Protestant Bibles

[Dream]

Besides the books that the Protestants took out of the Bible, is there anything wrong with the Protestant Bible? Basically, is their translation considered acceptable?

 

[TomUK]

There's no such thing as a 'Protestant Bible' in the sense i think you mean.

 

[Truth and Reconciliation]

Nope. Everything is intact. In fact, the original King James Version was created straight out of the Latin canon.

 

[Carrye]

Basically, is their translation considered acceptable?

I don't believe that there are any mainstream translations commonly used among Protestants that are approved by the Church for Catholics. I know that my scripture prof was big on the NRSV, and as I understand it, it's the academic standard. But it seems to me that it's a kind of least common denominator, as it is somewhat middle-of-the-road, and can be used by more than one denomination.

 

[Carrye]

Nope. Everything is intact.

What is 'everything'? And what is 'intact'?

???

 

[plainswolf]

Nope. Everything is intact. In fact, the original King James Version was created straight out of the Latin canon.

Everything is intact only according to the Protestant, because Protestant translations do not recognize the deuterocanonicals in the Old Testament to be the inspired Word of God and therefore Canonical. Unlike the KJV the The Latin Vulgate does not omit these books. Nor does the direct English translation of the Vulagte- The Douay-Rheims. Furhtermore the Old Testament contained in the KJV is based upon the Hebraic Canon of the Old Testament. The Catholic Old Testament is based upon the "Septuagint" or LXX for short. The difference is that the LXX conatains 7 more books than does the Hebraic, is much more forceful and explicit in it's implications of the Messiah, and of the 350 quoations of the Old Testament that are in the New Testament, 300 are taken directly from the Septuagint. An internet search will provide more infor for you.

Beware of translations that change the force of certain meanings.. For instance, Chapter 1:28 of the Latin Vulagte, when the angel comes to greet Mary, is thus: "Gratia plena"

And in the direct English translation from the Vulagte, the Douay Rheims precisely translates this as : "Hail! Full of grace.."

But the KJV Luke 1:28 translates it: "[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee:" Which does not render this passage in precision, nor with the inteded force of the Vulgate. In the former, Mary is declared to be completely full of grace. Grace excludes sin, had there been any sin at all in Mary, she could have been declared to be completely filled with holiness. The less precise KJV allows one to formulate their own judgement concerning the declared holiness of Mary in this instance.[/font]

Hope this helps as to why to be wary of Protestant translations...

J.M.J.
plainswolf

Though the KJV translation was finally better than the oither earlier Protestant trranslations,

 

[gzt]

plainswolf: the KJV did not originally omit those books, that's the point of his remark.

 

[plainswolf]

plainswolf: the KJV did not originally omit those books, that's the point of his remark.

You're correct, my mistake..


J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[ufonium2]

The NIV is seriously Protestant, and IMO not good. For instance in the NIV the Greek word paradosis, whenever it's describing something good, is translated as "teaching." When it's describing something bad, it's translated as "tradition." Talk about Protestant spin. Also, my NIV Student Bible has notes throughout the book of James, from such unbiased sources as Martin Luther, explaining that despite what the book says works are worthless. So to recap: translation=bad, notes=bad, NIV=bad.

 

[JJM]

The NIV is seriously Protestant, and IMO not good. For instance in the NIV the Greek word paradosis, whenever it's describing something good, is translated as "teaching." When it's describing something bad, it's translated as "tradition." Talk about Protestant spin. Also, my NIV Student Bible has notes throughout the book of James, from such unbiased sources as Martin Luther, explaining that despite what the book says works are worthless. So to recap: translation=bad, notes=bad, NIV=bad.

I agree but I have a freind who insists on reading it because she likes the way it flows.

any way to the main post as the above shows some protestant bibles have faulty translations So I stick to the douay rheims, NAB and new Jurusalem but I don't think there is anything wrong with reading them as long as you crossreference with a more traditional translation if something sounds fishy.

 

[Axion]

Nearly all Protestant translations today, as well as removing the seven books, Maccabees 1 and 2, Wisdom, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobit, also remove parts of the books of Esther and Daniel.

As others have said, many protestant translations can bias their text and (more often) notes towards their own understandings. The word "Bishop" is often replaced by "elder" for example.

Looser translations like the Good News and "Living" bible translations are the most untrustworthy, for in order to make the text simple to read and understand, they massage the meaning of many of the verses into what they think it means, rather than what it actually says. This can give one clear-seeming meaning, where the original text is capable of very different interpretations.

 

[Canadian75]

I grew up reading the KJV. If I could get a hold of a KJV w/Apocrypha (other than on my computer) that'd be cool. I don't use the KJV for serious bible study, but I love the language and it was the only tranlation I knew of until I got older. I'm not too fond of the NIV. I like the NRSV, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a protestant bible, especially since mine is the NRSV-Catholic and it is the bible used in my diocese and the common catholic bible used in many parishes in Canada. I think there are protestant translations that in some ways are superior to Catholic ones and vice versa, but it depends on your criteria.