Where do catholic protestant bibles differ in translation, not canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Daniel_Marsh

Guest
We all know that Catholic Bibles have more books, and that is NOT the subject of this thread. I am curious where protestant and catholic bibles differ in translation. I do not consider the NWT to be protestant, but cultic. So, please stick to mainline protestant translations.

An example, of what I am looking for is “young woman” ( RSV )vs “virigin” in Isaiah 7:14.

another example that you may think of is “highly favored” vs “full of grace” in Luke.

If I were comparing say the NWT vs mainline translations, then “a god” vs God in John 1:1 or maybe the addition of the word “other” in Col 1 would come to mind.

I would like this thread to concentrate on mainline protestant translations vs mainline catholic translations only.

Please give an example and explain simply why it matters.

Thanks
 
It is really difficult to say where they differ because there are multiple Catholic and Protestant translations. For example with “full of grace” you will find that in the Resived Standard Version-Catholic Version and the Douay-Rheims but not in the New American Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, all of which are approved by the Catholic Church. The phrase young woman does not appear in Protestant translations that I am aware of except the Resived Standard Version and the New Resived Standard Version. However it does appear in the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition which is approved of theby the Church as being free from error. I don’t remember who gave the Impranteur to it though.
 
Hi Daniel,

The “differences” you mention are also found in Catholic bibles. Today, Catholic and Protestant scholars all pretty much agree on the original texts of the Bible as well as how to translate it. In French, a common translation has been produced, which is highly acclaimed by all. It is called the TOB (traduction oecuménique de la Bible) and is published by the same people who publish the Jerusalem Bible : Les Éditions du Cerf.

I should point out that, in English, the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version have both Catholic and Protestant editions.

Verbum
 
Hi Sycarl,

Sorry I pretty much repeated what you wrote. I did not see your post when I first read the thread.

Verbum
 
All Protestant bibles except for the King James Version lie about the translation of “In Personna Christi” as "In the person of Christ"in 2 Corinthian 2:10 and translate it as “In the presence of Christ” stomach St. Paul granting the Incestuous Corinthian Absolution for his sin.

Confession and absolution are scripturally proved here–Protestants can’t take the truth!

They can’t even take the truth that even the King James translators also knew of this truth when they translated the passage!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
They can’t even take the truth that even the King James translators also knew of this truth when they translated the passage!
Click to expand...
I’m a fairly recent convert (completed RCIA about two years ago).

One thing that blows me away is that the King James translators also shared practically the same exact Catholic Canon. Yes, the deuterocanonical books were translated in the original KJV as well (and called apocrypha). See quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html and see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

This is a fact that is easily verified these days on the internet with any widely-used search engine. And I also have a KJV Bible that includes all the books.

There are so many Baptists and Baptist Churches that I’ve known over the years who love the KJV and always insist on the Authorised Version (1611) and they are ignorant of the fact that when they buy their Bibles some books were removed from the printing that they have – and that it is not exactly the 1611 Authorized Version that they want. I think that many serious Baptists would be quite surprised to find out the original KJV has more books than the Bible they personally possess.

jmm08
 
Jerry-Jet said:
All Protestant bibles except for the King James Version lie about the translation of “In Personna Christi” as "In the person of Christ"in 2 Corinthian 2:10 and translate it as “In the presence of Christ” stomach St. Paul granting the Incestuous Corinthian Absolution for his sin.

Confession and absolution are scripturally proved here–Protestants can’t take the truth!

They can’t even take the truth that even the King James translators also knew of this truth when they translated the passage!
Click to expand...
I don’t think that Protestants lie about this passage.
** In the person of Christ** - Locke paraphrases this, “By the authority, and in the name of Christ.” Doddridge,” As in the person of Christ, and by the high authority with which he has been pleased to invest me.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)
Click to expand...
in the person of Christ; in his sight and presence, who knows that what I do this way, I do it sincerely, and with my whole heart and soul; or rather I do it in his name, and by his authority; and since I forgive this man for your sakes, and in the name of Christ, you ought to do so likewise. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible)
Click to expand...
I will readily concur with you in forgiving him.” And this he would do for their sakes, for love to them and for their advantage; and for Christ’s sake, or in his name, as his apostle, and in conformity to his doctrine and example, which are so full of kindness and tender mercy towards all those who truly repent. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible)
Click to expand...
2Co 2:10 - To whom ye forgive - He makes no question of their complying with his direction. Anything - So mildly does he speak even of that heinous sin, after it was repented of. In the person of Christ - By the authority wherewith he has invested me. (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes)
Click to expand...
2Co 2:10 - To whom ye forgive any thing, I [forgive] also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave [it], for your sakes [forgave I it] in the (h) person of Christ; (Geneva Bible Translation Notes)
Click to expand...
The New Living Translation gives it as:
When you forgive this man, I forgive him, too. And when I forgive whatever needs to be forgiven, I do so with Christ’s authority for your benefit, (2 Corinthians 2:10)
Click to expand...
The Apostles were given authority to forgive sins by Jesus himself. The authority died with the Apostles though.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
All Protestant bibles except for the King James Version lie about the translation of “In Personna Christi” as "In the person of Christ"in 2 Corinthian 2:10 and translate it as “In the presence of Christ” stomach St. Paul granting the Incestuous Corinthian Absolution for his sin.

Confession and absolution are scripturally proved here–Protestants can’t take the truth!

They can’t even take the truth that even the King James translators also knew of this truth when they translated the passage!
Click to expand...
Remember that it is not the Latin “persona” that is being translated—persona is a translation—but the Greek “proswpw” which is not so cut and dry. While I don’t agree with your harsh characterization of motives, I will note that you can add the NAB and the RSV-2CE to the “in the presence” camp.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
All Protestant bibles except for the King James Version lie about the translation of “In Personna Christi” as "In the person of Christ"in 2 Corinthian 2:10 and translate it as “In the presence of Christ” stomach St. Paul granting the Incestuous Corinthian Absolution for his sin.

Confession and absolution are scripturally proved here–Protestants can’t take the truth!

They can’t even take the truth that even the King James translators also knew of this truth when they translated the passage!
Click to expand...
So, what is the difference between person vs prescence? expand please. thanks

NASB: But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, (NASB ©1995)​

GWT: If you forgive someone, so do I. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did in the **presence **of Christ for your benefit. (GOD’S WORD®)​

KJV: To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;​

ASV: But to whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the presence of Christ;​

BBE: But if you give forgiveness to anyone, I do the same: for if I have given forgiveness for anything, I have done it because of you, in the person of Christ;​

DBY: But to whom ye forgive anything, I also; for I also, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, it is for your sakes in the person of Christ;​

WEY: When you forgive a man an offence I also forgive it; for in fact what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has always been for your sakes in the presence of Christ,​

WBS: To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes I forgave it, in the person of Christ;​

WEB: Now I also forgive whomever you forgive anything. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ,​

YLT: And to whom ye forgive anything – I also; for I also, if I have forgiven anything, to whom I have forgiven it, because of you – in the person of Christ – I forgive it,
 
Hi jmm08, this thread is not about canon differences, so do you have any insights on translation differences? :rolleyes:
 
Check out the KJV with the other translations on John 1:42

Notice how they translate the Greek word “Petros” as stone, instead of Peter?
Pretty convient when you want to argue that Peter was a small stone, and not the rock in which Jesus established his church on in Matthew 16:18.
 
runandsew said:
Check out the KJV with the other translations on John 1:42

Notice how they translate the Greek word “Petros” as stone, instead of Peter?
Pretty convient when you want to argue that Peter was a small stone, and not the rock in which Jesus established his church on in Matthew 16:18.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting interpretation. I actually had heard this before, and did a little research on it recently. It is true that in the Greek language the word “Petros” means small stone, and that “petra” means large immovable boulder (which would be the correct word if it meant as we Catholics believe, that Peter is the rock of the church) BUT Jesus did not speak Greek. Or at least, he would not have been speaking Greek to the Jews. They would have been conversing in Aramaic, and he Aramaic word for rock is “Kepha”. When the bible was written down in Greek, they ran into a gender problem. It would have been silly to tell Simon that his name was now Petra, so they went with the masculine form “Petros”. In English, as well as Aramaic there is not the gender issue, so the word rock is used both times.
 
At the back of my RSV-CE there is a list of the differences.

The OT is exactly the same throughout.

In the NT the main differences are that Jesus’ “brothers” in the Protestant edition are his “brethren” (i.e. extended family) in the Catholic edition.

Also “favored one” (for Our Lady) is translated as “full of grace” in the Catholic edition.
 
All of us as christians can forgive anyone else in Christ’s presence–only an ordained priest can forgive someone in Christ’s Person–only an ordained priest can forgive or retain someone else’s sin.

And tell me something–why is it that the power to forgive and retain sin would die with the apostles–if that were meant to die why would baptism or the proclamation of the Gospel not die?

And what would the purpose of it be After Jesus paid the price on the Cross?

The simple fact is that it goes on and prevails just as Christ’s church goes on and prevails–and Don’t tell me that all the translators who translate it as presence aren’t translating it Wrong!

Don’t tell me it doesn’t involve Doctrine!

And don’t tell me that the Catholic Church has not stated that the Vulgate is free from errors when it comes to Doctrine!

I’m not a Douay Rheims worshiper–I don’t even think the Vulgate is perfect in areas Ouside of Doctrine and can’t be improved–I do know that I will not countenance any translation–Catholic included that contains Doctrinal error!

Paul Absovled the incestuous Corinthian–Biblical Inerrant Word of God Scriptural Fact!

Look at the lies in Doctrine–“Young woman” instead of “Virgin”–“Highly Favored” instead of “Full of Greace”.

Now those things don’t mean anything to some because some think that it doesn’t matter if the words aren’t perfect–the Catholic Church doesn’t base its doctrine on scripture alone which is true but just tell me this:

If the Catholic Church can’t produce or at least only give an imprimatur to Bilical Translations that are at least “Free from error in Doctrine” even though they as all Bibles are never perfect–are we to believe that Protestant translators who don’t share the Catholic Magisterium’s view of the scriptures Can do that and all that is need are a few minor alterations?

Give me a break!

I think the Confraternity New Testament got most everything right when it came to Doctrine without obliterating the witness of the Vulgate.

I’ve never seen a Catholic Old Testament other than those based on St. Jerome’s Vulgate that both improved on St. Jerome’s translation without also butchering it.

Here’s a challenge to all the Catholics at this forum who are vociferous in defending Protestant bibles versus Catholic ones:

Tell us the instances where you think Protestant translations improved on the Vulgate in matters of Doctrine because of superior translation of ancient original texts that St. Jerome did not have acces to?

I’m not saying that such a thing is impossible. I am saying that the chances that you’ll find that in a Protestant translation are very small.

If you can’t even get John 3:16 right tell me how you are going to get peripheral things right?

“In the beginning was the Word”.

Last time I checked that Word was doictrinally without error attested to in the Vulgate.

Tell me where else that happens and ask yourself: If I were a juror at a court would I value more witnesses That Credible or witnesses that weren’t that credible?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
All of us as christians can forgive anyone else in Christ’s presence–only an ordained priest can forgive someone in Christ’s Person–only an ordained priest can forgive or retain someone else’s sin.

And tell me something–why is it that the power to forgive and retain sin would die with the apostles–if that were meant to die why would baptism or the proclamation of the Gospel not die?

And what would the purpose of it be After Jesus paid the price on the Cross?

The simple fact is that it goes on and prevails just as Christ’s church goes on and prevails–and Don’t tell me that all the translators who translate it as presence aren’t translating it Wrong!

Don’t tell me it doesn’t involve Doctrine!

And don’t tell me that the Catholic Church has not stated that the Vulgate is free from errors when it comes to Doctrine!

I’m not a Douay Rheims worshiper–I don’t even think the Vulgate is perfect in areas Ouside of Doctrine and can’t be improved–I do know that I will not countenance any translation–Catholic included that contains Doctrinal error!

Paul Absovled the incestuous Corinthian–Biblical Inerrant Word of God Scriptural Fact!

Look at the lies in Doctrine–“Young woman” instead of “Virgin”–“Highly Favored” instead of “Full of Greace”.

Now those things don’t mean anything to some because some think that it doesn’t matter if the words aren’t perfect–the Catholic Church doesn’t base its doctrine on scripture alone which is true but just tell me this:

If the Catholic Church can’t produce or at least only give an imprimatur to Bilical Translations that are at least “Free from error in Doctrine” even though they as all Bibles are never perfect–are we to believe that Protestant translators who don’t share the Catholic Magisterium’s view of the scriptures Can do that and all that is need are a few minor alterations?

Give me a break!

I think the Confraternity New Testament got most everything right when it came to Doctrine without obliterating the witness of the Vulgate.

I’ve never seen a Catholic Old Testament other than those based on St. Jerome’s Vulgate that both improved on St. Jerome’s translation without also butchering it.

Here’s a challenge to all the Catholics at this forum who are vociferous in defending Protestant bibles versus Catholic ones:

Tell us the instances where you think Protestant translations improved on the Vulgate in matters of Doctrine because of superior translation of ancient original texts that St. Jerome did not have acces to?

I’m not saying that such a thing is impossible. I am saying that the chances that you’ll find that in a Protestant translation are very small.

If you can’t even get John 3:16 right tell me how you are going to get peripheral things right?

“In the beginning was the Word”.

Last time I checked that Word was doictrinally without error attested to in the Vulgate.

Tell me where else that happens and ask yourself: If I were a juror at a court would I value more witnesses That Credible or witnesses that weren’t that credible?
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin has a good article here about Douay-Rheims onlyism. catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp
 
SyCarl said:
The Apostles were given authority to forgive sins by Jesus himself. The authority died with the Apostles though.
Click to expand...
And your evidence of this is? Wre there any other sacraments that were term limited?
 
I don’t believe in Douay-Rheims Onlyism.

I Do Believe in"Freedom from Error in Doctrine" Latin Vulgate Superiorityism because all other translations have not been declared by the Catholic Church to be “free from Error” in terms of Doctrine.

Wake me up when the Catholic Church declares any other translations of the Bible Free from Error in cases of Doctrine.

Also wake me up when superiority in translation of parts of the Bible that don’t have anything to do with Doctrine Trumps “Freedom from Error” in the parts of the Bible that do pertain to Doctrine!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t believe in Douay-Rheims Onlyism.

I Do Believe in"Freedom from Error in Doctrine" Latin Vulgate Superiorityism because all other translations have not been declared by the Catholic Church to be “free from Error” in terms of Doctrine.

Wake me up when the Catholic Church declares any other translations of the Bible Free from Error in cases of Doctrine.

Also wake me up when superiority in translation of parts of the Bible that don’t have anything to do with Doctrine Trumps “Freedom from Error” in the parts of the Bible that do pertain to Doctrine!
Click to expand...
Personally I use the NIV Bible and ignore the footnotes. it is the footnotes you find most of the biases in todays Bibles-not the translations, IMO.
 
And I guess the capricious translation of tradition in a negative light as “tradition” and in a positive light as “teaching” doesn’t bother you at all.

It didn’t bother the translators of the NIV either!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top