Why was this Bible verse changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stmaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rusty_eyes said:
Is it not the interpretation that holds more significance than the translation!!! We could sit here for years arguing the translation, but God has given the Church the authority to teach and interpret His Holy Scriptures. Indeed, He has given the Church the responsibility to do so! We must remember that the Pope does not rely on human understanding of scripture, but on divine guidance. As such, who are we to refute God???!

Prayers, Ann
Click to expand...
Yes God has given the Catholic Church the authority to teach and interpret His Holy Scriptures. So why does the Church need Protestants, who deny the teachings of the Church, to help with the new translations.?

The Vatican II document *Dei Verbum *states:

Chapter VI:
22. Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all
the Christian faithful….but since the Word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that
suitable and correct translations are made into different
languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.
**B]And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities
approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the
separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

**
]Pope John Paul II agrees with this effect of ecumenism in
Ut unum sint On commitment to Ecumenism

44.** Significant progress in ecumenical cooperation has also been made in another area, that of the Word of God**. I am thinking above all of the importance for the different language groups of **ecumenical translations **of the Bible. Following the promulgation by the Second Vatican Council of the Constitution Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church could not fail to welcome this development.75 These translations, prepared by experts, generally offer a solid basis for the prayer and pastoral activity of all Christ’s followers. Anyone who recalls how heavily debates about Scripture influenced divisions, especially in the West, can appreciate the significant step forward which these common translations represent”
 
stmaria said:
Yes God has given the Catholic Church the authority to teach and interpret His Holy Scriptures. So why does the Church need Protestants, who deny the teachings of the Church, to help with the new translations.?
Click to expand...
To actually do a translation itself, one only needs to understand the original languages and how to translate them to English (or any other language). The Protestants could do this just as accurately as Catholics. As long as Protestants are not writing footnotes, it is fine. The footnotes are the teaching and interpreting of the Scriptures. The actual text of the Scripture in English is not an interpretation, it is a translation.
 
Rusty_eyes said:
Is it not the interpretation that holds more significance than the translation!!! We could sit here for years arguing the translation, but God has given the Church the authority to teach and interpret His Holy Scriptures. Indeed, He has given the Church the responsibility to do so! We must remember that the Pope does not rely on human understanding of scripture, but on divine guidance. As such, who are we to refute God???!

Prayers, Ann
Click to expand...
I would think that different translations could lead to different interpretations.

Where does Jesus give the authority to the church exclusively to interpret scriptures?

Christians are called to be disciples, and we are called to make disciples of Jesus Christ: that is, people who follow him, who are committed to him and to his will as revealed in Scripture.

Mat 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Everytime it’s what Jesus has commanded. The only true word of God we have is the Bible.
 
rr1213 said:
I am still trying to understand Catholics and the various divisions within Catholicism. From what you’ve said above, is it fair to assume that you are not in communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
The divisions came about in the wake of the 2nd Vatican Council. Liberals and modernists within the Church misrepresented Church teachings and the Council,and the Popes and the magisterium were not able to rein them in or enforce Church doctrine without causing even more confusion and dissent. So some traditionalists are under the impression that the core of Church authority (the Vatican,the magisterium,the Popes) have become corrupted with liberalism and modernism.
 
anthony022071 said:
The divisions came about in the wake of the 2nd Vatican Council. Liberals and modernists within the Church misrepresented Church teachings and the Council,and the Popes and the magisterium were not able to rein them in or enforce Church doctrine without causing even more confusion and dissent. So some traditionalists are under the impression that the core of Church authority (the Vatican,the magisterium,the Popes) have become corrupted with liberalism and modernism.
Click to expand...
So, a second wave of Protestants I take it?
 
porthos11 said:
That’s just the base.

The case, tense, and mood are essential too.
Click to expand...
There has been an ongoing thread on Christian Forums about this under “Marialogy”. A Greek Orthodox member called Repentant stated that the word “kecharitomene” would best be translated into English as “one who in which grace lives”. It is the perfect passive participle of “charitoo”. The Greek perfect tense is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker. Therefore the grace that the Angel Gabriel was talking about was not bestowed on Mary by the Angel, but already dwelt within her.

On a slightly differenct tangent, defending the Immaculate Conception of Mary with only this verse is like rowing a boat with only one oar. You tend to go round and round in circles. If someone does not understand Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, and the tabernacle of the Lord, they will find it hard to understand how Catholics could believe in the Immaculate Conception. Of course, running them through the whole typology of the above is a lot longer process than quoting scripture at them; but theology rarely translates into a 2 minute sound bite.
 
““Christians are called to be disciples, and we are called to make disciples of Jesus Christ: that is, people who follow him, who are committed to him and to his will as revealed in Scripture.””

But, Jesus did not say, “Go out to the nations, and give them a Bible, that they may form their own conclusions”. He exhorted his disciples to TEACH! Handing a person a Bible would not fulfill this duty. The Bible wasn’t even written when Jesus commanded this! Thus, it could not have been what Jesus was referring to. How did Jesus teach the crowds? Not by handing them literature!
He commanded his disciples to teach in the same way.

Ann
 
lak611 said:
To actually do a translation itself, one only needs to understand the original languages and how to translate them to English (or any other language). **The Protestants could do this just as accurately as Catholics. ** As long as Protestants are not writing footnotes, it is fine. The footnotes are the teaching and interpreting of the Scriptures. The actual text of the Scripture in English is not an interpretation, it is a translation.
Click to expand...
So why did they need the King James?
 
Because most people couldn’t read Latin. Besides, the Church of England wasn’t in communion with Rome at that time anyway.
 
My original question was “ why was this verse changed?’ It was not because of translation.

At the Vatican II council the Traditionalist wanted to devote an entire schema on the Virgin Mary. The liberals objected. Here is what they said at the council:

”….according to Father Rahner…the schema as drafted as a source of great concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier,Semmelroth and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the texts to be accepted as it stood, he contended, “ unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants….all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands”….The proposal officially submitted by the Fulda conference to the General Secretariat of the Council also quoted from Protestant writings. Bishop Didelius of the German Evangicial Church, was quoted as saying in 1962 that the Catholic Church’s teaching of Mary was one of the major impediments to union. Other German Protestant authorities…were quoted as saying that the Council Fathers in Rome should remember that they would be erecting a new wall of division by approving a schema on Mary’

In Bibles printed in 1970 there is a statement from Pope Paul that says “this new translation was made with the help of our separated brethren “

Seems ecumenism was more important to the reformers of the Church than the Mother of God.
 
stmaria said:
My original question was “ why was this verse changed?’ It was not because of translation.

At the Vatican II council the Traditionalist wanted to devote an entire schema on the Virgin Mary. The liberals objected. Here is what they said at the council:

”….according to Father Rahner…the schema as drafted as a source of great concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier,Semmelroth and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the texts to be accepted as it stood, he contended, “ unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants….all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands”….The proposal officially submitted by the Fulda conference to the General Secretariat of the Council also quoted from Protestant writings. Bishop Didelius of the German Evangicial Church, was quoted as saying in 1962 that the Catholic Church’s teaching of Mary was one of the major impediments to union. Other German Protestant authorities…were quoted as saying that the Council Fathers in Rome should remember that they would be erecting a new wall of division by approving a schema on Mary’

In Bibles printed in 1970 there is a statement from Pope Paul that says “this new translation was made with the help of our separated brethren “

Seems ecumenism was more important to the reformers of the Church than the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
Depends. What did the “schema” say about Mary? Maybe the Holy Spirit prevented the Catholic Church from promulgating error about Mary through the opposition of the Good Fathers who you cite above.
 
stmaria said:
My original question was “ why was this verse changed?’ It was not because of translation.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a matter of translation! :rolleyes:

The Clementine Vulgate still says Ave, gratia plena.

The *Nova Vulgata *also says Ave, gratia plena.

The Douay-Rheims still says “Hail, full of grace”.

**No one went back and changed anything! New translations (eg the New American) used a new phrase. (Sheesh!)

tee
 
tee_eff_em said:
Of course it is a matter of translation! :rolleyes:

The Clementine Vulgate still says Ave, gratia plena.

The *Nova Vulgata *also says Ave, gratia plena.

The Douay-Rheims still says “Hail, full of grace”.

**No one went back and *changed ***anything! New translations (eg the New American) used a new phrase. (Sheesh!)

tee
Click to expand...
And in verse 30 it is the same; Do not be afraid Mary for you have found favor with God"

Son of David throne and Son of God

NAB also Hail favored one!

Maybe they did this so it would not be left blank as I think some people would like it to be and some don’t even want to say hail.

dessert
 
stmaria said:
My original question was “ why was this verse changed?’ It was not because of translation.

At the Vatican II council the Traditionalist wanted to devote an entire schema on the Virgin Mary. The liberals objected. Here is what they said at the council:

”….according to Father Rahner…the schema as drafted as a source of great concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier,Semmelroth and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the texts to be accepted as it stood, he contended, “ unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants….all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands”….The proposal officially submitted by the Fulda conference to the General Secretariat of the Council also quoted from Protestant writings. Bishop Didelius of the German Evangicial Church, was quoted as saying in 1962 that the Catholic Church’s teaching of Mary was one of the major impediments to union. Other German Protestant authorities…were quoted as saying that the Council Fathers in Rome should remember that they would be erecting a new wall of division by approving a schema on Mary’

In Bibles printed in 1970 there is a statement from Pope Paul that says “this new translation was made with the help of our separated brethren “

Seems ecumenism was more important to the reformers of the Church than the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
stmaria;
The Catholic Bible RSV Catholic Edition still says full of grace with footnotes about the greek, meaning favored one, mine is 2004 edition and it doesn’t contradict itself. (Oxford Univ press)
Maybe the Holy Father wants more union with the greek translation? Nothing to do with protestants? Even though they may think otherwise?
Dessert
 
Just to say yes to Jesus people were healed. Your faith in Him would heal you. It is written that to touch Him you could be healed. Imagine to be filled with Him. Jesus full of Grace filled His mother for 9 months. She held him daily,she feed Him daily,she loved Him daily. Adoration.
To be full with Jesus is to be filled with grace. Our Mother is full of Grace.No matter which version you use, you can’t ignore the facts.
 
stmaria said:
My original question was “ why was this verse changed?’ It was not because of translation.

At the Vatican II council the Traditionalist wanted to devote an entire schema on the Virgin Mary. The liberals objected. Here is what they said at the council:

”….according to Father Rahner…the schema as drafted as a source of great concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier,Semmelroth and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the texts to be accepted as it stood, he contended, “ unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants….all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands”….The proposal officially submitted by the Fulda conference to the General Secretariat of the Council also quoted from Protestant writings. Bishop Didelius of the German Evangicial Church, was quoted as saying in 1962 that the Catholic Church’s teaching of Mary was one of the major impediments to union. Other German Protestant authorities…were quoted as saying that the Council Fathers in Rome should remember that they would be erecting a new wall of division by approving a schema on Mary’

In Bibles printed in 1970 there is a statement from Pope Paul that says “this new translation was made with the help of our separated brethren “

Seems ecumenism was more important to the reformers of the Church than the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
Stmaria, where does this quote come from? I’m interested in what
Joseph Ratzinger was concerned about.
 
stmaria said:
Pope Pius IX used Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace” as evidence to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. However, after Vatican II new Bibles removed this translation. Only the Douay-Rheims has the Traditional verse.

Douay-Rheims Luke 1:28 “Hail, full of grace the Lord is with thee”

The New American Bible Luke 1: 28 “ Rejoice oh highly favored daughter

King James Luke 1:28 “Hail thou that art highly favored”

Why was this verse changed? Ecumenism!! Protestants don’t believe in this dogma therefore this evidence needed to be erased from the bible.
On the introduction page of the 1970 New American Bible, there is a quote from Pope Paul VI that states that the new Bible was “made in cooperation with our separated brethren”

Vatican II declared that the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ needs to consult with Protestants about translating the bible. Of course Protestants do not believe in the teachings of the Church and of course they have no need for the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the Vatican II document Dei Verbum it states:

Chapter VI:
22. Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all
the Christian faithful….but since the Word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that
suitable and correct translations are made into different
languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.
And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities
approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the
separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

Pope John Paul II agrees with this effect of ecumenism in
Ut unum sint
On commitment to Ecumenism
44. Significant progress in ecumenical cooperation has also been made in another area, that of the Word of God. I am thinking above all of the importance for the different language groups of ecumenical translations of the Bible. Following the promulgation by the Second Vatican Council of the Constitution Dei Verbum, the Catholic Church could not fail to welcome this development.75 These translations, prepared by experts, generally offer a solid basis for the prayer and pastoral activity of all Christ’s followers. Anyone who recalls how heavily debates about Scripture influenced divisions, especially in the West, can appreciate the significant step forward which these common translations represent”

This new translation will not make the Blessed Mother happy but it does fill the Protestants with joy.
Click to expand...

The Blessed Mother is unlikely to be upset by honest attempts to say what the Greek is probably meant to convey 🙂​

There are good honest reasons for the changes that are made - the mere fact of being a good translation of the Latin (which was usually the basis for Latin-Rite Catholic Biblical translations until 1943) does not automatically mean a translation from Greek is not correct. What matters is less that we should have “proof-texts”, than that the Chirch should have Bibles which as accurate as is humanly possible - & there is a vast amount of Biblical learning among non-Catholics (Jews included); so it would be irresponsible not to draw on it - just as the Church has done for centuries: so why stop doing so ?

St. Jerome also ran into trouble - his translation was not very traditional when he made it. This sort of thing has happened before - “it’s not traditional, so take it away”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top