Scripture through out all generation has been translated through the hands of man, guided by the Holy Spirit. Who should be involved in the translation of Scripture? What is there were no Bibles translated in the English vancular? How would you respond as Christians?

Could you please rephrase this question? I don't understand it.

This is the question. How do we address the languages throughout the world who do not have a written Scripture in their native tongue? Who should do the translation of Scripture? How will it get accomplish if there is constant fighting amongst the Protestant and Catholics?

I would imagine that the local Bishops should be responsible for the translations and comission scholars to do so. Just like they've always done, and usually it was done in the monasteries.

Dear Pastor Badal,

Welcome to The Byzantine Forum!

I totally agree with you that Christians need to work together to prepare editions of the Holy Scriptures in all languages.

I also agree that Catholics and Protestants should work together to produce these editions.

In my personal Bible Study I have used the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) for most of my adult life. Just this past year, however, I have switched to the English Standard Version (ESV), which is an elegant update to the RSV based upon better quality manuscripts and which also removes some of the antiquated language of the KJV. Both of these editions were produced by Protestants. Both are excellent!

You must understand that very often Eastern Christians are fearful of Protestants, particularly American Evangelical Protestants. They have a history of spending enormous amounts of money to attract people out of their traditional Churches into an American style of Protestantism. I think the only way forward is for us to respect people who are already Christian and not to entice them to switch Christian denominations. Of course, if individuals choose through their own prayerful decision to switch Christian denominations this must also be respected.

Again, welcome to the Forum!

Yes, the ESV is wonderful edition to the market of English Bible Versions

Dr. Eric,

None of the monasteries are accomplishing this enormous task. When was the last time the Catholic church translated the scriptures in a foreign language?

Dr. Eric,

None of the monasteries are accomplishing this enormous task. When was the last time the Catholic church translated the scriptures in a foreign language? Particular indigeous or language group which has never seen the Scriptures.

How is the Catholic Church responding the shift of translations in the English? Would they support overseas translations by the Protestant Church or mission organizations?

Are you speaking of a complete translation of the Holy Bible or the incomplete Protestant version which lacks the Dueterocanonicals?


~Isaac

Isaac,

Please show charity to Pastor Badal.

Admin

It depends. Generally speaking the Catholic Church does participate in some ecumenical endeavors such as this. But such efforts are all handled from Rome. I am sure that the Catholic Church would insist on total accuracy in translation and publishing the entire Bible. But, of course, different editions could be published (like the RSV and the RSV-CE). This is an issue that you can’t get a definite answer from a source other than Rome.

In what way was I uncharitable? I asked a valid question. Is this gentleman speaking of complete translations or incomplete ones? Just like translations of the Divine Liturgy that omit important elements, I am also not a fan of partial translations of the Holy Bible passed off as complete when they are in fact incomplete. Hence my inquiry.


~Isaac

Yes, I understand that Rome is essential for ministry to work in an organized fashion, but what would you do with an indigeous group in Papua New Guinea whom no Scripture is available in print? When does Rome organize such an effort?

Let's not discuss the Deutercanonical at this time, since Rome enlisted the Apocrypha as part of the Canonical record at the Council of Trent, but deal only with the 66 books which has been historically proven to be God's word by both groups.

Perceived tones. A charitable way to ask such a question is: “Catholics have more books in the Bible than do Protestants, and Orthodox have more books than Catholics. Will this effort include all the books so that Christians of all denominations may make use of them?”

Good questions. I don’t know the answers. I do know that Rome will first see if the indigenous peoples speak another language. If yes, they start proclaiming the Gospel in that language. Then Rome tends to translate the Gospels, then the other books in their usual order of authority.

I agree that there is much to discuss without arguing about the number of books. For the record, however, Trent merely affirmed the listing from earlier since it was questioned. But that would be a topic for another thread!

I have seen missionaries on EWTN who work in Papua New Guinea, I doubt that they don't have materials to teach the Faith to them.

Pastor Joel,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I too am a man who loves Sacred Scripture.

Respectfully, though, the Canon with the Deuterocanonical texts can be traced back earlier than Trent. Here is a website with the details:

http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/~dbranch/script_cath/CANON.HTM

God bless,

Gordon

Perceptions vary. The point is mute in any event, as the gentleman has answered my question. I’ll leave the discussion of incomplete Protestant translations of the Holy Bible to you and others. And before it is said, this aspect is material to this particular thread – ‘Who Should Translate the Scripture’ – obviously not those who deliberately chose to leave out entire portions of Sacred Scripture.


~Isaac

According to Eugene Nida, an expert on Dynamic Equivalence, he says that people can only hear the word truly through their receptor language...that is the language which speaks to the heart. If the tribal group speaks a particular language that only speaks to them, the task of mission should be to learn their tones, culture, and vocab. We can not impose another language, such as a trade language (French, English, or German). So what would you do?

Trent:
I would disagree with the prior response. Trent authorized the Deutercanonical books over 1200 years later after the church fathers ratified a complete 39 books OT and 27 NT.

Yes, the Deuterocanoncial is another subject of its own. We probably could fill the pages.

Which "church fathers ratified a complete 39 books OT and 27 NT"? Certainly not the father of protestantism - Martin Luther - he excluded James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Esdras, Wisdom, and many others.

Why do you get to arbitrarily exclude the books that both Catholics and Orthodox (the two largest groups in Christendom) view as inspired? This is not "another subject" at all, but one very pertinent to the topic - Who Should Translate the Scripture? Those who are authorised to do so by the Church and faithfully preserve the whole of Scripture.

And who decides which books belong in the Bible? The Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) tells us nowhere which books actually belong in it, and it references other books which are now lost and/or are full of heretical gobbledygook.

This is an embarrassing moment for the Forum.

Pastor Bedal came here to ask questions of us. He did not come here to condemn us or to convert us to his denomination.

And what have we done? We have attacked him with our uncharity, especially the last post by Eric. I really hope he does not take that attitude with new patients as soon as he learns that they are Protestant!

Please everyone go and look at my post to Isaac from last night at 10:58 PM.

I am closing this thread. Moderators are asked to close all thread where such uncharity reigns.

I ask Pastor Bedal to start a new thread if he wishes to discuss this issue further.