NIV Anti-Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bauerice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Colliric wrote: They i.e.* Bible paraphrases*] shoudn’t be used as … 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.)​


Well, if one truly kept in mind that the N.I.V. and the “Good News” Bible are aids to reading the genuine translations of the Bible, I suppose that one could make a stand for them as having this limited use. However, most sectaries and Protestants who use the N.I.V. really indeed do treat unwisely the N.I.V. as being on the same level as the N.K.J.V. or the E.S.V. None of the paraphrases ever should be one`s principal Bible. I do look at paraphrases such as the Jerusalem (and New Jerusalem) Bible, Catholic ones, even, once in a blue moon, the N.I.V., the sectarian paraphrase, but it is real translattions that for me are authoritative, in my case the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and Authorised “King James” Bibles (the latter with its Apocrypha included), though I use the N.K.J.V. and the E.S.V., also real translations, frequently, too.
 
In my opinion, yes, it is anti-Catholic, but it is very subtle. As a revert from Protestantism, I see certain “leanings” that play on the bias of the Protestant shaped mind that, for them, lead to very narrow interpretations. For example:

1 John 2:12

NIV “I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.”

RSV " I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake."

The difference is “have been forgiven” versus “are forgiven”. The NIV’s “have been forgiven” caters to the protestant understanding of salvation that can’t be lost or that already is. In other words, a Protestant leaning mind interprets “have been forgiven” as being “a done deal”, in the past, leaving out the possibility of future need of forgiveness or an on going forgiveness. But that does not fit with the whole context of the message of 1 John. A Catholic mind may read “have been forgiven” still understanding a future need of forgiveness/on going forgiveness… OR she may not depending on how catechized she is. So there in lies the danger for a Catholic from this version.
As a revert, of course this really sticks out to me as bias in the text.

Now the RSV version is open to a broader and truer interpretation: “are forgiven” can be applied to the past, present, and future, which is in line with Catholic teaching and the fuller message of 1 John.
 
“The N.I.V. is not so much anti-Catholic as it is anti-Bible.”

I like that.
 
As an earlier writer expressed, every translation is governed by the bias of the person who
pays and commissions the translator.

The NAB is no different. It suffers from translation bias too! The NRSV Study Bible is
one the most scholarly presentations that note translation variants.

We have inherited the effect of the King of Englands desire to have his Bible justify the raping of the environment when it translates Gen 1:28 as to have “dominion”. Sadly, the
NAB does not correct this poor translation. The Hebrew Bible uses the word “rule” and makes the connection to the earlier “image and likeness of God” So humans are to rule
in the image and likeness of God, to be God’s stewards of nature, not the exploiters of
nature. The Jewish Study Bible makes the like to Leviticus 25 where God tells man that
he is a tenant in the world, not the owner of the worrld. If the King allowed such a trans-
lation, how could he justify his exploiutation of natural resources that contributed to his
own wealth?

The same is true of the use of the word “slave”. It is not in the KJV. The King could not
have Jeremiah speaking against the slave trade that was making the monarchy wealthy.

Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV, must be highly regarded. It’s rNIV has inclusive language that the NAB has not yet attempted. I expect the Curia will not want such
inclusive language, even though the US Lectionary has such language, because it
would be a reconition of the equality of women. Such a position could bring about women’s ordination prematurely!

Also Zondervan produces many “devotional” Bibles. Included is a “Recovery” Bible. Maybe we don’t have and NAB version becasue all of the Catholic alcoholics and substance abusers are still in denial and have not progressed to recovery!

The NIV Zondervan questions actually present a bigger question. Why can’t we focus on
the Word and not the divisions created by men to protect their revenue? If the Law of
the Gospel is love, Catechsim paragraph 1970, shouldn’t we be acting in love? Love
is inclusive not exclusive. Any act of exclusion is unloving and therefoire contradicts
the Law ofd the Gospel, Jn 13:34 and 15:12.

Lets spend our time being thankful for the great pastoral work that is being done using the various NIV or rNIV devotional Bibles. This is the real work of the Gospel, not worrying
about collection basket politics. The collection basket politicers are the modern day Ceasers. They will be given their reward here. God will reward those who render to Him or Her.
 
gerry_clark said:
** Any** act of exclusion is unloving and therefoire contradicts
the Law ofd the Gospel, Jn 13:34 and 15:12…
Click to expand...
Just have to say I heartly disagree with this statement. Gerry do you have any kids? As a parent, I exclude my kids from LOTS of things that would be harmful for them and it IS an act of love. I don’t think you’ve thought much about what your saying, it seems more like an emotional plea.
As Catholics we have closed communion. Why? because it would be unloving to let someone eat and drink of the Blessed Sacrament without knowledge of what it is exactly they are receiving, “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” This exclusion is an act of love, and necessary. I don’t think you really understand the scripture verses that you quoted from John, They’re not about inclusion or exclusion but about sacrifice.
 
Yes, I do have kids and grand kids.

Your reference to “closed” Communion is a poor one.

Jesus never denied anyone who came to him in humility. How humble are you when you
receive Communion?

Our tradition begins with the Hebrew heritage. On Rosh Ha Shannah an eight day period begins when all differences with other humans must be resolved, or a best effort extended
to reach a resolution. Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, you cannot come to God if you
have not made peace with your fellow man.

The first document of our Christian tradition is the Didache. It command us to be at peace
with our fellow man or do not come to worship!

Before you go to Mass again, follow the commands of the Didache, get ride of the your pride, hate and smugness. Come to Communion properly in humility.
 
I’m confused Gerry are you advocating exclusion or inclusion?
You seem to make my point for me:

Your wrote in your first post:

"Any act of exclusion is unloving and therefoire contradicts
the Law ofd the Gospel, "
I disagreed with that statement say not all acts of exclusion are against love. As a parent I do it all the time.

Then you wrote in your second post:

“Jesus never denied anyone who came to him in humility”
–Exactly, he did deny those who approached him wrongly (see Pharisee)

Speaking on church tradition, your wrote:
" you cannot come to God if you
have not made peace with your fellow man."
–sounds like a** tradition** of exclusion, not unlike closed Communion

on the Didache you pointed out:
" It command us to be at peace
with our fellow man or do not come to worship!
–Again the** command **of exclusion

You’ve just made my point exactly! I’m sure the writer of the Didache made those commands of EXCLUSION as a matter of love, knowing it is impossible and dangerous to commune with God while in mortal sin.

Again, I’m not sure you really meant what you said in your first post: ** ALL** acts of exclusion are against the law of love. Especially now that you’ve given all of these examples to the contrary.
 
No,

The Didache and the Yom Kippur tradition are both against the exclusion caused by
alienation.

We must be reconciled and in community, if not possible physically, then in our hearts and in our sincere intentions, We must include everyone.

So at the time of our Greating of Peace, we should seek to greet those with whom we have a disagreement rather than our friends to prepare ourselves for Communion. We
are then in communion with everyone, we are then part of the Mystical Body of Christ
(Christians) and the Communion of Saints( all who do God’s will, regardless of how
God has revealed Himself or Herself to them).
 
OK. So you are agreeing that not all acts of exclusion are against the law of the gospel as you first stated. 👍

Second are you sure you’re Catholic? :confused: What you’ve said about membership in the mystical body of Christ and the communion of saints isn’t orthodox teaching at all.
The Eucharist is the means by which we participate in the communion of saints, not by "greet[ing] those with whom we have a disagreement " during the peace.

CCC 1325 “The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.”
 
Yes,

All acts of exclusion are against the Law of the Gospel, because by their very nature they
are unloving.

Yes I am Catholic but more importantly catholic and Christian. I pray for the reconcilation
of the Magisterium to God and Christ.

The Mystical Body of Christ transcends the artificial man made bounderies of the Catholic
Church. The Communion of Saints transcends Christianity and is composed not only of
Christians but also Muslims, Hindus Buddists and people of indigenous religions and those of no religion who strive to do God’s will according to how God has revealed himself to them.
 
OK, so you’re in schism with the Church. Don’t you know that the essence of “being” Catholic is submission to the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals? It’s not to late to recant and be reconciled.
 
gerry_clark said:
Yes,

All acts of exclusion are against the Law of the Gospel, because by their very nature they
are unloving.

.
Click to expand...
Did you even read anything that you or I posted since your first post or are you just playing games? As a parent, I would exclude my newborn from eating table food. Is that considered unloving?!? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top