J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Who had the authority to change the day of the Sabbath–the Catholic Church had that authority–it certainly didn’t come from scripture alone!
- Status
R
rr1213
Guest
Sure, the Church changed the day of worship but there was Scriptural basis for doing so.
Romans 14:5-6 (NIV):
“One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.”
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
There are some NIV books…in Catholic Edition! I’m holding The Psalms NIV :ST.JOSEPH CATHOLIC EDITION./ With Imprimatur+ Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza. With some good Catholic Annotions …it’s the non inclusive 84 NIV …handy size…red with a PX and Dove in gold…nice devotional…it reads smoothly…hey…I would rather read this Psalter than the NABRE …brrr…so cumbersome!!!
M
mcrow
Guest
I don’t think NIV is “anti-catholic”. IMO, for something to be anti-catholic it would first have to make an attack on our faith. Given that some of the translated terms just simply disagree with our line of thinking, I call it a disagreement. There is no purposeful attempt to put down the Catholic faith, it’s just their take on the bible.
Now, obviously, these translations highlight some of the important things that split Christians but it does not constitute “anti-Catholic”.
So, is the RSV-CE anti-Protestant? No, I think not.
Now, obviously, these translations highlight some of the important things that split Christians but it does not constitute “anti-Catholic”.
So, is the RSV-CE anti-Protestant? No, I think not.
X
x1980x
Guest
Some KJV-only Protestants (references omitted out of sensitivity, but it’s easy enough to find if you really want to) actually blast the NIV as being Too Catholic for them, because they claim that it is based on the Codex Vaticanus and other texts that they claim were corrupted by heresy.
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
The funny irony with the AV…it is very high church and liturgical…the Anti Cats who use the AV engage in an amazing hypocrisy … They say sola scritura…the only way they make…if you will the av anti-catholic is…Adding annotations and lots of em…all the way back to the Scofield…so…bad Catholics …it’s sola scritura and av…but…it’s not just an av…it’s AV and Scofield or Macartur or whoever…also…it’s an Anglican bible…as a former Anglican I can say…the Anglican Church…never fully became…Protestant…Historian Gibbons…who I think converted Anglican to Catholic…and back again…(don’t quote that I thought read it somewhere
) but he wrote: “in many ways Anglicanism emerged hybrid…in its higher expression more of the Catholic remains…” only reason it is used as the only Bible for some fundamentalist …no choice!!! Lol…in the USA it was not until 1901…an alternative Protestant bible was around the AV…it’s cousin the UK RV …1881? In short , they were forced to enshrine a high church liturgical Bible endorsed by a King whose mother was…Catholic. (-:
G
Gethsemane
Guest
I would not say the NIV is anti-Catholic. I would say that as it’s translators did not have complete Revelation which the Catholic Church does, that this version is also limited in its scope and thus contains errors.
I have a Woman’s Devotional (American) NIV which I read from time to time. I don’t mind it. It doesn’t have the same substance which the NRSV-CE has but it’s okay. I’m already well versed in Catholic teachings, so I don’t usually have any upsets with the wording. When a verse or so really bothers me I usually check how it’s written in the KJV or DR.
I read the NIV because I know it’s popular among our Protestant brethren and I figure it’d be good to familiarise myself with their versions so that I can use their own Bibles to prove the Catholic faith.
I have a Woman’s Devotional (American) NIV which I read from time to time. I don’t mind it. It doesn’t have the same substance which the NRSV-CE has but it’s okay. I’m already well versed in Catholic teachings, so I don’t usually have any upsets with the wording. When a verse or so really bothers me I usually check how it’s written in the KJV or DR.
I read the NIV because I know it’s popular among our Protestant brethren and I figure it’d be good to familiarise myself with their versions so that I can use their own Bibles to prove the Catholic faith.
C
colliric
Guest
Having read about their objections and what they pertain to, I agree it’s not one of the best codexes on which to base a translation. The KJV used the Latin Vulgate as a translative reference point, while the Douay Rheims was a straight translation. I think both benifit immensely from St Jerome’s early work on translating the Greek.
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
Well…in fairness.the AV has a nt text that I as a Catholic admire…it is not…" straight" vulgate it roots are from Erasmus who actually did amazing work…you are correct he had the Vulgate but he was …a Titan intellectual he had also Greek…and did amazing work collating and comparing Greek of which he was a unsung prodigy at that point…in a sense his Greek NT…which he was humble enough to admit had flaws…was still groundbreaking…it was revised 2 times again using Greek …so with respect my friend…it was not straight Vulgate…Erasmus used the vulgate to reference and sometimes kept the best of it…with his Greek …in a sense it holds elements of the western work in (the Latin ) and reached back for nuances and cultural elements in Greek …again Erasmus …so amazing a man…admitted the flaws of his first Textus Receptus Greek NT…but it had 2 revisions you must recall prior to its use by Lancelot Andrewes in the 1611 av…it was refined once more …Oxford …Dr. Fell…a brilliant man Greek Scholar…revised it…so the AV the Traditional Anglicans use (of which I was one) the “Approved” text…is Oxford 1769…
God bless all.(-:
C
colliric
Guest
I was aware of that already, and Challoner thankfully gave the Douay-Rheims simular treatment.
The KJV used more sources than it is often given credit for.
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
Forgive me!!! I was not really trying to correct your post! I felt it was quite good…if my “clumsy”
Attempt to amplify on it came across as corrective forgive me…( I’ve got a lot on my mind.) Pax Et Bonum!!!
D
Dave219
Guest
I’ve ran into a few passages in NIV that seem to be on the antiCatholic side. In my mind, this verse is tweeked to contradict the sinlessness of Mary:
NIV Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
In contrast, I think an accurate translation doesn’t indicate babies have sinned; rather substantiates the doctrine of Original Sin:
YLT: Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
NKJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NIV Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
In contrast, I think an accurate translation doesn’t indicate babies have sinned; rather substantiates the doctrine of Original Sin:
YLT: Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
NKJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
Douai Reims: For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Well…the NIV trans doesn’t seem to have any different effect to me.
KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Well…the NIV trans doesn’t seem to have any different effect to me.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
You can have a look here at the Hebrew:
blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=51&v=1&t=KJV#conc/5
Notice there’s one word for sin, and another for iniquity. I don’t agree with the NIV using “sin” to translate both words.
blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=51&v=1&t=KJV#conc/5
Notice there’s one word for sin, and another for iniquity. I don’t agree with the NIV using “sin” to translate both words.
G
garysibio
Guest
Sometimes people throw around the term “anti-Catholic” like some liberals throw around the word “racism.” To accuse someone of being anti-Catholic, unless they come out and say it and there are those who do, implies the ability to read minds and I don’t care who you are, you can’t do that.
It is true that there are some inconsistencies in the NIV translation but it’s not that bad.
Ironically, here’s a Web site by KJV-only Fundamentalists which claims that the NIV is heretical because the NIV Teen Study Bible calls Catholics Christians.
G
garysibio
Guest
Would you share some examples of these omitted verses?
The latest NIV uses inclusive language, the original translation did not. There was a big controversey about this in Evangelical circles last year.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
The N.I.V. is not so much anti-Catholic as it is anti-Bible. It is a rank paraphrase, a little better than some Protestant paraphrases, but not at all as fine as such fine pro-Bible Protestant versions as the N.K.J.V. or E.S.V.
C
colliric
Guest
I disagree with most and believe that some bibles, that are called by some, “Paraphrases”, have their place in the Church, as those who are less fortunate in reading capibilities, and of cause young children still learning to read, should have an option of translation tailored for them to understand and help them to enjoy/learn reading, and reading scripture as well. They still need to be good translations anyway(but just favour the more simplistic appropriate words, and take some liberties with say, the sections that list geneology or report army numbers, etc)
They shoudn’t be used as a primary bible by those with better reading skills, but to me the first Bible I read(allmost from cover to cover) when I was a kid was the Good News Edition and its still one of my favourites, especially for “seeking an alternate easier to understand translation”(Now of cause I have the Catholic Edition with the extra books).
Q
QuickCat
Guest
2Th 2:15 Therefore αρα ουν, brethren αδελφος, stand fast στηκω, and και hold κρατεω the traditions παραδοσις which ος ye have been taught διδασκω, whether ειτε by δια word λογος, or ειτε δια our ημον epistle επιστολη. (KJVSL)
See Greek 3860
Strong’s Greek Dictionary
3862. παραδοσις paradosis
Search for G3862 in KJVSL
παραδοσις paradosis par-ad’-os-is
from 3860; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law:—ordinance, tradition.
The Thessalonian epistles were the first of Paul’s writings. He also used the word paradosis [traditions] in Gal. 1:14 where he speaks of the Jewish traditions. Paul wrote 11 or 12 [if he wrote Hebrews and I believe he did] and he doesn’t mention “traditions” in his latter writings… From his use of the word I would think he is talking about the Jewish traditions.
Grace and Peace,
QC
Q
QuickCat
Guest
2Th 2:15 Therefore αρα ουν, brethren αδελφος, stand fast στηκω, and και hold κρατεω the traditions παραδοσις which ος ye have been taught διδασκω, whether ειτε by δια word λογος, or ειτε δια our ημον epistle επιστολη. (KJVSL)
See Greek 3860
Strong’s Greek Dictionary
3862. παραδοσις paradosis
Search for G3862 in KJVSL
παραδοσις paradosis par-ad’-os-is
from 3860; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law:—ordinance, tradition.
The Thessalonian epistles were the first of Paul’s writings. He also used the word paradosis [traditions] in Gal. 1:14 where he speaks of the Jewish traditions. Paul wrote 11 or 12 [if he wrote Hebrews and I believe he did] and he doesn’t mention “traditions” in his latter writings… From his use of the word I would think he is talking about the Jewish traditions.
Grace and Peace,
QC
- Status