Bible Versions


#1

What is the difference between bibles used by Catholics are bibles used by other denominations? I understand that our bibles have the word imprimatur on it. What are differences in terms of content and interpretation?


#2

There are a lot of people more qualified than myself to answer this and maybe they can do a follow up. But, the Catholic Bibles contain all the books of the new and old testament that have always been in the Bible. The protestants removed I believe it is 7 books from the old testament, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, they also have different translations of words, which tend to favor their beliefs.


#3

[quote=fabsooi]What is the difference between bibles used by Catholics are bibles used by other denominations? I understand that our bibles have the word imprimatur on it. What are differences in terms of content and interpretation?
[/quote]

these guys might help you. Lots to read there.

catholicapologetics.net/0002kjv.htm


#4

[quote=Dimmers]these guys might help you. Lots to read there.

catholicapologetics.net/0002kjv.htm
[/quote]

Dimmers:

One problem with your Website is that the KJV has no Doxology (“For thine is the kingdom, and the power…”) in its version of the Lord’s Prayer either, It just gets added at Protestant Services. As I’m sure you know, the Doxology is from the Old Testament:

Our Father from KJV - Matthew 6:9-13:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Matt 6:9-13

kingjbible.com/matthew/6.htm

And from the Gospel according to Luke:

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Luke 11:2-4

kingjbible.com/luke/11.htm

With the exception of the DeuteroCannonical Books being chopped out to satisfy the Prostestants (along with the notes about the BVM and the Saints), the Douay-Rheims still has many many of the same problems as the KJV, and had to be extensively revised by Bishop Charlloner, and that hasn’t kept the Bible from being used to teach, correct and lead people into righteousness.

The only real advantage of the Douay-Rheims Challoner is the fact that when interpreting it, one is told to turn to the Teaching Authority of the Church and to the Tradition of the Church for guidance. The only real disadvantage of the KJV is that the average Protestant reader would never think to humble himself or herself to do that, in spite of the original edition’s caution against personal interpretation without recourse to Tradition and Authority.

Remember, all translators guess at one time or the other, simply because words and phrases almost never have neat, clean equivalents in other languages. That’s why we’re supposed to see how the Saints and those who’ve gone before have interpretted the passages we’re reading and submit our inerpretations to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

BTW, the reason why the KJV used the LXX in the NT citations of OT scriptures was because the NT writers used the LXX citations of those scriptures, and the ECF used the same citations. It’s one of the few times Protestants kept with Catholic Tradition.

If we’re trying to convince Protestants of the Truth of the Catholic Faith, nitpicking at the KJV is a waste of time and will just make them angry… Once Protestants drops their preconceived notions, the KJV will support the Faith as well as any translation, and it will more than serve to convince Protestants of the Truths of Catholicism.

In Christ, Michael


#5

[quote=fabsooi]What is the difference between bibles used by Catholics are bibles used by other denominations? I understand that our bibles have the word imprimatur on it. What are differences in terms of content and interpretation?
[/quote]

Catholic bibles usually contain an imprimatur (Latin for "let it be printed) or nihil obstat (Latin for “no obstacle [to the Faith]”). The imprimatur and/or nihil obstat are usually issued by a bishop or cardinal.

There are two main differences between Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles. Catholic Bibles contain the deuterocanonical books (i.e., Tobias, Judith, 1 and 2 Machabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and additions to Esther and Daniel). Protestant Bibles (with the exception of older translations of the King James Bible) traditionally do not contain these books (although some publishers have started to include them (e.g., Oxford RSV Ecumenical Study Bible).

The other major difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles stems from the two-fold nature of a translation: literal translation and interpretation. Some words in Hebrew and Greek do not lend themselves to a literal translation (i.e., they don’t make any sense if you translate them literally). The same is true with any language. If I translate the French phrase “Sacre Bleu” as “Sacred Blue,” you won’t necessarily get what it means, but if I interpret it for you as an exclamation that’s equivalent to the English phrase “Good Heavens!,” then you have a better idea of what the phrase means. That’s where the problem comes in. Protestants interpret phrases based on their own theology and tradition just like Catholics interpret phrases based on their theology and tradition. Because some parts of a Protestant Bible end up being an interpretation based on Protestant theology, they are unacceptable to Catholics. We’d much rather have a translation, and where need be an interpretation, that’s consistent with Catholic theology and tradition. In that sense, the Douay-Rhems translation, the Knox translation, and parts of the New American Bible and Jerusalem Bible are safer translations than the RSV and NRSV because they reflect Catholic theology and tradition in their interpretation of obscure passages. (Note that the RSV-CE comes a long way towards changing Protestant interpretations of textual passages in the RSV into Catholic interpretations, e.g., Joseph wants to “send” the Blessed Mother away rather than “divorce” her, while the New American Bible starts to adopt traditional Protestant interpretations).


#6

There is a major problem here, for all Bible versions in print today. The mid-2nd/early 3rd century Syriac/Old Latin does not read the same as today’s versions. The Roman Church took great liberties in rewriting the text in the 4th/5th centuries. This is centered around the “trinity” doctrine, which even the Roman Church admits is a fabricated doctrine…and this brings into question the Roman Church’s doctrinal melange, centered around the “trinity.” The fact is, the “trinity” doctrine may not even be a valid doctrine. See for example:
apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186

Even the Roman Church had so many problems with this that it was not until the Council of Trent (16th century) that it was formalized within the Catholic Church.


#7

[quote=beagleresearch]There is a major problem here, for all Bible versions in print today. The mid-2nd/early 3rd century Syriac/Old Latin does not read the same as today’s versions. The Roman Church took great liberties in rewriting the text in the 4th/5th centuries. This is centered around the “trinity” doctrine, which even the Roman Church admits is a fabricated doctrine…and this brings into question the Roman Church’s doctrinal melange, centered around the “trinity.” The fact is, the “trinity” doctrine may not even be a valid doctrine. See for example:
apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186

Even the Roman Church had so many problems with this that it was not until the Council of Trent (16th century) that it was formalized within the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Right. I guess that must be why Tertullian wrote about the Trinity in the year 216.


#8

[quote=anawim]Right. I guess that must be why Tertullian wrote about the Trinity in the year 216.
[/quote]

Well, I’ll try this again…apparently there is a “time limit” one has in order to reply, and I have been “timed out!”

Regarding Tertullian: piney.com/HsTertTrinity.html
Please note there is some controversy regarding the dating of his “Apology.” [Some sources even suggest his writings may have been later edited.]

However, the issue is not when someone (whether Tertullian or others) may have begun thinking in terms of a “trinity concept.” The issue is the doctrine itself, which is actually the result of the Athanasian/Arian debates/controversy, and the Councils of Nicea in 325 AD and 384 AD, and the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) himself admits the doctrine is a product of the Roman Church, not the Bible, and the historical development of the doctrine is well documented…virtually every authority admits it is NOT a “Biblical doctrine,” and is the product of the "[Roman] Church."
apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186
alvorada.us/0008.htm

Quoted from: english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm
and apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger :
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

Eusebius: “The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

There is also evidence that 1 Tim 3:16 was altered:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture
bibletoday.com/htstb/spurious_text.htm
answers.com/topic/an-historical-account-of-two-notable-corruptions-of-scripture


#9

[quote=beagleresearch]Well, I’ll try this again…apparently there is a “time limit” one has in order to reply, and I have been “timed out!”

Regarding Tertullian: piney.com/HsTertTrinity.html
Please note there is some controversy regarding the dating of his “Apology.” [Some sources even suggest his writings may have been later edited.]

However, the issue is not when someone (whether Tertullian or others) may have begun thinking in terms of a “trinity concept.” The issue is the doctrine itself, which is actually the result of the Athanasian/Arian debates/controversy, and the Councils of Nicea in 325 AD and 384 AD, and the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) himself admits the doctrine is a product of the Roman Church, not the Bible, and the historical development of the doctrine is well documented…virtually every authority admits it is NOT a “Biblical doctrine,” and is the product of the "[Roman] Church."
apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186
alvorada.us/0008.htm

Quoted from: english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm
and apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger :
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

Eusebius: “The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

There is also evidence that 1 Tim 3:16 was altered:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture
bibletoday.com/htstb/spurious_text.htm
answers.com/topic/an-historical-account-of-two-notable-corruptions-of-scripture
[/quote]

Trinity comes from the words of Jesus himself, and is taught throughout the early church. Athanasius and the council of Nicae are Johnny-come-latelys.

I do not accept wikipedia as an authoritative source. It is notoriously wrong.


#10

Anawim…you say “Trinity comes from the words of Jesus himself,” and is taught throughout the early church. If that view is correct, how come no reputable Bible scholar agrees with that position? The “trinity” is never mentioned in Scripture at all, much less by Jesus. And contrary to what you may think, the early church had no such doctrine.
bible-history.com/isbe/T/TRINITY%2C+1/
onenessweb.com/apostolicpillar//articles/trinity.html
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/431/Trinity.htm
sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm
ecclesia.org/truth/trinity.html

As for the early church, they did not know, or follow, a trinitarian doctrine.
See: biblestudents.org/absco/booklets/trinity/blt001c.htm
reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-Doctrines-Christianity009.htm
biblebelievers.org/thustrin.htm


#11

Can someone find me a Spanish Catholic version of the bible? The most popular ones I have found are lutheranism and presbyterian. Thank you…


#12

Because this thread has wandered from the original topic, I would like to thank all who participated; this thread is now closed.

If a new thread is desired regarding how the Catholic Church changed the Bible to insert the doctrine of the Trinity, despite not having inserted the word ‘Trinity’ (which would have made a lot more sense if one was simply changing the Bible for doctrinal reasons), please start a new thread in the Apologetics forum.

For information on English translations of the Bible, please see the sticky at the top of the Sacred Scriptures sub-forum.

For information on how to purchase a Spanish translation, please see this link.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.