Need help to counter an argument

[IrishJoe]

Hi, I need some help by some people who are able to counter this argument.
Being a Catholic I have no doubt its false but how to counter it or argue against it ?

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

help would be appreciated

 

[awalt]

I didn’t read the whole article, but right off the bat the NIV version is NOT a Catholic Bible because it does not even include the full canon, all books of the Bible! How could that be Catholic?

 

[teachccd]

Hi, I need some help by some people who are able to counter this argument.
Being a Catholic I have no doubt its false but how to counter it or argue against it ?

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

help would be appreciated

Just what awalt said above. If the Bible does not include the full canon then it automatically discredits itself by being incomplete. True, there may be some wonderful and orthodox translation within the text but it is not a Catholic version. There are verses in the New World Translation that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use that may seem orthodox but I would never even entertain the thought of using that distorted text for any kind of bible study. I do possess that version as well as the NIV and King James and other Protestant translations for comparison purposes only. It allows me to speak with Protestants from where they come from and Jehovah’s Witnesses as well.

Stick with Catholic versions and move from the need to justify this translation. Now go and read the Book of Sirach. It’s a beautifully inspired text that you will not find in the NIV…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

**Oh and Welcome to the forum!! **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi, I need some help by some people who are able to counter this argument.
Being a Catholic I have no doubt its false but how to counter it or argue against it ?

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

help would be appreciated

About this bit:​

that page:

Cardinal Newman greatly influenced the British revision committees, which were packed with higher critics and Catholic- leaning individuals such as Westcott, Hort, and others. Westcott’s Greek New Testament was based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts. Dr. Philip Schaff, who headed the American Bible revision committee, was a friend of Newman, and was on such good terms with the papacy that he sought and obtained unusual privileges to study Vatican documents, receiving almost unrestricted access to the Vatican Library and Archives. As a result, the 1881 Revised English Version was met with rejoicing among Catholics, as a vindication of their Rheims-Douay version based on the Vulgate. Blow after blow, the new English version supported the doctrines of Rome.

An example is Revelation 22:14. In the King James, this verse is,"Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,"while the Revised version says,"Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life."The New International Version likewise used “wash their robes,” rather than “do His commandments.”

There is a good reason for the difference. The AV/KJV Greek text reads the italicised words as follows:​

• POIOUSINTASENTOLAS
  whereas the RV & NIV read:
• LOUOUSINTASTOLAS
  Early manuscripts (until about 400 IIRC) were written in columns, in CAPITALLETTERSWITHOUTABREAK - & several of these capital letters are easily confused. In the present example, tas entolas (“the commandments”) is easy to confuse with tas stolas (“the robes”). They look similar - & mean utterly different things.

A further mistake is to take a translation as the standard for the readings of the Greek text - as should be obvious. Unfortunately, translations have a tendency to be treated as “the Bible” - when they are more or less imperfect translations of it.

And most Christians do not know much, if anything, about textual criticism; so it is only to be expected that they should be suspicious of unfamiliar translations of much-loved phrases. That does not make the familiar phrases accurate renderings of the Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew texts of the Bible. This kind of pious ignorance is not new - the Vulgate took some getting used to, as did the AV.

Whether a translation “supports the doctrines of Rome” is neither here nor there; what matters is that it should be as accurate & faithful as possible. In any case, the NT is very “proto-Catholic” in some respects; just as it is “proto-Calvinist/Anglican/whatever” in others. It is absurd to expect that God’s Word should accommodate itself to our biases - our business is to be renewed in our minds so that we can escape our biases & have the mind of Christ instead

As David Payne, a British Evangelical, pointed out 30 years ago, it could be argued that the two readings in the RV & NIV are more Evangelical than the ones in the AV/KJV

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

About this bit:​

There is a good reason for the difference. The AV/KJV Greek text reads the italicised words as follows:​

• POIOUSINTASENTOLAS
  whereas the RV & NIV read:
• LOUOUSINTASTOLAS
  Early manuscripts (until about 400 IIRC) were written in columns, in CAPITALLETTERSWITHOUTABREAK - & several of these capital letters are easily confused. In the present example, tas entolas (“the commandments”) is easy to confuse with tas stolas (“the robes”). They look similar - & mean utterly different things.

A further mistake is to take a translation as the standard for the readings of the Greek text - as should be obvious. Unfortunately, translations have a tendency to be treated as “the Bible” - when they are more or less imperfect translations of it.

And most Christians do not know much, if anything, about textual criticism; so it is only to be expected that they should be suspicious of unfamiliar translations of much-loved phrases. That does not make the familiar phrases accurate renderings of the Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew texts of the Bible. This kind of pious ignorance is not new - the Vulgate took some getting used to, as did the AV.

Whether a translation “supports the doctrines of Rome” is neither here nor there; what matters is that it should be as accurate & faithful as possible. In any case, the NT is very “proto-Catholic” in some respects; just as it is “proto-Calvinist/Anglican/whatever” in others. It is absurd to expect that God’s Word should accommodate itself to our biases - our business is to be renewed in our minds so that we can escape our biases & have the mind of Christ instead

As David Payne, a British Evangelical, pointed out 30 years ago, it could be argued that the two readings in the RV & NIV are more Evangelical than the ones in the AV/KJV

 

[mdgspencer]

I have studied the early Church writers a great deal and I have never heard of Origin as an editor. Perhaps you could check a source like the New Catholic Encyclopedia to see what he was actually known for.
If you lack the knowledge to evaluate such claims, you ought to pass up the opportunity of reading them. I place little credence on something I encounter at random on the internet, since anyone can put anything on it, authentic or inauthentic. I think the person who wrote this either didn’t know what he is talking about or is very inventive.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

“Therefore, he turned to Jerome, a renowned scholar, to produce the authoritative Catholic Latin Bible. Jerome perused the library of Eusebius at Caesarea, where Origen’s manuscripts had been preserved, along with a Greek Bible of the Vaticanus type.”

I think St. Jerome translater from the subtangent.

 

[IrishJoe]

If you lack the knowledge to evaluate such claims, you ought to pass up the opportunity of reading them. I place little credence on something I encounter at random on the internet, since anyone can put anything on it, authentic or inauthentic. I think the person who wrote this either didn’t know what he is talking about or is very inventive.a

well to be fair its the only ‘argument’ that attempts to say why the catholic bible is wrong which is why i found it interesting.

Most protestant arguments are easily shreddable

 

[Contarini]

Hi, I need some help by some people who are able to counter this argument.
Being a Catholic I have no doubt its false but how to counter it or argue against it ?

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

help would be appreciated

What argument? The article makes a lot of arguments, some of them true but not terribly important, some of them nonsense. Chief among the latter is the claim that the NIV supports Catholicism–the truth is the exact opposite. The more literal KJV supports Catholic teaching much better than the NIV, which frequently translates the text in such a way as to support a broadly Reformed Protestant theology (Wesleyan Protestants generally don’t like the NIV either). This is not dishonest of the NIV–many translators think that “dynamic equivalence” is the best way to go, and any translation (but especially one using “dynamic equivalence”) is going to reflect the theological beliefs of the translators.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have studied the early Church writers a great deal and I have never heard of Origin as an editor.

Actually he is very famous for his “Hexapla,” which was a comparative edition of the versions of the Bible known to him, in six columns (hence the name).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

well to be fair its the only ‘argument’ that attempts to say why the catholic bible is wrong which is why i found it interesting.

Most protestant arguments are easily shreddable

If this is your idea of a formidable Protestant argument, you really need to get out more. This is pretty much bottom-tier stuff.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If this is your idea of a formidable Protestant argument, you really need to get out more. This is pretty much bottom-tier stuff.

Edwin

The question is: why it is so hard for Christians who disagree to see the strengths in each other’s positions ? ​

 

[IrishJoe]

If this is your idea of a formidable Protestant argument, you really need to get out more. This is pretty much bottom-tier stuff.

Edwin

well to me its rather confusing. Keep in mind I’m usually facing people like the Chrisitan Union in univestity. Not actually sentient free thinking people

 

[Fidelis]

Hi, I need some help by some people who are able to counter this argument.
Being a Catholic I have no doubt its false but how to counter it or argue against it ?

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

help would be appreciated

There is not a single “argument” to counter here, but paragraph after paragraph after anti-Catholic misinformation and historical inaccuracy. One would hardly know where to start with such a mass of ignorant drivel.

 

[Spirithound]

well to me its rather confusing.

This is what we call buckshot apologetics. A thousand little balls working to overwhelm whatever poor creature is in front of it. My advice: take 2 aspirin and read something edifying in the morning.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have studied the early Church writers a great deal and I have never heard of Origin as an editor. Perhaps you could check a source like the New Catholic Encyclopedia to see what he was actually known for.
If you lack the knowledge to evaluate such claims, you ought to pass up the opportunity of reading them. I place little credence on something I encounter at random on the internet, since anyone can put anything on it, authentic or inauthentic. I think the person who wrote this either didn’t know what he is talking about or is very inventive.

Whoever wrote it certainly knows little of​

• the methods of textual criticism
• the history of the Oxford Movement
• the Revisers of the AV (one of whom was a Unitarian; so much for the RV being a Catholic plot against the AV)
  As for this:
• The Bishop of Rome needed a Bible version to keep the newly-converted pagans from northern Europe submissive to such doctrines as papal supremacy, transubstantiation, purgatory, celibacy of the priesthood, vigils, worship of relics, and the burning of daylight candles. Therefore, he turned to Jerome, a renowned scholar, to produce the authoritative Catholic Latin Bible. Jerome perused the library of Eusebius at Caesarea, where Origen’s manuscripts had been preserved, along with a Greek Bible of the Vaticanus type.
  OK - but if that is so, why does Boettner give these dates:
• transubstantiation - 1215
• purgatory - 1439
• worship of relics - 787
  Jerome died in 419/20 - which is a bit early for somebody who is being consulted in order to undertake a translation so as to help safeguard doctrines that came along centuries after his death. Maybe he & the Bishop of Rome could see into the future, or travel in time. BTW, Boettner relied on
• the ASV of 1901
• which is a US reworking of the evil Romish
• Revised Version of 1881-85
• which is a revision of the AV/KJV of 1611
  Maybe that’s why the author ignores Boettner - because Boettner is tainted with Romanism

 

[strngrnrth]

Maybe you’ll find what you need atkjv-only.com/

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi, I need some help by some people who are able to counter this argument.
Being a Catholic I have no doubt its false but how to counter it or argue against it ?

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

help would be appreciated

Hi Joe you are dealing with a form of king james onlyism as taught by gale riplinger. Lets, look at one paragraph and ask a simple question.

**Origen (A.D. 184-254), **one of the most famous “Church fathers,” was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, and all modern versions, are based. He tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy. Adam Clarke says Origen was the first “Christian” teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible’s historical basis. “The Scriptures,” Origen maintained, " are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced fifty copies of a Latin version, at the behest of Emperor Constantine. Although Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the Catholic Church as the state religion, his action in choosing Eusebius’ rendition of Origen’s Bible was perhaps more important. Modern versions are based on the Vaticanus Manuscript (Codex B), and the Sinaiticus Manuscript (Codex Aleph), which are of the Eusebio-Origen type. Many authorities believe they were actually two of the fifty Constantine Bibles.

biblestudy.org/basicart/batbible.html

Ok, based on the above Origen lived from 184 to 254 AD, six years later 260 AD Eusebius was born. **How exactly did Origen personally “gratly influnce” Eusebius? ** And, since English bibles today were influnced by Jermone’s Latin Vulgate, not by either Origen, nor Eusebius…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Revelation 22:14. In the King James, this verse is,

“Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,”

Would not doing his commandments be a form of salvation by WORKS?