Why different versions of Catholic Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BJ_Colbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BJ_Colbert

Guest
In the thread “another question” I posted something I found while answering a question from Tkdnick. While posting, I discovered that the Catholic Bible my husband has differs a little bit from Tkdnick’s Catholic Bible in Genesis 6:6-7 and he asked me if I was sure it was the real Catholic Bible, so I quoted verbatum the first pages. I would like someone to tell me why words are changed from the other Catholic Bible? In the preface, it says that there is the original translation as this one is and then there are others where the translator used his own interpretation to make it clearer. The LDS have been criticized greatly in this forum for changing a couple of words in the Book of Mormon. Such as “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” In the case of the Catholic Bible they changed “It repented God” to whatever is in the new version. I just want to know why, and how many versions of the Catholic Bible are there? BJ
 
as to your question on bibles, which translations are they? if they are diffrent translations then this would affect how they read.

as I understand it the problem with changes in the book of mormon has to do with the fact that it was origionally composed in english so changing it would be like changing the Hebrew of the old test. or the Greek of the New.

there can be some variation in the translations due to multiple usages of words allowing the translator to choose how he words the translation, but changing the origional language changes the meaning of the whole passage.
 
But for Grace:
as to your question on bibles, which translations are they? if they are diffrent translations then this would affect how they read.

as I understand it the problem with changes in the book of mormon has to do with the fact that it was origionally composed in english so changing it would be like changing the Hebrew of the old test. or the Greek of the New.

there can be some variation in the translations due to multiple usages of words allowing the translator to choose how he words the translation, but changing the origional language changes the meaning of the whole passage.
Click to expand...
I really don’t understand this answer, because the Catholic bible we have, was translated directly from Latin(it claims to be anyway) and then it says that future copies are translated and changed according to the translators individual preferences. It also says that in changing the words in that way, the translator may erase other meanings that the Holy Spirit has hidden in the pages. It claims that this Catholic Bible is the most accurate. Then Tdknick says none of his bibles have the verse 6 in Genesis 6 that I quoted. I guess Catholics do not know they have different versions of the Bible as they have all said it has never been changed one word since the beginning. Here it is in a new Catholic Bible and no one seems to know about this passage,and why have all the Bibles not been changed so that they are the same? The meaning of the passage has been changed drastically. From “it repented God” to whatever the other Catholic bibles say. Read my post in “another question” to fully understand what I am trying to say. I will look there too, maybe someone answered my question. If so then disregard this. BJ
 
Some of the transaters call themselfs Catholic, but they are not. And the translations are incorrect in a lot of versions so that they can “prove” there point, but when it is incorrect, they arn’t. I have the same question for you, why are there different versions of the book of mormon? There are different teachings now adays than back in the day of JS, like paligamy and racial borders (all people with dark skin are great sinners). Those are the big ones, but why does the book of mormon keep on changing?
 
All of our Bibles come fromthe original lattin vulgate and beyone. From there they have been moved in to the Douay Rheims and also as many vernacular languages as possible. In other words, we like the English speaking to have English bibles and Cambodians to have cambodian bibles. Also words have changed in the past 20 centuries. For instance, I will not ask you for a fag. (fag is slur in america, a cigarette in England). Or would you prefer that we all still had bibles in latin or greek?
So, now I ask you why did the Mormons write a new one?
 
The basic difference between the different translations of the Protestant Bible and the different translations of the Catholic Bible is the inclusion of a number of books in the OT which were recognized as scripture by the Jews in the time of Jesus.

I believe that some translation insight also comes from Greek and Aramaic texts, which are older than the Latin Vulgate.

If you read all these translations parallel, you will generally get a more ACCURATE view of what the original text said. Any one text which will glaringly diverge will probably be an error.

Am I right that Mormonism is KJO (King James only)-- which means that the King James is the only God-inspired translation of the Bible? Is it also true that JS also edited the Bible himself, to make it consistent with the BOM?
 
40.png
iwonder:
All of our Bibles come fromthe original lattin vulgate and beyone. From there they have been moved in to the Douay Rheims and also as many vernacular languages as possible. In other words, we like the English speaking to have English bibles and Cambodians to have cambodian bibles. Also words have changed in the past 20 centuries. For instance, I will not ask you for a fag. (fag is slur in america, a cigarette in England). Or would you prefer that we all still had bibles in latin or greek?
So, now I ask you why did the Mormons write a new one?
Click to expand...
Code: 
The copy we have is Douay-Rheims and Tkdnick said he could not find Genesis 6:6 in his Catholic bible as it is stated in the Douay-Rheims, so I just wondered why.  That is all.  The only changes in the Book of Mormon, have been for clarification and to update to the current times also.  Such as pure instead of white.  When it was translated white was not offensive to anybody.  Just as gay did not mean a sexual preference for the same sex.  It meant happy.  The same as when the Douay-Rheims was translated from the latin language "it repented God" did not mean the same as it does today.  We all know God does not and never has sinned, "he is perfect, so he does not repent, so it was changed in the Catholic bible to mean sorrowful.  So, the translation was changed to better clarify the meaning.  That is why any words were changed in later additions of BoM or the Catholic Scripture to clarify meanings as meanings changed in modern times. I think I have answered my own question.  In another thread the exact changes in the BoM were pointed out in detail and they are just as minor as the ones in the Catholic Bibles. In fact if this forum had not pointed them out, I would never have noticed, just as you never noticed the changes in your bibles.
Jerusha, yes you are correct that we use the KJV, but I also believe that there were changes made, as in books removed and some not included according to the persons who put it together. I am sure there is a lot more written that was left out, probably the ones in the Catholic Bible.(that is my opinion, not LDS) In perusing the CB with the KJV there are some things in the KJV that are left out of the CB, such as one of the psalms. I am sure that was done because of possible mis-interpretations of Catholic doctrine. As that psalm states something that Catholics do not believe. Thank you for your answers, with that and my further study of some of the subjects on the home page of this website, I think I am clear on the reasons for changes. Same as the reasons for BoM changes. Both of our churches have adjusted to modern times. 🙂 BJ
 
the Douay-Rheims
Click to expand...
is the Catholic parallel of the KingJames. Few Catholics use it-- most use New American, I believe. That is what we have. Much more understandable in modern American English. I would suggest that you get a New American, and, for Protestant insight, maybe a Living Bible, and a New American Standard to do some comparisons. 👍
 
BJ Colbert:
In the thread “another question” I posted something I found while answering a question from Tkdnick. While posting, I discovered that the Catholic Bible my husband has differs a little bit from Tkdnick’s Catholic Bible in Genesis 6:6-7 and he asked me if I was sure it was the real Catholic Bible, so I quoted verbatum the first pages. I would like someone to tell me why words are changed from the other Catholic Bible? In the preface, it says that there is the original translation as this one is and then there are others where the translator used his own interpretation to make it clearer. The LDS have been criticized greatly in this forum for changing a couple of words in the Book of Mormon. Such as “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” In the case of the Catholic Bible they changed “It repented God” to whatever is in the new version. I just want to know why, and how many versions of the Catholic Bible are there? BJ
Click to expand...
I’m not certain just what the question is based upon but I will hazard a few answers.

FIRST–Roman Catholic translations of the Bible into the vernacular were–until sometime early in the 20th century–required to be translated from the Latin Vulgate, although they could be ‘compared to’ original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and generally were. This rule presumably was designed to ensure that translations of the Bible preserved a truly ‘Catholic’ character and theological outlook.

Second–The primary Roman Catholic translation of the Bible into English before the mid-1900’s was the Douay-Rheims translation, sometimes also known as the Rheims-Challoner version, after the priest who updated the English spelling and usages. It resembles the KJV in English usage but was far inferior in style. The Douay version was first published while the custom of dividing the Bible into verses was still something of a work in progress. This means that in some cases, especially in regards to the Psalms, there are slight variations between how Douay version numbers verses and how more modern versions number them. I think that you might find the ‘missing’ verses in your Catholic Bible (if it is a Douay version) numbered differently and perhaps in the preceding chapter.

Third: Catholics use a longer Old Testament canon than Protestants use. They base their canon on the Jewish Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures widely used in the time of the Apostles by Jews of the Diaspora. The seven ‘extra’ books of the Old Testament are called the deuterocanonical books by Catholics and the Apocryphya by many Protestants.

Fourth. Since the middle-1950’s Catholics have seen at least two explicitly-Catholic translations produced–the Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible. (The latter should not be confused with the New American Standard Bible, a Protestant translation). Contemporary Catholic translations have been made directly from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, not from the Vulgate. Usually these translations will include extensive notes by Catholic commentators to clarify difficult passages. There have also been numerous essentially Protestant translations which have been released in a ‘Catholic’ version–which usually means nothing more than that the ‘Catholic’ version includes the deuterocanonical books. One thing to note–many modern translations of the Bible, Catholic or otherwise, omit certain passages of Scripture or consign them to footnotes because such verses are not found in the earliest of Biblical manuscripts. This is the other possiblity for what happened to the ‘missing’ verses in your Catholic bible.

Hope this helps!
 
Here’s my post from the other thread:
So what you have is called basically called the Douay-Challoner. It is (as your Bible says) the Douay-Rheims Bible that was revised by Bishop Challoner. Also, as it says it was a direct translation from St. Jerome’s Vulgate. The Douay and the KJV are very similar. They are both considered to be relatively literal translations, meaning that they translate the words as opposed to other versions of the Bible that attempt to translate the meanings as opposed to the exact words.

Interesting piece of info - the people who translated the King James Version used the Douay Rheims to assist in translating.

Not many American Catholics use the Douay version anymore. Most use 1 of 2. Either the NAB or the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is also considered a literal translation. The NAB tries to capture more of the meaning than the actual words.
Click to expand...
When you read your Douay and compare it with the KJV, you are essentially reading the exact same translation.

flameburns’ answer was pretty good. For a long time the Latin Vulgate was the only version. Then they started translating from the Vulgate to other versions. The Douay-Rheims Bible was translated from the Vulgate. In today’s time we also have the New American Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, and I’m sure there are some others. The NAB is the semi-official Bible for Catholics in America. When you hear a reading from Mass they are reading essentially from the NAB (though there are some minor differences).
 
Thank you Jerusha, Flamesburn and Tdknick, your answers were exactly what I was looking for. It helps me to further clarify why the differences. It is true the Douay-Rheims is almost word for word like the KJV in most books.
We will definitely get a NAB or the New American version for future study. You are all so helpful, I really learned a lot about this subject from all of you.
Tdknick, I guess we know now why your version was different than what I was reading. The mystery is solved… 🙂 BJ
 
BJ Colbert:
Thank you Jerusha, Flamesburn and Tdknick, your answers were exactly what I was looking for. It helps me to further clarify why the differences. It is true the Douay-Rheims is almost word for word like the KJV in most books.
We will definitely get a NAB or the New American version for future study. You are all so helpful, I really learned a lot about this subject from all of you.
Tdknick, I guess we know now why your version was different than what I was reading. The mystery is solved… 🙂 BJ
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t just toss out the Douay version or stop using it. I think one of the great things about the different versions is that you can compare them and get a more complete view of what was said and what was meant. Whereas using only 1 version limits that capability.
 
My favorite translation is the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (RSV-CE), although I like the D-R as well. I’m not too fond of the NAB, but it’s o.k.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top