What Catholic translations are based on the TR?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Alleged Proof for the King James Bible

New English New Testament (Omissions)…197 out of 200
New International Version…195 out of 200
Revised Standard New Testament…189 out of 200
Berkeley Version New Testament…185 out of 200
Weymouth’s in Modern Speech N.T…184 out of 200
New American Standard New Testament…183 out of 200
Good News for Modern Man N.T…182 out of 200
Williams’ New Testament…180 out of 200
Ivan Panin’s Numeric New Testament…180 out of 200
Goodspeed’s American Translation N.T…179 out of 200
Moffatt’s New Translation N.T…175 out of 200
Wuest’s Expanded Translation N.T…169 out of 200
Amplified New Testament…165 out of 200
Twentieth Century New Testament…161 out of 200
Phillip’s New Testament…142 out of 200
Darby’s Translation New Testament…138 out of 200
Living New Testament Paraphrased…130 out of 200
New Confraternity New Testament…119 out of 200Norlie’s New Translation N.T… 62 out of 200
Lamsa’s Eastern Text New Testament… 49 out of 200
John Wesley’s Translation N.T… 43 out of 200
Martin Luther’s German New Testament… 0 out of 200
King James Version New Testament… 0 out of 200
**Textus Receptus **(King James Greek) N.T… 0 out of 200

biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

Basically, this list is comparing the Textus Receptus of King James to those of Westcott and Hort or of some other modern textual critical edition of the NT.

Are there any Catholic Versons based on the TR of the NT?

If so, which ones? And would they like King James be 0 out of 200? that seems to be their proof of who has the geninue bible.

Alleged Proof for Jehovah’s Witnesses NT translation,

Translation WH TR Other

Goodspeed 64 0

Twentieth Century 59 4 1

Westminster 58 6

American Revised 58 6

English Revised 57 7

Revised Standard 56 8

Moffatt 56 7 1

Riverside 55 9

Weymouth 53 11

Spencer 51 13

Basic English 51 12 1

Ferrar Edition 50 14 1

Centenary 47 16 1

Confraternity 35 27 2

Knox 33 29 2

Challoner 25 37 2

King James 0 64

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#E.C.%20Colwell

The NWT having a perfect score like goodspeeds translation.

In both systems of proof all they are doing is comparing the underlying greek text, it has NOTHING to do with correctly translating the underlying greek text.

The NWT is based on the Westcott and Hort’s greek text as is Goodspeeds NT, so it is no surprise that the NWT gets a perfect score of 64.

The King James verson is based on the TR greek text, so it is no suprise it gets a a scrore of 200 on their selected proof texts.

So, if there is a Catholic NT transation based on the TR or possibly based on the latin vulgate it too will likely have a score of 0 on this alleged test of translation accuracy.

I think if there is a catholic translation that used the TR as its underlying greek text and it got the 0 scrore, it would drive King James people nuts.

 

[SyCarl]

I don’t think that there are any Catholic Bibles that use the Textus Receptus as the base text for the New Testament. The NWT is an ideological translation rather than an accurate one.

 

[Digitonomy]

Are there any Catholic Versons based on the TR of the NT?

When Challoner produced the current version of the Douay-Rheims about 1650, he borrowed much if its text from the KJV in an effort to among other things eliminate awkward Latinisms in the original D-R.

 

[Cranch]

When Challoner produced the current version of the Douay-Rheims about 1650, he borrowed much if its text from the KJV in an effort to among other things eliminate awkward Latinisms in the original D-R.

You’re 100 years too early with that date, but it is true that Bishop Challoner made use of the KJV in his revision, completing a circle that began when the KJV translators used as a reference the original D-R in their own work.

 

[Wisdom]

You’re 100 years too early with that date, but it is true that Bishop Challoner made use of the KJV in his revision, completing a circle that began when the KJV translators used as a reference the original D-R in their own work.

Yeah the two borrowed so heavily from each other its hard to tell where the borrowing started and ended. But its a fact the Rheims was published well before the KJV so the protestants borrowed from us first if you want to be historical but we borrowed from them thereafter. Both are literal translations that were groundbreaking in thier day but have grown archaic in places due to the change in the English language both do have their fans to the point of fanasticism especially the KJV only crowd but some ubber traditionalist in catholicism can be equally nutty. The borowwing started way back to the TR which was published by the catholic theologian Erasmus so even the basis for the KJV is a GREEK manuscript from Catholic sources. OF course the original KJV was even closer to the Douay Rheims in content when you consider they included all the duterocanonical books albeit in a seperate section so unfortunatly we have grow apart in that most new protestant translations don’t include the dueteros or apocrapha as they designate the books.