[quote=Philthy]Oh come on - this is just going a little too far. Luther absolutely changed the bible; it is only a question of degree, but the more serious issue is that of motive. If the addition of “alone” in Rom 3:28 were an isolated incidence, with no apparent motive and in an otherwise unremarkable individual, you might be able to sell the above sob story. But the fact is that Luther not only changed that verse , but he also “shuffled” various books into an appendix from their traditional canonical placing, and also referred to the epistle of James as an “epistle of straw”. And each of these actions was not random, but was apparently done to justify and promote his overiding, self-determined theology of salvation by faith alone. And please note that I think his motives were probably genuine - but that is not the point.
Your point reagarding the addition of “practicing” in reference to homosexuality in 1 Cor in the NAB 1is a good one. However, there is a substantial difference in that the addition of this word is consistent with and meant to clarify established Church teaching - not opposed to and in an attempt to alter it. Namely, homosexuals can be divided into 2 groups: practicing and non-practicing. The church does not condemn homosexuals per se, just those practicing homosexuality unrepentently.
In reference to the NAB, I just pointed out one instance. The whole NAB Bible is such that it adds many words for the purpose of clarification. It was not meant to be a literal translation.
Luther’s bible was not meant to be a direct literal translation either. I can certainly see where a Catholic would disagree with Luther’s translation, but Luther himself stated that ‘alone’ was not in the Greek text. He didn’t even try to claim that a word in the verse could be interpreted as ‘alone’. He stated that he believed based on his studies that ‘alone’ although not stated was implied. There are many places in the Bible where one could put the word ‘alone’ and it would be completely acceptable, provided that one stated that they were not doing a literal translation.
In reference to the Books removed. There have been many threads on the topic, but I will add that Luther was not the first to feel that these books were not canonical. There is a reason why they are referred to as deutercanonical. Deuter – means secondary.
I agree that Luther was wrong about James and Luther later agreed that he was most likely wrong about the book of James.
The book of James does not contradict the theology that Luther put forth.