941 and pre-Olinger.

I haven’t ever read the Carey Revision to the Douay Rheims New Testament–I’ve always wondered if it is superior to the Confraternity New Teastament?

I enjoy reading the Knox bible–it explains many things–it’s kind of like an Amplified English Translation of the Vulgate–I think the Confraternity New Testament is better–but it isn’t perfect.

And I’ve never read an English translition of St. Jerome’s 3d Psalter–he thought his third attempt was the most accurate.

For that matter I’ve never read an English transltion of the Nova Vulgata–I wonder how much it would differ from an English treanslation of the Clemetine Vulgate?

Why shouldn’t English speaking Catholics have such choices?

I’m not a Vulgate onlyist–I just think that the Vulgate is better than anything else out there–it could be improved on in minor non doctrinal matters with recourse to ancient language texts.

It IS superior to anything else out there because it does not err in matters of doctrine–every other translation I’ve ever read that is not based on the Vulgate does err on matters of doctrine.

I can understand people who love the Douay Rheims.

What I can’t understand is those very same people saying that it can’t be improved in any way–English has changed some since 1750!

It wouldn’t be impossible to MINORLY update it without destroying the Vulgate that it is based on.

Will we ever see a 3d millnium English translation of the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata?

I bet the devil is rooting that we don’t!

The RSV-CE lovers are rooting that we don’t–the NAB and Jerusalem bible lovers are rooting that we don’t.

Why are they afraid of such a thing?

Could it be that they’re really afraid of the non erring truth that comes from the Vulgate?
 
tobinatorstark said:
No they were changed to fit Protestant doctrine.
Click to expand...
That’s an unfounded and rather slanderous comment to make. Why would a Catholic translator want to make his work more Protestant? When the RSV-CE first came out, changes were mae to the Protestant version by Catholics. These changes, for the most part, were included in later Protestant verrsions of the RSV. Just the opposite of your claim.

Gary
 
tobinatorstark said:
It was translated “penance” for 1125 years, then after the rise of Protestanism, there bibles translated it as “repent” which Greek texts are you using? Those used in modern Bibles today are not as accurate as those translated by St. Jerome from 382-400. We can’t prove that those manuscripts are older than the ones that St. Jerome used. You said that the Vulgate has a rich history and such in one of your posts. Since you stated the D-R has errors in it, doesn’t that make the Vulgate faulty as well as the manuscripts that St. Jerome used. I highly doubt St. Jerome would change words to benefit Catholic teaching. The Protestants refuse to accept Catholic teaching so they changed words to benefit their doctrine, which is false. Repent and Penance are similar in definition. Protestants refuse to use the word penance although it is accurate. Not to say that repent isn’t accurate, but it is only half accurate
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make any difference how it was translated in the past. The Bible was not written in Latin. The Bible should be translated so it is true to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Gary
 
tobinatorstark said:
No, but the Vulgate was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek and is the most accurate Bible. But unless you know how to read and speak Greek or Hebrew you probably aren’t going to understand it. If the Vulgate says the Hebrew and Greek say “Penance” then it is “Penance” I don’t go back and change the word of God. The Catholic Church was lucky enough to give us the Bible we have today.
Click to expand...
Where do you get the idea that the Vulgate is the final authority? It is not. It is not divinely inspired, either.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
That’s an unfounded and rather slanderous comment to make. Why would a Catholic translator want to make his work more Protestant? When the RSV-CE first came out, changes were mae to the Protestant version by Catholics. These changes, for the most part, were included in later Protestant verrsions of the RSV. Just the opposite of your claim.

Gary
Click to expand...
I am not saying that a Catholic translators are making work Protestant. Although the footnotes in the NAB are are contrary to the Catholic teaching. I am saying that the Protestants did change and add and subtract to Bible

How do you justify Matthew 6:13. In Catholic Bibles it is

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

The Protestant Bibles are

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

How is one justify eliminating the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees and 2 Machabess as wells as parts of Esther and Daniel? How about the Protestant NIV? If you look Matthew 18:11 isn’t in context. It is relegated to a footnote.

How does one justify adding to Romans like Martin Luther did??

Work done on the NAB was not done by Catholics exclusively. Protestants also did work on the NAB. The footnotes are detrimental to Catholic teaching and very liberal. The RSV-CE attempted to remove all Protestant doctrine and Catholicize it. Still in my opinion (doesn’t mean I am right) they didn’t get it all removed. What about Luke 1:28. Most modern versions have changed it. That is wrong. “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women” not “hail favored one, the Lord is with thee” or “Hail full of grace the Lord is with thee”.
 
garysibio said:
It doesn’t make any difference how it was translated in the past. The Bible was not written in Latin. The Bible should be translated so it is true to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Gary
Click to expand...
And it was by St. Jerome using the Hebrew, Greek,Aramaic and Chaledaic manuscripts.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t think the world would end if there were more English translations of the Vulgate.

I don’t think the world would end if an Elgish translation bible was pubnlished that used St. Jerome’s 3d attempt at translating the Psalms.

I don’t think the world would end if an English translation of the Vulgate used Anglicanized names.

I don’t think the world would end if the Nova Vulgata was translated into English.

Course I also don’t think the world would end if the EF of the Mass was celebrated in English either.

I do though think that if any of these things happened that they would upset the agendas of alot of people.

It really is a pitty that no translations of the Vulgate since the Confraternity version has been attempted.

The best though imperfect English translation of the Vulgate in my opinion is the Confraternity New Testament–the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–and any Psalters that are post CCD 1941 and pre-Olinger.

I haven’t ever read the Carey Revision to the Douay Rheims New Testament–I’ve always wondered if it is superior to the Confraternity New Teastament?

I enjoy reading the Knox bible–it explains many things–it’s kind of like an Amplified English Translation of the Vulgate–I think the Confraternity New Testament is better–but it isn’t perfect.

And I’ve never read an English translition of St. Jerome’s 3d Psalter–he thought his third attempt was the most accurate.

For that matter I’ve never read an English transltion of the Nova Vulgata–I wonder how much it would differ from an English treanslation of the Clemetine Vulgate?

Why shouldn’t English speaking Catholics have such choices?

I’m not a Vulgate onlyist–I just think that the Vulgate is better than anything else out there–it could be improved on in minor non doctrinal matters with recourse to ancient language texts.

It IS superior to anything else out there because it does not err in matters of doctrine–every other translation I’ve ever read that is not based on the Vulgate does err on matters of doctrine.

I can understand people who love the Douay Rheims.

What I can’t understand is those very same people saying that it can’t be improved in any way–English has changed some since 1750!

It wouldn’t be impossible to MINORLY update it without destroying the Vulgate that it is based on.

Will we ever see a 3d millnium English translation of the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata?

I bet the devil is rooting that we don’t!

The RSV-CE lovers are rooting that we don’t–the NAB and Jerusalem bible lovers are rooting that we don’t.

Why are they afraid of such a thing?

Could it be that they’re really afraid of the non erring truth that comes from the Vulgate?
Click to expand...
// what valid proof do you have that new american bible and jerusalem bible lovers are rooting no for a nova vulgata english translation?
tobinatorstark said:
I am not saying that a Catholic translators are making work Protestant. Although the footnotes in the NAB are are contrary to the Catholic teaching. I am saying that the Protestants did change and add and subtract to Bible

How do you justify Matthew 6:13. In Catholic Bibles it is

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

The Protestant Bibles are

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

How is one justify eliminating the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees and 2 Machabess as wells as parts of Esther and Daniel? How about the Protestant NIV? If you look Matthew 18:11 isn’t in context. It is relegated to a footnote.

How does one justify adding to Romans like Martin Luther did??

Work done on the NAB was not done by Catholics exclusively. Protestants also did work on the NAB. The footnotes are detrimental to Catholic teaching and very liberal. The RSV-CE attempted to remove all Protestant doctrine and Catholicize it. Still in my opinion (doesn’t mean I am right) they didn’t get it all removed. What about Luke 1:28. Most modern versions have changed it. That is wrong. “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women” not “hail favored one, the Lord is with thee” or “Hail full of grace the Lord is with thee”.
Click to expand...
// seriously what is it with everyone and their base of Luke 1; 28? if Luke 1; 28 is missing one thing is it automatically a bad translation?
 
Jehuty_X said:
// what valid proof do you have that new american bible and jerusalem bible lovers are rooting no for a nova vulgata english translation?

// seriously what is it with everyone and their base of Luke 1; 28? if Luke 1; 28 is missing one thing is it automatically a bad translation?
Click to expand...
Speaking only the half truth is like speaking a lie.
 
Doesn’t the Bible warns us about adding and subtracting to the word of God???
Apocalypse 22:18-19

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

also Deut. 4:2

You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

and Proverbs 30:6

Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
Well good for you! Where was all this purity and authority when the Saeculum obscurum was going on?

(Removed link to article with apparent anti-Catholic origins and excessive undocumented allegations).

Or when Arianism was the prevailing theology? You know, when Saint Jerome said that the world woke up one day to find out it was Arian. Didn’t the Pope at the time sign on to this? Where was his invalible teaching denouncing it? Why was it known as Athanasius contra mundum? Why was poor little Athanasius against the world and thrown out of his church five times for defending the deity of Christ?

Now don’t get me wrong. I didn’t come to this forum to rail against Catholicism or promote Protestantism. I really didn’t. I came here to learn more about Catholicism from those who practice it and hopefully do it with some civility and grace. When you make statements such as the one above, I cannot help but responde in kind.

P.S. You can translate metanoeō as penance all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the word means “repent” which is different from penance. Both the RSV-Catholic edition and the NAB translate it as repent, not penance. Do those Catholic editions also corrupt the Scriptures like we protestants do?
Click to expand...
Well, your post simply indicates a great deal of ignorance about what I wrote, and how it applies to the Church. The claim was never purity of behavior, was it? It is ignorant to assume it did, as it was never written as such. So, the ignorant will misinterpret that teaching correctly automatically means behaving correctly. In reality, it never has, and never will be the same thing. From there, you go downhill arguing against, really your own false interpretation. Then you sink to a behavior that you falsely claim I sunk to.

Don’t worry, I didn’t get you wrong, even though your post indicates you would like us to, as it would be more favorable to you to get you wrong.

Please lift up your game a bit, including attempting to interpret correctly and respond accordingly.

BTW, my behaviors are not determined by you. So, even when you stoop to a low level, I will not respond in that way to you.
 
***The level of charity in this thread is failing and I am serving notice that there will be consequences if it does not change for the better from this point on.

Most of you know better than this. :tsktsk:***
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am not saying that a Catholic translators are making work Protestant. Although the footnotes in the NAB are are contrary to the Catholic teaching. I am saying that the Protestants did change and add and subtract to Bible

How do you justify Matthew 6:13. In Catholic Bibles it is

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

The Protestant Bibles are

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

How is one justify eliminating the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees and 2 Machabess as wells as parts of Esther and Daniel? How about the Protestant NIV? If you look Matthew 18:11 isn’t in context. It is relegated to a footnote.

How does one justify adding to Romans like Martin Luther did??

Work done on the NAB was not done by Catholics exclusively. Protestants also did work on the NAB. The footnotes are detrimental to Catholic teaching and very liberal. The RSV-CE attempted to remove all Protestant doctrine and Catholicize it. Still in my opinion (doesn’t mean I am right) they didn’t get it all removed. What about Luke 1:28. Most modern versions have changed it. That is wrong. “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women” not “hail favored one, the Lord is with thee” or “Hail full of grace the Lord is with thee”.
Click to expand...
We have to deal with the Bible as it is, not how we would like it to be.

I’ve gone through all this with you before just as others have. I had you on my ignore list for a while and took you off because I hoped you had actually learned something but you are still spewing the same nonsense. I don’t have the time to waste so back on you go.

Gary
 
tobinatorstark said:
Doesn’t the Bible warns us about adding and subtracting to the word of God???
Apocalypse 22:18-19

18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

also Deut. 4:2

You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

and Proverbs 30:6

Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:
Click to expand...
// lol…that applies very well to trent for removing books and pope benedict xvi for the removing of YHVH to a title Lord, but i’ll get on that some other time.
// jerome could have added blessed art thou among women for all we know, it fits well with hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…it does fit well with it…no one is sure…and no don’t give me that oh it has no doctrinal error, blah blah because you don’t know and not even trent is sure…no one is sure
// overall basing on one verse to see if a bible is good is ridiculous!
garysibio said:
We have to deal with the Bible as it is, not how we would like it to be.

I’ve gone through all this with you before just as others have. I had you on my ignore list for a while and took you off because I hoped you had actually learned something but you are still spewing the same nonsense. I don’t have the time to waste so back on you go.

Gary
Click to expand...
// thanks… 👍 i was looking for the ignore list…
 
Jehuty_X said:
// lol…that applies very well to trent for removing books and pope benedict xvi for the removing of YHVH to a title Lord, but i’ll get on that some other time.
// jerome could have added blessed art thou among women for all we know, it fits well with hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee…it does fit well with it…no one is sure…and no don’t give me that oh it has no doctrinal error, blah blah because you don’t know and not even trent is sure…no one is sure
// overall basing on one verse to see if a bible is good is ridiculous!

// thanks… 👍 i was looking for the ignore list…
Click to expand...
Well Trent declared the Vulgate free of doctrinal and moral error so a lot is at stake as far as certain verses go. Trent reaffirmed what was already affirmed and took away no books from the current canon we have today. The canon was set back as far as 382 reaffirmed in many different councils from 391 to 1965. Look at the Pater Noster in the Douay-Rheims and look at the Pater Noster in the NAB (Matthew 6:9-13). Can you draw different conclusions to what is being said between the 2? If we aren’t to change the Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, Sanctus, Kyrie Elesion and Credo in mass, why should they be changed in the Bible?? There is no reason for it.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am not saying that a Catholic translators are making work Protestant. Although the footnotes in the NAB are are contrary to the Catholic teaching. I am saying that the Protestants did change and add and subtract to Bible

How do you justify Matthew 6:13. In Catholic Bibles it is

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

The Protestant Bibles are

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Click to expand...
I heard that the doxology part of the Lord’s Prayer came from the Didache. There is speculation that it was written about the same time as Matthew, or even by Matthew.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I heard that the doxology part of the Lord’s Prayer came from the Didache. There is speculation that it was written about the same time as Matthew, or even by Matthew.
Click to expand...
But the Didache isn’t the Bible. If it wasn’t in the Gospel in the first place like the Catholic has it, then what authority did William Tyndale and other translators have for inserting it in there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top