"That's a Catholic translation"

[Michael1966]

Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?

Also, I’ve heard that the NIV translation is heavily biased in favor of n-C Christian beliefs. The funny thing is, is that sounds like the exact same thing I get told. Is there any truth to this? Thanks

Hi Eric,

I guess all bibles will have some translator bias (and may use different source texts). I believe the 1984 NIV was criticised by a number of people, including non-Catholics such as NT wright, for too much translator bias, but the latest version is supposed to be more neutral.

The differences could lead to an interesting conversation though

I have to say I don’t know that there is any original Catholic bible with a reputation for highly literal accuracy against the original texts. The NAB seems to have a poor reputation and the most commonly used translation in the UK, the Jerusalem bible, is also not viewed as being a “formal equivalent” (literal) translation. Those that have a reputation for high literal accuracy appear to be either protestant (NASB & ESV) or mixed protestant/Catholic (NRSV), but there’s still potential for bias in the formal equivalence translations.

(I tend to use the NRSV as it had a broad translator committee).

 

[Daizies]

NLT is missing “again” from Luke 15:24, and could also be described as “not a Catholic translation” as such, because even the “Catholic version” is as far as I’m aware not considered OK for Catholics to use for bible study.

That’s a more dynamic equivalent version I think. I didn’t even bother with those as the translation bias is much worse. Like I still have my copy of “The Message” version of the Bible (I spent so much money on it I still can’t part with it ) but I already know the wording is going to be WAY off. From my personal experience, even in Protestant circles those looser translations have limited appeal. Most of the churches I attended used NKJV or NIV.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

The Message and the NLT are paraphrases, so not even Protestants will use them for studying, just devotional, light reading, or to clarify or compare (this is what I’ve heard from Protestants).

IMO, the only significant differences in most translations is the use of the terms “full of Grace” vs. “highly favored one/daughter” in the account of the Annunciation in Luke’s Gospel. Of course, Protestants insist we changed “highly favored” to “full of Grace” to support the Immaculate Conception, which they don’t believe in. Also, in one of the synoptic Gospels (can’t remember which one at the moment), when Jesus tells the disciples that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (2 of the 3 synoptics actually leaves it at that), Protestant translations will have “except for adultery”, whereas Catholic version have “unchastity” (the Greek word is “porneia”), so Protestants then have “Biblical grounds” for divorce and remarriage if a spouse cheats. NIV does translate the same Greek word as “tradition” if it’s a bad thing, but “teaching” if it’s good, and obvious bias, but that’s easy to point out, as it’s the exact same word, there’s really no other reason to translate it 2 separate ways!

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[Farsight001]

Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?

Throw it right back at them - tell them that their version is a protestant translation and it’s worded in favor of their doctrines.

 

[steve_b]

Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?

The NT was written in, by, for, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church canonized 73 books for the canon, beginning in 382 at the council of Rome…> also Council of Trent. Peter, Paul, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, were all in the Church they wrote to and for.

Where do Protestants think they got the bible from in the first place? This is the book of the Catholic Church. They are using our book.

 

[cspiegel]

This is why I like using the RSV. Since it had both Catholic and Protestant translators on its committee, they can’t say it’s a Catholic Bible biased in favor of Catholic teaching.

Amen. Out of all translations, the RSVCE seems the best in speaking to Protestants. The NIV and KJV are both “good” translations and can be used to evangelize as well. To the original post’s point, the NIV does have some minor issues in translation, for example, the two versions of Ephesians 2:8-9 are given below:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast. (RSVCE)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. (NIV)

These say pretty much the exact same thing. The interesting part, however, is that the greek word for works is ergon. When it supports Protestant theology, erga/ergon is rendered as works. When it does not, it is rendered as something else as in James 2:17.

So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (RSVCE)

In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (NIV)

This is not to say that the NIV translation is wrong, it is just misleading when compared to similar uses of the greek elsewhere. For comparison, the KJV does “translate” the greek without injecting theological conclusions:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (KJV)

If you want to stay on equal footing, go with the RSVCE, since the native RSV is blessed so to speak by Protestants, but don’t be afraid to dig into the NIV or KJV. The truth is there for those who are willing to seek it.

 

[garysibio]

Respond with “and your reading the abridged version!” - response taken from some wise forum member awhile ago

Or possibly the “who originally wrote the Bible?” Question. Or “why does your Bible have 66 books insted of the 73 we have had for over 2 thousand years?”

Why be so belligerent? Even if the other guy is being a jerk, there’s no reason to take the low road. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t bring up those points, just word it nicer.

 

[garysibio]

Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?

Also, I’ve heard that the NIV translation is heavily biased in favor of n-C Christian beliefs. The funny thing is, is that sounds like the exact same thing I get told. Is there any truth to this? Thanks

You might try using the ESV. It is a Protestant translation but the Catholic bishops of England, Wales, Australia and New Zealand have decided to use it for their new lectionary.

 

[BrunoMaria]

even the “Catholic version” is as far as I’m aware not considered OK for Catholics to use for bible study.

There are sadly enough some non-good translations. True. But official translations who got the Vatican Imprimatur, definitely are precise and reliable!
And yes, they are “Catholic Translations” very precise to the Vulgate - to the original - to Jesus’ word. It was the Protestants and other evangelical denominations who again and again altered Luther’s alternations and addingly even preached it wrongly.
So, to say “That’s a Catholic translation” is silly, narrow minded and without any clue of the facts.

Yours
Bruno

 

[Nikicosier]

Respond with “and your reading the abridged version!” - response taken from some wise forum member awhile ago

Or possibly the “who originally wrote the Bible?” Question. Or “why does your Bible have 66 books insted of the 73 we have had for over 2 thousand years?”

HUM. It’s very interesting that many Catholics think that Catholics wrote the Bible. It is also called the word of God. The word of God may have been penned by early Christians but the word used in the original text is also used to describe a boat being carried along by the wind. SO… the writers were borne along by the Holy Spirit (God) and using their own writing styles and personalities penned the Bible from God.

So… in essence… the Bible was not actually written by “Catholics” as many Catholics argue, but was actually written by God.

As a Protestant who had a Catholic education (secondary and tertiary) and have a great respect for the dialogue between faiths… there is great debate about why the extra books were later added to the original books of the Bible. The history is very interesting upon examination and although I do not dismiss those books out of hand… it is an interesting debate as to if they belong there to begin with!

 

[Ignatius]

Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?

Also, I’ve heard that the NIV translation is heavily biased in favor of n-C Christian beliefs. The funny thing is, is that sounds like the exact same thing I get told. Is there any truth to this? Thanks

First, as Fidelis said, get them to tell you where they think the translation is wrong.
You can support virtually every Catholic teaching using the King James Version or the RSV which is a modern Endlish version of the KJV, both of which are considered Protestant translations.

 

[Nikicosier]

There are sadly enough some non-good translations. True. But official translations who got the Vatican Imprimatur, definitely are precise and reliable!
And yes, they are “Catholic Translations” very precise to the Vulgate - to the original - to Jesus’ word. It was the Protestants and other evangelical denominations who again and again altered Luther’s alternations and addingly even preached it wrongly.
So, to say “That’s a Catholic translation” is silly, narrow minded and without any clue of the facts.

Yours
Bruno

I’m sure I can’t speak for ALL protestant churches. There are many that I also disagree with whom I think do not preach Gods word but something other.
Unlike the catholic church, the protestant church do not have a single unifying teaching body that cover ALL denominations. Protestants use the Bible (and thus God) as that unifying principle. We are all one in Christ. This means that we are able to differ in our opinions about what the Bible means and aren’t told explicitly how to interpret something. We believe that this occurs for us through the Holy Spirit. How you determine that another is definitely indwelt by the Spirit… i’m not sure. The down side to this is that there is an element of false teaching. However i’ve also seen this from with the Catholic church where teaching occurs that isn’t ratified by the teaching authority.

Very interesting! Thanks for responding!

 

[Polycarp_II]

To me, it comes down to intent of the discussion. If the intent is to “prove” that the “Catholic translation” is true and the “protestant translation” false (or vice versa) then the discussion, to me, is one of human pettiness. I do not believe that God is keeping score of who made better arguments on which human translation is best. Because, as some of our protestant brethren have mentioned, while the Bible may have been “written by God” the translations are very much through the lens of man’s bias (and hence, part of the reason for the early Church to not allow for translations into the vernacular).

I would hope that instead of a debate on who’s right and who’s wrong, it would be a dialog in an effort to help each more deeply discover their faith. Because let’s be real for a minute…On a subject such as Biblical meaning, theologians have disagreed on the interpretations for centuries. No offense intended, but I do not believe two laity (assuming the original poster is not a Priest/Deacon) will be able to more fully decipher the true meaning and teachings of the Bible.

If the discussion is about why one person is Catholic and one person is protestant, and that discussion drives each of them to believe more deeply in their protestant or Catholic faith, great! As long as we are becoming closer to Him in our thoughts, in our words, and in our actions, I think that’s about the best we can be expected to do.

 

[Hamlet123]

Our doctorins were in place 300 years before we compiled the Bible. The Bible is Catholic Teaching.

And since The Bible says that the Catholic Church is the “Pillar and foundation of truth” shouldn’t they be reading the complete Catholic Bible for the truth, and proper interpretation of the scriptures? 1st Timothy 3:15

Just a note: The CE (I think it is CE) protestant version of the bible has 1st Tim 3:15 as “… is A (emphasis added) pillar and foundation of truth.”

I looked up the translation for this book in a number of protestant bibles and find this translation a very very few times - maybe twice -… nearly all protestant translations say THE.

In fact, a word for word translation will render neither THE nor A. Scolars say the way the old greek is worded and arranged THE must be assumed.

Now, you need sources. I am sorry I have not the time; however, love to see a follow-up with sources and names.

God bless you guys:thumbsup:

 

[DavidWJackson]

HUM. It’s very interesting that many Catholics think that Catholics wrote the Bible. It is also called the word of God. The word of God may have been penned by early Christians but the word used in the original text is also used to describe a boat being carried along by the wind. SO… the writers were borne along by the Holy Spirit (God) and using their own writing styles and personalities penned the Bible from God.

So… in essence… the Bible was not actually written by “Catholics” as many Catholics argue, but was actually written by God.

As a Protestant who had a Catholic education (secondary and tertiary) and have a great respect for the dialogue between faiths… there is great debate about why the extra books were later added to the original books of the Bible. The history is very interesting upon examination and although I do not dismiss those books out of hand… it is an interesting debate as to if they belong there to begin with!

The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church”. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement. Quote taken from the New Advent web sight’s Encyclopedia.
Also, the extra Books you are refering to were written long before the birth of Christ and part of the Jewish Cannon. The Jewish Rabbis removed these Books from their Cannon around 100 AD. The Christian Church did not! The Reformed Christian Church removed these Books from their context within the Christian Cannon and put them at the rear of the Old Testament Authorized Version / King James 1611. Later versions of the Christian Cannon written under Protestant control removed these books all together from their Cannon.
People may say out of ignorance that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible or they may be using this expression to convey that the Reformed Church severed ties with the Holy Catholic / Universial Christian Church and has no history prior to the fifteen hundreds. Anyhow we know that God used exclusively members of the early Christian Church to pen His words for all mankind and for all time. And, these Christians have been refered to as Catholic/Universal since around 70 AD. before the whole of the Christian Cannon was composed or finallized. What can be truly said is that the Catholic Church has keep and protected this work of God since it was completed to date.

 

[Fidelis]

To me, it comes down to intent of the discussion. If the intent is to “prove” that the “Catholic translation” is true and the “protestant translation” false (or vice versa) then the discussion, to me, is one of human pettiness. I do not believe that God is keeping score of who made better arguments on which human translation is best. Because, as some of our protestant brethren have mentioned, while the Bible may have been “written by God” the translations are very much through the lens of man’s bias (and hence, part of the reason for the early Church to not allow for translations into the vernacular).

I would hope that instead of a debate on who’s right and who’s wrong, it would be a dialog in an effort to help each more deeply discover their faith. Because let’s be real for a minute…On a subject such as Biblical meaning, theologians have disagreed on the interpretations for centuries. No offense intended, but I do not believe two laity (assuming the original poster is not a Priest/Deacon) will be able to more fully decipher the true meaning and teachings of the Bible.

If the discussion is about why one person is Catholic and one person is protestant, and that discussion drives each of them to believe more deeply in their protestant or Catholic faith, great! As long as we are becoming closer to Him in our thoughts, in our words, and in our actions, I think that’s about the best we can be expected to do.

I very much agree. Simply saying, “Your Bible translation is biased” or “We had the Bible before you do” isn’t going to accomplish much. In fact, taking either stance serves more as a conversation stopper to avoid further dialogue rather than to promote it. If a person is unwilling or unqualified to discuss differences of interpretation in a somewhat in-depth manner, then this is a good way to get out of it.

Ideally, those with differing Scripture interpretations can sit down together and discuss it. One should be prepared to look at the original languages, their use in the literature at the time, cultural and Church history context of the book or passage in question, and the opinion of the early Church Fathers. If one is not willing or capable to go into the effort and time this entails to discuss differing translations, one should probably not go there. Best to take the stance that practically all modern Scripture translations (excluding paraphrases or totally disreputable translations like the JW NWT) are legitimate ones prepared by reputable scholars and discuss (and maybe ending up differing on) particular verses or passages.

 

[TimothyH]

It’s easy.

If they object to your translation, use theirs. 99.9999999999% of the words are exactly the same.

Unless you are dealing with a King James Version only person, just use the RSV. The RSV is widely accepted by non-Catholics.

It’s not really a big deal.

-Tim-

 

[Goya]

…

As a Protestant who had a Catholic education (secondary and tertiary) and have a great respect for the dialogue between faiths… there is great debate about why the extra books were later added to the original books of the Bible. The history is very interesting upon examination and although I do not dismiss those books out of hand… it is an interesting debate as to if they belong there to begin with!

I see what you did there…clever…but, not accurate.

Those books were not added to the OT–they were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which was the version of the OT used by Jesus and the Apostles. In fact, there are some 135 references to the Septuagint in the NT, to the exclusion of the subsequently reconstituted Hebrew OT. Yes, the original OT was of course, written in Hebrew. However, the original manuscripts were destroyed upon the sack of Jerusalem, and ensuing diaspora of the Jews. Hence the Jewish authorities had to reconstitute the OT from the Septuagint (which did survive the diaspora). This was done circa 200 AD–after Christianity had taken hold (within Judaism), and become a force to be reckoned with. Hence the Jewish authorities, in reconstituting the OT, made subtle changes to make it less cristological. One such change, was to exclude the 6 books which were included in the Septuagint.

Interestingly, St. Jerome sought to have those excluded as well–but he was overruled by Pope Damasus on this count, and therefore, those 6 books were included in the Bible, in the Latin Vugage (assembled by St. Jerome)–over 1,000 years before the reformation.

So no, those books weren’t subsequently ‘added on’–they were in there, long before the seeds of ‘reformation’ ever took root. They are not included in protestant bibles, upon the authority of Martin Luther–who excluded them—(while also gratuitously inserting ‘solo’ before ‘fide’…), as he was drafting his own translation of the bible.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[steve_b]

HUM. It’s very interesting that many Catholics think that Catholics wrote the Bible. It is also called the word of God. The word of God may have been penned by early Christians but the word used in the original text is also used to describe a boat being carried along by the wind. SO… the writers were borne along by the Holy Spirit (God) and using their own writing styles and personalities penned the Bible from God.

So… in essence… *the Bible was not actually written by “Catholics” as many Catholics argue, but was actually written by God. *

All the writers of scripture were in the Church they wrote to and for. From the 1st century the Church has been and is called the Catholic Church. The writers were inspired by the HS to write. And the Catholic Church picked only those writings she deemed inspired, and canonized only those writings.
N:

As a Protestant who had a Catholic education (secondary and tertiary) and have a great respect for the dialogue between faiths… there is great debate about why the extra books were later added to the original books of the Bible. The history is very interesting upon examination and although I do not dismiss those books out of hand… it is an interesting debate as to if they belong there to begin with!

They weren’t added.

 

[steve_b]

I’m sure I can’t speak for ALL protestant churches. There are many that I also disagree with whom I think do not preach Gods word but something other.

We’ll revisit this statement later
N:

Unlike the catholic church, the protestant church do not have a single unifying teaching body that cover ALL denominations.

God’s word 1st is a person. Jesus, who established HIS Church, the Catholic Church.

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά kataὅ**λοςholos* Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" iow the Church is the ****Kataholos Church = Catholic Church ****The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. *http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Division from this Church is condemned

Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: …20… dissensions, factions …and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Those words dissensions & factions in Greek are

διχοστασίαdichostasia = dissension / division/ sedition
αἵρεσιςhairesis = factions / heresies

Luther, considered the father of Protestantism, divided from the Church of Rome. BTW, Paul’s warnings don’t have an expiration date. They applied to Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, etc etc etc in their day as they do today, and tomorrow, till the end of time.

Rom 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions διχοστασία *dichostasia] *and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Note: the word you see διχοστασία dichostasia (dissension / division / sedition) in Rom 16:17 is the same Greek word used in Gal 5:20

*Because the consequence of division / sedition, on the soul is (will not inherit the kingdom of God.) that sin is a mortal sin.

Also Paul isn’t talking to pagans with that warning. He’s talking to baptised members in the Church.
N:

Protestants use the Bible (and thus God) as that unifying principle.

Re: your opening statement, Protestantism isn’t unified so the bible isn’t your unifying principle. You admit you disagree with many fellow Protestants over the “word”. Which means they disagree with you too. And you’re all seperated from the Church who gave you the scriptures in the first place. And you see where that sin is condemned in scripture. Do you see all the disconnects here in your very position?
N:

We are all one in Christ. This means that we are able to differ in our opinions about what the Bible means and aren’t told explicitly how to interpret something.

Private (interpretation / opinions) of scripture with no valid & ultimate authority over one’s understanding, is a blueprint for chaos.
N:

We believe that this occurs for us through the Holy Spirit. How you determine that another is definitely indwelt by the Spirit… i’m not sure. The down side to this is that there is an element of false teaching. However i’ve also seen this from with the Catholic church where teaching occurs that isn’t ratified by the teaching authority.

The HS is the one to lead the Church into all truth. The HS doesn’t lead a soul away from it. As you can see from Paul’s letters above. Paul says division is evil and from satan, not from Our Lord ergo not from the HS…