Why only a catholic bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikec110
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikec110

Guest
i have a catholic bible but i have ben reading a NLT new living translation. because i understand it better? whats the difference other than the nlt is not approved for catholics? what is it lacking that catholics dont approve or the bishops rather? why must we use catholic only bible
 
40.png
mikec110:
i have a catholic bible but i have ben reading a NLT new living translation. because i understand it better? whats the difference other than the nlt is not approved for catholics? what is it lacking that catholics dont approve or the bishops rather? why must we use catholic only bible
Click to expand...
Let’s look at it this way, you write a long letter to your loved ones while you are far away. They get it and share it with others because you described things in it of mutual interest. These others take the letter and decide that certain parts need to be removed–not the personal family stuff, but parts in which you describe where you’ve been and what you’ve seen. They want to remove these parts because they don’t want to hear about certain things because they don’t believe you went where you said you did or did what you said you did. So, parts of your letter are now in circulation and people are writing commentaries on the chopped up version as if it were the original. They are also making copies of this reduced version that are easier to read and calling it a “fresh translation.”

I think you get the idea here even though it’s not a perfect analogy. The Bible is the Church’s book with all the original material in it approved since ancient times. Protestant bibles are reduced chopped up things that do not give you all of what the Bible originally had in it. In some Protestant translations, words are added or taken out or translated in such a way as to put forward their beliefs. Do you really want to rely on such a “bible” when you can have the whole thing as authorized by the Church from which it came?
 
The inspired word of God is the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramnaic text. We do not have those original “parchments” but reliable copies. Translations are NOT infallible and the Church has the duty to declare which ones are reliable and which ones are poor translations or doctrinally suspect in the notes. There are also 7 OT books missing in the Protestant versions of the Bible.
 
40.png
genealogist:
The inspired word of God is the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramnaic text. We do not have those original “parchments” but reliable copies. Translations are NOT infallible and the Church has the duty to declare which ones are reliable and which ones are poor translations or doctrinally suspect in the notes. There are also 7 OT books missing in the Protestant versions of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Right, and there’s even more missing from some of the OT books. Parts of books that the Church included were removed, as well.
 
The most serious problem is the translation itself. On example comes from the “Good News Bible” where in the Magnificat it states “from this day all generations will call me happy” as opposed to using “from this day all generations will call me blessed.” While it is true the greek could be translated happy or blessed but the question is - which is a better word to use in the english that evoks the sense of Scripture that was intended. The Church has a responsibility to care for each word in Scripture and she takes great care to keep whole any translation of scripture (this is why Rome mandated the retranslation of the NAB).
 
The New Living Translation is available in a Catholic edition containing the deuterocannoninical books (I have a copy). It is not, however, approved by the Church.

It is a highly readable translation, but often ventures into paraphrase rather than translation. It can be very helpful for someone new to reading the Bible, but I would recommend having a Church approved translation to compare it with and read them together. Where the NLT seems to depart from the other, go with what the Church approved translation reads. I personally use the NRSV and the NAB together for study and the Douay-Rhimes when I just want to lose myself in God’s Word.
 
40.png
Lapsed:
The New Living Translation is available in a Catholic edition containing the deuterocannoninical books (I have a copy). It is not, however, approved by the Church.
.
Click to expand...
I have it as well. I think it is excellent. I use it for casual reading. I do however use The NAB and The Jerusalem Bible for an indepth study.
 
40.png
mosher:
The most serious problem is the translation itself. On example comes from the “Good News Bible” where in the Magnificat it states “from this day all generations will call me happy” as opposed to using “from this day all generations will call me blessed.” While it is true the greek could be translated happy or blessed but the question is - which is a better word to use in the english that evoks the sense of Scripture that was intended. The Church has a responsibility to care for each word in Scripture and she takes great care to keep whole any translation of scripture (this is why Rome mandated the retranslation of the NAB).
Click to expand...
The problem with this is “The Good News Bible” DOES have a
Imprimatur by John Cardinal Krol Archbishop of Philadelphia.
 
I always tell people paraphrases are fine, if they help you to at least become familiar with the Bible. However, they should never be used to establish a point of doctrine because they are are in no way a faithful or accurate translation.
 
40.png
mikec110:
i have a catholic bible but i have ben reading a NLT new living translation. because i understand it better? whats the difference other than the nlt is not approved for catholics? what is it lacking that catholics dont approve or the bishops rather? why must we use catholic only bible
Click to expand...
Mike:

Which Catholic version do you have?

If it’s the Douay-Rheims Challoner, I understand as it’s written in the same language as the King’s James Version…

If you like the NLT, try the New Jerusalem Bible - It’s a Dynamic Equivalence Translation (as is the NLT) , and it’s approved by the Church, plus it’s got a plethora of study notes and cross references. If you want a more literal translation, look at the New American Bible (it’s the one read at Mass) or the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition.

Between these three, you should find something that’s readable for you.

If you must use a Protestant Bible, might I suggest you look at the New International Version as it’s a Dynamic Equivalence done by people who believed the Bible to be the Word of God, so they didn’t do the things to the translation the people did in The Living Bible Paraphrase.

It’s just that you would be missing out on the Deuterocanonical Books which are recognized by almost all the varieties of Orthodox as well as the Catholics.

That’s my 2 cents worth.

In Christ, Michael
 
the New Living Translation is a paraphrase and the biases of the translators (which consistently reject the Catholic interpretation and meaning) are evident throughout. the same with Today’s English Bible. Either might possibly be acceptable for use by someone with limited language skills, but cannot be recommended for devotional use by most Catholics. It is of course not approved for liturgical use, teaching, and public bible study.

The New American Bible is very readable and is the approved source for the lectionary, so should be the bible of choice for teaching and of course for liturgy (in the United States). The RSV-CE is used in English translations of official Church documents including the CCC, so is also useful for teaching, bible study etc.

Other Catholic Bibles, including the Jerusalem bible, the Douay-Rheims are good for study and devotional use, and may be used in public settings and teaching outside the liturgy.

the NRSV and New Jerusalem bible use inclusive language and are problematic for that reason.
 
There is a difference between the Living Bible and The New Living Translation Catholic reference edition. They both contain the Deuterocanonical Books. The Living Bible is a paraphrase that was done by Kenneth Taylor. He did this for his children and it became very popular. The Catholic Edition is known as The Way. It does carry a Imprimatur. The New Living Translation is a decent translation and has the Deuterocanonical Books in the Old Testament not seperated. I do like it alot. I personally read The Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible (Scott Hahn likes NJB as well as RSV-CE). The NJB is the one my Catholic friends in the UK and Wales read.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
the New Living Translation is a paraphrase and the biases of the translators (which consistently reject the Catholic interpretation and meaning) are evident throughout. the same with Today’s English Bible. Either might possibly be acceptable for use by someone with limited language skills, but cannot be recommended for devotional use by most Catholics. It is of course not approved for liturgical use, teaching, and public bible study.

The New American Bible is very readable and is the approved source for the lectionary, so should be the bible of choice for teaching and of course for liturgy (in the United States). The RSV-CE is used in English translations of official Church documents including the CCC, so is also useful for teaching, bible study etc.

Other Catholic Bibles, including the Jerusalem bible, the Douay-Rheims are good for study and devotional use, and may be used in public settings and teaching outside the liturgy.

the NRSV and New Jerusalem bible use inclusive language and are problematic for that reason.
Click to expand...
Puzzleannie:

Neither the ORIGINAL Edition of the New Jerusalem Bible nor the ORIGINAL RSV is afflicted with Inclusive Language Disorder, while the latest Edition of the New American Bible seems to have acquired the affliction, along with a host of modern translations.

In the case of the NAB, I believe the demand for INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE came from the USCCB who responded to the demands of some Feminists.

I’ll only say that that is what happens when you get disconnected from the regular worshippers who inhabit the pews every Sunday. :banghead:

I could spend a thread on the remedy to that - It’s actually fairly simple. 👍

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
mikec110:
why must we use catholic only bible
Click to expand...
Is there anything that says we can only use a Catholic Bible? I generally rely on approved translations, but I have several Bibles and sometimes referencing other translations helps me understand what the passage is saying, (or at least I think I understand it better.🙂 )

That said, I do understand why the Church approves some, but not all. I don’t expect that our bishops and leaders have the time to scan each and every Bible translation published, searching for errors that may be or may not be there. One word can change the meaning of an entire passage. Some may purposely try to alter the Bible to meet their particular agendas; others may make errors simply because of their own bias; others may not make any translational errors at all.

In any case, we have numerous Catholic translations that the Church has said are free from error. While I sometimes read other versions, I don’t expect Catholic authorities, (who have already provided us several translations) have the time to review every translation that might be published.
 
Leaving the deutero-canonicals aside, why would anyone want to use an NAB when they can use far superior translations such as the NAS (New American Standard) or better yet the new ESV (English standard Version). Better manuscripts, much more accurate word for word translations, they read much better, and in the case of the ESV the sacramental passages are very clearly sacramental is very much preserved.

Forget that Protestants were involved with these translations. They happen to have the better scholars (translators) in recent decades than English speaking catholics do - that is not a judgement or anything, justa fact. Much more conservative and traditional than the those that came up with the NAB. They are simply superior translations.

For better or worse it was conservative prots in the 20th century that were mcuh more serious about accurate and beautiful translations than the CC. Even your RSV:CE is a protestant translation with a few minor catholic tweaks. It should not take away from it no matter who translated it as long as the translators had integrity.

So go get and ESV or and NAS. You can get the duetero-canonical elsewhere. They are only a small portionof the OT anyway. It poses no real burden to do it this way.

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
Leaving the deutero-canonicals aside, why would anyone want to use an NAB when they can use far superior translations such as the NAS (New American Standard) or better yet the new ESV (English standard Version). Better manuscripts, much more accurate word for word translations, they read much better, and in the case of the ESV the sacramental passages are very clearly sacramental is very much preserved.
Click to expand...
Which is why I use the Douay-Rheims as my study Bible.
 
40.png
anawim:
Which is why I use the Douay-Rheims as my study Bible.
Click to expand...
Good choice. But for some King James English is too much of a barrier. I was only addressing those who want a good translation that also retains the beauty needed to for the Psalms etc.

Mel
 
I have an NAB. the text dated from the 1970’s, i guess this is what i use.
 
These are new ideas to me. Could you tell me more about how they use better manuscripts for example?
40.png
Melchior:
Leaving the deutero-canonicals aside, why would anyone want to use an NAB when they can use far superior translations such as the NAS (New American Standard) or better yet the new ESV (English standard Version). Better manuscripts, much more accurate word for word translations, they read much better, and in the case of the ESV the sacramental passages are very clearly sacramental is very much preserved.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top