tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post6175332761745353021..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: The NIV on Tradition and TeachingsJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-79314957618548496802010-11-03T08:51:48.778-05:002010-11-03T08:51:48.778-05:00Ryan and Robhu, thanks for the heads up on this. ...Ryan and Robhu, thanks for the heads up on this. Sorry to hear that they've kept it misleading. I mentioned in my response to T27C (see post linked to below) that they do the same thing with "works" in James 2, to avoid having to say what Scripture says about being justification by faith AND works. The NIV version of James doesn't even mention the word "works," even though James uses the same Greek work Paul's using in Romans 3:28 (which they translate as "works" there) a full thirteen times.<br /><br />The 27th Comrade, I appreciate your comments, and responded to them <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-do-we-know-which-traditions-are.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Joe.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-22601270845167941782010-11-03T03:14:34.461-05:002010-11-03T03:14:34.461-05:00While this comment here may seem combative (perhap...While this comment here may seem combative (perhaps it is), just consider it as an irreverently-written-but-honest-to-goodness question.<br /><br />I note that you say “we're ordered in the name of Jesus Christ to shun anyone who doesn't follow Aposotolic Tradition.”<br /><br />This is true; but I think that Roman Catholicism is not the Apostolic Tradition. If it were, you would say faith seventy times for every time you say works, and say “believe, and you will be saved” ten times for every single time you say “follow these statutes”, and you would say “by grace you have been saved, not through works, but by faith—and this not of yourselves, but of God” instead of “man should work for his salvation”. That is the Apostolic Tradition, and it is not the Roman Catholic Tradition. Which of the Traditions that you know of would you consider to be the “traditions of men”, looking at what various Christian groups do? Would you use Roman Catholic (“Apostolic”) Tradition as the definer of what the Apostolic Tradition is? How would you find out what the traditions of men are, as opposed to the traditions of God? (I understand that you do not accept that the Bible is a complete picture, leave alone a comprehensible picture, in separation from the Roman Catholic Tradition—which could be of men or of God, but I do not know.) Which group today is most like the Pharisees—complete with what would be seen as theological-pedigree mandate?The 27th Comradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490992094734826485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-9828292803868588522010-11-03T03:03:06.264-05:002010-11-03T03:03:06.264-05:00The problem is (something you almost explicitly no...The problem is (something you almost explicitly note) that anyone can appeal to his tradition, and claim that it compels this or that.<br />These translators can claim that their traditions compel such a distinction between good teachings—“traditions”—and good teachings—“teachings”.<br /><br />How do you segregate between any two traditions claiming to be representatives of the Deposit of Faith? As always, you would have to appeal to Scripture. But then, this is exactly what creates the distinction between Scripture and Tradition: that one is deemed superior to the other. In short, one is “teachings”, and the other “traditions”, where traditions are supposed to be synchronised with what scripture says, and they are not equal to it in force.<br /><br />But, really, the root of all this stuff is (first) a failure to realise that Scripture is whatever it is for which you say “Let this be true, and every man a liar,” and that is the Bible for the Protestants and the Tradition for the Catholics (it cannot be both Tradition and Scripture, because one has to validate and legitimise the other—the superior validating and legitimising the inferior); and (second) a failure to realise that, if anybody holds the Bible to be authoritative at all, then such a one must also recognise the superiority of it to any traditions, so that for the Catholic who follows after Tradition, the Bible might as well never be referred to ever again, and Catholicism will survive and therefore for him the Bible is just a superfluous commentary on what the Tradition holds, while for the Protestant, the Tradition can as well vanish irretrievably forever, and he will not be bothered, because he still has his Bible.<br /><br />P.S.: I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. Just some pseudonymous believer on the Internet who is excited about the new NIV.The 27th Comradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490992094734826485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-19007422873622366112010-11-02T19:18:53.961-05:002010-11-02T19:18:53.961-05:00I thought you and your readers might find it usefu...I thought you and your readers might find it useful to know that I've just put up some pages that show how similar the NIV2011 is to the NIV1984 and the TNIV. My pages also show each verse where the NIV2011 differs from the NIV1984 or the TNIV in an easily read / clear manner.<br /><br />The pages are online @ http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/<br /><br />I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions if anyone has any. Please either email me robert@slowley.com or leave a comment on my blog post http://community.livejournal.com/robhu_bible/4977.html<br /><br />Thank you,<br />-RobHuAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-41405376899271970772010-11-01T21:17:22.799-05:002010-11-01T21:17:22.799-05:00For what it's worth, this remains unchanged in...For what it's worth, this remains unchanged in the 2010 edition.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14380475568044302184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-61086558120972610962010-11-01T20:20:44.906-05:002010-11-01T20:20:44.906-05:00Oh, yeah: I think the RSV actually does something ...Oh, yeah: I think the RSV actually does something similar to what you suggested, but I'm not positive.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-42526674065384135362010-11-01T20:19:52.096-05:002010-11-01T20:19:52.096-05:00Thanks, Gary! Did I do an alright job explaining ...Thanks, Gary! Did I do an alright job explaining <i>paradosis</i>? Feel free to stick around the blog: it'd be nice to have someone literate in the textual languages.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-89845027847864010512010-11-01T19:01:58.782-05:002010-11-01T19:01:58.782-05:00As a protestant who grew up on the 1984 NIV and wh...As a protestant who grew up on the 1984 NIV and who now reads Greek, I have to agree that this is disappointing. Though I am not Catholic, this is blatant bias. I am sorry, because this must be frustrating.<br /><br />It certainly wouldn't hurt to have one Catholic scholar, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, and even a Jewish scholar participate in some chiefly-Evangelical translations.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350640852962668641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-89079753286173603392010-11-01T09:11:12.897-05:002010-11-01T09:11:12.897-05:00Sprachmeister and Christopher,
I must have read t...Sprachmeister and Christopher,<br /><br />I must have read that paragraph four times, and never once did I notice I'd done that, even when I was looking for it! Thanks for catching that.<br /><br />Bill,<br /><br />The "Monsignor" was actually the American Melkite Archbishop Cyrille Bustros, but he wasn't speaking on behalf of the Church. He said:<br /><br /> “The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands,” adding, “We Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people-- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.” <br /><br />The Vatican actually distanced itself from his comments, emphasizing that this wasn't something that the Synod had said, but the Archbishop, so I think it's a bit dishonest to say "the Church claimed" this. (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8067&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=675176)<br /><br />That said, at least part of what he was saying is correct. Dr. Jeff Mirus analyzes it briefly, here, as well as the response:<br />http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=725<br /><br />Joe.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-29331882186007706402010-10-31T11:29:05.532-05:002010-10-31T11:29:05.532-05:00Sorry, I should have been more specific. Indeed I ...Sorry, I should have been more specific. Indeed I mean the sentence that Christopher highlighted, beginning with "Just don't selectively..."spraffmeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02651988079265709782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-81724588049429632462010-10-30T05:30:15.735-05:002010-10-30T05:30:15.735-05:00Hi Joe.
I watched Hal Lindsey last night. He gives...Hi Joe.<br />I watched Hal Lindsey last night. He gives a "Christian" weekly report about things in the world. He chastised the Vatican for saying that the Church claimed that "the Jews had no more right to Israel than the Palestinians. He quoted a "Monsignor" (from what looked like by his dress, a Coptic Catholic if I'm right). I could not find a copy of the video. What is he talking about. Do you know?<br />Billdonn4billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10241326439528303571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-19408163131517150902010-10-29T21:16:50.849-05:002010-10-29T21:16:50.849-05:00I think he means THIS, Joe - "Just don't ...I think he means THIS, Joe - "Just don't selectively translate it so that it's a teaching if it's good, and a translation if it's bad." where "translation" should read "tradition". No?christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04914469781753936152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-30687847304996572322010-10-29T12:30:27.572-05:002010-10-29T12:30:27.572-05:00Sprachmeister,
Glad you agree! Also, thanks for ...Sprachmeister,<br /><br />Glad you agree! Also, thanks for the heads up on grammar; I do that stuff all the time. But I'm confused at to where I've done that here. In the third para. from the end, I say, "But frankly, even though it's not the most accurate translation, I'm not opposed to paradosis being translated 'teachings,'"? but I meant "translation" there. Am I missing something else?Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-88965025215564110282010-10-29T12:24:25.220-05:002010-10-29T12:24:25.220-05:00In a friendly debate with a friend who used to be ...In a friendly debate with a friend who used to be Catholic about this and other passages, I just couldn't get across that we should compare Biblical translations because of this reason. Translators have axes to grind so comparing translations is always helpful. A choice of one word over another - even apparent synonyms - can have a great effect on one's overall understanding of the text.<br /><br />P.S. Just a heads up - you put "translation" where I think you mean "tradition" in the third paragraph from the end.spraffmeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02651988079265709782noreply@blogger.com