Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

[Kouyate42]

Hi there!

This is actually my first post, so woo-hoo! lol
Actually, I’ve found that it really depends on the denomination and church. I much prefer the NASB because it is considered to be the most literal and accurate translation (among the Protestant Bibles), however, I do find the NIV to be a nice translation to use during Bible study. It’s a little easier to read on occasion, so that probably contributes to popularity…I assume. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod tends to rely heavily on the ESV over the NIV. In fact, I don’t know if my church has ever read from NIV. I’ve been to Baptist and Nazarene churches while visiting with family, and they do both seem to favor NIV or NKJV. So, like I said, I think it depends on what a person’s church uses the most during service that influences what their preference might be…but NIV is rather easy to read.

Peace and Blessings!
Julie

Yeah, the NIV was translated with comtemporary sounding language as one of the main considderations. It’s also easy for those who may not have English as a first language, as the language tends to be straight-forward for people to understand.

I think a lot of it is simply what you’re used to in both your church and growing up (assuming it’s a person coming from a Christian family). My church used the NIV, but I tended towards the ESV.

I tend now to only read the Septuagint (for the OT text, in Greek) and the Vulgate (the NT in Latin), both of which I can read fluently.

 

[GaryTaylor]

whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

whoever divorces his wife, {lewd conduct be the seperate case} and marries another commits adultery,

whosoever shall put away his wife,{except be it for fornication}, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

Here’s the two from today in NAB first then from 60 which I used earlier. With the contents in question. Whats in parentheses is the difference. The third is the KJV.

So the three in difference would be Fornication, lewd conduct, unlawful marriage.

So, Porneia is the point of contention, right? Yet the link I posted above takes you step by step through that argument. What did you think of it? What do you find wrong with it? There are several meanings of the word Biblically for “porneia”. Obviously theres Protestant and Catholic thinking involved in extreme’s. What good all that serves I have my doubts about.

To me this its symantics, but you may feel strong, so with respect for you. I would say there are other better versions no doubt. I also understand the church has some strong views on marriage and divorce. I think we can all agree there.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Anna_Scott]

Gary,

I have Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition right here on my desk. it states the following:

“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”

If the Douay Bible is the most accurate Catholic Bible, why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church use the NRSV and the RSV?

I’m not sure, maybe someone will can come along who has a better answer. I do know many Catholics I’ve talked to here, and in my area do prefer the Douay. The above Bibles are what I actually have at home. So for me I’ve been going by the same Bible verse a very long time. Which in the case of Douay has been in my family since the early 19th with my grandmother.

To me I’m not seeing so much of difference in whats translated, personally I just feel some are worded better. Nonetheless this would only be in referrence to what I am using above.

But I would have to devote the time and ask questions in referrence to the translations you’ve mentioned.

Be interesting to see though. Maybe Pleed has a point thats completely going over my head.

How much different is Matthew 19:9 in the NRSV and RSV? I’m not sure if these are easier to understand translations such as “The Way” or what the story is.

God Bless, Gary

Anna here’s what a fast google came up with.

The Douay Rheims Bible was translated in the 16th century from the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome, a text that was declared authoritative for Catholics and commonly known as the purest text available at the time. The first version of the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible was started at the English College at Douai in 1568 and completed in Reims in 1582. Originally known as the Rheims Testament, it was revised by Bishop Challoner in 1749-1752 as the Douay-Rheims Bible. The Douay-Rheims translation is the one most often used in Latin Missals. The Douay-Rheims Bible is a good choice for those who love history, tradition, and language.

From: “The Catholic Company”

newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

I could look into this at home also. I have a few pre V-II MIssals which I’ve held from the early 60’s. I’m wondering if this was changed with V-II or later or if its till the case. I could find out tonight.

God Bless, Gary

Gary,

I appreciate the information. I 'll check out the link.

I collect Bible translations and find it a fascinating study; but it’s a difficult one.

I did find an Encyclical of Pope Pius XII which seems to take into account further knowledge of the ancient languages and discoveries of manuscripts. At least that is what it seems to be saying. If you have time to read it; I would welcome your comments.

(Emphasis is mine)
**Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Promulgated On September 30, 1943: DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU **

. . . . . .22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents – nay rather today it almost demands – either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.

1. Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear."

I am still puzzled by the omission of the last 2 Chapters in Daniel in my NRSV with Apocrypha.

I think my next purchase will be the NRSV-Catholic Edition. I have the Catholic Comparative New Testament; but I want to see if there are any other differences in the O.T. and Deuterocanonical books.

Interesting discussion. I appreciate your comments.

Peace,
Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

I appreciate the information. I 'll check out the link.

I collect Bible translations and find it a fascinating study; but it’s a difficult one.

I did find an Encyclical of Pope Pius XII which seems to take into account further knowledge of the ancient languages and discoveries of manuscripts. At least that is what it seems to be saying. If you have time to read it; I would welcome your comments.

(Emphasis is mine)
**Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Promulgated On September 30, 1943: DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU **

. . . . . .22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents – nay rather today it almost demands – either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.

1. Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear."

I am still puzzled by the omission of the last 2 Chapters in Daniel in my NRSV with Apocrypha.

I think my next purchase will be the NRSV-Catholic Edition. I have the Catholic Comparative New Testament; but I want to see if there are any other differences in the O.T. and Deuterocanonical books.

Interesting discussion. I appreciate your comments.

Peace,
Anna

I also came very close to purchasing another BIble. As I was saying the newest I am reading is from 83. I believe I will also take a look at the NRSV.

IMHO Pope Pius was a very Blessed individual. From a 11-yo in prophecy of his coming at Fatima, to the War, and how the veneration of Mary then seperates Christianity through his ex-cathedra words, which places a definitive fork in the road. The longer you look at that 40-year period the more facinating it becomes. God knew exactly where He wanted him to be placed.

The Pope’s encyclical I believe really gets to the heart of the matter. As time elapse’s we understand more about our past in many case’s. I believe in the same example would be the Doctrine of the church.

Unfortunate that we have reached a period in time where man has traveled about as far apart as possible. And think, it was 150-years ago today the Civil War started?

“In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal.” {Pope Pius}

CAF leads one to interpret the state of mind of Christians in General pretty well. What I see here is a difference in generation gaps. I see a sincere effort here, and in the world for the most part, from Christians by large to put there differences aside for the greater good. Especially when it comes to those who have been around a few decades.

Its no secret we all know we lost a few generations of children. I see no sense in placing blame on anyone. Evil was given its hour.

It would be nice to think that Christians could actually sit down together, and look at the evidence before them in Scripture, and agree to define what all can say is “right”. We have no unity in this today. So the Catholic Church forges on. As will all others.

There’s no winner at the end of this path in demonination. In the end the light and the good will have the final say. But daily the cost rise’s.

God Bless, Gary

 

[PLeeD]

So, Porneia is the point of contention, right?

I’m not contending over it. I’m just saying that it has a specific meaning that relates to forms of sexual immorality. It shares the same root as the work “pornography”.

From; studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

Yet the link I posted above takes you step by step through that argument. What did you think of it? What do you find wrong with it?

What I think of it is that it’s an apology for the Catholic view on marriage / divorce / remarriage. What I find wrong with it is precisely what the article itself admits:

“In the Catholic NAB Bible words in parenthesis are inserted to reflect the constant tradition that has been passed down by the Apostles that a sacramental marriage is life long.”

If you want to understand scripture as a whole to preclude remarriage after a divorce except by annulment, then more power to you. I’m not going to criticize it one bit. But then don’t claim that what is going on with NAB’s Matt 19:9 is anything but, as the linked article clearly admits, inserting words to reflect Catholic doctrine. Inserting is not the same as translating.

So I stand by my original comment:

Originally Posted by **PLeeD **
Unfortunately the issue is not limited to protestant translations. There are examples of Catholic translations that appear aimed more at justifying doctrine than providing clear understanding of original text.

That’s not necessarily a criticism, it’s just a fact of translation that the result will reflect the views of the translator. The NAB example is just an extreme case of something that is unavoidable, which is doctrinal bias in translation. It’s not solely a protestant issue any more than it’s solely a Catholic issue.

But, I do find the practice of completely abandoning the original meaning of a word to be unacceptable. For the same reason that I no longer use the NIV for serious study, neither would I use the NAB, because both translations appear to far less than acceptably accurate.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I also came very close to purchasing another BIble. As I was saying the newest I am reading is from 83. I believe I will also take a look at the NRSV.

IMHO Pope Pius was a very Blessed individual. From a 11-yo in prophecy of his coming at Fatima, to the War, and how the veneration of Mary then seperates Christianity through his ex-cathedra words, which places a definitive fork in the road. The longer you look at that 40-year period the more facinating it becomes. God knew exactly where He wanted him to be placed.

The Pope’s encyclical I believe really gets to the heart of the matter. As time elapse’s we understand more about our past in many case’s. I believe in the same example would be the Doctrine of the church.

Unfortunate that we have reached a period in time where man has traveled about as far apart as possible. And think, it was 150-years ago today the Civil War started?

“In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal.” {Pope Pius}

CAF leads one to interpret the state of mind of Christians in General pretty well. What I see here is a difference in generation gaps. I see a sincere effort here, and in the world for the most part, from Christians by large to put there differences aside for the greater good. Especially when it comes to those who have been around a few decades.

Its no secret we all know we lost a few generations of children. I see no sense in placing blame on anyone. Evil was given its hour.

It would be nice to think that Christians could actually sit down together, and look at the evidence before them in Scripture, and agree to define what all can say is “right”. We have no unity in this today. So the Catholic Church forges on. As will all others.

There’s no winner at the end of this path in demonination. In the end the light and the good will have the final say. But daily the cost rise’s.

God Bless, Gary

Gary,

I really appreciate your post and I hold some of the same sentiments and concerns.

The Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Promulgated On September 30, 1943, shows a great deal of insight into the need to seek a better understanding of Holy Scripture and recognizing the importance in consideration of continued discovery of New Testament manuscripts.

With more than 5,000 N.T. manuscripts known today, the art of textual criticism has become a necessity, since most of these manuscript witnesses contain only parts of the N.T.; and there are more variants among the manuscripts than words in the N.T. Most are obvious errors. However, there are some variants that seem to be intentional changes. As important as textual criticism may be; ultimately I believe it is the Holy Spirit who ensures the Words of truth and Salvation continue to be accurately transmitted through the Biblical text and its interpretation.

The NIV certainly does not rank among the most accurate translations; and I see some clear theological bias in some of the textual choices. Some of the “Amplified” Bibles, that incorporate commentary in the main body of the text of Holy Scripture, are disturbing on so many levels. Yet, we see Protestant ministers waving their Bibles in the air, claiming they are holding the inerrant and infallible Word of God. I always wonder what translation they are waving. Yet, there are many non-Catholics who are very concerned about the accurate transmission of the Biblical text. So, we do not always have to be so suspicious of one another.

This is a quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

I think the RSV and NRSV Bibles are a testament to Catholics and Protestants equally and cooperatively seeking the truest and most accurate transmission of the words of Holy Scripture.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

whoever divorces his wife, {lewd conduct be the seperate case} and marries another commits adultery,

whosoever shall put away his wife,{except be it for fornication}, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

Here’s the two from today in NAB first then from 60 which I used earlier. With the contents in question. Whats in parentheses is the difference. The third is the KJV.

So the three in difference would be Fornication, lewd conduct, unlawful marriage.

So, Porneia is the point of contention, right? Yet the link I posted above takes you step by step through that argument. What did you think of it? What do you find wrong with it? There are several meanings of the word Biblically for “porneia”. Obviously theres Protestant and Catholic thinking involved in extreme’s. What good all that serves I have my doubts about.

To me this its symantics, but you may feel strong, so with respect for you. I would say there are other better versions no doubt. I also understand the church has some strong views on marriage and divorce. I think we can all agree there.

God Bless, Gary

Gary,

Attempting to make good use of *** The Catholic Comparative New Testament***, here are eight Catholic Bible translations of Matthew 19:9

New American Standard Bible:
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

Rheims New Testament:
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Jerusalem Bible:
Now I say this to you: the man who divorces his wife----I am not speaking of fornication—and marries another, is guilty of adultery.

New Jerusalem Bible:
I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife----I am not speaking of an illicit marriage—and marries another, commits adultery.
**
Good News Translation:**
I tell you, then, that any many who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman.

Christian Community Bible:
Therefore, I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, unless it be for concubinage, and marries another, commits adultery.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, a, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery. b

a Other ancient authorities, after unchastity, read makes her commit adultery
b Other ancient authorities **omit **and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery

**New Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Anglicized): **
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery. a

a Other ancient authorities read, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; others add at the end of the verse and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery

So, there is disagreement in the Catholic Bible translations. It’s not simply a Catholic vs. Protestant issue.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Gary,

Attempting to make good use of *** The Catholic Comparative New Testament***, here are eight Catholic Bible translations of Matthew 19:9

New American Standard Bible:
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

Rheims New Testament:
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Jerusalem Bible:
Now I say this to you: the man who divorces his wife----I am not speaking of fornication—and marries another, is guilty of adultery.

New Jerusalem Bible:
I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife----I am not speaking of an illicit marriage—and marries another, commits adultery.
**
Good News Translation:**
I tell you, then, that any many who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman.

Christian Community Bible:
Therefore, I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, unless it be for concubinage, and marries another, commits adultery.

Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, a, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery. b

a Other ancient authorities, after unchastity, read makes her commit adultery
b Other ancient authorities **omit **and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery

**New Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Anglicized): **
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery. a

a Other ancient authorities read, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; others add at the end of the verse and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery

So, there is disagreement in the Catholic Bible translations. It’s not simply a Catholic vs. Protestant issue.

Peace,
Anna

Gary,

I went back and read the article you linked: Marriage Exception Matthew 19:9 - Porneia, (defendingthebride.com/sc/marriage.html)

I have to say, it makes a good case for the Catholic view of marriage.

I can see that unchastity/fornication prior to marriage is not the same thing as adultery committed during marriage. Besides, wasn’t adultery still punishable by death at the time of Christ? (We are all familiar with the story of the “adulterous woman,” though scholars still debate its authenticity.) That would mean divorce would not be the common solution to adultery.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

IWhat I think of it is that it’s an apology for the Catholic view on marriage / divorce / remarriage. What I find wrong with it is precisely what the article itself admits:

“In the Catholic NAB Bible words in parenthesis are inserted to reflect the constant tradition that has been passed down by the Apostles that a sacramental marriage is life long.”
. . . . .

PLeeD,

The Catholic NAB Preface states the following:

“Doubtful readings of some merit appear within brackets; public readers may include such words or phrases, or omit them entirely without any damage to sense. Parentheses are used, as ordinarily in English, as a punctuation devise. Material they enclose is in no sense textually doubtful. It is simply thought to be parenthetical in the intention of the Biblical author, even though there is no punctuation mark in Greek.”

I agree that the NAB translation of Matthew 19:9 could be seen as a variant. However, I don’t think we can assume the variant is commentary, instead of translation.

I read your link to the Greek Lexicon of Porneia. (studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202) I noticed Porneia is translation only as “fornication” in the KJV. It is not used for adultery. The NAS does not translate porneia as adultery either. Also, in Mt. 15:19 porneia is translated as “fornication” which is listed separately from adultery, as GaryTaylor has already pointed out.

---

**Mt 5:32 - **
butI say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
**
Mt 15:19 - **
"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

**Mt 19:9 - **
“AndI say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery .”

---

I think the main issue is whether or not Matthew 19:9 is speaking about adultery committed during the marriage or fornication committed prior to the marriage. If it is the latter, wouldn’t it fall under an unlawful marriage? I’m just wondering.

Keep in mind that I am a Christian in the Anglican Communion, and Anglicans do not grant annulments (though some Orthodox groups may.) So, my theological bias (and we all have a bias) should cause me to disagree with Gary; and I did at first. However, I think the article Gary provided, Marriage Exception Matthew 19:9 - Porneia (defendingthebride.com/sc/marriage.html) makes some valid points–points worth considering. Comparing multiple translations of Matthew 19:9 does reveal a difference between fornication and adultery as the “exception.”

Here is a link to Annulment/Decree of Nullity: ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

Even in the NIV, which is the topic of the OP, the exception is translated as “sexual immorality,” not “adultery.”

**New International Version, ©2011 & New International Version 1984, ©1984 **
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Again, interesting discussion,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m starting to feel like I’m talking to myself on this thread.

Anna

 

[david75]

I’m sorry, but I am not understanding the importance betweent the different versions of the Bible. Granted my own knowledge is from using KJV then NIV. From my own knowledge and from what I see in this thread, there seems to be very little difference between them. Yes, the versions have different wordings and some have more drawn out details. The message as a whole stays complete.

This just seems to me just another tool to seperate Protestants from Catholics. I do not understand why their are “Catholic Bibles” and “Protestant Bilbes” to start with or why someone felt the need to make so many different translations.

OFF TOPIC ALERT: I have come to realize that many of the issues between Catholics and Protestants is from plain ignorance of each others traditions. We all believe the Jesus is the son of God and the door to salvation. Problems occur when we get stuck in the details. God and Jesus didn’t want the faithful to argue amongst themselves but to spread the word.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents. I am just another Christian trying to do the right thing.

 

[PLeeD]

I’m starting to feel like I’m talking to myself on this thread.

Sorry, I saw your post earlier, but didn’t have a chance to respond until now.

"…Parentheses are used, as ordinarily in English, as a punctuation devise. Material they enclose is in no sense textually doubtful. "

Thanks for pointing that out. I still think that in the case of Matt 19:9 it is in every sense textually doubtful.

I read your link to the Greek Lexicon of Porneia. (studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202) I noticed Porneia is translation only as “fornication” in the KJV. It is not used for adultery.

We don’t know precisely which translated meaning was intended by use of the original word. The only thing we know for sure is that it involves some sort of sexual immorality. I don’t insist that it precisely means adultery here. Used in the immediate context of a married couple, however, IMO the most likely intended meaning is adultery. But, it could also be the case that beastiality or incest, which technically isn’t fornication, and maybe not even technically adultery, would also be counted as an “exception”.

In any case, I think it clearly refers to an event that occurs during a marriage, and not before.

I think the main issue is whether or not Matthew 19:9 is speaking about adultery committed during the marriage or fornication committed prior to the marriage. If it is the latter, wouldn’t it fall under an unlawful marriage? I’m just wondering.

I find the proposition completely unacceptable that the intent of Matt 19:9 refers to an unlawful marriage which was rendered unlawful before the wedding because of premarital sex. If that is what the verse means, then any marriage in human history in which one or both of the partners was not a virgin is then unlawful.

But that’s not quite what that web site is claiming. They aren’t saying the marriage is unlawful because of premarital sex. They are claiming that the exception was for cases such as incestual marriage, which shouldn’t have been allowed at all.

I’ll show the weakness of their exegesis with a quote from that web site:

“Such [incestual] marriages were not totally unheard of in regards to the pagans during the time of Christ.”

Then, to buttress their argument that Matt 19:9 refers to incestual marriages, they quote Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. But Paul completely contradicts what they said in the quote above. He says:

1 Corinthians 5:1 - “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife.”

So the web site claims that “Such marriages were not totally unheard of in regards to the pagans”, yet Paul says such incestual relationships are “immorality of a kind not found even among pagans”.

Who are you going to believe? Paul? Or, whoever wrote that web site?

Anyway, the fact that the CC allows annulments in cases other than sexual immorality also undercuts their case for the NAB interpretation of Matt 19:9.

Again, interesting discussion,
Anna

Yes, but it’s beside the original point of the thread. I could point to another Catholic translation of a verse of scripture that IMO reveals doctrinal bias, but it would be even more divisive, so I won’t

 

[PLeeD]

This just seems to me just another tool to seperate Protestants from Catholics.

Me too. That seemed to be the point of the original post. All the condemnation was being leveled at the “protestant” translations despite the same issues being present in “catholic” translations.

I guess now we have moved past the question over whether there is really doctrinal bias in both categories of translations, and are now discussing whether abandonment of the original meaning of words is justifiable.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents. I am just another Christian trying to do the right thing.

As should we all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pleed, your not reading the footnotes in the NAB which would resolve all this conflict for you. So instead your going around the world. Search Pornia here also its not a new topic.

Nonetheless, you seem to feel strongly about the NAB and indicate this with your other comments. Though I can’t read your mind.

Why not start another thread and get to the point. This thread simply isn’t about the NAB. But I assue you I will participate in the NAB thread because I disagree with several points you have made of recent. But as you see by Davids comments this is now becoming confusing because its focus is not the OP.

God Bless, Gary

 

[PLeeD]

Nonetheless, you seem to feel strongly about the NAB and indicate this with your other comments. Though I can’t read your mind.

Why not start another thread and get to the point. This thread simply isn’t about the NAB.

I have no feelings about the NAB one way or the other.

I simply responded to your request to provide an example of doctrinal bias in a “catholic” bible translation. That is relevant to the topic of this thread. I could provide another if you insist, but it cuts even closer to the heart of Catholic teaching regarding the authority of scripture.

If the NAB had put the “unlawful” clause in brackets, it wouldn’t be worth discussing. But, by putting the clause in parentheses, they are claiming “Material they enclose is in no sense textually doubtful”.

I disagree. I think it’s completely doubtful. It conforms to Catholic discipline, but doesn’t reflect the original text. It’s a precise example of what the original poster was complaining about in “protestant” translations.

BTW, do you have any response to the absolute contradiction I pointed out? That is, between what your linked website claims regarding the common practice of incestual pagan marriages compared to Paul’s complete denial in inspired scripture that they even existed?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sorry, I saw your post earlier, but didn’t have a chance to respond until now.

No worries. I just thought the thread was dying out and I still have interest in the topic. Actually, my Internet was down, just got back on today.

Thanks for pointing that out. I still think that in the case of Matt 19:9 it is in every sense textually doubtful.

I agree that there is an apparent variant in the NAB, but I’m still not convinced that unlawful marriage would not include some type of sexual act prior to marriage.

We don’t know precisely which translated meaning was intended by use of the original word. The only thing we know for sure is that it involves some sort of sexual immorality. I don’t insist that it precisely means adultery here.

That is precisely why I’m considering the Catholic view point on the issue. If the exception was adultery, why didn’t the text specify adultery. It doesn’t, except in some questionable Protestant Bible translations.

Used in the immediate context of a married couple, however, IMO the most likely intended meaning is adultery. But, it could also be the case that beastiality or incest, which technically isn’t fornication, and maybe not even technically adultery, would also be counted as an “exception”.

How do you support your assumption that the intended meaning is likely “adultery,” other than a theological bias regarding the text? That is the question I am asking myself in considering this passage. It’s a tough question, because we all have a bias.

In any case, I think it clearly refers to an event that occurs during a marriage, and not before.

Again, how do you support this? It doesn’t seem all that clear to me, especially since some translations use “fornication,” which is not the same as adultery.

I find the proposition completely unacceptable that the intent of Matt 19:9 refers to an unlawful marriage which was rendered unlawful before the wedding because of premarital sex. If that is what the verse means, then any marriage in human history in which one or both of the partners was not a virgin is then unlawful.

We must consider the time in which this text was written. The views on premarital sex were very strict, as were the penalties. Even though premarital sex is common today, that doesn’t mean it is right in the sight of God or that it has no effect on marriage.

Anyway, the fact that the CC allows annulments in cases other than sexual immorality also undercuts their case for the NAB interpretation of Matt 19:9.

I’m looking at this issue beyond that one article, and the reasons for annulments would be better served on anther thread. We’re already way off topic on this one.

Yes, but it’s beside the original point of the thread. I could point to another Catholic translation of a verse of scripture that IMO reveals doctrinal bias, but it would be even more divisive, so I won’t

That could go on endlessly, with plenty of issues on both sides.

Peace,
Anna

 

[JRRTFAN]

This is not a flame bait thread.
I’m just curious what are the things that non-Catholics like New International Version so much.

And then I came across to a website, a person is giving Bible ‘marks’ for their translations.
This person gave New American Bible 60%.
New International Version gets 90%.
KJV and NKJV get 100%.

And it really starts to puzzle me, what is the thing that some like NIV so much that even NAB gets lower mark, when NAB comes closer to KJV? (Just my opinions, I might be wrong)

Was it a Catholic website? When KJV gets 100% it is generally from a KJV only fundamentalist. As a died in the wool Catholic I can tell you, I’m not that fond of the NAB and the fact that the Vatican won’t let the NAB Revised Psalms be used in the liturgy does tend to support my opinion.

The notes of the NAB are, to me, the most problematic as some of them contradict historic Catholic understanding. And, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why. It’s not like they have to Protestantize it. There are probaby not 5 English speaking Protestants who give it a second thought.

jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html

 

[shaky]

No worries. I just thought the thread was dying out and I still have interest in the topic. Actually, my Internet was down, just got back on today.

I agree that there is an apparent variant in the NAB, but I’m still not convinced that unlawful marriage would not include some type of sexual act prior to marriage.

That is precisely why I’m considering the Catholic view point on the issue. If the exception was adultery, why didn’t the text specify adultery. It doesn’t, except in some questionable Protestant Bible translations.

How do you support your assumption that the intended meaning is likely “adultery,” other than a theological bias regarding the text? That is the question I am asking myself in considering this passage. It’s a tough question, because we all have a bias.

Again, how do you support this? It doesn’t seem all that clear to me, especially since some translations use “fornication,” which is not the same as adultery.

We must consider the time in which this text was written. The views on premarital sex were very strict, as were the penalties. Even though premarital sex is common today, that doesn’t mean it is right in the sight of God or that it has no effect on marriage.

I’m looking at this issue beyond that one article, and the reasons for annulments would be better served on anther thread. We’re already way off topic on this one.

That could go on endlessly, with plenty of issues on both sides.

Peace,
Anna

There are plenty of verses omitted in the NIV compared to the KJV.

Also this Issue in Matthew about fornication or adultery. The Greek word is Pornia> This covers all types of sexuality wrongs committed while one is married.
If your partner has sex with a animal>bestiality or one of the children>incest. Husband with a man or wife with a woman. Also Adultery was only committed when somebody’s wife was violated. But a married man could have sex with single woman as his concubine and that is not considered Adultery in the old testament.

When was it in the new testament that a man can only have One Wife?
Also does a muslim have to give up all his extra wives when he becomes catholic?

 

[SteveVH]

When was it in the new testament that a man can only have One Wife?

"But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh." (Mk 10:6-8)

You cannot become “one” with multiple wives.

Also does a muslim have to give up all his extra wives when he becomes catholic?

Yes, he must give up all of his “extra” wives and remain with only one, however, he is bound to provide and care for the “extra” wives and the children born from those wives.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There are plenty of verses omitted in the NIV compared to the KJV.

Both translations have issues.

Also this Issue in Matthew about fornication or adultery. The Greek word is Pornia> This covers all types of sexuality wrongs committed while one is married. If your partner has sex with a animal>bestiality or one of the children>incest. Husband with a man or wife with a woman. Also Adultery was only committed when somebody’s wife was violated. But a married man could have sex with single woman as his concubine and that is not considered Adultery in the old testament.

The main point of my post was to consider whether the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something that happened after marriage or before–which affects the consideration of annulments. Read back through the last page or two of the thread.

Anna