Translation differences

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

FaithJoy

Guest
I’ve been a Catholic for 10 years and only recently I’ve noticed a couple of translation differences from Protestant versions and Catholic versions of the bible. Some are minor but some contribute to major changes to understand truth. For example, penance and repentance. Also, the right to remarry or not. More specifically,whether it is a sin to remarry or not.
Those are the only two i can think of. My question is, is there any other differences in Catholic and Protestant faiths that are the result of translations in the bible? Not interpretation,but translation.
 
2nd Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians 3:6…tradition

peace
 
FaithJoy said:
I’ve been a Catholic for 10 years and only recently I’ve noticed a couple of translation differences from Protestant versions and Catholic versions of the bible. Some are minor but some contribute to major changes to understand truth. For example, penance and repentance. Also, the right to remarry or not. More specifically,whether it is a sin to remarry or not.
Those are the only two i can think of. My question is, is there any other differences in Catholic and Protestant faiths that are the result of translations in the bible? Not interpretation,but translation.
Click to expand...
With regard to penance and repentance, the Douai-Rheims, a translation from Latin to English, is in obvious error when compared to the Greek. The NAB, which appears on both the UCCC and Vatican websites, translates the Greek word metanoia properly.
 
im not a scholar, nor do i play one on t.v. 😉 however, i have been studying various translations for apx. 25 years. and the history of them. former baptist myself, so the bible fascinates me. it appears that the protestant translations were products of politics. its not much different than the denominations themselves. they FEEL a certain way about an issue, so they create their bibles to reflect their beliefs. St. Jerome, truly cared about an accruate translation, it took him years of travel, and study. he had older, much more reliable text than the protestants ever had. several times he almost gave up, because he found the process so difficult. thank God he did not. he gave us the Vulgate. from there came the D.R. translation, which i believe on Good authority, from the Catholic Church, is very reliable. i dont trust protestant scholars. i think they have alterior motives in their translations. the KJV has at least a thousand errors in it. and the translations just keep getting worse. the Clear bible from the Adventist is a good example of this. many passages were changed to reflect the views of the group. the New World translation is another. i only trust Catholic translations. and Catholic scholars. i dont want a body of scholars just to print something because it FEELS right. if i have to trust scholars, i want ones that the Holy Spirit promised to lead. Peace 🙂
 
benidict said:
im not a scholar, nor do i play one on t.v. 😉 however, i have been studying various translations for apx. 25 years. and the history of them. former baptist myself, so the bible fascinates me. it appears that the protestant translations were products of politics. its not much different than the denominations themselves. they FEEL a certain way about an issue, so they create their bibles to reflect their beliefs. St. Jerome, truly cared about an accruate translation, it took him years of travel, and study. he had older, much more reliable text than the protestants ever had. several times he almost gave up, because he found the process so difficult. thank God he did not. he gave us the Vulgate. from there came the D.R. translation, which i believe on Good authority, from the Catholic Church, is very reliable. i dont trust protestant scholars. i think they have alterior motives in their translations. the KJV has at least a thousand errors in it. and the translations just keep getting worse. the Clear bible from the Adventist is a good example of this. many passages were changed to reflect the views of the group. the New World translation is another. i only trust Catholic translations. and Catholic scholars. i dont want a body of scholars just to print something because it FEELS right. if i have to trust scholars, i want ones that the Holy Spirit promised to lead. Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
They say, give me what you want it to mean and I’ll create you a Bible. And chances are I’ll create still another Protestant denomination as well. Cardinal Arinze would call me an iconoclast.

I agree with your assessment. No translation is 100% accurate especially in a ever-changing language like English. I would go with a literal translation from the Vulgate, Greek or Latin, even if it doesn’t form a complete sentence, and let the reader take it from there. Even better with a linear-type translation such as offered on-line with perhaps commentaries and cross references.
 
FaithJoy said:
I’ve been a Catholic for 10 years and only recently I’ve noticed a couple of translation differences from Protestant versions and Catholic versions of the bible. Some are minor but some contribute to major changes to understand truth. For example, penance and repentance. Also, the right to remarry or not. More specifically,whether it is a sin to remarry or not.
Those are the only two i can think of. My question is, is there any other differences in Catholic and Protestant faiths that are the result of translations in the bible? Not interpretation,but translation.
Click to expand...
It also depends on which Catholic translation you’re using.

Douay-Rheims Bible
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.
Click to expand...
New American Bible
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
Click to expand...
Comparing the NAB to the NASB used by many protestants

New American Standard Bible
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Click to expand...
New International Version
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Click to expand...
Random note: The funniest translation I have ever come across is the LOLCat translation of the Bible. Obviously it’s not useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. However, it is useful for a good laugh now and then.

“Ceiling Cat not SLOW has patienz even for teh n00bs.”
Lolcat 2 Peter 3:9
 
Brian_Culliton said:
With regard to penance and repentance, the Douai-Rheims, a translation from Latin to English, is in obvious error when compared to the Greek. The NAB, which appears on both the UCCC and Vatican websites, translates the Greek word metanoia properly.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, Jesus spoke Aramaic on a daily basis, but the bible was written in Greek. The commonly used word in Aramaic for penance can’t be translated perfectly in Greek. Therefore, metanoia was used. A word closest to the translation. Common for language to language cross overs. This makes sense that penance would be a superior thing considering Jesus would want us to not only be sorrowful of sin, but also to make things right with God and others.
 
FaithJoy said:
From my understanding, Jesus spoke Aramaic on a daily basis, but the bible was written in Greek. The commonly used word in Aramaic for penance can’t be translated perfectly in Greek. Therefore, metanoia was used. A word closest to the translation. Common for language to language cross overs. This makes sense that penance would be a superior thing considering Jesus would want us to not only be sorrowful of sin, but also to make things right with God and others.
Click to expand...
The earliest manuscripts for 2nd Peter (Papyrus 72) are in Greek. You can’t possibly know what Aramaic word was translated into Greek when 2nd Peter was originally written down. What we do know is that translating metanoia to paenitentiam to penance is not the best translation. Modern translations, both Catholic and Protestant, use the translation of metanoi to mean repentance not penance. I’m not sure how the Orthodox Churches translate metanoia. Their translation of the Bible was a little harder to find on the interwebs.
 
Haven’t there been issues about the translation of the word “rock” regarding Matthew 16:18?
There is the masculine and the feminine of the word petra/petros, and that one means small pebble and one means big boulder. I’ve heard the argument that Jesus is calling Peter the small pebble, then referring to himself as the big boulder vs the argument that Jesus was simply using the masculine word for Peter’s name.

But in Aramic, it’s kephas…I think, right? No difference between masculine/feminine/pebble/ boulder…

Do we all agree that rock is rock is rock is rock? Or do different bibles use different translations of that word, based on what they’d like to to say…?
 
FaithJoy said:
… but the bible was written in Greek.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t really matter which language it was written in as much as what it says in that language. Actually much of the Bible was recorded in Hebrew, Aramaic, hieroglyphics, Greek, Latin and other languages as well. It had many authors with different writing styles, etc. Most if not all original documents have been lost, however, having been replaced by mostly what we find today in Hebrew and Greek Vulgate and its Latin counterpart.

Your argument on penance, however, seems to make sense.
 
What texts specifically were you curious about? That would help with the discussion 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top