Cam42 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 So, here's a topic that hasn't been discussed in AGES!!!!!! Why is it NOT a good idea to use Protestant or "non-approved" Bibles for study as a Catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulHeart Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 For starters, Protestants are missing out on seven books in the Old Testament, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel. A Protestant Bible thus does not contain the entirety of Sacred Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NadaTeTurbe Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Because they don't have this amazing lady : Judith doesn't want to hear about your version of the Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Missing books. Plus, Judith is bae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 Werd! So, what about translation value? We all know that the Vulgate is the standard, but why are Protestant or "non-approved" translations bad? I mean why should we stick to the NAB or the RSV-CE, as opposed to the NRSV or TEV, or ESV, or N/KJB? What is the harm? A translation is a translation, right? I mean, it really is how I like to read it. There isn't any harm in reading a translation that unapproved, is there? Judith is bae. So smart lookin'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Depends what you calling "Protestant" bible and who is doing the "non-approved" . I believe I know what you refer to. I stay away from such bibles because more than likely they have been altered to confirm to the Protestant teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) I have a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox Bible. I don't see a point in owning a Protestant one. After all the books and parts of books are taken out, other Reformers "translated" it to make it fit their own theology. It's been defiled and desecrated, which I know is strong language, but come on. Scofield and Tyndale translations are ones to especially avoid. Edited December 14, 2015 by Selah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) I generally don't study the Bible apart from a Catholic source that teaches the correct way to understand it, so I do not think the differences in language is particularly relevant to me. They are all translations, so unless you are doing hardcore apologetics work I don't think the differences between the various translations is too much of an issue. And if you are a lay-person you can easily misinterpret even a Catholic Bible when trying to interpret it for yourself, which is why I always have some source, like the Scott Hahn website, to guide my study. If I am just reading for leisure I tend to go with Knox. I like the format and readability of it. I have NIV, ESV, NASB. Maybe a King James somewhere. I think these are good to have because if you get into a conversation with a non-Catholic, these are the ones that they are most likely to be familiar with. For the most part you can still use these to support Catholicism, although there is protestant bias at certain locations. Sometimes I will go with NIV when I just want a basic understanding of something in easy to understand language, without having to engage in hard-core study. I think it works well for that purpose. If you watch some of the old Catholic Protestant debates online you will see that some of the Catholics (like Sungenis) will use the NIV because that is what the other side uses. Edited December 14, 2015 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I read the Douay-Rheims. I like the translation. RSV is good but I prefer the older English, but have never really like the King James version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 21 minutes ago, Peace said: [snip] I have NIV, ESV, NASB. Maybe a King James somewhere. I think these are good to have because if you get into a conversation with a non-Catholic, these are the ones that they are most likely to be familiar with. For the most part you can still use these to support Catholicism, although there is protestant bias at certain locations. Sometimes I will go with NIV when I just want a basic understanding of something in easy to understand language, without having to engage in hard-core study. I think it works well for that purpose. If you watch some of the old Catholic Protestant debates online you will see that some of the Catholics (like Sungenis) will use the NIV because that is what the other side uses. I couldn't disagree more. The use of Protestant Bibles is theologically unsound. Everything that is in a Catholic Bible is in the Protestant Bible. The translations are theologically unsound as well. They allow for dynamism, which leads to error. Funny how those who claim sola scriptura are defeated by their own translation. I have done plenty of apologetics using a Catholic Bible and I'm able to hold my own, just fine. Actually, it is a good point of emphasis on discussing the errors of the heresy of Protestantism, with those who need that discussion. Just because the other side uses it, doesn't mean that it's okay for us to use it too, ala Sungenis, Shea, or even Hahn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Cam42 said: I couldn't disagree more. The use of Protestant Bibles is theologically unsound. Everything that is in a Catholic Bible is in the Protestant Bible. The translations are theologically unsound as well. They allow for dynamism, which leads to error. Funny how those who claim sola scriptura are defeated by their own translation. I have done plenty of apologetics using a Catholic Bible and I'm able to hold my own, just fine. Actually, it is a good point of emphasis on discussing the errors of the heresy of Protestantism, with those who need that discussion. Just because the other side uses it, doesn't mean that it's okay for us to use it too, ala Sungenis, Shea, or even Hahn. Knox is dynamic. It is approved for use by Catholics. One time I went over to a non-Catholic friend's house, and noticed that there was a NIV on the coffee table. I picked it up and pointed her to some of the verses that support Catholicism, that non-Catholics tend not to notice. She learned a few things about the basis for our faith that day. If my attitude was to never use a NIV, that conversation might not have happened. You can make a point about Matthew 16:18 no matter what translation you are using, for example: NIV: 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. RSVCE: 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Edited December 14, 2015 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Douay-Rheims FTW. I've a KJV other protestant bibles given to me over the years as gifts. I keep them because even though they are protestant bibles, I just can't through them away. But also as point of reference, it's amazing just how different and erroneous some of the translations can be, even the protestant bibles seem to contradict themselves at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spem in alium Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I use RSV. Not a huge fan of the "thee" and "thou", but I've heard the translation is good, so I tend to use it for both personal reflection and in my academic work. I also have an NRSV, which I don't use as much as I used to as I realised it was not the best - it changes language around and adds stuff to make it more inclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 The Catholic Church is entirely responsible for the composition of the Bible, which books are included, as well as the breakup of the chapters and verses. Protestants have removed some books of the Bible because some of the verses were inconsistent with their theology. Martin Luther was a prime offender in this regard, removing Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch. He also made an effort to remove James and Revelations, but this was rejected by his followers and those two books were kept. Catholics are often accused of "adding" the books, but despite this common belief, it is false. Older, pre-Protestant, Catholic translations of the Bible include them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I use the Douay Rheims. I also have the RSV-CE from Ignatius Press. I've found other Bibles are either not approved (this is important because its the Church that is responsible for interpreting Scripture), or the translation is further from the literal meaning so you never know how accurate it is. Some Bibles use a very 'inclusive' language that I'm not a fan of either. DR is my favourite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now