The NIV is an Evangelical translation, one would not expect it to be the same as a Catholic version. The NAB is, I think, harder to read than an NIV, its wording is simply poor.
I’d think it’ be more comparable to the NRSV…not the NASB.
I wonder sometimes if I am the only Catholic who prefers the KJV
They like it because it’s clear.
Same reason they like the KJV, NKJV, CEV, ASV, NASB, and all those other Protestant Bibles because they don’t have the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal Books in between the Old and New Testament. That’s the difference between Catholics and Protestants.
You might think that but the RSV and the NASB are formal equivalence translations and the NRSV is very much more dynamic equivalence. Have you seen them? I own them all.
I like the RSV best…I own NRSV and NASB…NASB was from my “evangelical” days…translation of choice for the Nazarene chuch I attended…when I became “convinced” a Friend…I chose the RSV…my evangelical church didn’t like it as it was too liberal…“they removed passages”…the end of Mark, the woman caught in adultery in John was made a foot-note, the Johanine comma in 1 John(?)…the NRSV I too enjoy it’s more inclusive language…a more modern translation IMO.
More so than RSV and NASB for sure. But considerably less so than the NIV. I think scholars generally classify the NRSV as more on the “formal equivalence” side, though it depends on what your standard is.
It’s not that hard to find NRSVs that have the deuteros. All the NRSV study Bibles I’m aware of do–actually they generally have more books than your Communion recognizes (2 Esdras and 3-4 Maccabees). I do not think that any edition of the NRSV has the imprimatur, though I may be wrong.
What i have found with the NIV> Why has so many verses been Omitted?
I have not studied the NIV to determine if any verses were omitted. Frankly, I can’t read the Greek of the Nestle-Aland to KNOW if any were omitted. I do know it omits the deuterocanon and those contain a whole bunch of verses.
Those passages omitted are not found in the majority of manuscripts.
I mean *difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles
I"ve got to admit, I’ve thought the same thing. I had looked for years, (before the internet) for a Catholic Version of the NIV. I thought it was easy to read and I enjoyed it very much!
Yes, this is how we got the 1611 King James with the deuterocanonicals. Can’t understand on whose authority they were removed 100 years later.
There are many problems with the NIV that Catholics and Protestants see:
It is when you base your beliefs on the Bible alone, it isn’t when you don’t and do have One Holy Catholic Apostolic to teach Scripture-Tradtion what the revealed truths are.
The dilema is that we are arguing Protestant thought. The translation is not important, the original Greek is. How often do you hear people like Scott Hahn ask “what translation do you have?”, now if you look at the Greek you can see…etc.Heres the first edition 1869 “Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible” by Rev Roswell D.Hitchcock, Prof of the Theological Seminary of NYC. Revised by John Eadie Prof. of Biblical Lit. of the United Presb. Church. Here you can read on him and his work.
wordsearchbible.com/catalog/Hitchcocks_Bible_Names_Dictionary_712.html
Matthew 19:9 And I say to you whoever shall put away his wife, except be it for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Here’s a 1905 edition {first edition 1609} of the Douay Bible which is the most widely used and accurate Catholic Bible btw…which is translated from the Latin Vulgate and diligently compared to the Hebrew and Greek.
Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultry: and he that marry her that is put away, committeth adultry.
Here’s a 1960 editition of the Catholic “New American Bible”.
Matthew 19.9 And now I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, {lewd conduct be the seperate case} and marries another commits adultery, and the man who marrys a divorced woman commits adultery.
Again it gets back to what we already talked about in this post.What is the problem? I fail to understand what the issue is here? I honestly feel we are talking apples and orange’s now.
Somehow you insist on using Matthew 19:9 in translation in what both Catholic/Protestant to promote the NIV? What are you saying you found a Catholic Bible you don’t agree with? Its obvious its bias thinking to believe Bibles are written to favor Catholic teaching. Thats just absurd.
I’m positive if your were to ask Catholic’s here what Bible they prefer most will state the Douay.
How is it that this somehow make’s the faults in the NIV OK? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Or I’m missing something here.
BTW heres a Red-Letter KJV from 1983 edition.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except be it for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
God Bless, Gary
Concerning the argument that does not hold water. The standard is the Septuagint. What words are in Hebrew is only relevant to Protestants.
So far as I know, there is no One True Translation sentiment in Protestantism, except for a few fringe KJVO types. I personally am happy to use any reasonable translation, including Catholic ones. though of course I do have my favorites. with the ESV and HCSB at the top of the list. But I’m happy enough with the RSV-CE or the NJB.
