Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB are "Catholic bibles"

Unix said:

ebia, I would rather not point out what I believe in because I don't want to argue much
I believe in the Ancient Assyrian Catholic Church of the East: it doesn't believe in Trinitarianism. A monk translated the Bible from original languages to a European language (codex argenteus): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wulfila so no, "non-trinitarianism" is not without adherents since the first centuries

Click to expand...

My comment was a parody of the OP designed to give him a chance to realize one of the logical fallacies in his argument.

However, I would point out that the Catholic Church does insist on Trinitarian belief, as does this forum.

These are "Christian only" and CF defines Christian in terms of the Nicene Creed.

"The teaching of the [Assyrian] Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The mystery of the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are central to its teaching."

So so you do think that anybody who agrees with Rome on anything is a Catholic?

Do you believe in the Trinity?

Your errors about the Catholic Church notwithstanding,(and your implied errors about the Church of England that produced the KJ for that matter) it should be obvious then that similarity to Catholic makes something neither Catholic nor wrong. So your whole logic is defenestrated.

If it did, of course, we could start comparing the KJV with the Challoner D-R and note the huge similarity.

Of course there are similarities between all the modern bible versions - because (a) they are all aiming to teach in the same modern English and (b) because real scholarship did not stop in the seventeenth century, and even then scholars borrowed from each others traditions. They just weren't so upfront and friendly about it.

I don't have a problem with something being Catholic - I'm as happy with the NJB (say) as any other translation. I do have a problem with your thinking. (and with your erroneous understanding of Catholicism)

May I point out that it's not that one! Look more closely there is a pre-Nicene church still active in Iraq and many are in exile. (I'm am not an ethnic in exile but a convertite).

ebia said:

"The teaching of the [Assyrian] Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The mystery of the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are central to its teaching."

Click to expand...

Unix said:

May I point out that it's not that one! Look more closely there is a pre-Nicene church still active in Iraq and many are in exile. (I'm am not an ethnic in exile but a convertite).

Click to expand...

Either way, the definition of Christian on this forum is the Nicene Creed. If you don't subscribe to that you shouldn't be posting in the Christian only parts.

Please allow me to disagree with you ebia. The pre-nicene churches still hold to the Apostles' creed.

kiwimac said:

Please allow me to disagree with you ebia. The pre-nicene churches still hold to the Apostles' creed.

Click to expand...

Disagree with me about what?

ebia said:

Disagree with me about what?

Click to expand...

The following:

Either way, the definition of Christian on this forum is the Nicene Creed. If you don't subscribe to that you shouldn't be posting in the Christian only parts.

Click to expand...

Christians subscribing to the Apostles' Creed should indeed post in the Christian areas.

kiwimac said:

The following:

Christians subscribing to the Apostles' Creed should indeed post in the Christian areas.

Click to expand...

Not according to the rules of CF, which use the Nicene Creed as it's definitive creed.

Cf can use whatever rules it likes, what it cannot do is decide that Christians are not Christian enough.

kiwimac said:

Cf can use whatever rules it likes, what it cannot do is decide that Christians are not Christian enough.

Click to expand...

CF rules decide who can or cannot post. And that is all I was saying.

brandplucked said:

The Catholic church ... is a false religious system and the great harlot of Babylon depicted in the Scriptures.

Click to expand...

I am skeptical of the claim that the NIV is "Catholic" (and if it were, why would that make it automatically false?). When the Greek term for tradition is used in a negative way, such as Col. 2:8, the NIV translates it "tradition." When it is used in a positive way, such as 2 Thes. 3:6, it is translated as "teaching." The latter includes a footnote that says "or traditions." But the former contains no footnote. And the exact same Greek word, παράδοσιν is in both passages. This is a translation bias against the Catholic teaching of following sacred tradition. And it does not jibe with the notion that the NIV is a "Catholic bible" regardless of the manuscript in question, no?

"The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that permeates the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers...humanity becomes divine."

Click to expand...

A) I'm interested in what's located in those ellipses.

B) I don't see the error in this statement. The doctrine of Theosis is historic, standard, orthodox Christian teaching, going back these last two thousand years. Additionally, teaching that there is a yearning in man for the Divine and this is manifest in the religiosity and spirituality throughout all religions and cultures isn't a heretical statement, but a statement of man's desire for God; the idea that there is some truth in most major religions likewise isn't a heretical statement.

I understand that some Christians disagree, but what some say does not represent universal Christian teaching. Christians have long seen spiritual value in philosophies and religiousness outside of Christianity proper. St. Paul told the men of Athens that the "Unknown God" was, in fact, the True God; the same quoted Greek poets in regard to God's universal Fatherhood. St. Justin in his First Apology speaks of the Divine Logos as being known by many--in part--prior to His Incarnation, and speaks of Socrates as one such individual. C.S. Lewis also addressed the idea of mythology as being part of man's deep longing for God, also speaking of the numerous dying/rising god motifs as being a shadow of the fullness that is in Christ, the myth made manifest and real in actual history.

-CryptoLutheran

CryptoLutheran said:

I understand that some Christians disagree

Click to expand...

I don't think that there are churches that think about other religions

CryptoLutheran said:

St. Paul told the men of Athens that the "Unknown God" was, in fact, the True God; the same quoted Greek poets in regard to God's universal Fatherhood.

Click to expand...

I don't read almost any of the epistles by St. Paul
This discussion was not about which faith everyone has. I've been thinking all day today and yesterday what faith I have. I think I have a strong faith. Yesterday I even started to believe in Theotokos Mary. I think the pope should guide the RCC. I've looked into the subject of different Bible translations in mid 00's and in 2011. Autumn 2010 I started to look for a church again after a long period of not believing

I value the deuterocanon approximately equally to the rest of the canon. I think it is much better to evaluate what large portions of the bible to, personally, leave out, and not look that much at which verses should be in or not (and no, just because it's time-consuming it's not comfortable to leave the task to those who translated the Bible version to English because most versions have so grave errors and biases), and I think the most important is to choose a good Bible translation.

None of the TNIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, RSV, or the ones with simplified language, are of choice I think and I know I've said this twice now, but I think this is an important discussion, much of what Christians make choices in, is which Bibletranslation to purchase. Because of several reasons I think so.

There's something so undecisive about TNIV and ESV, just like someone else also pointed out in recent discussion
There's double fault: overconfidence in the value of the UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek texts for the New Testament and the alternative variants in the Hebrew text.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/overconfidence_barrier.htm
Really those "finds" of readings/manuscript-evidence don't need to be utilized to full extent! And just like brandplucked has managed to say with very good explanations, it's unnecessary to delete a verse just because two manuscripts don't have it - so the question about the Holy Trinity is a remarkable watershed. What I think, is that the verse was there in the Greek text but was very controversial, just like with the long ending of Mark: it could be seen that the long ending of Mark had been afterwards erased from codex Sinaiticus (not that I read Mark because I don't along with many other books of the Bible).
And when scholars were doing the specific Bible versions: what did they think was a good idea at the moment of translating

And it frightens me what beliefs can be constructed with the "help of" a specific Bible version which is full of errors. So NO it's definately not so: that it would be possible to just let those who translated the version make all the choices

One fault many translation-commites makes, is that one opinion is used to translate one vers, another opinion for the next verse, a third opinion for... and so on

It's NOT necessary possible to weigh in everyones "opinion" in a translation committe

I don't want persons who seek excitement in variations of the Greek and Hebrew texts, in their parishes, and who have weak faith so as not to believe in most of the things that the RCC says is the truth, to translate what I want to read. I think those translators of the ESV and NRSV and TNIV and the translations with simplified language sought after such excitement in having a say and have along that demonstrated weak faith - to summon it: scepticism in the wrong places and exaggerations in the wrong places, and sought after too much new trends also in their parishes

brandplucked said:

Hi MrPolo, how one particular word in a couple of verses is translated is not a good measure of whether a particular bible version is virtually the exact same as the modern Catholic bibles. What does clearly show the truth that there is fundamentally NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between the Catholic bible N.T. versions and ones like the NIV, NASB, ESV is to compare which whole verses, sections of verses and individual words are either OMITTED or added to the TEXT.

Click to expand...

Without me fact-checking you or Mr. Cloud, let's assume you are 100% correct that Catholic Bibles such as the New Jerusalem and Protestant Bibles such as the NIV are using the same Greek manuscripts. Why is that bad?