Translations of Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
One of the reasons my friend doesn’t believe in Christianity is because he says that today and even back thousands of years ago when the Scriptures were being translated, there had to be some change, and so the Bible isn’t perfect. He also mentions today’s numerous translations as evidence for the different takes on the Bible.

What do you all think of this?
 
The translations of the Bible come from many different languages. Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, just to name a few. The translators of the Bible are priests involved with factual data in Rome. The Vatican oversees what is placed in the Bible that other Bibles are copied from. Changes in wording and language do not make the Bible untrue, just better understood by the reader. In keeping with what was ACTUALLY said and written in the ancient texts.
Your friend sounds interested to learn more about the Bible…have him drop on by sometime.

:)Mary
 
aball1035 said:
One of the reasons my friend doesn’t believe in Christianity is because he says that today and even back thousands of years ago when the Scriptures were being translated, there had to be some change, and so the Bible isn’t perfect. He also mentions today’s numerous translations as evidence for the different takes on the Bible.
Mary1173 said:
The translations of the Bible come from many different languages. Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, just to name a few. The translators of the Bible are priests involved with factual data in Rome. The Vatican oversees what is placed in the Bible that other Bibles are copied from. Changes in wording and language do not make the Bible untrue, just better understood by the reader. In keeping with what was ACTUALLY said and written in the ancient texts.
First of all, let me suggest to your friend that he get on the computer and check the situation out for himself! No one ever said that the Bible was PERFECT! It wasn’t ever meant to be! Only Jesus was perfect!

As for the translating of the Bible, you cannot translate anything word for word from another language because all languages are different. It takes a person skilled in both languages to translate correctly from one language to another.

He is correct that different versions of the Bible use different words. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that different words can be used to clarify a situation for us. Billy Graham’s wife used to lay 5 or 6 translations of the Bible on the table when she was preparing a lesson. You see, we are not all familiar with all the same words…some words may be more easily understood by us than other words. Thats where the value of the translations comes in!

For instance; did you know that some Bibles were created to reach people with a third grade education? Billy Graham sent out the “Everyday Bible” for just that purpose! It is the New Century Version.

If your friend really wanted to understand, he would look for the answers. It is wonderful that you are concerned but he has to want to hear before he will listen. We will pray that he will want to hear!

Check out this url, it is great! gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.html

DesertSister62
 
One of the reasons my friend doesn’t believe in Christianity is because he says that today and even back thousands of years ago when the Scriptures were being translated, there had to be some change, and so the Bible isn’t perfect. He also mentions today’s numerous translations as evidence for the different takes on the Bible.

What do you all think of this?
Well, by that logic, there’s no value in any philosophy or literature humanity has produced except perhaps those who’ve done so in the native language of your friend in the relatively recent past…right?

For example, as a native English speaker, I certainly could not read Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” (from 600 years ago or so, written in English) without a translation. Likewise I’d have to dismiss all the Greek, Russian, Chinese (insert languages here ad nauseam) literature, philosophy, poetry, teachings (insert literary genres here ad nauseam) as well.

Your friend doesn’t need to believe in the Bible for Christianity, he needs to believe in God.

The Bible may or may not help, and it may or may not be a convenient way to avoid tougher questions, perhaps.

Good luck.
 
The translators of the Bible are priests involved with factual data in Rome. The Vatican oversees what is placed in the Bible that other Bibles are copied from.
Most Catholic translators are not priests. Most Catholic translators do not work in conjunction with the Holy See in Rome, but independently. “factual data in Rome” ??? And no, the Vatican does not usually oversee translations, or the source material.

My view is that the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Scripture from generation to generation, just as the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Tradition, just as the Holy Spirit protects the teaching of the Magisterium. Some particular errors can occur in particular translations or edits or copies of the Bible, but God never permits these errors to reach such an extent that any truths would be lost, or changed, or that any falsehoods would enter, the body of editions of the Bible in the world.
 
aball1035 said:

Mary1173 said:

First of all, let me suggest to your friend that he get on the computer and check the situation out for himself! No one ever said that the Bible was PERFECT! It wasn’t ever meant to be! Only Jesus was perfect!

As for the translating of the Bible, you cannot translate anything word for word from another language because all languages are different. It takes a person skilled in both languages to translate correctly from one language to another.

He is correct that different versions of the Bible use different words. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that different words can be used to clarify a situation for us. Billy Graham’s wife used to lay 5 or 6 translations of the Bible on the table when she was preparing a lesson. You see, we are not all familiar with all the same words…some words may be more easily understood by us than other words. Thats where the value of the translations comes in!

For instance; did you know that some Bibles were created to reach people with a third grade education? Billy Graham sent out the “Everyday Bible” for just that purpose! It is the New Century Version.

If your friend really wanted to understand, he would look for the answers. It is wonderful that you are concerned but he has to want to hear before he will listen. We will pray that he will want to hear!

Check out this url, it is great! gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.html

DesertSister62
My feelings exactly still prayin my rosaries Desert Sister!🙂
 
Most Catholic translators are not priests. Most Catholic translators do not work in conjunction with the Holy See in Rome, but independently. “factual data in Rome” ??? And no, the Vatican does not usually oversee translations, or the source material.

My view is that the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Scripture from generation to generation, just as the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of Tradition, just as the Holy Spirit protects the teaching of the Magisterium. Some particular errors can occur in particular translations or edits or copies of the Bible, but God never permits these errors to reach such an extent that any truths would be lost, or changed, or that any falsehoods would enter, the body of editions of the Bible in the world.
How do you figure that priests don’t oversee the translations of the Bible? If they don’t, who does? The data of which I speak are the papyrus that the OT and NT are composed of from Christs time.
Does your Bible have an impramatur? Is the book you read even composed and looked at by ministers or priests?
Mine has the impramaturs of: Reverend John G. Lodge, S.S.L S.T.D.,Reverend Robert L. Shoenstene,M.A. S.S.L Censor Deputatis, the Reverend George J. Rassas, Vicar General and the Archbishop of Chicago Il.
The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd Edition, New American Bible
buy one you might learn something by reading the fine print and 1st page after the cover page.
The Vatican does not print the Bible but it is CERTAINLY involved with the Conference of Catholic Bishops who DO oversee what is written is what is supposed to be in the Bible!
 
One of the reasons my friend doesn’t believe in Christianity is because he says that today and even back thousands of years ago when the Scriptures were being translated, there had to be some change, and so the Bible isn’t perfect. He also mentions today’s numerous translations as evidence for the different takes on the Bible.

What do you all think of this?
I think this is only a peripheral matter to your friend not believing Christianity. The notoriety of the fundamentalists complete dependence on the Bible is the basis for your friend’s doubt however. The Catholic Church does not have this sole dependence however, so Catholic Christianity would be unaffected by this particular doubt.

The more important question to your friend would be whether he believes in God at all. If so, then what sort of God. Does this God reveal himself to mankind? If not, why not?
 
The translations of the Bible come from many different languages. Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, just to name a few. The translators of the Bible are priests involved with factual data in Rome. The Vatican oversees what is placed in the Bible that other Bibles are copied from. Changes in wording and language do not make the Bible untrue, just better understood by the reader. In keeping with what was ACTUALLY said and written in the ancient texts.
Your friend sounds interested to learn more about the Bible…have him drop on by sometime.

:)Mary
Mary,

The critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts from which vernacular translations of the bible are made are prepared by scriptural and linguistic scholars who are NOT all priests, nor are they reviewed (“overseen”) by the Vatican before publication. In fact, both Protestants and Catholics aid in the preparation of, and make use of, these same critical editions.

What IS reviewed by the Vatican are the Lectionaries used in the Mass. Given that the RNAB and NRSV Lectionaries were approved for the USA and Canada, respectively, by “the Vatican” does make me stop and wonder in amazement many a day. 🤷

The bibles many of us use do have Imprimaturs, but this does not constitute Vatican approval, as it is neither possible nor practical to have Rome review each and every vernacular translation, as well as any accompanying study material.
 
Most of the Bibles with the imprimatur were approved under the old system, where only the approval of one bishop was needed.

Under the current system, where the approval of the USCCB committee is needed, only loose translations, Protestant translations, and gender-inclusive translations have been approved, despite the fact that these translations violate the Vatican norms for translation issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict).

Such approvals are not an exercise of the Magisterium, and are fallible.
 
aball1035 said:
One of the reasons my friend doesn’t believe in Christianity is because he says that today and even back thousands of years ago when the Scriptures were being translated, there had to be some change, and so the Bible isn’t perfect. He also mentions today’s numerous translations as evidence for the different takes on the Bible.
What do you all think of this?
diggerdomer said:
Your friend doesn’t need to believe in the Bible for Christianity, he needs to believe in God.
The Bible may or may not help, and it may or may not be a convenient way to avoid tougher questions, perhaps.
Not to cause any problems here, but as far as I am concerned “diggerdomer” gave the most pertinent information and all the rest of this seems to be an exercise in proving our intelligence.

As diggerdomer said: You friend doesn’t need to believe in the Bible for Christianity, he needs to believe in God. And you know what? He is absolutely right!

In closing, though, I want to make just one observation and that is this; God is the one that is responsible for the record keeping that resulted in the Bible and ultimately He is the one that is able to keep the truth in it from being lost. We have a tendency to give ourselves a lot of undeserved credit here. Yes, there are examiners and scripture scholars but in the final reckoning it will be God that preserved the truth He wanted passed on!

DesertSister62
 
aball1035 said:

diggerdomer said:


Not to cause any problems here, but as far as I am concerned “diggerdomer” gave the most pertinent information and all the rest of this seems to be an exercise in proving our intelligence.

As diggerdomer said: You friend doesn’t need to believe in the Bible for Christianity, he needs to believe in God. And you know what? He is absolutely right!

In closing, though, I want to make just one observation and that is this; God is the one that is responsible for the record keeping that resulted in the Bible and ultimately He is the one that is able to keep the truth in it from being lost. We have a tendency to give ourselves a lot of undeserved credit here. Yes, there are examiners and scripture scholars but in the final reckoning it will be God that preserved the truth He wanted passed on!

DesertSister62
I agree. I think a well used quote is appropriate here, “We are not a Church of the Bible, the Bible is a book of the Church.”
 
Belief in God in addition to lack of belief in the bible = Hell!
I am not suggesting lack of belief in the Bible, but believing the Bible in the context of the Catholic Church along with sacred Tradition.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet
Belief in God in addition to lack of belief in the bible = Hell!
CalCatholic said:
I am not suggesting lack of belief in the Bible, but believing the Bible in the context of the Catholic Church along with sacred Tradition.
I don’t remember saying anything about not believing in the Bible. However, as CalCatholic has reminded us, for those of us who are Catholic, we believe in the Bible in the context of the Catholic Church along with Sacred Tradition.

Thank you for that, CalCatholic! If you are a Catholic, you already realize the truth of what I typed above. If you aren’t, then there is nothing that I can say to make you understand. I would never want to have to do without my Bible, but if the Bible were to suddenly be destroyed, there are many that could teach us the truths from it just by watching their lives!

As CalCatholic has also reminded us: **“We are not a Church of the Bible, the Bible is a book of the Church.” **

DesertSister62
 
Most of the Bibles with the imprimatur were approved under the old system, where only the approval of one bishop was needed.

Under the current system, where the approval of the USCCB committee is needed, only loose translations, Protestant translations, and gender-inclusive translations have been approved, despite the fact that these translations violate the Vatican norms for translation issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict).

Such approvals are not an exercise of the Magisterium, and are fallible.
Ron:
Did they actually change Church law or are publishers just preferring to work with the USCCB to get their imprimatur so that they have some chance of perhaps being chosen for the next liturgical revision?
 
One of the reasons my friend doesn’t believe in Christianity is because he says that today and even back thousands of years ago when the Scriptures were being translated, there had to be some change, and so the Bible isn’t perfect. He also mentions today’s numerous translations as evidence for the different takes on the Bible.

What do you all think of this?
Yes, I’d say your friend is right in saying that translation errors have occurred in the past. They occur today, and they will occur tomorrow.

I’d like to point out, however, that translation is always a moving target. This is because human languages change. The King James version of the Bible is written in English, but is that the English you speak? It was not so foreign to the people of its day - that’s how they spoke English.

The Bible must be constantly re-translated not because the Bible’s text and teaching keep changing but rather because its audience keeps changing.

We maintain that the original texts of the books of the Bible were divinely inspired. We do not maintain that its translators or copyists were always divinely inspired, however. Mistakes have been known to occur in translation and textual variations among our most ancient copies of the books do exist.

We also maintain that this is not a problem; this is in fact exactly what we’d expect to find when we compare the Bible to other ancient texts. These characteristics of the Bible actually serve as testaments and as evidence of the Bible’s ancient nature. Furthermore, when comparing the textual issues of the Bible with other ancient texts, the Bible holds up extremely well. Biblical texts as we know them are extrordinary, as one would expect.

The field of Biblical textual criticism, which is what we are dealing with here when we talk about these issues, is a fascinating and highly rewarding field.

The Bible turns out to be a strange, surprisingly rewarding document that’s constantly revealing treasures and testaments to its worth and specialness.

How could it be otherwise, given its claims?
 
Ron:
Did they actually change Church law or are publishers just preferring to work with the USCCB to get their imprimatur so that they have some chance of perhaps being chosen for the next liturgical revision?
Yes, Canon Law was changed (see Canon 825) so that individual Bishops no longer have the authority to give the imprimatur to a translation of the Bible.

The USCCB has control over the NAB version, so they are unlikely to drop the use of the NAB in favor of some translation copyrighted and controlled by an individual or a company.
 
No one ever said that the Bible was PERFECT! It wasn’t ever meant to be! Only Jesus was perfect!
I think a well used quote is appropriate here, “We are not a Church of the Bible, the Bible is a book of the Church.”
Bibles in translation may have flaws, but for me, the above sentiments fall far short of accurately describing Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture is not a product of Tradition (even if the decision as to which books to include in the Bible might have been). The Church teaches Scripture and Tradition both come from the same source: God. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81
“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

And again:

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

And from Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (20):
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”
 
Most of the Bibles with the imprimatur were approved under the old system, where only the approval of one bishop was needed.

Under the current system, where the approval of the USCCB committee is needed, only loose translations, Protestant translations, and gender-inclusive translations have been approved, despite the fact that these translations violate the Vatican norms for translation issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict).

Such approvals are not an exercise of the Magisterium, and are fallible.
I’m confused, sorry.

How can Bishops’ approval of a Scripture translation/publishing NOT be an exercise of the Magisterium? Just because something has not been declared as taught infallibly does not mean it’s not an exercise of the Magisterium.

Also, regarding a later post, Canon 825; Bishops can and do still give imprimaturs individually, Canon 825 is requiring Vatican or Conference approval; related, but distinct issues (I checked my copies of the NAB and NJB to make sure they in fact had imprimaturs from individual bishops).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top