Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Peter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ibneahmad said:
The Catholic or Non-Catholic is not that important; the important should be; did Jesus believe in it or did he do it?
Click to expand...
Jesus as interpreted/determined how?

Through historical scholarship? There are so many “historical Jesuses” that this path seems hopelessly confusing.

Edwin
 
Izdaari said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. There is the, wrong, sentiment that the Old Testament is based on Hebrew and that the New Testament is Greek. There is the sentiment that the deuterocanonicals are to be removed, and other small portions have been removed, Daniel, Matthew and a Psalm.

You are incorect.
 
Contarini said:
Jesus as interpreted/determined how?

Through historical scholarship? There are so many “historical Jesuses” that this path seems hopelessly confusing.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Jesus never promised us historical scholarship, a Protestant invention, he promised us a Church.
 
CopticChristian said:
Yes there is. There is the, wrong, sentiment that the Old Testament is based on Hebrew and that the New Testament is Greek. There is the sentiment that the deuterocanonicals are to be removed, and other small portions have been removed, Daniel, Matthew and a Psalm.

You are incorect.
Click to expand...
Am I really? So far as I am aware, it is not AG dogma that the Septuagint may not be used in a translation, nor that the deuterocanonicals must be removed. I’m sure there are some Protestants somewhere that insist on those things, but I don’t agree with them. I do sometimes carry a Catholic Bible to church (I own a gazillion or so different translations), and it doesn’t get any negative comment.
 
CopticChristian said:
Jesus never promised us historical scholarship, a Protestant invention, he promised us a Church.
Click to expand...
Catholics were engaging in some form of historical scholarship long before Protestants came along. The Catholic humanists of the early sixteenth century did historical and literary scholarship on which Protestants built but which was not itself Protestant. And Catholics contributed to the development of “modern” (i.e., post-Enlightenment) historical scholarship too.

Biblical “historical criticism” was developed in part by Catholics (though somewhat unorthodox Catholics) trying to refute Sola Scriptura.

If you reject historical scholarship, you reject one of the methods by which human beings can discover truth. This is unwise and ungrateful to God on your part.

Lots of Catholics engage in historical scholarship. You would do well to learn humbly from them (I will not be so bold, at this point, as to ask you to learn from Protestants or non-Christians or even Orthodox) rather than dismissing them as fools.

However, you completely missed my point. I was in fact questioning the idea that one can determine the “real Jesus” apart from the historic witness of the Church.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Catholics were engaging in some form of historical scholarship long before Protestants came along. The Catholic humanists of the early sixteenth century did historical and literary scholarship on which Protestants built but which was not itself Protestant. And Catholics contributed to the development of “modern” (i.e., post-Enlightenment) historical scholarship too.

Biblical “historical criticism” was developed in part by Catholics (though somewhat unorthodox Catholics) trying to refute Sola Scriptura.

If you reject historical scholarship, you reject one of the methods by which human beings can discover truth. This is unwise and ungrateful to God on your part.

Lots of Catholics engage in historical scholarship. You would do well to learn humbly from them (I will not be so bold, at this point, as to ask you to learn from Protestants or non-Christians or even Orthodox) rather than dismissing them as fools.

However, you completely missed my point. I was in fact questioning the idea that one can determine the “real Jesus” apart from the historic witness of the Church.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I agree for the most part. History can and has been used many ways to defend and teach the Truth. I see no harm in such a method.
 
Contarini said:
They like it because it’s clear.
Also it’s well-marketed, and represents a broad variety of evangelical scholarship.
A lot of things in the evangelical world become popular for being popular, as it were. (Yes, that’s a bit cynical.)
And finally, the very inaccuracies that many of the rest of us are quick to jump on confirm what evangelicals believed anyway (which is why the evangelical translators did it that way–obviously they weren’t being deliberately dishonest, but their bias shaped their fairly “dynamic” translation). The NIV won’t rock your boat too much if you are an evangelical. That’s why I don’t like my students to use it in my classes–it insulates them from some of the more uncomfortable and difficult aspects of the Bible (for them), and most of the NIV study Bibles just contribute to this “comforting” effect.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Good points, Edwin.👍👍
I just plain don’t like it; it doesn’t “feel” or “sound” like the Bible to me. (And yes, I know this is;) annoyingly Methodist-to-the-bone of me!)🤷
 
Izdaari said:
Am I really? So far as I am aware, it is not AG dogma that the Septuagint may not be used in a translation, nor that the deuterocanonicals must be removed. I’m sure there are some Protestants somewhere that insist on those things, but I don’t agree with them. I do sometimes carry a Catholic Bible to church (I own a gazillion or so different translations), and it doesn’t get any negative comment.
Click to expand...
Anglicanism and Pentecostalism are the same in all the essentials that define Christianity. Pentecostalism (the non-wacky version, as practiced by AG and Foursquare, not any of the weird offshoots) at its core amounts amounts to Methodism + continuationism, and John Wesley called himself an Anglican all his life.
Click to expand...
So if you follow the Anglican Church which Bible do you use? Does it have the deuterocanonicals? If you follow the Pentecostals which bible do they use?
 
Contarini said:
Catholics were engaging in some form of historical scholarship long before Protestants came along. The Catholic humanists of the early sixteenth century did historical and literary scholarship on which Protestants built but which was not itself Protestant. And Catholics contributed to the development of “modern” (i.e., post-Enlightenment) historical scholarship too.

Biblical “historical criticism” was developed in part by Catholics (though somewhat unorthodox Catholics) trying to refute Sola Scriptura.

If you reject historical scholarship, you reject one of the methods by which human beings can discover truth. This is unwise and ungrateful to God on your part.

Lots of Catholics engage in historical scholarship. You would do well to learn humbly from them (I will not be so bold, at this point, as to ask you to learn from Protestants or non-Christians or even Orthodox) rather than dismissing them as fools.

However, you completely missed my point. I was in fact questioning the idea that one can determine the “real Jesus” apart from the historic witness of the Church.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Jesus is a person. The bible teaches that the mystery is the Body of Christ is the Church.

We can discern a person but without the witness of the Church we dismiss a teaching of Jesus and in so doing cannot determine the fullness of the real Jesus.
 
CopticChristian said:
So if you follow the Anglican Church which Bible do you use? Does it have the deuterocanonicals? If you follow the Pentecostals which bible do they use?
Click to expand...
I have at least 30 or so Bibles at any given time (as I give some away, and buy others) in many different translations, some with the deuterocanonicals, some without.

I think the NRSV is probably the one most used by Anglicans, and it’s one I like myself. I have Oxford RSV and NRSV editions that are not specifically Catholic editions, but that do contain the deuterocanonicals.

My AG church uses NIV as the pew Bibles, but we aren’t told to use that translation or anything, it’s just what’s provided if we don’t bring our own. I’ve seen the NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and NLT all commonly used by people from my church, and sometimes The Message, though I don’t think anyone uses that for serious study. Our pastor preaches mainly from the NIV, but occasionally he’ll do it from the NLT or KJV as well. The deuterocanonicals are not required and not taught from, but not forbidden or discouraged, and some do read them.

Personally, I’ll carry to church anything from my collection that strikes my fancy on any given day. I have carried a KJV and a Douay-Rheims, but that’s rare because I do favor more modern translations. I particularly like the ESV (and for that matter the entire RSV family) and the HCSB. I’ve browsed though a NJB, and I expect it’ll become one of my favorites also once I have one.

For reading at home, I’m partial to the ESV Study Bible, which I favor mainly for its excellent notes and maps. It lacks the deuterocanonicals, so if I want those I’ll switch over to one that has them, usually an RSV or NRSV.
 
Izdaari said:
I have at least 30 or so Bibles at any given time (as I give some away, and buy others) in many different translations, some with the deuterocanonicals, some without.

I think the NRSV is probably the one most used by Anglicans, and it’s one I like myself. I have Oxford RSV and NRSV editions that are not specifically Catholic editions, but that do contain the deuterocanonicals.

My AG church uses NIV as the pew Bibles, but we aren’t told to use that translation or anything, it’s just what’s provided if we don’t bring our own. I’ve seen the NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and NLT all commonly used by people from my church, and sometimes The Message, though I don’t think anyone uses that for serious study. Our pastor preaches mainly from the NIV, but occasionally he’ll do it from the NLT or KJV as well. The deuterocanonicals are not required and not taught from, but not forbidden or discouraged, and some do read them.

Personally, I’ll carry to church anything from my collection that strikes my fancy on any given day. I have carried a KJV and a Douay-Rheims, but that’s rare because I do favor more modern translations. I particularly like the ESV (and for that matter the entire RSV family) and the HCSB. I’ve browsed though a NJB, and I expect it’ll become one of my favorites also once I have one.

For reading at home, I’m partial to the ESV Study Bible, which I favor mainly for its excellent notes and maps. It lacks the deuterocanonicals, so if I want those I’ll switch over to one that has them, usually an RSV or NRSV.
Click to expand...
Does your AG church have a statement of faith?
 
CopticChristian said:
So if you follow the Anglican Church which Bible do you use? Does it have the deuterocanonicals? If you follow the Pentecostals which bible do they use?
Click to expand...
It might be ok to say what is in or out of any Bible, but on the whole Catholics tend to go more by their Missal, rather than their Bible. If you go to mass every Sunday and feast day for three years, you only hear about 4 % of the OT, and about 41 % of the NT.

More details at http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

I have been going to Journey in Faith for a number of years in two Catholic Churches, and we don’t tend to encourage reading the Bible.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
It might be ok to say what is in or out of any Bible, but on the whole Catholics tend to go more by their Missal, rather than their Bible. If you go to mass every Sunday and feast day for three years, you only hear about 4 % of the OT, and about 41 % of the NT.

More details at http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

I have been going to Journey in Faith for a number of years in two Catholic Churches, and we don’t tend to encourage reading the Bible.
Click to expand...
Every Church is different. Our Church has a bible study. You can now go to websites and do a bible study with Scott Hahn. He is doing Corinthians now. The Church does not prevent you from using whatever resource you need or want. If Protestants have done nothing then it is to encourage Bible study and in that study see the lack of foundation in Protestant thought. This is a good that came of an evil, that evil was 1600.
 
CopticChristian said:
Does your AG church have a statement of faith?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it includes no mention of Bible versions.

I had to sign a SoF to become a member. Our congregation’s custom version, written by our pastor, is a tad more liberal than the national version, which is good because a couple things I might have had trouble with were softened.

Although the national website affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, it does not prescribe any version, manuscript family or define the Canon.
 
Izdaari said:
Yes, but it includes no mention of Bible versions.

I had to sign a SoF to become a member. Our congregation’s custom version, written by our pastor, is a tad more liberal than the national version, which is good because a couple things I might have had trouble with were softened.

Although the national website affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, it does not prescribe any version, manuscript family or define the Canon.
Click to expand...
Give me the name of your Church. Give me the website of the national organization you are talking about. I can look them up on the web and see for myself what they say.
 
Izdaari said:
Here’s the national AG site:

ag.org/top/index.cfm

I’ll PM you the other, don’t want to share it with the world.
Click to expand...
If you look at core beliefs and click on the following

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm

Then go to innerrancy of Scripture

If you then go to

Topics index, bible translations

ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/sptlissues_bible_translations.cfm

You will find the overwhelming direction towards the KJV and the NIV

If your Church, as you say it does is AOG, USA then this is what they expect you to use.

The summary of what they want you to believe is that Protestants made the Bible most important and more important than those that needed Reform. They want you to have a Protestant Bible.
 
CopticChristian said:
If you look at core beliefs and click on the following

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm

Then go to innerrancy of Scripture

If you then go to

Topics index, bible translations

ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/sptlissues_bible_translations.cfm

You will find the overwhelming direction towards the KJV and the NIV

If your Church, as you say it does is AOG, USA then this is what they expect you to use.

The summary of what they want you to believe is that Protestants made the Bible most important and more important than those that needed Reform. They want you to have a Protestant Bible.
Click to expand...
Well, as I said, our pastor preaches mostly from the NIV, but sometimes from the NLT or KJV.

The pew Bibles are NIV, but we can use whatever we want (even the Douay-Rheims, which I’ve carried to church a few times) and never get a negative comment over it. Well, we all know we have some ex-Catholic members and I’m sure nobody wants to offend them.

As far as what I’ve observed people to carry, I’ve seen a lot of NIV’s, but also plenty of NKJV’s, NLT’s, and NASB’s, not too many KJV’s.

Personally, if I could have only one Bible, ideally it would be an ESV with the ESV Study Bible notes, but also with the deuterocanonicals, and with ESV Study Bible notes for them too. I’d also like to have extensive translation notes as in the NET. That imaginary Bible doesn’t exist of course, but it’s what I’d want. Luckily, I’m not limited to just one.
 
CopticChristian said:
If you look at core beliefs and click on the following

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm

Then go to innerrancy of Scripture

If you then go to

Topics index, bible translations

ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/sptlissues_bible_translations.cfm

You will find the overwhelming direction towards the KJV and the NIV

If your Church, as you say it does is AOG, USA then this is what they expect you to use.

The summary of what they want you to believe is that Protestants made the Bible most important and more important than those that needed Reform. They want you to have a Protestant Bible.
Click to expand...
Where do you get that from? They are just giving practical advice about Bible translations. They state that for official publications they use the KJV and NIV. No big deal because AG churches aren’t even required to use AG educational materials in the first place. Anyway this is not even an authoritative statement by the AG. If it was it would say as other statements on that site do say “This is the official position of the General Presbytery”. It doesn’t it says quite plainly “The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching.”

To say it simply, they don’t tell you what Bible to use. But I’ll quote if for you as well:
**Today it is safe to say that other translations besides the King James Version have found a well-deserved place in many Assemblies of God homes and churches. Some of these are the 1973 NIV, the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the Revised American Standard Bible (RASB). **These, like the King James Version, are produced by committees of scholars. Of course, all versions have strengths and weaknesses. To simplify the choice of versions in curricular materials and headquarters publications, the Assemblies of God has officially approved two versions: the King James Version and the New International Version. Other versions are also quoted, but their use is always identified after the quotation.
Click to expand...
And I wouldn’t be so quick to judge “the overwhelming direction” of anything in the AG from an official source. It’s ecclesiastical polity is a mix of Presbyterian and Congregationalism so you can’t really put all AG churches in one box.
 
ltwin said:
Where do you get that from? They are just giving practical advice about Bible translations. They state that for official publications they use the KJV and NIV. No big deal because AG churches aren’t even required to use AG educational materials in the first place. Anyway this is not even an authoritative statement by the AG. If it was it would say as other statements on that site do say “This is the official position of the General Presbytery”. It doesn’t it says quite plainly “The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching.”

To say it simply, they don’t tell you what Bible to use. But I’ll quote if for you as well:

And I wouldn’t be so quick to judge “the overwhelming direction” of anything in the AG from an official source. It’s ecclesiastical polity is a mix of Presbyterian and Congregationalism so you can’t really put all AG churches in one box.
Click to expand...
So the 1611 and Septuagint would be part of any AG home? Your defense is not rational. The way the information reads is prejudiced towards the reformation bringing some greater good and in fact slanders. I will provide you evidence if you ask, after you read it and do not understand. Your request for evidence will be based on your failure to see what I see. Others will see when I show them. Read and let me know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top