Why Bible versions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkA16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarkA16

Guest
So is it true that Fundamentalist Christians like to use the KJV and Catholics use NAB? Why does it seem like we are different religions? I mean, why can’t there be one bible that a denomination can use to defend their faith? Is there not One God, thus One Word, One Bible? I’m making this post because of a post in my thread "1 Timothy 4:1-16 when someone was asking why I was posting up a KJV of the passage, I was like, does it matter?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117597
 
Yes I’ll still read my NAB but I want to know how to answer to someone who asks “why not use KJV?” or something like that (I have talked to a Fundementalist Christian before, I didn’t know much about Catholicism).
 
MarkA16 said:
Yes I’ll still read my NAB but I want to know how to answer to someone who asks “why not use KJV?” or something like that (I have talked to a Fundementalist Christian before, I didn’t know much about Catholicism).
Click to expand...
Well, with most of the Old Testament written in Ancient Hebrew, and the New Testament in Historical Greek, you have a problem right away. Check out various translations of Matthew 19, 11/12
as well as Isiahi 56, 1-8
 
MarkA16 said:
Yes I’ll still read my NAB but I want to know how to answer to someone who asks “why not use KJV?” or something like that (I have talked to a Fundementalist Christian before, I didn’t know much about Catholicism).
Click to expand...
Catholics cannot properly use the KJV since, in almost all the editions available today, the Deutero-Canonical works (Tobit, Judith, parts of Esther and Daniel, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees) are not included.
 
The person who asked you why you would quote a KJV rather than NAB or DRV Bible is concerned because the KJV does not have all of the inspired books canonized by the Catholic Church. Those 7 Old Testament books were removed in the KJV (although the first version did contain those books, identified as apocrypha, later they were removed altogether).

Also there are a few translation differences, ie. Luke 1:28 in the Douay Rheims is “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” In the KJV the same verse is “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” The “full of grace” is significant to Catholics in teaching about the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

That being said, I think the KJV is a triumph among Bible translations in the beauty of the Psalms–especially the 23rd. Absolutely beautiful!

Honestly I’ve heard that it is best to have a number of translations for comparing. Although I have a KJV Bible to refer to occasionally, I personally stick with the Bibles that hold all the books of God’s inspired word. Douay Rheims is highly accurate, but the language is old English, RSV-CE is pretty good and seems to be favored by many though not all Catholic scholars (it is the text used for both the Navarre Study Bible Series and the Ignatius Study Bible Series by Scott Hahn and associates), NAB is also fine for the text, but I’ve read a lot of alarming comments about the commentary conflicting with Catholic teaching. There is also the Jerusalem Bible, which is the most popular Bible in Europe (I heard) but not as popular in the US. Those are the Catholic Bibles that I am familiar with…
 
The version for Catholic is more accurate - We call Virgin Mary the Most blessed Lady with full of grace while other versions just degrade her by just calling her favorable woman - This only is already bad enough.
 
water said:
The version for Catholic is more accurate - We call Virgin Mary the Most blessed Lady with full of grace while other versions just degrade her by just calling her favorable woman - This only is already bad enough.
Click to expand...
True, but among Catholic versions, only the Douay-Rheims, the Confraternity NT, and the RSV Catholic Edition render the Angel’s salutation as “full of grace”; other translations, i.e., all Protestant and some Catholic as well, use some variation of “favored one”.
 
You should be able to argue your point no matter what the version is. If the person you are arguing uses the KJV, then argue from the KJV, if from the NIV, then from the NIV.
If there is a problem verse, then use a parallel bible, showing how the different versions translate the passage.
I tend to use the blue letter bible on line to cut and paste, and it shows the KJV, You can select the “V” tab, and it will show you many of the different versions of that passage, select the “C” tab and you get the Greek/Hebrew lexicon.
I find it easier to locate the passages a lot quicker using this online source.
It doesn’t matter what Bible version you use, absolutely every Catholic teaching is found in the Bible, no matter what the version you might use. You might argue the Catholic interpretation of that passage, but it is in there.
 
MarkA16 said:
I mean, why can’t there be one bible that a denomination can use to defend their faith?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to defend the faith when the translators have already injected their own faith into the Scriptures.

Jeremy
 
runandsew said:
You should be able to argue your point no matter what the version is. If the person you are arguing uses the KJV, then argue from the KJV, if from the NIV, then from the NIV.
If there is a problem verse, then use a parallel bible, showing how the different versions translate the passage.
I tend to use the blue letter bible on line to cut and paste, and it shows the KJV, You can select the “V” tab, and it will show you many of the different versions of that passage, select the “C” tab and you get the Greek/Hebrew lexicon.
I find it easier to locate the passages a lot quicker using this online source.
It doesn’t matter what Bible version you use, absolutely every Catholic teaching is found in the Bible, no matter what the version you might use. You might argue the Catholic interpretation of that passage, but it is in there.
Click to expand...
Yes, however, let’s say you are defending the teaching on purgatory, there are verses in 1 or 2 Maccabees that supports the teaching. If you are using a KJV those verses aren’t going to be there.
 
Prayer_Warrior said:
Yes, however, let’s say you are defending the teaching on purgatory, there are verses in 1 or 2 Maccabees that supports the teaching. If you are using a KJV those verses aren’t going to be there.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, you’re right.
But there are other passages which show it, only not as clear as that.😦
 
Conclusion:
Bible versions have been editted by those based on their teaching. Catholics use NAB because it has all the Books. KJV doesn’t have all the Books, thus Catholics don’t use it because it’s not complete, and it doesn’t cooperate with Catholic doctrine. We can say that Fundamentals like to use KJV because it stumps the Catholic teaching, knowing that KJV isn’t complete, they still use it hoping that the Catholic they are talking to doesn’t know what the difference in bibles are.

That’s just a quick and rough conclusion, since I’m sleepy and just wanted to get it out and hope for an answer when I wake up tomarrow. I’ll read it before I go to school!

Thanks!
 
I think translation does matter, but not THAT much. Frankly speaking I don’t see the difference between “highly favored” and “full of grace”. In the old testament, “favor” means grace. In my mother tounge, there is no word “grace”, thus grace is translated to “granted love” or something like that. The message the Lord want us to learn from the bible cannot be changed by mere translations differences.
 
So no matter what Bible, could be the KJV that most Fundamentalists use, can still prove that the first church established by Jesus is the Catholic Church. Except of course NWT. Anyway, what’s up with that? Who uses it?

Also I found a really good site for the Latin Vulgate. Just found it minutes ago :).
latinvulgate.com/
 
MarkA16 said:
Can all the bibles defend the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
The bible does not stand for denominational truths, if that’s what you asked. The bible stands for the unity and the integrity of the truth. The truth that is only one. Such truth cannot be erased by mere translations.
 
MarkA16 said:
So no matter what Bible, could be the KJV that most Fundamentalists use, can still prove that the first church established by Jesus is the Catholic Church. Except of course NWT. Anyway, what’s up with that? Who uses it?

Also I found a really good site for the Latin Vulgate. Just found it minutes ago :).
latinvulgate.com/
Click to expand...
The New World Translation of the Bible is used exclusively by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They claim it is the only accurate translation of the Bible, despite the fact that of the five men who “translated” it, only one even had a basic knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. The JW’s do not believe in the Trinity, and this translation generally “edits out” any reference to it. For example, they translate John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was A God. (They believe that Jesus is actually the human incarnation of the Archangel Michael, instead.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top