Which Bible: part 2

[the_Gaudess]

I asked about this earlier and meant to give examples a lot sooner than now. I don’t have the Scripture verses for these, but I’m sure you’ll all know which I mean.

The DRV says:

in Genesis “she shall crush thy head” but I’ve come across no modern Catholic Bible that says “she.” I understand that “she” is said to crush his head through the power of her Son, but now there’s no mention of her. What does the Word of God say: she or he?

in the Gospel of St. John, at the wedding in Cana, Jesus says to His Mother: How does this concern Me and thee. The newer translations record Him as smarting off. I know the Catholic explanation behind this so there’s no need to defend it. Which translation is correct?

in the Gospel of St. Matthew (?) the disciples ask Jesus why they couldn’t cast out the devils, and He answered them saying that some can be cast out only through prayer and fasting. Other approved translations leave out “and fasting.” Did He say it or didn’t He?

in 1 John 5 (?) there’s a reference to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, the three being one. Guess what’s missing in the newer translations? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

So my question: how can the Church approve so many contradictions? And before the “early manuscripts actally said” is thrown out, how do we know what they said? I had heard (yes, only hearsay…but it was on EWTN) that the early manuscipts are long gone, at least some/most are? (this is true?)

Thanks in advance.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I asked about this earlier and meant to give examples a lot sooner than now. I don’t have the Scripture verses for these, but I’m sure you’ll all know which I mean.

The DRV says:

in Genesis “she shall crush thy head” but I’ve come across no modern Catholic Bible that says “she.” I understand that “she” is said to crush his head through the power of her Son, but now there’s no mention of her. What does the Word of God say: she or he?

Either way it is stated is still correct. Whether she or through her seed accomplishes the deed.

in the Gospel of St. John, at the wedding in Cana, Jesus says to His Mother: How does this concern Me and thee. The newer translations record Him as smarting off. I know the Catholic explanation behind this so there’s no need to defend it. Which translation is correct?

Christ, being perfect, was a Jew who was raised to obey God’s commandments. He would not have “smarted off” or otherwise disrepected His mother. He honored His mother as the commandments require. To read anything else into what is happening would be a misinterpretation.

in the Gospel of St. Matthew (?) the disciples ask Jesus why they couldn’t cast out the devils, and He answered them saying that some can be cast out only through prayer and fasting. Other approved translations leave out “and fasting.” Did He say it or didn’t He?

There are many discussions concerning translations. Again, since His message was on having the faith of a mustard seed, it is justified either way.

in 1 John 5 (?) there’s a reference to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, the three being one. Guess what’s missing in the newer translations? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Again, different translators come up with different translations. 1 John 5:7 and 5:8 start and end in the same way and are speaking the same thing.

1Jn 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

So my question: how can the Church approve so many contradictions? And before the “early manuscripts actally said” is thrown out, how do we know what they said? I had heard (yes, only hearsay…but it was on EWTN) that the early manuscipts are long gone, at least some/most are? (this is true?)

Since, as I’ve explained, the meanings are the same there are no contradictions of messages. I do not say there are no misinterpretations, by translators, scribes or readers.

I’ve found mistakes in the NAB study notes. Those study notes were not inspired words, therefore I can disregard them when they claim contradictions or other errors exist in the Bible.

Thanks in advance.

It would really be helpful to read your exact versions of the Bibles you’re referencing as well as the sources you’re reading these “contradictions” from. A lot of material is produced by dissedents of the Catholic faith and they may possibly have an axe to grind for some reason. I highly suggest you provide your sources in the future.

I would also suggest you present one issue at a time instead of a list. You would probably see more (name removed by moderator)ut from people doing that.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[jmcrae]

Just FYI, the official Bible of the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate. Other translations receive Imprimaturs on the basis that their contents don’t obviously contradict Catholic teaching.

The DRV and the Navarre are the closest we have to exact sense-for-sense translations into English of the Latin Vulgate.

 

[the_Gaudess]

Please don’t take this as argumentative, because that’s not how I’m writing it. :hug1:

Either way it is stated is still correct. Whether she or through her seed accomplishes the deed.

How does this say the same thing? One supports the Catholic position that Mary has something to do with conquering the devil (through/with/by Jesus), and one totally leaves her out of it.

Christ, being perfect, was a Jew who was raised to obey God’s commandments. He would not have “smarted off” or otherwise disrepected His mother. He honored His mother as the commandments require. To read anything else into what is happening would be a misinterpretation.

I’m aware of that argument, but that doesn’t change the fact that now His response is totally focused on Him. Did He refer to them both, or did He say, more or less, “why are you troubling Me with this.”

There are many discussions concerning translations. Again, since His message was on having the faith of a mustard seed, it is justified either way.

So is fasting necessary or not? According to the modern Catholic approved Bibles, Jesus doesn’t mention fasting as necessary. Did He say it or not?

Again, different translators come up with different translations. 1 John 5:7 and 5:8 start and end in the same way and are speaking the same thing.

1Jn 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t say the same thing. The DRV has both of those, while the modern versions have only one. 7 refers to the Holy Trinity, and 8 refers to His human-divine nature. It’s not saying the same thing, I really don’t understand how you could say that.

Since, as I’ve explained, the meanings are the same there are no contradictions of messages. I do not say there are no misinterpretations, by translators, scribes or readers.

There is, if it’s read it for what it says and not for what it’s supposed to say.

I’ve found mistakes in the NAB study notes. Those study notes were not inspired words, therefore I can disregard them when they claim contradictions or other errors exist in the Bible.

I didn’t think that the notes were supposed to be inspired from Heaven.

It would really be helpful to read your exact versions of the Bibles you’re referencing as well as the sources you’re reading these “contradictions” from. A lot of material is produced by dissedents of the Catholic faith and they may possibly have an axe to grind for some reason. I highly suggest you provide your sources in the future.

I didn’t ask these questions based on the research of an atheist, it was based on my own study. I first used the NAB, and when I started to read the DR I came across very Catholic verses and wondered “How could I have missed that before?” I checked the NAB and you know what I found? Rather Protestant lines, at least more Protestant than Catholic. I understand the Church wants to be more ecumenical now, whatever that means today, but to go *that *far seems a little wrong to me.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Right back at you.

 

[the_Gaudess]

Just FYI, the official Bible of the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate. Other translations receive Imprimaturs on the basis that their contents don’t obviously contradict Catholic teaching.

The DRV and the Navarre are the closest we have to exact sense-for-sense translations into English of the Latin Vulgate.

Good point, I never looked at it that way. sigh But were these changes really necessary?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please don’t take this as argumentative, because that’s not how I’m writing it. :hug1:

I do not take you as argumentative and truly am not being argumentative myself. I am just trying to share my understanding/faith of scriptures and Church, together.

How does this say the same thing? One supports the Catholic position that Mary has something to do with conquering the devil (through/with/by Jesus), and one totally leaves her out of it.

Mary had everything to do with it…whether it was by her foot or her seed’s (Jesus’) foot.

I’m aware of that argument, but that doesn’t change the fact that now His response is totally focused on Him. Did He refer to them both, or did He say, more or less, “why are you troubling Me with this.”

Let’s see how it went down by adding the next verse.

Joh 2:4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.
Joh 2:5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

It doesn’t appear she was upset by the way he worded his reply.

So is fasting necessary or not? According to the modern Catholic approved Bibles, Jesus doesn’t mention fasting as necessary. Did He say it or not?

The Douay-Rheims says he said it. The Catholic commentary says it’s instructions to the apostles that if they have the faith of a mustard seed. So, in that context, I think it was saying the same. Increasing prayer and fasting, increases faith.

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t say the same thing. The DRV has both of those, while the modern versions have only one. 7 refers to the Holy Trinity, and 8 refers to His human-divine nature. It’s not saying the same thing, I really don’t understand how you could say that.

1Jn 5:7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Both verses end with, And these three are one. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Spirit, water and blood. Jesus is represented in both.

Haydock Catholic Commentary
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) — As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ’s divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bearing witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner)

There is, if it’s read it for what it says and not for what it’s supposed to say.

I still don’t see the contradictions myself.

I didn’t think that the notes were supposed to be inspired from Heaven.

The notes aren’t, just as some translations have to be reviewed carefully. It’s easier on Catholics, in my opinion. We read it ourselves and accept the Holy Spirit protected Church’s interpretation on the verses.

I didn’t ask these questions based on the research of an atheist, it was based on my own study. I first used the NAB, and when I started to read the DR I came across very Catholic verses and wondered “How could I have missed that before?” I checked the NAB and you know what I found? Rather Protestant lines, at least more Protestant than Catholic. I understand the Church wants to be more ecumenical now, whatever that means today, but to go *that *far seems a little wrong to me.

That’s similar to my thoughts when I was reading the NAB and found misleading study notes that did not match up to the Church’s teachings. I haven’t gotten rid of the NAB, but my love for the Douay-Rheims has increased dramatically. In fact, I use e-sword on my computer and have 16 versions of the Bible installed with it, including Greek to English, Hebrew to English and Aramaic to English. Still my number one preference is the Douay-Rheims.

Even though the Bible is God breathed or inspired if you prefer, it’s hundreds of years old and has gone through multiple translations and some of those translations have been disputed between translators. As an average person, I find comfort in the fact that the Holy Spirit protected Church has many, many great theologians/translators working on all our behalfs.

I’m sure you know Matthew 16:18.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Right back at you.

God Bless,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Reading jmcrae’s post made me remember, my e-sword also has the Latin Vulgate and I have a Latin to English dictionary. While it might seem to be more cumbersome to work through all those versions, it really does put light on things for me. But jmcrae may have hit the nail on the head as to why I truly love the Douay-Rheims.

Again, may the peace of the Lord be with you all.
Prodigal Son1

 

[Static]

So is fasting necessary or not? According to the modern Catholic approved Bibles, Jesus doesn’t mention fasting as necessary. Did He say it or not ?

Yes. He talked about it on the Sermon on the Mount Mt 6:16ff . I’m guessing that since you didn’t see modern translations quoting the same as *Mk 9:28 *( 29 in M.T.'s ) & Mt 17:20
( 21 in M.T.'s ) that those translations failed to mention fasting.
( not sure )

I like the Douay-Rheims better than any other translations.
I even like the song that goes Douay Douay Douay ! Oops ! I’m sorry, that was Louie, wasn’t it ! My bad.

May God Bless, Static ( 1Tim 1:15 )

 

[the_Gaudess]

Yes. He talked about it on the Sermon on the Mount Mt 6:16ff . I’m guessing that since you didn’t see modern translations quoting the same as *Mk 9:28 *( 29 in M.T.'s ) & Mt 17:20
( 21 in M.T.'s ) that those translations failed to mention fasting.
( not sure )

I like the Douay-Rheims better than any other translations.
I even like the song that goes Douay Douay Douay ! Oops ! I’m sorry, that was Louie, wasn’t it ! My bad.

May God Bless, Static ( 1Tim 1:15 )

Allow me to specify: According to modern translations, Jesus doesn’t mention fasting as necessary regarding (some) exorcisms. Still, how is removing “and fasting” justified? He either said it or He didn’t? Not too wise to remove His words, in my opinion. What’s next?

 

[Static]

Allow me to specify: According to modern translations, Jesus doesn’t mention fasting as necessary regarding (some) exorcisms. Still, how is removing “and fasting” justified? He either said it or He didn’t? Not too wise to remove His words, in my opinion. What’s next?

I hear ya, feel ya, and know where you are coming from ! I don’t know if you noticed or not, ( I’m thinking you have ) but, in modern translations, ( at least the ones I have ) it has an asterisk that points to the foot notes saying this is just a repetition from another gospel or tells you that some translations say this or that. So, yes, it is left out of the scriptures themselves but, is alluded to elsewhere. Can’t say whether this is right or wrong, who is
me to say ?
That’s why 90% of the time I stick with the Douay !

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Usagi]

Allow me to specify: According to modern translations, Jesus doesn’t mention fasting as necessary regarding (some) exorcisms. Still, how is removing “and fasting” justified? He either said it or He didn’t? Not too wise to remove His words, in my opinion. What’s next?

The problem is, we aren’t entirely sure.

As you note, the very earliest manuscripts (the originals and the first copies) are long-lost and will probably never be seen again on this Earth.

On the other hand, in the past few centuries manuscripts have been discovered that are older than the ones we used to have to depend on.

Some of these manuscripts are missing little bits that the later manuscripts have. In some cases, different manuscripts are missing different bits.

It’s often thought that sections missing in older manuscripts but found in later ones must have been added over time. Thus, sometimes newer translations based on the older manuscripts omit those sections or relegate them to footnotes.

That’s how you get differences like the ones you’re talking about.

So we can’t entirely be sure whether the original Gospel writer recorded Jesus’ words as “prayer” or “prayer and fasting.” Either it started as the shorter version and the extra words were added by a scribe along the way, or it started as the longer version, and some copies lost some words, but other copies retained/restored them.

In the case of the Douay-Rheims (and the Latin Vulgate from which it was translated), we have the additional problem that St. Jerome likely had access to different manuscripts than modern translators do. He might have had access to copies that have since been lost; conversely, we may well have recovered copies that were “lost” in his day.

Except for a few Protestants who hold strongly and exclusively to the manuscript tradtion that produced the King James Version (and, I’ve heard, some Catholics who have similar attitudes about the Vulgate/DR), Christians generally believe that God’s inspiration extends only to the now-lost original copies. Anything that appears to have been added later would not properly be Scripture, though it would likely still be in line with the Church’s beliefs. Thus, even if the extra Trinity verse in John isn’t inspired Scripture, there’s plenty of other Trinitarian support in the Bible and the Apostolic Tradition, as the Church demonstrated in strongly defending and more clearly defining the Trinity in Her early councils. Likewise, the closing doxology “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen” appears not to have originally been part of the Lord’s Prayer; rather, it was used in the liturgy following the Lord’s Prayer (just as it is today), and one or more Scriptural copyists added it to the “official” version. Doesn’t make it evil or anti-Scriptural, obviously.

Usagi