So, what translation errors do you see in protestant bibles?

[Big_Dummy]

clearly since in the past protestant bibles were forbidden fruit, you must think there are errors in them right?

 

[ProVobis]

Isn’t it the other way around? The Bibles became “Protestant” because they contained “errors” or contained serious deviations from the originals in them?

 

[melchesidechpio]

clearly since in the past protestant bibles were forbidden fruit, you must think there are errors in them right?

Luke 1:28 It must say “hail full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you amongst women”

The KJV used favored. Even the newer Catholic Bibles don’t include full of grace. The RSV-CE does, but doesn’t include “blessed are thou amongst women” in Luke 1:28. Yes I am one of those that uses the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate. I find them most accurate.

 

[MarcoPolo]

One example was Martin Luther adding the word “alone” after the word faith in Romans 3:28 even though no word for alone existed in the original Greek. He defended that by asserting that’s what the verse meant, but could not recognize that it was his interpretation.

Bias even today can be seen in the Protestant NIV Bible, which in general is fairly easy to follow and not bad. But an example is in their translation of the word tradition. When it is used in a negative way, such as Col. 2:8, the NIV translates it “tradition.” When it is used in a positive way, such as 2 Thes. 3:6, it is translated as “teaching.” The latter includes a footnote that says “or traditions.” But the former contains no footnote. And the exact same Greek word, paradosin is in both passages. Protestants do not believe we should consider Scripture part of divine revelation, and this example shows the bias against that idea.

 

[Cachonga]

Generally speaking, I think the biggest complaint about the “Protestant” Bible is that they do not contain the deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobith, etc…). Other than that, it would be the way the Scriptures are interpreted. There are good and bad translations for Catholic and Protestant alike, but (IMHO), the deuterocanonicals and the way the Scriptures are interpreted are the main reasons “Protestant” versions are rejected by Catholics.

In regard to the Latin Vulgate, keep in mind that this is a translation from the original Greek and Hebrew into Latin. Also, the DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate, so that makes it a translation of a translation. How reliable is that? To give equal time, I would add that the KJV was translated from the Greek and Hebrew that (as I understand it) was “backward engineered” by Erasmus in the early 1500’s from the Latin Vulgate. While I find it inspiring to read aloud in my best Shakespearean voice, I know it is not the best translation, and hence, do not have any qualms about using other, more reliable, translations.

 

[ProVobis]

But consider this, without translated Bibles would there ever have been a Reformation at all? Isn’t there a certain amount of Tower of Babelism involved here?

 

[Todd_Easton]

It may be that Catholics were not suppose to read unapproved translations of the Bible and Protestant Bible translators simply never sought Church approval for their translations.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Missing books and “Hail, highly favored one.”

Not a translation issue but also the obviously unorthodox commentaries that will appear in some of them.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Luke 1:28 It must say “hail full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you amongst women”

The KJV used favored. Even the newer Catholic Bibles don’t include full of grace. The RSV-CE does, but doesn’t include “blessed are thou amongst women” in Luke 1:28. Yes I am one of those that uses the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate. I find them most accurate.

Thank You that is interresting and something I need to research.

Where exactly does the Vulgate differ with other translations?

Thanks

 

[Big_Dummy]

One example was Martin Luther adding the word “alone” after the word faith in Romans 3:28 even though no word for alone existed in the original Greek. He defended that by asserting that’s what the verse meant, but could not recognize that it was his interpretation.

Bias even today can be seen in the Protestant NIV Bible, which in general is fairly easy to follow and not bad. But an example is in their translation of the word tradition. When it is used in a negative way, such as Col. 2:8, the NIV translates it “tradition.” When it is used in a positive way, such as 2 Thes. 3:6, it is translated as “teaching.” The latter includes a footnote that says “or traditions.” But the former contains no footnote. And the exact same Greek word, paradosin is in both passages. Protestants do not believe we should consider Scripture part of divine revelation, and this example shows the bias against that idea.

Context does determine the meaning of a word. If you were to try to translate the same word the same way in every use you would end up with a copy of the Arian inspired Concordant Version which frankly denies that Jesus is God.

Is it possible from the context that the word in fact does mean teaching?

And, is not oral teaching tradition?

 

[Big_Dummy]

But consider this, without translated Bibles would there ever have been a Reformation at all? Isn’t there a certain amount of Tower of Babelism involved here?

Ah, exactly what German Translations existed prior to Luther?

You are aware that the early Reformers were Christian Humanists right? Meaning that they studied the original languages, not translations in their native tounge.

 

[Big_Dummy]

This thread is NOT about canonacy, but if you all are aware of any translation differences between protestant translation of the those “extra books” that would be interresting in this thread.

Wisdom 2:18 would be a good example, “the True Son of God” or “the Son of God” vs “a son of God” or 'a child of God" or “God’s children” or “children of God”.

See the Handbook on Translation for Wisdom by the American Bible Society.

Genesis 3:15 “he” vs “she” too comes to mind debate.

 

[Big_Dummy]

biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

Which of these above references relate to catholic vs protestant bibles?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Anymore interresting translations?

 

[GraceSofia]

Regarding Luther and whether there would have been a Reformation without vernacular Bibles,
there were Bibles in German way before Luther-- the first back in the 4th Century.

The earliest known and partly still available Germanic version of the Bible was the fourth century Gothic translation of Wulfila (ca. 311-380). This version, translated primarily from the Greek, established much of the Germanic Christian vocabulary that is still in use today. Later Charlemagne promoted Frankish biblical translations in the 9th century. There were Bible translations present in manuscript form at a considerable scale already in the thirteenth and the fourteenth century (e.g. the New Testament in the Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Old Testament in the Wenzel Bible of 1389). There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[2] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, the Mentel Bible, a High-German vernacular Bible was printed at Strassburg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne… In 1494, another Low-German Bible was published in Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low-German Halberstaedter Bible was published. **In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, **ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bible_translations#Pre-Lutheran_German_Bibles

 

[ProVobis]

Regarding Luther and whether there would have been a Reformation without vernacular Bibles,
there were Bibles in German way before Luther-- the first back in the 4th Century.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bible_translations#Pre-Lutheran_German_Bibles

True but they would have all been hand-written and pretty much confined. Naturally I’d expect as many translations as were readers of the Vulgate. It wasn’t until the Gutenburg period that they really started marketing Bible translations. What a great way to spread heresy.

 

[Salvatore123]

Cachonga,

I reference you, not to single you out, but only because you said something that stood out for me: “In regard to the Latin Vulgate, keep in mind that this is a translation from the original Greek and Hebrew into Latin. Also, the DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate, so that makes it a translation of a translation. How reliable is that? To give equal time, I would add that the KJV was translated from the Greek and Hebrew that (as I understand it) was “backward engineered” by Erasmus in the early 1500’s from the Latin Vulgate.”

Actually, we have no idea WHAT Jerome was reviewing while he was compiling the Latin Vulgate. We have Damasus’s order and we know from certain histories that Jerome was confronted with a myrian of LATIN translations of the various biblical books, which we, today, refer to as the “Old Latin Bible”. Remember that just prior to and during Jerome’s time, the predominant language was Latin. One need only watch The Passion to see that even the Jews spoke Latin in the presence of the Romans - those in power at the time of Christ.

Based on extent letters, Damasus commissioned Jerome to initially revise the four gospels we know today. But in revising the then existing Latin versions, Jerome was to consult with the older Greek texts to ensure a more accurate translation. Jerome went further and ended up producing an entire Bible, both OT and NT (although he compiled the deuterocanonical books against his personal conviction that they were not inspired).

In addition, not only do we not have an idea of what Jerome actually reviewed in compiling his Vulgate, by the time Trent was held, the Vulgate was no longer the same text that Jerome had compiled and written. The centuries that passed between Jerome and Guttenberg allowed for many, many changes to the texts - either out of ignorance or good intentions - because each bible had to be reproduced by hand by monks and scribes. Whenever someone was responsible for reproducing a text by hand, errors were bound to occur, even if only by negligence.

Finally, we don’t even have a copy of the text that Father Martin, et al. referred to when they produced the Douay-Rheims Bible. We have copies of the original DR bible, but most people’s DR they have at home is the Challoner revision - which itself contains so many differences fromm the original DR that it is more properly characterized as a new translation rather than a mere revision.

I am not saying that publishers “lie” when they promote bibles for sale claiming they are Douay-Rheims bibles. Their fallback position will always be that the reader need only open the book and look to the title page to see that the bible they actually bought was Challoner’s revision of the DR. The problem I have with that practice, however, is that the COVER of those bibles say “Douay-Rheims” and NEVER say “Challoner Revision”.

I don’t think it would take much to print a biblical cover that has large letters proclaiming “Douay-Rheims” and directly underneath, even in smaller type “Bishop Challoner Revision”.

If you want to see what a “real” DR bible looked like when it was first printed, go to Lulu.com and search for it. I bought a download version and use my PDF reader to read and search it. But keep in mind, the “old english” as it was written back then is VERY tedious to read and understand. They simply spelled things differently and their grammar and puctuation bears very little resemblence to today’s english composition.

 

[Mintaka]

The original Douay was written and spelled in Early Modern English. Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English also, but modern editions use modern spelling.

Old English translations and Middle English translations are available for many books of the Bible. There’d be a lot more, if Henry VIII, Edward, Elizabeth, and the Puritans hadn’t all engaged in burning and destroying so many good libraries.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, we have no idea WHAT Jerome was reviewing while he was compiling the Latin Vulgate. We have Damasus’s order and we know from certain histories that Jerome was confronted with a myrian of LATIN translations of the various biblical books, which we, today, refer to as the “Old Latin Bible”.

I know it’s not the best but according to Wiki,

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to the Hebrew Bible, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint. He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome’s Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint. Jerome’s decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who considered the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome’s Hebrew knowledge; the Greek Hexapla is now considered as still the main source also for Jerome’s “iuxta Hebraeos” translation of the Old Testament.[9]

For the next 15 years, until he died, Jerome produced a number of commentaries on Scripture, often explaining his translation choices. His patristic commentaries align closely with Jewish tradition, and he indulges in allegorical and mystical subtleties after the manner of Philo and the Alexandrian school. Unlike his contemporaries, he emphasizes the difference between the Hebrew Bible “apocrypha” and the Hebraica veritas of the protocanonical books. Evidence of this can be found in his introductions to the Solomonic writings, the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith. Most notable, however, is the statement from his introduction to the Books of Samuel:

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted * introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.[10]
…
*

more interesting biography at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

 

[Sonny69]

clearly since in the past protestant bibles were forbidden fruit, you must think there are errors in them right?

Every English translations has problems or errors in translation; part of the translation problem, but the message of salvation is not tainted and if one wants to know the depths of Scripture, then onewill need to dig deep and learn about the culture of the time, a basic understanding of the Greek and Hebrew and listen to godly men and always be like the Bereans and test what ever is said against the word of God.

Oh if more people did this there would be a revival in America to the likes which the world has never seen, but people are generally lazy when it come to Bible study and reading so they rely completely on others. Oh well what can we say it is only eternal life or damnation at stake.

How many take Deut. 6 seriously or even know it is a command and the responsibility of both parents? How many men and fathers take the leadership role in their houses as commanded? How many wives respect their husbands in the biblical context or husbands set their minds on God and His command to love their wives as Christ loves the church? Then we wonder what the problem is; we don’t obey God.

Most people believe that Genesis 3:16 and the highlighted section below is a good and a normal thing.

"To the woman He said:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;

In pain you shall bring forth children;

Your desire shall be for your husband,

And he shall rule over you."

A careful study shows this is the woman wanting to overthrow the biblical authority of the male headship in the family and the best example we have is the feminist movement throughout history. Never are women commanded to love their husbands, but women are commanded to respect their husbands. Also never are men commanded to respect their wives but the highest calling to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Never obtainable in the flesh, but always the goal sought in prayer and in practice.

It is sad isn’t it because it is all so true and marriages are destroyed and the culture has infiltrated the churches and many are perishing.