Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Apr 2, '12, 12:15 pm
mccorm45 mccorm45 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2004
Posts: 549
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet View Post
Prosopon means mask--like thwe mask that the Greeks used in plays.

In the person of Christ IS more accuratre. It isn't that presence is wrong--it is that "person of Christ" conveys more of the fullness ot truth.

2Corinthians 2:10 is PROOF POSSITIVE that absolution of sin by a priest is true!

Protestants can't take that truth!

"Ecumenically oriented liberal Catholic translators" can't take that truth either.

St. Paul gave abasolution to the incestuous Corinthian who he had RETAINED his sin in 1Corinthians.

Sure doctrine does not hinge on one verse and sola scriptura is wrong.

That doesn't mean though that the accurate rendering of this verse is "person of Christ".

This instance is the CLASSIC case that shows PROTESTANT bias in bibles and modern liberal translation in Catholic bibles.

It truely is the LITMUS test--not maybe of a bible's suitability but the true colors of a bible's translation.

Alot of people with agendas here hate me for always pointing out this verse!
What I don't understand, then, is that you say "In the person of Christ IS more accuratre (sic). It isn't that presence is wrong--it is that "person of Christ" conveys more of the fullness ot truth" yet you condemn this or that translation that uses "presence" even though you just said it isn't technically wrong. There are other, and I would argue more important verses that clearly support the Catholic position. I don't think there is a need to condemn a particular Catholic translation that goes with "presence".

Also, there should be no fear of protestant cooperation in the translation of Scripture. Need we look at what Dei Verbum 22 encouraged in regards to this: "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. 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."
__________________
My blog: http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com
(Discuss Catholic Bibles, translations, & other study tools)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Apr 2, '12, 12:32 pm
Jerry-Jet Jerry-Jet is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 2,867
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

I'm not the only person that has pointed out that a translation of one particular verse can be more accurate than another transl;ation in a bible apporved by an ecclesiatical conference of bishops.

Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that the verse about faith in Hebrews--I think chapter 1 verse 1 is MORE accurate in the Vulgate than in the RSVCE in one of his encyclicals.

In other words--just because the USCCB has approved a bible does not mean that the majority of its bishops believe in the accuracy of translation in all of the verses.

In other words--"in the presence of christ" can be right because since christ is omnipresent then ANYONE can forgive another "in the presence of christ".

Just because that is TRUE does not mean that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian "in the PERSON of christ" which is MORE TRUE.

If "in the presence of Christ" is more accurate--why did the KJV translators alsot ranslate it as "in the person of Christ"?!

Why did Wycliffe translate it that way?

WHAT changed?

The word in Greek was always PROSOPON.

It always meant mask!

The only thing that changed weas Protestants realizing that the bible actually PROVED forgiveness of sins by a priest "in the person of Christ"!

I've never heard anyone here make a convincing case by "presence" is more correct than "person".

And the implications of "in the person" are inescapable!

I gurantee you that if Pope Benedict was asked which was more accurate trqanslation he would say "in the PERSON"!

Case closed!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Apr 2, '12, 12:39 pm
mccorm45 mccorm45 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2004
Posts: 549
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet View Post
I'm not the only person that has pointed out that a translation of one particular verse can be more accurate than another transl;ation in a bible apporved by an ecclesiatical conference of bishops.

Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that the verse about faith in Hebrews--I think chapter 1 verse 1 is MORE accurate in the Vulgate than in the RSVCE in one of his encyclicals.

In other words--just because the USCCB has approved a bible does not mean that the majority of its bishops believe in the accuracy of translation in all of the verses.

In other words--"in the presence of christ" can be right because since christ is omnipresent then ANYONE can forgive another "in the presence of christ".

Just because that is TRUE does not mean that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian "in the PERSON of christ" which is MORE TRUE.

If "in the presence of Christ" is more accurate--why did the KJV translators alsot ranslate it as "in the person of Christ"?!

Why did Wycliffe translate it that way?

WHAT changed?

The word in Greek was always PROSOPON.

It always meant mask!

The only thing that changed weas Protestants realizing that the bible actually PROVED forgiveness of sins by a priest "in the person of Christ"!

I've never heard anyone here make a convincing case by "presence" is more correct than "person".

And the implications of "in the person" are inescapable!

I gurantee you that if Pope Benedict was asked which was more accurate trqanslation he would say "in the PERSON"!

Case closed!
My whole contention with your argument is not over that passage, but simply whether or not it is right to condemn a Catholic translation due to this one verse. I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but I also think that "in the presence" is an acceptable translation and in no way turns the NABRE or RSV-CE into an "abominable" translation. And your terror towards anything "protestant" seems to go directly against what Dei Verbum 22 encourages, along with what many good bishops and theologians have been doing for the last number of decades.
__________________
My blog: http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com
(Discuss Catholic Bibles, translations, & other study tools)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Apr 2, '12, 1:10 pm
porthos11 porthos11 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2004
Posts: 5,369
Religion: Latin Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by FriarDon View Post
Yes, he reads it, when not reading in his language or in Latin, but the Mass in in NABRE, and that should be your base Bible in the US to be in sync. When the Pope celebrates Mass in English, he is reading from the NABRE.

Again, I am not saying other versions are bad, just that the NABRE should be your primary Bible, and those with clear translations from original Greek and Hebrew text being your next choice for study and learning as well. (I have 7 different Bible translations I read and study from, but the one I spend most of my time in now is NABRE as to be in sync with the Church.)

Friar Don, OBR
The English Lectionary does not use NABRE. The U.S. edition uses the 1970 Old Testament and Psalms, and the 1986 New Testament with amendments. The NABRE as it is is not approved for liturgical use as of right now.

Canada uses the amended NRSV.

When the Pope celebrates Mass and readings are in English outside of the United States, they are more likely than not from the UK Lectionary, which uses the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.

The Antilles uses the RSV-2CE unamended.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Apr 2, '12, 7:40 pm
GCTSgrad GCTSgrad is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2012
Posts: 49
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Quote:
Pope Benedict XVI has pointed out that the verse about faith in Hebrews--I think chapter 1 verse 1 is MORE accurate in the Vulgate than in the RSVCE in one of his encyclicals
OK. The Vulgate has translated the Greek more accurately into Latin than RSVCE has translated the Greek into English. Hmmm. If Pope Benedict XVI said this, it must have some merit, but I am not sure what this means for modern English translations. Maybe that's because I'm not a Catholic (yet).
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Apr 2, '12, 8:16 pm
GCTSgrad GCTSgrad is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2012
Posts: 49
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet View Post
Prosopon means mask--like thwe mask that the Greeks used in plays.

In the person of Christ IS more accuratre. It isn't that presence is wrong--it is that "person of Christ" conveys more of the fullness ot truth.

2Corinthians 2:10 is PROOF POSSITIVE that absolution of sin by a priest is true!

Protestants can't take that truth!

"Ecumenically oriented liberal Catholic translators" can't take that truth either.

St. Paul gave abasolution to the incestuous Corinthian who he had RETAINED his sin in 1Corinthians.

Sure doctrine does not hinge on one verse and sola scriptura is wrong.

That doesn't mean though that the accurate rendering of this verse is "person of Christ".

This instance is the CLASSIC case that shows PROTESTANT bias in bibles and modern liberal translation in Catholic bibles.

It truely is the LITMUS test--not maybe of a bible's suitability but the true colors of a bible's translation.

Alot of people with agendas here hate me for always pointing out this verse!
According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Walter Bauer, tr. by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Editon, 1958, p. 721, the meaning prosopon is "face, countenance." In specifically dealing with 2 Cor. 2:10: "en prosopo xristou before the face of Christ that looks down with approval... or as the representative of Christ (NEB).
This does give one pause.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, based on KJV, which says in the person of Christ, comments: By the authority wherewith he has invested me.
Does that sound different from the Catholic doctrine?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Apr 3, '12, 11:21 am
Jerry-Jet Jerry-Jet is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 2,867
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

I wouldn't say thaty one vesrse makes a translation abominable--I just don't like that particular verse being a new convert to Catholicism.

I think it also illustrates how much difference ONE word can make in a translation.

I also believe that Wesley's commentary and the fact that the KJV translated prosopon as PERSON also proves that presence is Proteastant bias.

And yes I DO think that there are modern Catholic bible translators that would rather make protestants happy by translating "person" instead of "presence".

Is that true Ecumenism?

I don't think so.

I wish the Holy See were the ones who approved bible translations instead of ecclesiastical conferences.

If that was the case the problems I have with the NAB probably wouldn't be problems.

One other problem i have with many modern bible translations is all the parts of the bible that have been DELETED.

Are there some glosses that should be eliminated since Jerome translated the vulgate? I'm sure there are--but i don't believe that some of the deletions are warranted.

Take the case where the angel stirs the water at the pool where Jesus cured the lame man.

Modern translations take the part about the angel stirring the water out of the bible.

i think that is just flat out wrong.

Also when it comes to deuterocanoncial books most modern translations have much that has been deleted compared to the Douay Rheims Challoner translation.

And though I strongly disagree with some of the NAB notes--I much like the fact of the dates that are given in the notes of the deuterocanonical books.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old Apr 3, '12, 1:36 pm
Bible Reader Bible Reader is offline
Junior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2008
Posts: 459
Default Re: My new attitude about the New American Bible, Revised Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet View Post
The Nova Vulgata is the juridicial text of the Western Rite of the Catholic Church.
This is true. But the NABRE is not approved for the lectionary. It is a Bible for study.

Imagine that one is talking with a reader who can read Hebrew and Greek. Would one argue that because the Nova Vulgata sometimes disagrees with the original language material, one should avoid the original language versions for study purposes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet View Post
Also when it comes to deuterocanoncial books most modern translations have much that has been deleted compared to the Douay Rheims Challoner translation.
This is true, but this relates to the fact that we have so many different Septuagint manuscripts that disagree with each other. The same problem occurs to a lesser extent in the New Testament (e.g., consider the "Longer Ending to Mark"). The shorter Deuterocanonical sections correspond to we believe are better manuscripts. If you are interested in seeing how the different sources interact and give dramatically different versions, I recommend consulting the New English Translation of the Septuagint which attempts to list the major variations (and often has to split into parallel texts as a result.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8547Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Eungang
5208CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4434Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3871SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3844Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3409Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3302Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3231Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3155For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Paulette60



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:07 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.