New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
A new edition of one the most popular English-language Bibles will offer substitutes for words such as "booty" and "holocaust" to better reflect modern understanding, a Catholic group said on Wednesday.
Nearly 50 scholars from all faiths and a committee of Roman Catholic bishops have labored since 1994 over the first fresh edition of the New American Bible since 1970, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said.
The annual best-seller to be issued by a dozen publishers beginning next week on Ash Wednesday "is a beautiful translation -- it's a new way to look at an old love," said Mary Sperry, who oversees Bible licensing for the bishops....
Doug Kutilek wrote: ...tt is “reasoned,” any Greek text that agrees with Vaticanus and/or the Vulgate against the textus receptus and/or the King James Version must be a Roman Catholic Bible. And, of course, the mere labeling of something as “Roman Catholic” is deemed sufficient to make it so, and naturally and necessarily discredits it as corrupt (Ruckman is here following the ages-old precept: “If you cannot answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names”). And the presence of a Catholic scholar among the editors of such a Greek text!! “What need have we of further witnesses?” (Some have tried to discredit Westcott and Hort as well by smearing them with claims of Romish inclinations, chiefly through the use of misquotes, half-quotes and misrepresentations. See my article Erasmus, His Greek Text And His Theology posted at www.kjvonly.org).
Jim Lincoln wrote: Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?
No. Because the KJV used a completely different Greek manuscript. The Textus Receptus.
However The NASB, NIV and other modern versions are Roman Catholic influenced since they use the Vaticanus Text and the input of the two Anglican Liberal Roman Catholic leaning heretics Westcott and Hort.
If you spot a KJV-Onlyist on this thread, would you please name him and speak to him direct, instead of coming out with strawmen which are far easier to knock down than genuine debaters. It is a poor strategy you have, and folks have noticed it.
Probably some where down the long list of comments someone was worked up about my hint that the Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?, If you really have an Authorized King James Version, it will have the Preface, the marginal notes, --and The Apocrypha. If your AV doesn't have those, then it is nothing more than a perversion of what was authorized by King James. As this former Catholic and present Arminian pointed out, he almost threw up his hands when ran into an AV! Dear KJV Only Advocate:
'Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible. . . . For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable'---Edward H. Palmer
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Simply not my calling to join "Let's pile on against Jim."
Dear bro Okay, let's all pile on against those wretched Bible translators who have been working continually since 1994 on yet another "modern version", yet have no interest in obeying the Lord Jesus, nor loving and serving him in the truth, nor seeking to get others saved by his precious blood and righteousness.
Street-Preacher wrote: Brethren: There Are Only TWO Families On Planet Earth...:
#1.The First Man, Adam, And His Family.
#2.The Second Adam, The LORD Jesus Christ, And HIS Family.
To Be A Member Of The First Adam's Family; One Has To Be Born A Physically Member Of This Family.
To Be A Member Of The Second Adam's / The LORD Jesus Christ's Family; One Has To Be, Yea, One Must Be A Spiritually Born-Again Member Of This Family.
That Being Said; There Are TWO (2) Families Of "BIBLE" Manuscripts:
Those Originating In The Middle-East; Specifically The City Of Antioch: Where The "Disciples" Were First Called "Christians"--Named The Byzantine "TEXTUS-RECEPTUS" Bible Manuscripts.
&
Those Originating In Africa; Specifically In Alexandria, Egypt: Where The First "Christian" Heresy Originated Called "Arianism"--Named The Alexandrian "CORRUPT" Bible Manuscripts.
Now Brethren:
Q:Guess What This So-Called "New American ('Catholic') Bible" Got As The Foundation For Its "Biblical" Authority ?
John UK wrote: 1.Songs popular with the world are often called "pop songs", and Bibles popular with the world ought to be called "pop bibles".
2.What kind of Bible can you expect which is translated from manuscripts found in Vatican City, in their library no less; like the RV, NIV, NASB, ESV et al?
"pop songs" ?
"pop bibles" ?
More Like "pope songs" !
&
"pope bibles" !
Brethren: There Are Only TWO Families On Planet Earth & In All Human Existence:
#1.The First Man, Adam, And His Family.
#2.The Second Adam, The LORD Jesus Christ, And HIS Family.
To Be A Member Of The First Adam's Family; One Has To Be Born A Physically Member Of This Family.
To Be A Member Of The Second Adam's / The LORD Jesus Christ's Family; One Has To Be, Yea, One Must Be A Spiritually Born-Again Member Of This Family.
That Being Said; There Are TWO (2) Families Of "BIBLE" Manuscripts:
Those Originating In The Middle-East; Specifically The City Of Antioch: Where The "Disciples" Were First Called "Christians"--Named The Byzantine "TEXTUS-RECEPTUS" Bible Manuscripts.
&
Those Originating In Africa; Specifically In Alexandria, Egypt: Where The First "Christian" Heresy Originated Called "Arianism"--Named The Alexandrian "CORRUPT" Bible Manuscripts.
Glimsen wrote: What is worse is that the article calls this counterfeit bible "popular." What kind of book can anyone expect from the anti-christ???
1. Songs popular with the world are often called "pop songs", and Bibles popular with the world ought to be called "pop bibles".
2. What kind of Bible can you expect which is translated from manuscripts found in Vatican City, in their library no less; like the RV, NIV, NASB, ESV et al?
"The changes go beyond a few words being altered, and include freshly-written notes that should help readers better understand the Catholic church's interpretation of biblical concepts"
The Roman Catholic "interpretation" - of Biblical concepts???
How sad that the anti-christ and his heretical organisation continues to confound and confuse the masses with heresy and promote his idolatry and lies by this counterfeit 'bible(?)'
What is worse is that the article calls this counterfeit bible "popular."
What kind of book can anyone expect from the anti-christ???
Jim Lincoln wrote: A keen observation, Neil. The problem of the Romish Bible is in its Romish notes for interpretation, The Apocrypha, which even in the KJV is separated from the rest of the Bible, and then some subtle errors in the New Testament, which is pointed out in the John Ankerberg article, The Roman Catholic Bible.
There you are you see, Michael. It's Jim who keeps mentioning the *** Bible. But I notice you never have a go at him either.
A keen observation, Neil. The problem of the Romish Bible is in its Romish notes for interpretation, The Apocrypha, which even in the KJV is separated from the rest of the Bible, and then some subtle errors in the New Testament, which is pointed out in the John Ankerberg article, The Roman Catholic Bible.
Conservative wrote: ------------------------------------ Thanks I was wondering how you were all doin it it just doesn't work for me because I'm on my iPhone sermonaidio app and it doesnt have that option. Sorry I'll try to make it as clear as I can
Haha, that's the point exactly. If u just always used the iPhone, then u would never know that a better way even existed.
John UK from Wales wrote:And if you click on the "Reply to comment" instead of the "Add new comment" button, you will have the poster's comment all nicely laid out for you instead of having to type it in. But make sure your own comment goes on a new line after the last.
It just makes it easier to read, 's all ------------------------------------/
Thanks I was wondering how you were all doin it it just doesn't work for me because I'm on my iPhone sermonaidio app and it doesnt have that option. Sorry I'll try to make it as clear as I can
Conservative wrote: John UK Wrote: Well, shall we put it to the test? Let's see if we can get a better understanding of Matthew 17:21 by posting up a TR Bible and a modern version Bible like the NIV. Haha that's my point exactly. If u just always read niv then u would never know that verse even existed.
Quite so, quite so.
And if you click on the "Reply to comment" instead of the "Add new comment" button, you will have the poster's comment all nicely laid out for you instead of having to type it in. But make sure your own comment goes on a new line after the last.
Conservative wrote: John UK wrote: Correct! That's why it's very important to have the Scripture, not a corruption of Scripture. I'm outta here. ________________ So true John! But theres so much controversy on which bible is right and which ones are corrupt! I say we should not just have a strong opinion on one version but use more than one version for studying.so we can compare and get a more full understanding of some verses. Agree??
Well, shall we put it to the test?
Let's see if we can get a better understanding of Matthew 17:21 by posting up a TR Bible and a modern version Bible like the NIV.
It took them 60 yrs to figure out that "holocaust," though technically a reasonable translation, has a different connotation now?? I do not recall it ever being used by Protestant versions.
And shiver me timbers; I always thought "booty" was cinematic English pirate slang (as popularized by actor Robert Newton), rather than bawdy street argot that no respectable Catholic would recognize.
Dr. Alan Cairns | 8/17/2009
Brian Edwards | 7/17/2008
COMMENTS 
locked 
it just doesn't work for me because I'm on my iPhone sermonaidio app and it doesnt have that option. Sorry I'll try to make it as clear as I can
