what is the difference between NIV and Catholic Bible?

Answer 1

The NIV is a (rather poor) translation of the Bible which may or may not include the entire number of books of the old testament. Specific verses will read the same. There is only one real difference between the NIV (protestant) and the NIV (catholic)

The Bible (Catholic version) contains the seven dueterocanoniacal texts (often incorrectly labelled as apocrypha) which were removed by King James in his translation in the middle ages to form the protestant Bible.

Personally, I prefer the St Ignatius Press version of the Bible over the NIV though.

EDIT FOR Skepsis: I had to thumbs up you, but wanted to clarify one thing. Martin Luther wanted clarification of the deuterocaniacal texts as not being equal with the rest of the Old Testament and stated that they should be grouped seperately at the end of the Bible, but he never really advocated their actual removal. King James was simply the one who took the whole move one step further and actually removed them.

EDIT: this time for Kait, there are only 7 deuterocaniacal texts which protestants eliminated from the Bible. These texts were included from the original septuigant, and the Catholic Church's council of 395 was the one which first officially canonized the scripture, though it had been in used since about 70 AD (not 1500's... Gutenberg had already printing pressed the first bible by that time, and included the deuterocaniacal texts, which were also standard in all hand written copies of the bible). Furthermore, Origin rejected the deuterocaniacal texts... of COURSE he did... he was a heretic. He also claimed that God was a ball of energy and that Humans were little balls of energy falling away from God. As we (little balls of energy) fell away from God we "cooled off" and once we cooled below a certain temperature we could no longer maintain the spiritual world and had to turn into physical beings. Jesus, to origen, was only a ball of energy sent to "recharge" us so that we would be capable of getting closer to the ball of energy that is God and therefore to return to "fiery ball of energy" mode. If THAT is your idea of sound backing for throwing out the deuterocaniacal texts, then go for it, but I haven't any use for heretics or their off the wall theories.

Answer 2

Niv Bible Catholic

Answer 3

Your question becomes irrelevant, The only Official Catholic Bible is the "Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam." Second the NIV and the KJV are both Protestant Bibles, so that also makes your question mute point. There are other translations which have been approved by the Church i.e., Douay Rheims, Challoner-Rheims, Haydock, &c., but they are not the actual official bible of the Church. So your question is better suited: "Which is more correct, the Latin Vulgate or the KJV?" To answer your original question, they are both horrible translations. The NIV have removed WHOLE verses--many were moved from the text to a footnote...over 40 IN ALL!!! It is interesting to note that most of these verses were also eliminated by the translators of the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible "New World Translation". A few examples: Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing? "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed. What are you NIV readers missing? "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes ~~~~~ I guess in terms of these two translations; all I can say is, you can choose your poison (if these are the only two).

Answer 4

The Catholic Bible will read slightly different in certain scriptures.

Also the Catholic Bible contains books that the NIV does not have. The Apocrapha.

Answer 5

The NIV was translated primarily by members of several Protestant denominations. The "Catholic" Bibles (New American and New Jerusalem) were translated primarily by Catholic scholars, although there were Protestant and Jewish consultants. They both use the same source documents. Their translation rubrics had about the same literal/sense balance. And they are both largely despised by fundamentalist Protestants.

There are some different word and phrase choices, simply because there were choices, but they aren't all that different. The main difference is obviously the Apocrypha ("Deuterocanonicals" in Catholic terms). Catholics regard these as inspired parts of scripture. Protestants do not.

Incidentally, it was Martin Luther, not King James, who rejected the Apocrypha. There are KJV versions of the Apocrypha.

Answer 6

The catholic bible adds the Apocrapha, the extra books. The books that are in there had to pass 7 tests to be put in the bibles we have like the NIV for instance. Those books and writings didn't pass at least one of those tests. Also the catholic bibles add their own foot notes that go along with catholic teachings.

Answer 7

The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic Bible, includes different scriptures than Protestant Bibles and written in old language. New International Version is a much newer translation with casual language that is not entirely accurate in meaning and oversimplifies (IMO) the scriptures.

Answer 8

"The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Macabese 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iranians, Tortellini, and Clement of Alexandria used the apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable Origin and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamie, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Obit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 9

NIV is more reliable than Catholic Bible.

Answer 10

one is older and there is a different translation, but they tell the basic same story. Of course the catholic bible includes The apocrapha which is basicly just the history of Isreal and Judea