Back to a couple of more... ummmmmm... worthy (and mature) issues (mornin' and peace to you all!):
From Shellama:
Quote:
Maybe there were/are those in the RCC who, like some in the WTBTS who "command" (under the guise of "persuading") others to not use any Bible except the NWT... although neither entity outright (now) say not to
From dear PSacto (peace to you!):
Quote:
When the bibles first started getting TRANSLATED, lots of stuff was incorrectly translated.
From Shellama:
Quote:
the scribes had mistranslated some stuff LONG before there was ever a Bible. For instance, the Septuagint (albeit a "Bible" but in existence LONG before the Councils)
From dear PSacto :
Quote:
The Catholic Church finally agreed on which writings should go into the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 AD during the time of Pope Damasus.
From
Shellama:
Quote:
if the writings ALREADY contained errors... was that not merely a further perpetuation of the problem? Why didn't the Pope just tell folks what John did? Why didn't Jerome?
"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him." 1 John 2:26, 27
Did not Damasus AND/OR Jerome KNOW what John had written? How did the TWO of them miss THIS?? I mean, one was a Pope... and the other undertook to TRANSLATE the Bible... Only one way I know of that they could have missed it: neither had received that anointing themselves... and so were neither were IN Christ. The One they would have received it FROM.
did NONE of them SEE where my Lord was recorded to have said:
You study/search the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." John 5:39, 40
How can you translate a Bible... and MISS this?
Per
dear P:
Quote:
Throughout the years the Catholic Church... kept control of the interpretation of the Bible
From
Shellama:
Quote:
They have their own Bible (just as the WTBTS).
From
dear Char (peace to you!):
Quote:
Pardon me, Shelby, but your ignorance is showing. Please note that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I am charitably assuming you wrote this drivel out of ignorance, rather than intentionally to obscure true fact. You say the Catholic Church has their own Bible? *smiles sweetly* Which one would that be, then? New International Version? King James? Jerusalem? New Jerusalem? Vulgate?!.....so, so old! Philippines?........ All these versions and many more are currently used in local Catholic Churches and church groups to my own direct personal local knowledge.
And so here we are. My response to dear Char's comment would be the following (and please note, they are RESPONSES to comments made to ME,
NOT "attacks" on
anyone or
anyone's BELIEFS). Note, the emphases are mine:
Quote:
Approved Translations of the Bible
USCCB
Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures
for Private Use and Study by Catholics1983 - Present
The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1). Prior to 1983, Scriptural translations could be approved by the Apostolic See or by a local ordinary within a diocese.
What follows is a complete list of the translations of the Sacred Scriptures that have received the approval of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since 1983.
In addition to the translations listed below,
any translation of the Sacred Scriptures that has received proper ecclesiastical approval ‒ namely, by the Apostolic See or a local ordinary prior to 1983, or by the Apostolic See or an episcopal conference following 1983 ‒
may be used by the Catholic faithful for private prayer and study.
Books of the New Testament, Alba House
Contemporary English Version - New Testament, First Edition, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Psalms, American Bible Society
Contemporary English Version - Book of Proverbs, American Bible Society
The Grail Psalter (Inclusive Language Version), G.I.A. Publications
New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, National Council of Churches
The Psalms, Alba House
The Psalms (New International Version) - St. Joseph Catholic Edition, Catholic Book Publishing Company
The Psalms - St. Joseph New Catholic Version, Catholic Book Publishing Company
Revised Psalms of the New American Bible (1991)
So You May Believe, A Translation of the Four Gospels, Alba House
Today's English Version, Second Edition, American Bible Society
Translation for Early Youth, A Translation of the New Testament for Children, Contemporary English Version,
American Bible Society http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/ And again,
from dear Char:
Quote:
the Catholic Church does NOT have its own translation of the Bible and forbid the use of other versions. It does not. That is not the case. Now, if anyone else makes that assertion, or if you make it again, Shelby, here or on another forum, we will all know it is a deliberate lie, a falsehood, a whopper, a naughty porky.
Mmmmmm, I never said it forbidded the use of other versions. To the contrary, I said that perhaps that, as with the WTBTS, there are some IN the RCC who do so.
Even so, this, from
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newslet ... ac0704.asp:
Quote:
Many Catholics in earlier decades also relied on an older edition of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims translation, based upon the Latin translation (the Vulgate) that at one time was the only official Catholic edition of the Bible. It, too, is out of date and the names of some of the Old Testament books may be confusing.
Choosing the right Bible
Which version is the best for you? It depends on whether you want it primarily for prayer, for study, for Sunday school classes, to take to Church to follow the sermon or for other purposes. Any of the listed translations would do, though you will likely hear only one translation, the New American Bible, proclaimed during Mass.
Revised Standard Version(Oxford University Press, 1962). This translation is based upon a revision of the standard King James Version and is still a wonderful, very literal translation. It has also been republished in some new attractive editions and remains a standard for good Bible study because of its fidelity to the original text. —Yet it retains some antiquated expressions in English and makes no attempt to be inclusive in its language. This standard translation is found in many different editions, including various study Bibles. There is a Catholic edition, from Ignatius Press.
New Revised Standard Version
(Oxford University Press, 1989). This is a wholly redone translation in line with the Revised Standard Version but with sensitivity to inclusive language for human beings. It retains traditional language for God. Although it is fairly literal in its translation, the English expressions have been updated to reflect current American cultural preferences. It comes in several different study editions, which include introductory essays, extensive footnotes and brief commentary. —There is a Catholic edition.
New International Version (International Bible Society, 1984). This version is intended to be ecumenical and to appeal to a broad range of English-speaking people. The translation is considered somewhat more conservative than the New Revised Standard Version. Its language is suitable for private study and for public reading. There is no Catholic edition.
New American Bible with revised New Testament and Psalms (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1991).
This has become the standard American Catholic edition of the Bible. It is the Bible Catholics hear during Sunday Mass readings, and thus a popular choice among Catholics. It is a revision of the New American Bible (1952-70) done with a sensitivity to accurate yet easily understood language that can be used in public worship. It is also sensitive to gender-inclusive language wherever references to human beings are concerned. The Old Testament section of this Bible underwent recent revision, and one can expect a new edition of the entire translation to be published soon.
New Jerusalem Bible
(Doubleday, 1985). —A translation from the new French edition of this famous Bible, La Sainte Bible (1966), the text is the most poetic of the translations we are considering. Its poetic character lends itself to prayer. This Catholic Bible is also justifiably praised for its extensive footnotes, filled with informative background material.
Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1989).
This translation contains British English that may seem unusual. Yet it is readable and reliable for study. There is no Catholic edition.
Good News translation(American Bible Society, 2004).
This is a totally new edition of The Good News Bible, published by the American Bible Society. A major goal of this translation is sensitivity to the hearers of God's Word. It employs popular contemporary English that is more colloquial in nature. It might appeal to young people. There is a Catholic edition. The earlier Contemporary English Version (1991) has a Catholic-edition New Testament.
Reader's Digest Bible (Reader's Digest Association, 1982).
This is truly a short version of the Bible. It has clipped out all repetition. Unfortunately, the result is a distortion of the text because repetition is a vital part of the message of some biblical stories or poetry.— Again the aim is praiseworthy. The purpose is to entice people to pick up and read the Bible, something more attractive in a short version rather than a long one, with the hope that they would advance to further Bible study. But if you are serious about studying the Bible in the most enlightened way, I do not recommend using such shortcuts. They can cheapen the Word of God.
New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Language Version (Oxford University Press, 1995).
This is actually an adaptation of the New Revised Standard Version that employs radically gender-inclusive language. Critics have dubbed it the "PC Bible" (for political correctness). To illustrate, an admittedly difficult title used by [Jesus] such as "the son of man" becomes "child of the human one," and the Lord's Prayer begins with the awkward address, "Father-Mother." The result is a clumsy and offensive translation that shows how distorted modern sensitivities can sometimes be with regard to ancient texts.
Paraphrases - The Living Bible (Tyndale, 1971)
Not a translation but a paraphrase of the biblical text. Paraphrases are not reliable for Bible study.— Although it is true to say that every translation is an interpretation, paraphrases contain too much editorial judgment about the meaning of a given passage to be of use. The danger of such works is that they try to clarify ambiguity where sometimes it exists in the biblical text. This is an admirable but misdirected goal. Sometimes the very ambiguity of the text reminds us that, like all great literature, some mysteries are open to more than one possible interpretation.— A successor to the Living Bible is the New Living Translation (Tyndale, 1996).— A much better product, it is a translation and not a paraphrase, but it retains tendencies to make predetermined judgments about the meaning of the text.—
Then there's this:
Quote:
The Douay–Rheims Bible (pronounced /ˌduːeɪ/ or /ˌdaʊ.eɪ ˈriːmz/[1]) (also known as the Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R and DV) is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church.
The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which up till then had ovewhelmingly dominated Elizabethan religion and academic debate. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation. The New Testament was reprinted in 1600, 1621 and 1633, while both the Old Testament volumes were reprinted in 1635, but neither thereafter for another hundred years. In 1589, William Fulke produced a refutation of the Rheims New Testament, setting out the complete Rheims text and notes in parallel columns with those of the Bishops' Bible. This work sold widely in England, being re-issued in three further editions to 1633; and it was predominantly through Fulke's editions that the Rheims New Testament came to exercise a significant influence on the development of 17th Century English.
And some VERY interesting information and history ABOUT the "Catholic" Bible on THIS website:
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/So, now, going to back to what dear P and I were DISCUSSING, it appears that Catholicism DID have its own Bible, that is CURRENT Bibles come from reivions of that and that while they may not restrict the use of certain Bible versions, they CERTAINLY tout some as "approved" over others... which IMPLIES that certain versions are to be used... and others not (so much). Given the imperfections and tendencies to control of SOME (church) leaders, it is very reasonable to assume that some Catholics WERE very much "forbidden" to use certain Bible version, EVEN if such restrictions were not literally sanctioned BY the Church.
The WTBTS ALSO doesn't SAY... OFFICIALLY... that folks can't/shouldn't use other Bible versions than the NWT. They absolutely DO imply in their teachings, however, and allow their MEMBERS to command it (by NOT publishing instructions to the contrary). That there a Council of Bishops (albeit U.S.) who publishes an "
Approved" list of translations "of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study
by Catholics" suggests that they do the same.
At least, MY intelligence tells ME that, LOGICALLY, they do the same.
Peace to you all and again, NOT attacking OR criticizing anyone OR their religion... but just responding to comments made to ME.
A slave of Christ,
Shellama
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
