Isn't it ironic...

[TexasCatholic]

...The most clear translation of 1 Corinthians 11:29 (a good proof text for the Eucharist for Sola Scriptura folks) is in the New International Version.... For all the talk I hear from some Catholics, you would think it was the devil's version

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (NIV)

"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (NAB)

Ironically, the NIV is almost identicle, if not more clear than the NAB on this particular verse by indicating "of the Lord" so as to not confuse it with some generic unseen body.

Anyway... I was just looking for this verse, and when I found it, I thought this point was interesting.

-Michael

 

[ThereseTheLittleFlower]

The Devil's Version?

Renee

 

[bigsierra]

Who thinks that? It's a few books light, but I've never thought that. I think I own a couple

 

[TexasCatholic]

I've seen more than a loose implication from Catholics in various forms (websites, apologetics books) that "protestant" translations are all in some way skewed against Catholics. Thus far, I've not found that to be true... In fact, the NIV is in my opinion one of the best balances between "easy to read" and "original-text" accurate of any other version... regardless of protestant/Catholic...

BTW, notice I support the Catholic interpretation of this clear Scripture. Having been on both sides of the fence (currently in RCIA), I find it even more frustrating to see the blind biases that some people have against either Catholics or Evangelical/Protestants, depending on which side "of the fence" they are on...

"Why can't we just all get along?" Especially when there are excellent scholars on both sides. It is just narrow-minded to say that a "protestant" translation is inaccurate simply because it wasn't a Catholic priest who did the translation. If anything, since protestants place all of their beliefs on Scripture, they spend more time and effort to come up with an accurate and readable translation than anyone else...

Even though I am planning to convert, I have no plans to give up my "protestant" translation bibles. My "main" Bible at this point is still a Zondervan NASB Study Bible.

-Michael

 

[Carrye]

It is just narrow-minded to say that a "protestant" translation is inaccurate simply because it wasn't a Catholic priest who did the translation.

What?

*Carrie's world comes crashing down.

 

[bigsierra]

Even though I am planning to convert, I have no plans to give up my "protestant" translation bibles. My "main" Bible at this point is still a Zondervan NASB Study Bible.

-Michael

I haven't given up mine. I don't read the study portion of my Ryrie NASB any more though.

 

[TexasCatholic]

I haven't given up mine. I don't read the study portion of my Ryrie NASB any more though.

Hehe, that's understandable. Charles Ryrie is a nut-bar of grand proportions. Even as a protestant, it didn't take me much to rule out the Ryrie/Dispensationalism camp.

The Zondervan notes are a lot more "conservative"... The only real sticky places are the obviously-Catholic-supporting Scriptures, but even on those, the Zondervan lists 3 or 4 different potential explanations. I am not a blind believer in the writings of any human scholar, anyway... I prefer to first try to understand the clear meaning of Scripture... and I suppose now, I shall have to learn to trust the Church for Scripture that may be controversial or not explicit.

I've not seen any Catholic Study Bible that's nearly as awesome as the Zondervan, though. It's a truly impressive book.... not just the study notes, but the maps, the 2-5 page intros to each book of the Bible (author, history of the book itself, history of what's happening in the region, etc), an intro to each Testament, a built-in concordance, color maps, diagrams, timelines, architechural maps (e.g. temples, cities, buildings), etc. Just plain awesome. Make that exact thing with Catholic notes (on the peculiar areas of disagreement, perhaps including both the Protestant and the Catholic interpretations for educational purposes), and it would be perfect.

-Michael

 

[AMDG]

Relax, the Bible Translations that indicate they are "Catholic editions" are doing so only to indicate that they contain the Deuterocanonical books. The indication does not suggest that the other versions are inferior or are "the devils versions" (I assume that you are NOT talking about "Wife Haters Bible", the "Wicked Bible", or "The Murderer's Bible" since those were simply translations that had fallen victim to typesetters' mistakes and misprints.)

I use the King James Translation (although not the 1611 which HAS the Deuterocanonical books) as well as the 1966 Jerusalem and the New American Study Bible (the latter two would be known as "Catholic" versions because they have the complete 73 books--the seven Deuterocanonical books-- as well as the 66 "protocanonical" books. However, truth be known, the Bible is historically a Catholic book and we simply would have none at all if it wasn't for the Church.

 

[Skripper]

I had eleven Bibles at last count. More than half being Protestant translations.

 

[TexasCatholic]

I had eleven Bibles at last count. More than half being Protestant translations.

So I guess I won't be considered a leper for keeping all of mine? heh.... I do have an NIV, an NIV/KJV (parallel version), and of course the NASB. I do want to get an NAB, but like others, I found the Psalms to have been defiled by the translators of the NAB... Maybe I'll look at the New Jerusalem again.

Thanks guys I still think the NIV makes for a nice, smooth, but still accurate, read.... I do need a bible with the deutrocanonicals, though... and as of yet, I don't have one.

-Michael

 

[ps139]

Hey SouthCoast,
There are some with problems of certain verses translated in the NIV (luke Luke 1:28) but a lot of Catholic Bibles are guilty of the same mistakes. I'm a cradle Catholic and my primary Bible is the NIV. You are right it is just a really readable text. When I want to look at a specific verse then I go to other Bibles. I recently acquired a copy of the Vulgate, I check translations against that.... but I'll tell you, one of the beautiful things about not relying on sola scriptura is that I am comfortable with almost any Bible. There are some terrible translations but I do not count the NIV in them. I've been using the NIV for about 3 or 4 years now and I love it. Most of the criticism I see against the NIV is actually from the KJV only crowd. And I think thats just because of the NIV's popularity. Basically, until I learn to read Greek, I'm not going to be that nitpicky about my Bibles, they are all translations, after all, and we have the Church to guide us! What more can I ask for??