Defend That Catholic Bible!

V

Vince Massi

Well-known member
Elect
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
40
Points
48
Okay, for 90 cents I bought a brand-new, high-quality New American Version (not to be confused with the New American Standard Version) Catholic Bible that has never been used.

I found a conservative Catholic website that was debating this translation. The conservative Catholics didn't like it, while other conservative Catholics said that they had to like it because the Catholic Church had approved it.

In explaining that you can't just pick and choose which Catholic doctrines to believe, one poster stated:

" You might as well change your name to Martin and nail your opinions to a cathedral door."
 
Vince Massi said:
(not to be confused with the New American Standard Version)
Click to expand...

Not to be confused with the New American Standard Bible. But, to be fair to Vince, they're practically indistinguishable, except that the NASB exists.
 
Come to think of it, the New American Bible also has the advantage of existence over the "New American Version. Looks like Vince didn't even bother looking at the cover.

It's comforting to know he's maintaining his research skills at their current level. :)
 
You have a valid point, Aleshanee. As a whole, the Lutherans have failed miserably to keep modernism out. If a born-again Lutheran has to choose between God and his religion, he has been taught to make the wrong choice.

It SEEMS that the early Lutherans won most of their converts through legislation--the government ordered everyone to convert. During the nineteenth century, there really was Christian missionary work in Africa, and AFTER the White missionaries were gone, the African Lutherans had great revival.
 
Vince Massi said:
Okay, for 90 cents I bought a brand-new, high-quality New American Version (not to be confused with the New American Standard Version) Catholic Bible that has never been used.

I found a conservative Catholic website that was debating this translation. The conservative Catholics didn't like it, while other conservative Catholics said that they had to like it because the Catholic Church had approved it.

In explaining that you can't just pick and choose which Catholic doctrines to believe, one poster stated:



" You might as well change your name to Martin and nail your opinions to a cathedral door."
Click to expand...

I think you may be referring to Douay Reheims onlyists. Yes there are those to. KJVOs don't have an exclusive on Onlyism. It really was a Catholic thing in the 16th century. They did murder Tyndale over it.

This is a reasonably well done Bible. It has notes that are helpful for understanding Catholism.
I have this edition and enjoy reading it.
It is certainly the Word of God as Miles stated in reference to the Reheims 1582 NT.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195298047?keywords=new%20american%20bible&qid=1449545237&ref_=sr_1_4&s=books&sr=1-4
 
Bgwilkinson writes "I think you may be referring to Douay Reheims onlyists. Yes there are those to. KJVOs don't have an exclusive on Onlyism. It really was a Catholic thing in the 16th century. They did murder Tyndale over it."

You hit the target, Brother. Complaints centered mainly on the footnotes, which would state that editors added certain parts (while not denying that the editors were inspired). There was criticism that the language was unclear (not true, so far), and a lot of criticism that a new translation was not necessary.

There was a LOT of resentment that priests are not allowed to use any other translation for Mass or teaching.  Effectively, the Douay Rheims translation is banned for anything except private reading.
 
In Catholic school, I was taught that when Jesus said "Thous art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..." Peter was the rock. Knowing that "Peter" and "rock" are two different Greek words, I read the footnote in the New American Version.

Folks, I have read baloney and mental gymnastics before, but this time I was really impressed.
 
Vince Massi said:
I read the footnote in the New American Version.
Click to expand...

And yet you couldn't be bothered to read the title of your New American Bible, leading any thinking person to question the reliability of your research and observational skills.
 
Has anyone besides Bg and myself read an actual Catholic translation? Decades ago, I read through the entire Challoner-Rheims version (skipping the Apocrypha) and got the same blessings that I normally get from reading God's Word.
 
Possibly, Aleshanee, you did. The Douay-Rheims suffers the same problems as the 1611 KJV--nobody can understand it today. Challoner was a Catholic cardinal who oversaw a major revision of the DR, and it was actually the Challoner-Rheims that American Catholics were reading.

And, surprisingly, the CR is often respected by conservative fundamentalists due to its accuracy.
 
Okay, I apologize. Saying that "nobody" could understand them is an overstatement. Most people cannot understand the original KJV and DR. They can understand MOST of them, but not enough to justify using them.

Incidentally, most people who claim to understand the KJV do not realize that they are misunderstanding some of the words. And if they do understand them, it's because somebody explained it to them.
 
From another forum:

BeStill&Know posted: If you like, a little at a time, please...I would like to know what some of the major differences are as I use on-line bible versions and a really don't see much difference between any of them when I'm researching a verse. But I may learn something.

Vince: Be Still and Know, I have noticed that phrases like "daughter of Zion" and "daughter of Jerusalem" are translated "daughter Zion" and "daughter Jerusalem," indicating the entire population, rather than just the women.

BeStill&Know: Good morning Vince, so far this is what I found on-line, maybe our Jewish brothers and sisters will tell us more.
Zion is the Hebrew name for the "Temple Mount" in Jerusalem.
In the New Testament, the Daughter of Zion is the "Bride of Christ", known as the Church. Hebrews 12:22.
The lower hill with the temple mount is the "Daughter of Zion" as a geographical (earthly) manifestation of spiritual reality, as well as the place of the human congregation. EDITED.
Naming the holy city "daughter Zion" was a common practice in the Hebrew language. Not only Jerusalem was called this way, but also Babylon, Tyre and Tarshish were referred to as "daughter".
Blessings on your New Year.

Vince: Excellent research, Be Still&Know. This would make the New American Version more accurate than the KJV on those phrases. Incidentally, the proper name is the New American Bible, which I avoid using, in favor of New American Version.

 
Thank you, Aleshanee for your intelligent input. I have read and considered your posts carefully.

And now...

In Matthew 23:9, Jesus commands "Call no one on earth your father..."  The footnote states that Jesus was addressing "... the disciples alone." But 23:1 tells us "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples..."

This is the second blatant case I have found in Matthew of the New American Version explaining away a verse.
 
Vince Massi said:
This is the second blatant case I have found in Matthew of the New American Version Bible explaining away a verse.
Click to expand...

See, now you're just being doggedly stubborn in your refusal to check your facts.
 
Ransom said:
Vince Massi said:
This is the second blatant case I have found in Matthew of the New American Version Bible explaining away a verse.
Click to expand...

See, now you're just being doggedly stubborn in your refusal to check your facts.
Click to expand...

It's that "old dog, new tricks" thing.
 
IFB X-Files said:
Ransom said:
Vince Massi said:
This is the second blatant case I have found in Matthew of the New American Version Bible explaining away a verse.
Click to expand...

See, now you're just being doggedly stubborn in your refusal to check your facts.
Click to expand...

It's that "old dog, new tricks" thing.
Click to expand...

Nah. I just resist calling a version a Bible when it is not. Same with the Geneva Version and the KJV. The word "Bible" give a translation more authority than it actually has.
 
The New American Bible isn't a Bible? What is it, a small-engine maintenance manual?
 
Ransom said:
The New American Bible isn't a Bible? What is it, a small-engine maintenance manual?
Click to expand...

Well, I do know my Shooters Bible has a lot of authority.

I don't get what he means either.  "Bible" just means book.  The originals were never put together in a "book".
 
Unfortunately, X-Files, the word "Bible" means more in English that the original Greek allows. We correctly say that the Bible is the Word of God (recognizing its authority), and some people have learned that by calling a translation a "Bible," they give it more authority than it actually has.

Like the KJV, the New American translation is a "version," and a "translation," but it does not have the full authority of the Bible. Some words and phrases are difficult to translate, can have more than one shade of meaning, and include perceptions that don't come through in English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top