# Bible 101 - differences between versions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795 "2005-08-12T22:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/41 "2005-08-23T19:32:25Z")
I’m late to the party, but if cost/availability of the Oxford is a problem, consider the Harper Collins annotated NRSV. I used it for several religion classes and found that the notes were helpful, even if some of them were redundant. Oh, and does anyone keep reading that passage from Ruth as being about Ruth and Oprah? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/42 "2005-08-23T19:56:50Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > I disagree with that: I have read the Bible through five times. And not exclusively the _New World Translation,_ whose 1970 edition I acquired. I even had three Bibles side by side at times; the KJV and the New English Bible–checked out of a library. And I also have a Bible in Esperanto. I found little difference between the three; the NWT does a better job of using modern English (20th-Century, that is). > If you want to see a translation slanted to a church’s doctrine, look at the Douay or most other Catholic versions; or even the Living Bible–which is at least honest enough to include the word “Paraphrased” on its front cover. The Douay is a stiff, awkward rendering–compare it yourselves to the KJV. And I certainly do not condone the verse-juggling inflicted by Dr. James Moffatt, in his version; he rearranges chapters and verses to suit himself throughout. He also accepts the documentary theory about the Pentateuch, and a similar notion about the Christian scrptures, making me wonder why, with thyat attitude, he bothered translating the Bible in the first place–unless he was the fox hired to guard the chickens! I thought you were LDS, not JW, **dougie**. You’ll note that I mentioned the Jos. Smith Jr. translation distinctly from that comment. I agree with your comments re: the Living Bible, which is in fact a paraphrase intended to make the Scriptures clear to the evangelical Protestants who are its intended readership. I’m not familiar with the Douay (or Douay/Confraternity) but find that the Catholic “slant” in the modern Catholic translations (NAB, NJB, etc.) is in the footnotes, not in the text, which is as accurately rendered as most other scholarly translations. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/43 "2005-08-23T20:08:14Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I thought you were LDS, not JW, **dougie**. You’ll note that I mentioned the Jos. Smith Jr. translation distinctly from that comment. I agree with your comments re: the Living Bible, which is in fact a paraphrase intended to make the Scriptures clear to the evangelical Protestants who are its intended readership. I’m not familiar with the Douay (or Douay/Confraternity) but find that the Catholic “slant” in the modern Catholic translations (NAB, NJB, etc.) is in the footnotes, not in the text, which is as accurately rendered as most other scholarly translations. Try the second chapter of Phillippians in the _Jerusalem Bible._ ---
**Author:** ![chemistrydork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@chemistrydork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chemistrydork)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/44 "2005-08-23T22:23:10Z")
Moderate derail, apologies. > [@asterion](#): > > does anyone keep reading that passage from Ruth as being about Ruth and Oprah? If I remember my Oprah history correctly, her parents INTENDED to name her after the Biblical character Orpah, but misspelled her name on the birth certificate. At any rate, the similarity isn’t coincidental! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/45 "2005-08-24T00:01:23Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Try the second chapter of Phillippians in the _Jerusalem Bible._ Why? First you claimed that there was a Catholic bias in the \*Douai-Rheims \* version, but only came up with its (admittedly) stilited language. (Hardly a theological bias, in itself.) Now you make a cryptic reference to the _Jerusalem Bible_ without indicating any bias there, either. The _JB_ was a private effort in which numerous _individuals_ (generally Catholic) collaborated and which has received both the _Nihil Obstat_ and an _Imprimatur_ from various Catholic diocese. It is not an “official” Catholic work that was created to proselytize Catholic belief. The individual who translated Phillipians chose to emphasize the poetic constructions in the original when he translated it to English. This is something that several of the translators made an effort to accomplish. (Most of the translators attempted to do the same thing for the long sections of poetry found in the prophets.) So, aside from a general dislike of the translation (to which you are certainly entitled), what particular Catholic _bias_ do you find in the _JB_ translation of Phillipians? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/46 "2005-08-24T06:16:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Why? First you claimed that there was a Catholic bias in the \*Douai-Rheims \* version, but only came up with its (admittedly) stilited language. (Hardly a theological bias, in itself.) Now you make a cryptic reference to the _Jerusalem Bible_ without indicating any bias there, either. > > The _JB_ was a private effort in which numerous _individuals_ (generally Catholic) collaborated and which has received both the _Nihil Obstat_ and an _Imprimatur_ from various Catholic diocese. It is not an “official” Catholic work that was created to proselytize Catholic belief. The individual who translated Phillipians chose to emphasize the poetic constructions in the original when he translated it to English. This is something that several of the translators made an effort to accomplish. (Most of the translators attempted to do the same thing for the long sections of poetry found in the prophets.) > > So, aside from a general dislike of the translation (to which you are certainly entitled), what particular Catholic _bias_ do you find in the _JB_ translation of Phillipians? The bias I find is in the effort of the translator(s) to imbue Jesus with the same status as God the Father. Read an interlinear translation of Phillippians 2:5-8 and compare it with that passage in the \*Jerusalem Bible–\*or any other Catholic translation, for that matter. And note that Paul concludes this passage with “…that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Besides, in the Gospel of John, Jesus was discussing the Holy Spirit. In Greek the word for “spirit” is _pneuma,_ a neuter noun. Again, using an interlinear translation, you can see where the Douay (and the KJV for that matter) hide the fact that it’s a neuter noun, by using personal pronouns; John 14:7 is an example. ---
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/47 "2005-08-24T07:33:06Z")
Moved to GD. - **xash** General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/48 "2005-08-24T11:06:46Z")
Very interesting debate. I wonder how people got on for centuries,with only a few passages read to them over the years, it must have been explained to them by the reader,priest or teacher. No wonder there is still debate going on today. No wonder there is confusion. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/49 "2005-08-24T14:53:16Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > Try the second chapter of Phillippians in the _Jerusalem Bible._ I (protestant girl with plenty of my own anti-Catholic bias) can’t see what on earth you’re talking about - even when reading it next to my own NRSV interlinear. NRSV: > [@](#): > > [sup]5[/sup]Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus > [sup]6[/sup]who, though he was in the form of God, > did not regard equality with God > as something to be exploited, > [sup]7[/sup]but emptied himself, > taking the form of a slave, > being born in human likeness, > And being found in human form, > [sup]8[/sup]he humbled himself > and become obedient to the point of death - > even death on a cross. Jerusalem Bible > [@](#): > > [sup]5[/sup]Make your own mind the mind of Christ Jesus > [sup]6[/sup]Who, being in the form of God > did not count equality with God > something to be grasped > [sup]7[/sup]But he emptied himself, > taking the form of a slave, > becoming as human beings are; > and being in every way like a human being, > [sup]8[/sup]he was humbler yet, > even to accepting death, death on a cross Greek > [@](#): > > [sup]5[/sup][symbol]touto froneite en umin o kai en Cristw Ihsou[/symbol] > [sup]6[/sup][symbol]os en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew[/symbol] > [sup]7[/sup][symbol]alla eauton ekenwsen morfhn doulou labwn en omoiwmati anqrwpwn genomenos kai schmati eureqeis ws anqrwpos[/symbol] > [sup]8[/sup][symbol]etapeinwsen eaton genomenos uphkoos mecri qanatou qanatou de staurou[/symbol] ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/50 "2005-08-24T15:10:14Z")
If dougie is JW, I know exactly what he means by Phillipians 2 but it’s not a “Catholic” bias but a “Trinitarian” (or at least “Duotarian/Binitarian/Dyatarian”? one)- the traditional interpretation is that Jesus shared in God’s Nature but didn’t cling to It, instead putting His Deity on hold to incarnate as a human the JW/Arian/classical Unitarian position- Jesus was created as God’s Image (either before all Creation or at his conception by Mary) but didn’t make a grab for Divinity, as did Lucifer & Adam, but humbled himself to be God’s servant & humanity’s savior. I do hold to the Trinity & the Deity of Christ, but I understand the Unitarian position. To the OP- I use the New KJV usually- I think the Textus Receptus is the Scripture as fully developed in the Church & the NKJV corrects the mistranslations & archaisms while preserving the rhythm of the language. BUT I do greatly like the (New) Jerusalem Bible (TJB was the original & it was revised as TNJB), the Harper Collins Study NRSV, the 1901 American Standard Version, and for some good insights Everett Fox’s The Five Books of Moses and the Catholic translation of the Bible by Msgr. Ronald Knox (out of print alas). ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/51 "2005-08-24T17:41:30Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > If dougie is JW, I know exactly what he means by Phillipians 2 but it’s not a “Catholic” bias but a “Trinitarian” (or at least “Duotarian/Binitarian/Dyatarian”? > one)- > > the traditional interpretation is that Jesus shared in God’s Nature but didn’t cling to It, instead putting His Deity on hold to incarnate as a human > > the JW/Arian/classical Unitarian position- Jesus was created as God’s Image (either before all Creation or at his conception by Mary) but didn’t make a grab > for Divinity, as did Lucifer & Adam, but humbled himself to be God’s servant & humanity’s savior. > > I do hold to the Trinity & the Deity of Christ, but I understand the Unitarian position. > > To the OP- I use the New KJV usually- I think the Textus Receptus is the Scripture as fully developed in the Church & the NKJV corrects the mistranslations & archaisms while preserving the rhythm of the language. > > BUT I do greatly like the (New) Jerusalem Bible (TJB was the original & it was revised as TNJB), the Harper Collins Study NRSV, the 1901 American Standard Version, and for some good insights Everett Fox’s The Five Books of Moses and the Catholic translation of the Bible by Msgr. Ronald Knox (out of print alas). :o So it wasn’t the \*Jerusalem Bible \* I was referring to–it was the Confraternity New Testament (paired with the Douay Old Testament until the OT in the Confraternity translation was available). In that version it says Jesus was “by nature God,” The Greek phrase here is _en morphei theou._ Word for word that’s “in form god (genitive).” “Form,” _morphe,_ is properly rendered here in the dative case. Jesus used a similar construction in John 10:36, quoting from Psalm 82:6 which in the King James version reads “I said, Ye are gods.” Paul is indeed presenting this issue of Jesus’ divine nature–it’s necessary to the thrust of Paul’s argument. He exhorts the Philippians to have a mental state of humility, and says, in a manner of speaking, If it was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for you. The effort to represent Jesus as a “God the Son” equal to God the Father is irrelevant to Paul’s point. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/52 "2005-08-24T18:23:02Z")
I will grant that the translation in the Douai and Confraternity editions is odd. In what way is that a “Catholic bias”? In fact, the footnote in the Confraternity edition that accompanies that verse explicitly says > [@](#): > > _By nature_, literally “by form” in the Greek and Latin Since “the Latin” would clearly indicate the Vulgate which was the official version held by the Catholic Church for many years, I see no “Catholic bias” in the translation, merely a poor choice of expression. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/53 "2005-08-26T05:17:49Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > The bias I find is in the effort of the translator(s) to imbue Jesus with the same status as God the Father. Read an interlinear translation of Phillippians 2:5-8 and compare it with that passage in the \*Jerusalem Bible–\*or any other Catholic translation, for that matter. And note that Paul concludes this passage with “…that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” > Besides, in the Gospel of John, Jesus was discussing the Holy Spirit. In Greek the word for “spirit” is _pneuma,_ a neuter noun. Again, using an interlinear translation, you can see where the Douay (and the KJV for that matter) hide the fact that it’s a neuter noun, by using personal pronouns; John 14:7 is an example. Considering that the overwhelming majority of Christians of almost all denominations profess Trinitarianism, I would say that this is your problem, **dougie** , and not that of the translators. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795/54 "2005-09-01T07:50:22Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Considering that the overwhelming majority of Christians of almost all denominations profess Trinitarianism, I would say that this is your problem, **dougie** , and not that of the translators. “Overwhelming majority”? Not my problem, Polycarp. I’ve never considered this the kind of thing to be put to a vote. I prefer quality to quantity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-101-differences-between-versions/316795.md?page=2)