Non-Catholic Bibles

[johntkd]

NotWorthy:

Our priest, an ex-Episcopal priest, comments that often the KJV provides the most accurate translations. He likes to have one handy while reading his Catholic Bible.

Notworthy

Ok i will throw a wrench into this as well,
Last night I talked with our Priest over an issue that came up in a bible verse, between us we compared 11 bibles i had 4 he had the rest, some were New american version, but one was about 12 yrs old mine is new, anyways looking at Mathew 19-9 there are at least 4 different translations, The 2 new Catholic bibles i have eliminated about 15 to 20 words of the passage.
and older version of the one i have had some of the translation but changed the wording, the king James versions i have looked through all have the exact same verse, as well the Orthodox church also uses the same exact verse as the KJ version.

we did find that if you read footnotes that helps clarify the different words used, but i found it a little frightening for our “Catholic” bible to have eliminated so many words,and added “unless unlawful”
to me it changed the whole meaning…

Basically most older bibles and the KJ bible allow for a divorce when one of the spouses has “fornicated” new “Catholic” bibles do not allow for that clause anymore. the older ones did.whats up with this?

I have my own assumption as to the whys.
bt maybe someone knows why.
John

 

[Steadfast]

Matt 5:32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

That’s the Douai Rheims version. The KJV is substantially the same.

Interestingly, the NAB reads:

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Greek reads:

᾿Εγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὅς ἄν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται.

πορνείας is the operative word, it’s porneias from which we get the word pornography and it refers to prostitution and by extension any manner of illicit sexuality. The word “fornication” is an almost direct Latin cognate since the word “fornix” is “prostitute” in that language.

It does look like the translators of the NAB are trying to pull a fast one choosing a far less specific translation than the text actually demands leading one to an entirely different or at least far less specific conclusion than anyone reading the Greek would come to.

The older translations seem to have a better sense of the original language.

 

[johntkd]

Steadfast:

It does look like the translators of the NAB are trying to pull a fast one choosing a far less specific translation than the text actually demands leading one to an entirely different or at least far less specific conclusion than anyone reading the Greek would come to.

The older translations seem to have a better sense of the original language.

ahhh I double checked and see 5-32 is the same as 19-9.
and they changed the words in both in the NAB, but thanks for the clarification as well…
John

 

[Rebecca_New]

Steadfast:

I hate to break this to you, but Protestants aren’t “non-christians”.

That is the first time I have heard it that way-usually I am saying Catholics are christians-not non-christians!!!

 

[freedomm]

Two questions:

What are the differences between the Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles?

What is the most significant difference between the Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles?

 

[JoeyWarren]

freedomm:

Two questions:

What are the differences between the Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles?

What is the most significant difference between the Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles?

The most significance difference is that the non-catholic bibles have some books missing.

As to the first question. It depends.

Some fundamentalists say:

“If it ain’t the KJV with those demonic Apocrypha books removed, it ain’t the bible”

Other than that, the differences outside of the issue of the Apocrypha books, it’s none.

Basic bibles come in two types:

1. Context Translation
2. Literal Translation

The Literal Translation or more commonly called the “Transliteral” is a word for word translation.

The Context Translation version is one that was translated by Context. The problem with this is that the Context is the Interpretation of the Translator and/or Translators and may or may not have a slant/bias with it based on personal doctrinal theology.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

QUOTE=Micael]Good(original) question!

First of all, the Septuagint, though written by Jews was actually written in Greek as it the official language of the time, about 250 BC, when they documented the first 5 books of the Old Testament. See From students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/ . During the years until the birth of Christ there would be more books added to the Septuagint. These books of the OT are substantiated with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 that are believed to be written somewhere between 60-100 BC. There you find a Septuagint of that time with the additional noncanonical books(the entire inspired-OT and NT- canon would not become official until the late 4th century). Therefore we begin to catch a glimpse of the Apostolic Old Testament the Scriptures used by the Apostles and Christ… they were all from the Septuagint. Here we begin to understand why the Catholic Canon is a more genuine and complete Old Testament-Jewish or Hebrew Canon as Hanukkah is not found in the modern Hebrew Scriptures, but IS found in the books of Maccabees of the Catholic Bible.

Hence we get to the present Hebrew Canon(equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament canon)and the elimination of 7 books of the Catholic Canon. (review the history of the bible from this Protestant site: literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html )

Here, dates are of utmost importance. As Christians we understand that Jesus established his Church in the year 33 AD through Peter and the Apostles, making promises to His Church and giving it the authority to bind and loosen on earth (Mt 16:16-19, Mt 18:17, John 14:16-18). Paul reiterates this when he tells us it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.(1 Tim 3:15) With that in mind, Christians should understand that any Post-Christ, Hebrew canon devised in ** 90-128 AD** by Christ rejecting Pharisees with the sole purpose of distracting Jew from the reality that Jesus was the Mesiah simply had no authority to remove books from scripture.

In 1534, Matin Luther decides to remove 7 books from the bible by accepting the Hebrew Canon as Canonical Christian OT Scripture(He also wanted to remove several other books including James and Revelation- as they were too Catholic- ). Interestingly the Protestant author of the above link admits this was Luther’s making: " In translating the Old Testament, Luther excluded the Apocrypha from the canon." Thus, we have Martin Luther changing Christian biblical canon after the Church had already exercised its authority to give provide us the complete Bible in the years 393 and 397 AD(Catholic Synods of Hippo and Carthage) , over 1100 years before Luther. Accepting a self authorizing canon, orchestrated originally by Christ rejecting Jew at least 57 years AFTER Christ had established His Church. Unfortunately, most Protestants and Catholics are not aware of this historical travesty.

Regarding the King James Version I believe it was translated by scholars from the original languages I believe. Additionally , the original KJV, though written in Protestant Bible format still included the Apocrypha- including all the 7 Catholic Deutercanonical books plus other truly Apocryphal books. Yet , modern KJV bibles have completely excluded all these books.

another important link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint , under the heading “Christian Use"

Excellent post. And, another interesting tidbit here. The primary reason that the Jewish council at Jamnia (90ad) removed the 7 deuterocanonical books (known to Protestants as apocrypha) was that they only had copies of those books written in the Septuegint.Since they didn’t have the Hebrew texts they couldn’t validate those books as being God-inspired. Martin Luther was able to make the excuse that if the Jews didn’t accept those books then the Protestants didn’t have to either. What is interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments of some of those excluded books written in the original Hebrew. Kinda blows the reasoning for excluding those books right out the window.

 

[lak611]

No, the KJV was translated from the original languages.

Read “God’s Secretaries” by Adam Nicolson.

I read Nicolson’s book, and it was quite good. I also recommend In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture by Alister McGrath. Here’s a link. amazon.com/Beginning-Changed-Nation-Language-Culture/dp/0385722168/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4216220-8507331?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174691651&sr=1-1

 

[Publisher]

Two questions:

What are the differences between the Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles?

The Catholic Bible will most likely use the word “priest” as in the JB in the NT instead of “elder” or “presbyter”. I know there are a few more minor NT differences but I don’t remember what they are.

What is the most significant difference between the Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles?

**The Old Testament has more books in the Catholic/Orthodox Bibles than in the Protestant Bible.

I use the New Oxford Study Bible with the Dueterocanical Books…NRSV…I like it better than any other version…it was marketed as the “Common Bible” in the 70’s…one of Jack Chick’s tracts have a worker of Satan trying to push the “Common Bible”…so as far as I’m concerned…that’s a high recomendation for it’s use…if Jack Chick doesn’t like it…it must be good. **

 

[lak611]

**
I use the New Oxford Study Bible with the Dueterocanical Books…NRSV…I like it better than any other version…it was marketed as the “Common Bible” in the 70’s…one of Jack Chick’s tracts have a worker of Satan trying to push the “Common Bible”…so as far as I’m concerned…that’s a high recomendation for it’s use…if Jack Chick doesn’t like it…it must be good. **

I have that one too. I like it.

 

[Valke2]

I hate to break this to you, but Protestants aren’t “non-christians”.

I was wondering when someone would bring that up

 

[O.S.Luke]

At the time, the KJV wasn’t a bad translation. The main problem with it today, in my opinion, is that English-speaking people don’t use the King’s English anymore: it taxeth the brain.

 

[lak611]

At the time, the KJV wasn’t a bad translation. The main problem with it today, in my opinion, is that English-speaking people don’t use the King’s English anymore: it taxeth the brain.

Also, the newer translations use the Majority Text, not the Received Text which was used for the KJV. There are a few changes in the Majority Text, not enough to render the KJV completely erroneous; but the Majority Text is older and more accurate.