NIV Translations Issues

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

Truarchs

Guest
Can anyone succinctly list the issues with the NIV translation for Catholics? I know I have read about it before but now I cannot find the articles. I recall there being issues with the translation of the word “tradition” among things.
 
Can anyone succinctly list the issues with the NIV translation for Catholics? I know I have read about it before but now I cannot find the articles. I recall there being issues with the translation of the word “tradition” among things.
I have NIV (and many other translations) and like it - its very readable. The biggest issue, from a Catholic perspective, is that it omits the deuterocanical books (only has 66 books).

Blessings,

Brian
 
Can anyone succinctly list the issues with the NIV translation for Catholics? I know I have read about it before but now I cannot find the articles. I recall there being issues with the translation of the word “tradition” among things.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
(NIV)
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
(RSVCE) “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

1 Timothy 3:1
(NIV)
“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.”
(RSVCE) “The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.”

Luke 1:28
(NIV)
“The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.””
(RSVCE) " And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

Of course, even Catholic bibles mess up Luke 1:28 🤷

The NIV also lacks the Deuterocanon…

However the NIV Psalms are approved for Catholic use
 
"Roman Catholic critics have pointed out that the NIV seems to show a Protestant bias in its treatment of the Greek word paradosis “tradition.” The word is literally translated “tradition” in places where traditions are being criticized (e.g. Matthew 15:3, Colossians 2:8), but it is translated with “teachings” where traditions are being recommended (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). In this, there seems to be an avoidance of giving any positive connotation to the word “tradition.” "
bible-researcher.com/niv.html

Roman Catholics should not be using a Protestant version of the Bible as their main Bible for study or devotion. All the Protestant scholars who worked on such a translation are in a state of material heresy. How is it that there is even a discussion about using the translation of a group of heretics? If a group of Catholics committed heresy and schism, breaking from the Church, next made a translation of the Bible, would you consider using it?

There are plenty of good translations made by Catholic scholars.
 
"Roman Catholic critics have pointed out that the NIV seems to show a Protestant bias in its treatment of the Greek word paradosis “tradition.” The word is literally translated “tradition” in places where traditions are being criticized (e.g. Matthew 15:3, Colossians 2:8), but it is translated with “teachings” where traditions are being recommended (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). In this, there seems to be an avoidance of giving any positive connotation to the word “tradition.” "
bible-researcher.com/niv.html

Roman Catholics should not be using a Protestant version of the Bible as their main Bible for study or devotion. All the Protestant scholars who worked on such a translation are in a state of material heresy. How is it that there is even a discussion about using the translation of a group of heretics? If a group of Catholics committed heresy and schism, breaking from the Church, next made a translation of the Bible, would you consider using it?

There are plenty of good translations made by Catholic scholars.
I second that.
 
How is it that there is even a discussion about using the translation of a group of heretics?
I third that!
Let me explain…my sister is a fallen away Catholic some 30 years ago. She was a victim of bible protestants while she was in college. She’s an awesome person with a great love for God and deep knowledge of scripture. She has reached out to do some scripture sharing with me and my brother who are both strong in our faith. (my brother is a full time Catholic Youth Minister) It’s a great opportunity for dialogue with our sister and our hope that she will some day return to the Church.

She suggested using the NIV or NJ translation. I have a few copies of NIV translations (I have an extensive library of translations) but I don’t use them because I know there are issues with the translations. I just needed a refresher on the specific issues with the NIV which I have forgotten. Once I explain these to her she’ll have no problem using any translation we suggest. I will likely suggest we use multiple translations but center on the RSV-CE. She wants to start with Ephesians 5, good with me, I can’t wait 'til we get to John 6 😉

Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut! 👍
 
Well count me among the heretic readers then. I often have discussions with people of other faiths and it helps to have their versions of Scripture on hand so that you can see where the differences are. You cannot do that with only a Catholic version in hand.

I think there is a distinction between owning one and reading it and believing it as translated. You can also find heretical things in footnotes of Catholic Bibles. An example is the NAB footnote for Matthew 16:21-23. The footnote contains this:
Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God
So Jesus didn’t really say this stuff, all the gospel writers just made it up. Jesus couldn’t really predict His own suffering and death, He only knew something bad might happen, but hopefully not.

I’m pretty confident that Catholic Church teaching is that Jesus DID say these things and DID know exactly what was going to happen to Him, including why and how.

The key to using any Bible for a Catholic is to always bounce what you think the verse says against the rest of Scripture AND Catholic Teaching and Tradition. If it doesn’t fit, like the NAB footnote above, that pretty much narrows down where the error lies.
 
"Roman Catholic critics have pointed out that the NIV seems to show a Protestant bias in its treatment of the Greek word paradosis “tradition.” The word is literally translated “tradition” in places where traditions are being criticized (e.g. Matthew 15:3, Colossians 2:8), but it is translated with “teachings” where traditions are being recommended (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). In this, there seems to be an avoidance of giving any positive connotation to the word “tradition.” "
bible-researcher.com/niv.html

Roman Catholics should not be using a Protestant version of the Bible as their main Bible for study or devotion. All the Protestant scholars who worked on such a translation are in a state of material heresy. How is it that there is even a discussion about using the translation of a group of heretics? If a group of Catholics committed heresy and schism, breaking from the Church, next made a translation of the Bible, would you consider using it?

There are plenty of good translations made by Catholic scholars.
The code of canon law in the 1910’s (maybe 1917 or 1918) approved the reading of “non-Catholic translations” of the Bible, as long as they were non-polemical in terms of translation or associated comments. So says one of the essays in the 1991 or 1992 New Jerome Biblical Commentary. The NIV is one of those listed as being generally suitable as well as the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation of the Old Testament.

This is not to say that it is the best version for Catholics to use,by any stretch. But, I used the NIV Study Bible for a couple of years. It is a paraphrased translation of scripture, in the pursuit of a modern, understandable text. It is wonderful to read, and the Study Bible (rather expensive, even 20 years ago or so when I bought it) is nicely illustrated, annotated, and cross-referenced. My copy was also a large print version, which doesn’t hurt anything, either. It is much more friendly than the sparsely annotated RSV-CE(2).

The latter has a helpful comment once in a while which is usually very timely.

My relatives gave me a copy of the Ryrie Study Bible, which is the American Standard Version (an update of the KJV). It is an example of a Bible with anti-Catholic comments. Nonetheless, it does provide some interesting comments just when I need them.

For example, in discussing Is 7:14 about the “virgin shall conceive and bear a son” it notes that “virgin” is the appropriate word, rather than the lukewarm “maiden” – it says that the same Hebrew word is used there that is almost always translated “virgin” in other contexts. There is a debate over that verse, and it is refreshing to find a Protestant version that comes down in favor of the Catholic translation – for accuracy, not necessarily for denominational reasons.

Relax.

If you’re looking for that ultimate translation, the one currently in vogue is the RSV-CE(2). It is a nice version, but, as I said, it doesn’t have many comments in it.

Bible study should be a lifelong pursuit, like a continuing banquet. Set aside a budget for this important activity and do a lot of shopping around. Spend your money in a miserly fashion. I’ve hit on the Baker Academic series of Catholic scripture commentaries, and the two volumes I’ve seen are very good for the non-academic layperson (like me).

I would distinguish those commentaries as suitable for individual study. I’ve not found a suitable Catholic commentary for group study.

I think Dr. Mary Healy’s “The Gospel of Mark” in the Baker series gets you really up close to Jesus Christ.
 
Well count me among the heretic readers then. I often have discussions with people of other faiths and it helps to have their versions of Scripture on hand so that you can see where the differences are. You cannot do that with only a Catholic version in hand.
There’s nothing wrong with a Catholic using a Protestant translation for a particular purpose, such as apologetics with persons of other faiths. And I occasionally refer to Protestant versions for various reasons.

What I am saying is that a Catholic’s main Bible should be a Catholic version.
 
Can anyone succinctly list the issues with the NIV translation for Catholics? I know I have read about it before but now I cannot find the articles. I recall there being issues with the translation of the word “tradition” among things.
PROBLEMS WITH THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

Hiding the condemnation of personal interpretation

2 Peter 1:20


“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by **the prophet’s **own interpretation. (NIV adds “the prophet’s”)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (New American Standard)

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (New American Bible)

One passage that is never cited as a proof text for sola scriptura is 2 Peter 1:20-21. That’s hardly surprising. In this passage, Peter rejects the idea of private or individual interpretation: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Then Peter warns: “But false prophets also arose among the [Jewish] people, just as there will be false teacher among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) Note that under divine inspiration, Peter connects individual interpretation with heresies!

The Greek word that is translated as “heresies” comes from the verb haireomai, which means “to take or to choose for one’s self.” In the first century, it had the negative meaning of going off on one’s own in rebellion to the established teaching. Thus, in Acts 24:14, some translations render it as “sect”.

The statement in 2 Peter 1:20 is so strong in its opposition to the idea of sola scriptura that one Protestant translation attempts to subvert its meaning by inserting words that are not in the original. Thus, it appears that the New International Version (NIV) intentionally mistranslates “one’s own interpretation” with “by the prophet’s own interpretation.” However, tou prophetou is not found in the Greek text.

Avoiding Positive References to “Tradition”

Here are a few Greek words and their English equivalents:

paradosis - tradition
didaskalia - teaching
didachi i - teaching doctrine


In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “tradition”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a negative light.

Matthew 15:1-5
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the **tradition paradosis] **of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis]? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition paradosis].”

Mark 7:1-13
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition paradosis] of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition paradosis] of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions paradosis] of men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions paradosis]! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition paradosis] that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Galatians 1:14
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the tradition paradosis] of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition paradosis] and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

In the following verses, the Greek word, paradosis, is translated in the NIV as “teaching”; note that in each of these instances, paradosis is viewed in a positive light.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teaching paradosis], just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings paradosis] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching paradosis] you received from us.

(cont.)
 
Doesn’t it seem curious that the NIV renders the word *“paradosis” *correctly as “tradition” in the ten places where the “tradition” of the Pharisees was condemned but incorrectly translates it as “teaching” in the three places where the “tradition” of the Apostles was extolled?

This is especially puzzling since the correct Greek word for “teaching doctrine” is “didachi i” while the word for “teaching” is “didaskalia i”? To put it plainly, if the New Testament authors had wanted to say “teaching”, they would have written “didachi i” or possibly “didaskalia i”. However, each of the scriptures listed above actually contain the word, *“paradosis”. *The NIV translators had to go out of their way to render this word incorrectly in three separate verses! Why would they do that?

Could it be that the anti-Catholic bias of the translators and publishers of the NIV could not allow them to render the word “paradosis” properly as “tradition” wherever it was portrayed positively because this translation would weaken the arguments of those who get a lot of mileage out of falsely claiming that Catholicism contains little but worthless “traditions of men”?

I understand that Protestant Bibles are incomplete (since they are missing seven canonical books), but it appears that at least one of the major Protestant translations is biased, as well!

In Persona Christi

The Douay-Rheims and King James Versions provide powerful backing for the Catholic doctrine of confession to a priest.

The passage is found in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and hinges upon the translation of the Greek word, prosopon. Here is the passage as seen in context in three major translations.

Douay-Rheims
“For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

King James Version
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

New International Version
The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake

While the first two translations each contain the words “in the person of Christ” or in persona Christi, the modern Protestant translation carefully avoids this phrase. Why is this important?

In persona Christi is a Latin phrase which translates literally as “in the person of Christ.” This is an important theological concept of the Catholic Church referring to the action of a priest while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ, or it could be said, the Person of Christ is acting in the performance of the gesture and the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite.

In particular, there are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi. “This is my body.” in the Eucharistic prayer and “I absolve you of your sins” in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are chief examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi

Is this another example of the anti-Catholic bias of the NIV? Or has the NIV, like the NAB and RSV-CE, captured the phrase more accurately?

Works “Missing” in James 2

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:14-18 NIV)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. (James 2:14-18 Douay-Rheims)
 
I have NIV (and many other translations) and like it - its very readable. The biggest issue, from a Catholic perspective, is that it omits the deuterocanical books (only has 66 books).
No, that is not the biggest issue. I personally have a huge problem with the NIV because it is merely a paraphrase of the original texts. It is not a “word for word” translation of the original text but instead it is a paraphrase translation; and it is a biased paraphrased translation at that.

I do have a problem that they do not have the 7 Deutero-Canonical books; but that is to be expected because it is a protestant version bible. From many of the protestant versions of the bible out there, the NIV is one of the worst.

I do not have a problem using a protestant bible to converse or debate with protestants. I have a protestant bible on my shelf right now. I can tell you that it is NOT the NIV. One of the best protestant versions of the bible out there, in my opnion and of the ones that I’ve read, is the English Standard Version or ESV. As a matter of fact, I really like their online search engine. I can find bible verses that I need in an instant. It’s the best bible search engine out there. I like it better than Bible Gateway’s search engine. Once I find the verse I need, then I go to any Catholic online bible or to my own Catholic bible to read verses before & after to get the full context of the verse in question.

If you like a “readable” protestant version of the bible I highly recommend the ESV bible.
 
Of course, even Catholic bibles mess up Luke 1:28 🤷
That’s right. One of those is the NAB. I do not like the NAB version. I prefer the 2nd Catholic Edition of the RSV a whole lot better.

28 And he came to her and said,
“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Luke 1:28 ESV

Although I do not like the ESV translation of that verse I do like that they added a note saying that some manuscripts add “Blessed are you among women!” ESV is honest about that. :yup:

28 And coming to her, he said,
“Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” - - :nope:
Luke 1:28 NAB

The NAB doesn’t even have a footnote like the ESV has. 🤷 Why not?

That is why 2 (3) of my favorite bible versions is the RSV-CE &/or RSV-2CE, not to mention the DR-V!

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her:
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: - - - - - :yup:
blessed art thou among women.
Luke 1:28 DR-V

28 And he came to her and said,
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” - - - - :yup:
Luke 1:28 RSV-CE
 
In Persona Christi

The Douay-Rheims and King James Versions provide powerful backing for the Catholic doctrine of confession to a priest.

The passage is found in 2 Corinthians 2:10 and hinges upon the translation of the Greek word, prosopon. Here is the passage as seen in context in three major translations.

Douay-Rheims
“For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

King James Version
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

New International Version
The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake

While the first two translations each contain the words “in the person of Christ” or in persona Christi, the modern Protestant translation carefully avoids this phrase. Why is this important?

In persona Christi is a Latin phrase which translates literally as “in the person of Christ.” This is an important theological concept of the Catholic Church referring to the action of a priest while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ, or it could be said, the Person of Christ is acting in the performance of the gesture and the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite.

In particular, there are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi. “This is my body.” in the Eucharistic prayer and “I absolve you of your sins” in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are chief examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi

Is this another example of the anti-Catholic bias of the NIV? Or has the NIV, like the NAB and RSV-CE, captured the phrase more accurately?
This is another reason why I like the DR-V instead of the NAB. This is the core of the sacrament of Confession and also the Mass. When the Priest is up on the altar, Jesus is up there!
Works “Missing” in James 2

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. (James 2:14-18 NIV)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. (James 2:14-18 Douay-Rheims)
It’s frustrating to me knowing that my sister who left the Church years ago has this version of the bible. If I were to ever converse with her about the faith, I would not be able to tell her anything because she’ll have her corrupted version of the bible.
 
There’s nothing wrong with a Catholic using a Protestant translation for a particular purpose, such as apologetics with persons of other faiths. And I occasionally refer to Protestant versions for various reasons.

What I am saying is that a Catholic’s main Bible should be a Catholic version.
Ron, that’s got to wear you out having to always clarify yourself over and again when people are either not reading your explanations completely or they are simply misunderstanding you. I feel your pain!
 
This is another reason why I like the DR-V instead of the NAB. This is the core of the sacrament of Confession and also the Mass. When the Priest is up on the altar, Jesus is up there!

It’s frustrating to me knowing that my sister who left the Church years ago has this version of the bible. If I were to ever converse with her about the faith, I would not be able to tell her anything because she’ll have her corrupted version of the bible.
Ya- I see what you’re saying. When I talk to a lot of my protestant friends they use NIV- so no wonder sometimes why its hard to get my point across!
Maybe you should try and buy her a bible we use, so that she can reference both bibles when you are talking? But maybe show her research on when the versions came out, and who translated them. This is what we did in my bible study class.
 
I keep a few Catholic translations, as well as a few Protestant translations, and I have the Greek translation too. That way it kind of gets rid of the “translation issue” whn I speak with Protestants. For my own study though, I would never use a Protestant translation. They have shorter portions of Daniel and Esther (possibly the Psalms if memory serves me right, or maybe they are just divided differently), and they are missing the deuterocanonical books. The NIV bias is apparent, for instance, in nearly every single passage in the gospels that can possibly be used to support uniquely Catholic doctrine.
 
There’s nothing wrong with a Catholic using a Protestant translation for a particular purpose, such as apologetics with persons of other faiths. And I occasionally refer to Protestant versions for various reasons.

What I am saying is that a Catholic’s main Bible should be a Catholic version.
You’re absolutely correct there! One of the problems in certain Catholic Bibles out there now is that they have rather questionable and one-sided footnotes or prefaces (perhaps you already know what I am talking about). Good thing there’s the Church Fathers and Fr. Haydock, however. The learner in me now wishes that there is a literal Catholic translation of the Bible (think something like Young’s Literal Version). 😃

Other posters already gave thorough criticisms on the faults of the NIV, from a Catholic perspective, so I won’t repeat what they just said. Still, the NIV’s thorough avoidance of using “tradition” in a positive context did bug me, as if using tradition positively will cause the Earth to explode. What’s next, use “hand-overs” or “hand-me-downs” for paradosis? The English Standard, the Holman Christian Standard, the New American Standard, the New King James (these are the only ones I could name right now) are at least honest in this regard, rendering paradosis in a non-discriminatory way.

Still, it’s not just the NIV that’s affected by traditiophobia. The New Living Translation: is, too:

(Matt. 15:1-2) Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.

(2 Thessalonians 2:15) With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter.

Still, the NLT is commended for the one passage which seems to have slipped clear:

(2 Thessalonians 3:6) And now, dear brothers and sisters, we give you this command in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Stay away from all believers who live idle lives and don’t follow the tradition they receive from us.

At least, the Contemporary English Version is more consistent, rendering paradosis as just “teaching” (or in 2 Thess. 3:6, “instructions”) in these passages - even if the word choice is a bit off, if we go to the Greek word’s literal meaning. The Bible in Worldwide English tries to play it safe, rendering the word in Matthew as “laws” and just “the things we taught you” or “the way we taught you” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6.
 
"Roman Catholic critics have pointed out that the NIV seems to show a Protestant bias in its treatment of the Greek word paradosis “tradition.” The word is literally translated “tradition” in places where traditions are being criticized (e.g. Matthew 15:3, Colossians 2:8), but it is translated with “teachings” where traditions are being recommended (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). In this, there seems to be an avoidance of giving any positive connotation to the word “tradition.” "
bible-researcher.com/niv.html

Roman Catholics should not be using a Protestant version of the Bible as their main Bible for study or devotion. All the Protestant scholars who worked on such a translation are in a state of material heresy. How is it that there is even a discussion about using the translation of a group of heretics? If a group of Catholics committed heresy and schism, breaking from the Church, next made a translation of the Bible, would you consider using it?

There are plenty of good translations made by Catholic scholars.
Yes. Such as the Douay Rheims translation. I love it. even the King James version seems like a watered
down translation compared to this. also St. Jerome was able to use manuscripts that modern day scholars do not have access to. since it is based of the oldest writings, it seems like it would be the most reliable, compared with the modern transltions we have today.
 
2 Thessalonians 2:15
(NIV)
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
(RSVCE) “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

1 Timothy 3:1
(NIV)
“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.”
(RSVCE) “The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.”

Luke 1:28
(NIV)
“The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.””
(RSVCE) " And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

Of course, even Catholic bibles mess up Luke 1:28 🤷

The NIV also lacks the Deuterocanon…

However the NIV Psalms are approved for Catholic use
You might like the the NWT on that verse 🙂
NWT 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So, then, brothers, stand firm and maintain YOUR hold on the **traditions **that YOU were taught, whether it was through a verbal message or through a letter of ours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top