How green is my Catechism.

[Xeno.of.athens]

The topic is not a question. It's an exclamation. My catechism is very green indeed.

But what do I mean by green?

Well, on a superficial level, my catechism's cover is green leatherette, slightly firm but soft to the touch. So that's one way in which it is green.
And, it is green like an oasis in a dry land. By which I mean it is a place of theological rest and comfort in a surrounding landscape of dry and barren theology.
Also, it is green like a traffic light telling me to go! To go forth and speak of Jesus Christ, bible in hand, catechism on my phone, it is a missionary document.

It's also the same height and width as my New Catholic Bible, which is the bible I use for the liturgy, which is a useful feature. The same is true of my Sunday missal, and my weekday missal, and also true of the Divine office, and morning & evening prayer. Somebody planned this, despite coming from several publishers.

It is, of course, also the mainstay of Catholic teaching in Catechumen classes and plays a significant role in many a Catholic's life and prayers.

Mine looks like this:

It isn't as big as that photo suggests. It's about 4" wide and 6" tall. It cost $10 when I bought it, but I've seen copies on ebay for $50 and more, so some people are making a profit out of it.

Its content is available online without charge here -> Catechism of the Catholic Church


So, why is this post here, in General Theology? Well, mainly to encourage folk here to share what they use as a theological help in their bible reading and in evangelism. What book or books shape your beliefs and practises?

 

[Philip_B]

 

[d taylor]

-
​

The teachings of free grace theology like this group here and writers like Zane Hodges, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Joseph Dillow

 

[Fervent]

a variety of commentaries. with the New International Commentary series being a major one as well as Beale and Carson's New Testament Use of the Old Testament and the Tyndale series. For questions of church history, I prefer to read the primary sources as much as possible.

 

[bling]

What is the problem with just using the Bible?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What is the problem with just using the Bible?

Count the denominations, the disputes in CF, your own journey to whatever beliefs you now hold and then you have the answer.

 

[Philip_B]

What is the problem with just using the Bible?

The Roads and Traffic Act is not all you need to drive a car. Likewise, the Bible is not all you need to be a Christian.

 

[bling]

The Roads and Traffic Act is not all you need to drive a car. Likewise, the Bible is not all you need to be a Christian.

How about the Bible and the indwelling Holy Spirit?

 

[Fervent]

What is the problem with just using the Bible?

The Bible as a document is a product of the church, it wasn't given in English, and was given to a culture we are far removed from. There's no such thing as "just" using the Bible, since every Bible comes to us pre-packaged with a lot of editorial decisions.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Ahhh.... JWs just stopped by so I started speaking Greek and asked if they wanted to discuss....

So as Fervent says, translations come with biases as there is a level of complexity in picking what word you might want to use. So for example, I'm not a fan of the NIV as is a product of evangelical translators. So one of the problems that the NIV has is selecting words as seen below.

❦ 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6 — The NIV engages in some vocabulary trickery here. The word paradosis, meaning “tradition”, gets translated inconsistently in order to de-Catholicize the Bible’s theology. When the context is negative, as in the “human traditions” of Colossians 2:8 or the traditions of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1–6, “tradition” is used. When the context is positive, as in these two instances — which read “the teachings we passed on to you” and “the teachings you received from us”, respectively — the NIV uses the word “teachings”. The NRSV, by contrast, consistently and correctly translates this word as “tradition”.

 

[Fervent]

Ahhh.... JWs just stopped by so I started speaking Greek and asked if they wanted to discuss....

So as Fervent says, translations come with biases as there is a level of complexity in picking what word you might want to use. So for example, I'm not a fan of the NIV as is a product of evangelical translators. So one of the problems that the NIV has is selecting words as seen below.

❦ 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6 — The NIV engages in some vocabulary trickery here. The word paradosis, meaning “tradition”, gets translated inconsistently in order to de-Catholicize the Bible’s theology. When the context is negative, as in the “human traditions” of Colossians 2:8 or the traditions of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1–6, “tradition” is used. When the context is positive, as in these two instances — which read “the teachings we passed on to you” and “the teachings you received from us”, respectively — the NIV uses the word “teachings”. The NRSV, by contrast, consistently and correctly translates this word as “tradition”.

The NIV is particularly egregious with their word selection, another example being their translation of "sarx" as sin nature rather than flesh.

The biases creep in before that, though, since every modern Bible involves engaging in text criticism to select the right reading of the original languages, or which manuscript family to work from. Especially among more protestant Bibles where Hebrew OT manuscripts are given priority despite the fact that the Greek OT was quoted by the NT authors far more prevalently and the Hebrew manuscripts were produced after Christ and have been edited to be anti-Christian in many places.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The NIV is particularly egregious with their word selection, another example being their translation of "sarx" as sin nature rather than flesh.

The biases creep in before that, though, since every modern Bible involves engaging in text criticism to select the right reading of the original languages, or which manuscript family to work from. Especially among more protestant Bibles where Hebrew OT manuscripts are given priority despite the fact that the Greek OT was quoted by the NT authors far more prevalently and the Hebrew manuscripts were produced after Christ and have been edited to be anti-Christian in many places.

sarx is interesting, when translated as a euphemism such as "human nature" or "fallen nature", it makes one think of something entirely spiritual, but when properly translated as flesh it brings to mind the human body and its appetites and one can also add a spiritual dimension but the bodily dimension is what the author wants us to think about, and that helps with understanding the contrast between flesh and spirit.

 

[atpollard]

I use the BlueLetterBible (dot) org

That allows me to quickly read multiple English translations [I don’t read Greek or Hebrew]. When I find agreement in a paragraph, I can have confidence that what I read is probably EXACTLY what it says.

When I find significant variation,I can go to the Interlinear and locate the original words [TR and MGNT] and link to Strong’s and Thayer’s to explore some specific word closer. At that point, I can usually see WHY the differences exist … the thought that went into each translation’s choice.

It also offers the opportunity to read several commentaries on any Chapter to compare what I see in the words with what those that came before have seen.

When quoting scripture for topics on forums, it allows me to select “horses for courses” … KJV for communicating with those that favor KJV, or NLT for communicating the basic idea with someone that has trouble understanding the “bible” phrases and sentence structure (a complexity often inherited from the original Greek), or the NASB when I just want the version that I am reading at the moment.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That allows me to quickly read multiple English translations [I don’t read Greek or Hebrew]. When I find agreement in a paragraph, I can have confidence that what I read is probably EXACTLY what it says.

That is so if the translations come from significantly different traditions, say a Catholic, an Anglican, a Baptist, an Orthodox tradition. It isn't so when the translations all come from essentially the same tradition.

 

[Fervent]

I use the BlueLetterBible (dot) org

That allows me to quickly read multiple English translations [I don’t read Greek or Hebrew]. When I find agreement in a paragraph, I can have confidence that what I read is probably EXACTLY what it says.

When I find significant variation,I can go to the Interlinear and locate the original words [TR and MGNT] and link to Strong’s and Thayer’s to explore some specific word closer. At that point, I can usually see WHY the differences exist … the thought that went into each translation’s choice.

It also offers the opportunity to read several commentaries on any Chapter to compare what I see in the words with what those that came before have seen.

When quoting scripture for topics on forums, it allows me to select “horses for courses” … KJV for communicating with those that favor KJV, or NLT for communicating the basic idea with someone that has trouble understanding the “bible” phrases and sentence structure (a complexity often inherited from the original Greek), or the NASB when I just want the version that I am reading at the moment.

That can help with bias to some degree, but in a way there seems to be a misunderstanding of what translation is. Translation is not simply choosing the best word to replace the word in the original language with, as if it is simply a coded cipher. Instead translation has to take account of the context, and there's a great deal of discussion about what level the meaning is to be found at since it generally involves whole sentences at the least if not paragraphs and pages. Translations that operate at the word level often tend to be misleading because they give the impression that the Greek words are just English words in different letters, when they have entirely different semantic ranges. Bible interpretation is never an individual matter, but necessarily involves the entire community of believers both past and present.

 

[bling]

The Bible as a document is a product of the church, it wasn't given in English, and was given to a culture we are far removed from. There's no such thing as "just" using the Bible, since every Bible comes to us pre-packaged with a lot of editorial decisions.

Same answer I gave already:
How about the Bible and the indwelling Holy Spirit?
I do not agree with the understanding: "The Bible as a document is a product of the church", the Holy Spirit inspired the writers and had included, protected and preserved, only what was good for readers later on down the road. The Bible (New Testament letters) are so much better protected and preserved than any other works at the time it appears miraculously preserved. The Holy Spirit determined what would be included and excluded in His work.

 

[atpollard]

That is so if the translations come from significantly different traditions, say a Catholic, an Anglican, a Baptist, an Orthodox tradition. It isn't so when the translations all come from essentially the same tradition.

Translations available (that I use):

• King James Version (KJV)
• New King James Version (NKJV)
• New Living Translation (NLT)
• New International Version (NIV)
• English Standard Version (ESV)
• Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
• New American Standard Bible 2020 (NASB20)
• New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB95)
• Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)
• New English Translation (NET)
• Revised Standard Version (RSV)
• American Standard Version (ASV)
• Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
• Darby Translation (DBY)
• Webster's Bible (WEB)
• Hebrew Names Version (HNV)

Translations available (that I do not use - not in English):

• Reina-Valera 1960 Version (RVR60)
• Latin Vulgate (VUL)
• Westminter Leningrad Codex (WLC)
• Septuagint (LXX)
• Morphological Greek New Testament (mGNT)
• Textus Receptus (TR)
• Open New Arabic Version (NAV)

Within the versions that I use, translations span from 1611, through the 1800’s, the 1900’s and the 2000’s … that’s a lot of teams of translators working across a 400 year span of time. Some strove for Dynamic Equivalence and others championed Formal Equivalence. Some are Church of England and some Evangelical and some Baptist in origin. Sadly (in my opinion) the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions are not properly represented for comparison, but I understand their reasons why. So I need to look elsewhere to read a Catholic translation. Still, if a Catholic translation differed significantly from so many other translations [ie. NONE of those listed was like the Catholic Bible] then I would likely have rejected it anyway (like any other translation that disagrees with ALL the others.).

In practical terms, that means I only seek a Catholic Bible when I need to reference the Apocryphal books.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In practical terms, that means I only seek a Catholic Bible when I need to reference the Apocryphal books.

Try Vulgate - Douay-Rheims - Knox Bible side by side

 

[atpollard]

That can help with bias to some degree, but in a way there seems to be a misunderstanding of what translation is. Translation is not simply choosing the best word to replace the word in the original language with, as if it is simply a coded cipher.

I apologize if I gave the impression that is what I thought. However, if a Formal Equivalence translation and Dynamic Equivalence translation separate by 200 years and from different denominations agree on the message in a paragraph … that probably IS the message in the original Greek (that I cannot read).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I apologize if I gave the impression that is what I thought. However, if a Formal Equivalence translation and Dynamic Equivalence translation separate by 200 years and from different denominations agree on the message in a paragraph … that probably IS the message in the original Greek (that I cannot read).

Try to consult Catholic, a Protestant, and an Orthodox translation.