Protestant Translations of the Bible
#1
I come from a Protestant family and am the only Catholic in the family.

My family is relatively devout in their Protestant religion, and part of that entails a lot of Bible reading.

MagisterMusicae has mentioned numerous times in other threads that Protestant translations are erroneous. I am not disagreeing, but I would like to see more specific examples of corrupting the passages, manipulating the text to fit sectarian biases or just general goofiness.

I know it is a bit of a Herculean task, but what are the specific problems (aside from missing the Deuterocanon) with the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the King James Version etc.
Reply
#2
The first thing I'd point out is that the Protestant revolutionaries removed seven books from the Old Testament.  They did this when they first began their revolt in the 1500s.  The Catholic Encyclopedia observes this:

Quote:The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha." These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

You can see the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Martin Luther also wanted to remove books from the New Testament, like the Epistle of St. James: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer...e-of-straw

How could those "founding fathers" of Protestantism take the Bible seriously and yet remove over half a dozen books from the Bible?  The reason is that these books of Scripture didn't fit with Protestant doctrines like salvation by faith alone, the Protestant rejection of purgatory, etc.

Why do I bother pointing out what early Protestants did?  Because it shows the spirit of Protestantism isn't to take the Bible as it is.  Instead, from their very beginning, they have twisted and manipulated Scripture for their purposes.  All their translations of the Bible are suspect.

Here is just one issue with the Protestant NIV translation:

Quote:For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as “work” when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as “deeds” or “doing”) when it would serve Catholic doctrine.

The NIV renders Romans 4:2 “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God.” This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”

If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as “work” then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge “every person according to his works” and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality “by persistence in working good”—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation.

That quote is from a Catholic Answers article: https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide.

I haven't really delved much into specific distortions in each Protestant translation.  Knowing how the Protestants have, since their very beginning, distorted Scripture and even removed whole books, has been enough for me to ignore their translations.
Reply
#3
As an aside, it should be noted that it wasn't just the Protestants who have messed with the translations of the Bible.

For example, compare/contrast the following Douay-Rheims translation of Mark 9:26-29 with that of the latest USCCB-approved version.

First, D-R version:
[26] But Jesus taking him by the hand, lifted him up; and he arose.
[27] And when he was come into the house, his disciples secretly asked him: Why could not we cast him out?
[28] And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
[29]And departing from thence, they passed through Galilee, and he would not that any man should know it.

Second, the USCCB-approved version:
[26]Shouting and throwing the boy into convulsions, it came out. He became like a corpse, which caused many to say, “He is dead!”
[27] But Jesus took him by the hand, raised him, and he stood up.
[28] When he entered the house, his disciples asked him in private, “Why could we not drive it out?”
[29]He said to them, “This kind can only come out through prayer.”

Notice what was left out?
Reply
#4
(08-10-2019, 11:47 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: As an aside, it should be noted that it wasn't just the Protestants who have messed with the translations of the Bible.

For example, compare/contrast the following Douay-Rheims translation of Mark 9:26-29 with that of the latest USCCB-approved version.

First, D-R version:
[26] But Jesus taking him by the hand, lifted him up; and he arose.
[27] And when he was come into the house, his disciples secretly asked him: Why could not we cast him out?
[28] And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
[29]And departing from thence, they passed through Galilee, and he would not that any man should know it.

Second, the USCCB-approved version:
[26]Shouting and throwing the boy into convulsions, it came out. He became like a corpse, which caused many to say, “He is dead!”
[27] But Jesus took him by the hand, raised him, and he stood up.
[28] When he entered the house, his disciples asked him in private, “Why could we not drive it out?”
[29]He said to them, “This kind can only come out through prayer.”

Notice what was left out?

The NRSV-CE appears to include the fasting.

Curiously, the text used for German liturgies omits it just like the NAB! 

Quote:26 Da zerrte der Geist den Knaben hin und her und verließ ihn mit lautem Geschrei. Er lag da wie tot, sodass alle Leute sagten: Er ist gestorben.
27 Jesus aber fasste ihn an der Hand und richtete ihn auf und er erhob sich.
28 Jesus trat in das Haus und seine Jünger fragten ihn, als sie allein waren: Warum konnten denn wir den Dämon nicht austreiben?
29 Er antwortete ihnen: Diese Art kann nur durch Gebet ausgetrieben werden.

The Einheitsübersetzung was a common project between the German conference of Catholic bishops and protestant scholars for much of its development, although the protestants abandoned the project at some point.

Anyway, it's interesting that the pet translations of both conferences omitted the same word. I wonder if the Greek source they used is different from that used by Jerome for the Vulgate and that used by the RSV translators, or if the fasting was omitted out of a sinister motivation shared by both bishops conferences.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
#5
I could probably argue that Catholics are all over the place with “approved” (or not) translations of the Bible into English or X, though maybe not as much as Protestants are.

Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches (including my own parish) use the NKJV or KJV in the liturgical readings for the English translations of their liturgies. Obviously the KJV/NKJV are not Catholic translations, or “approved” ones at least.

Then you have this (somewhat outdated) list of “approved” English translations posted on the USCCB website: http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-tran.../index.cfm

I don’t see the Douay-Rheims on that list do you? Especially since the DR is probably the most important English translation made available to Catholics in modern times. But the NIV (the Psalms at least) used by thousands or millions of Protestants worldwide is suddenly “approved” for personal/private use for English-speaking Catholics?

That list also doesn’t include the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, the RSV: CE, RSV:2CE, NLT-Catholic edition, the New Jerusalem Bible, the CTS New Catholic Bible, Catholic Living Bible, and probably a whole host of other obscure translations I didn’t list.

My spiritual father/confessor knows I love praying the Book of Common Prayer or other Ordinariate prayer books, so he allows me to pray from the KJV-with Deuterocanonical books or NKJV for private devotional/reading use. Though by all means I like the DR and 1966 Jerusalem Bible, and use the NLT for daily Bible reading currently. I don’t really stick to one translation currently, but I avoid overtly Protestant English translations (NIV, “Recovery” version, New World Translation, etc.) like the plague-and all Catholics should completely avoid those mentioned translations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"The problem with you sir, is that your intelligence enables you to evaluate people critically and when you evaluate people critically, you bring danger upon yourself."   -Lao Tzu

"And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: [...] creeping things [...] of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so." -Genesis 1:24 (RSV:CE)

"And what do we say to the god of death?" "...not today."


Vive les Catholiques de la Vendée!
Reply
#6
I seem to recall that the Catechism of Saint Pius X instructs us to burn or similarly dispose of any Protestant Bibles that comes into our hands.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a couple of Protestant Bibles I acquired during my heretical years, a KJV and a NIV I think.  I haven't disposed of them, yet.
[-] The following 1 user Likes jack89's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#7
Romans 15:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic  Douay Rheims translation:

16 That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost. 

The word "oblation" refers to a sacrificial offering, as in Eucharistic.

This is just one example of how Protestants avoid the implication of a New Testament ministerial priesthood, as well as their translating of presbyteros into "elders" rather than "priests", and also "overseers" rather than "bishops."
Reply
#8
(08-10-2019, 01:36 PM)Sequentia Wrote: I could probably argue that Catholics are all over the place with “approved” (or not) translations of the Bible into English or X, though maybe not as much as Protestants are.

It seems the RSV is becoming extremely popular with Catholics. I prefer the Douay Rheims. 

During my protestant years, one of the things that drove me crazy was sooo many translations of the Bible and all packed full with different study notes.
Praised be the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Praised be the Immaculate Heart of Mary


Monstrance
Reply
#9
(08-10-2019, 02:18 PM)jack89 Wrote: I seem to recall that the Catechism of Saint Pius X instructs us to burn or similarly dispose of any Protestant Bibles that comes into our hands.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a couple of Protestant Bibles I acquired during my heretical years, a KJV and a NIV I think.  I haven't disposed of them, yet.

Yep, I decided to look it up and just found it.  It's near the back, page 137 in my CKL printing, under "On the Virtues and Vices, On Holy Scripture".  Questions 32 and 33.

The answer to question 32 is to burn them, and question 33 is relevant to this thread:

"33 Q.  Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A.  The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her."
[-] The following 3 users Like jack89's post:
  • BC, jovan66102, MagdalenaRita
Reply
#10
My opinion is that the New American Bible is more harmful to Catholics than any Protestant translation, since the NAB masquerades as Catholic but actually borders on the profane.

I don't care for Protestant "translations" (I find the NIV reads very clunky), and obviously many of the footnotes will not align with Catholic teaching.

But some Protestant study Bibles have good book introductions (you'll find that more of them affirm traditional authorship than the NAB) and very good historical notes, artwork and maps. Plus, they're fairly plentiful and not expensive. I have the Zondervan NIV Study Bible, well-made, printed in the USA, around 3000 pages and cost me $19. The historical backgrounds and additional charts, maps, timelines, etc. were well worth it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)