Augustine Institute Publishes Major New Catholic Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the new translations are made because of updated scholarship and new discoveries of manuscripts, then it’s important for the Church because it wants more accurate translations.

Also, if more readers and listeners have difficulty understanding Scriptures because of changes in reading habits and the spoken word, then translations will have to adjust to that as well.

And then there are differences in the way English is spoken and read in various countries, which is another reason why they may use different translations.

In relation to this, some translators from previous decades have been trying to encourage more people to read Scriptures by making them gender inclusive, among others, while others are part of ecumenical groups that do not include translations of books that are part of the Catholic Bible, among others. These cause the Church to reject translations for liturgy.
 
ralfyman said:
Also, if more readers and listeners have difficulty understanding Scriptures because of changes in reading habits and the spoken word, then translations will have to adjust to that as well.
Click to expand...
I get the scholarship point somewhat, but I have never found the Bible hard to read, including in the Douay version that was used for 400 years and wasn’t dissimilar to the KJV which Protestants used for hundreds of years. I try to have some empathy for people who have these issues with reading old timey Bibles, but I can’t help but feel that if they really wanted to read or understand it they would manage it. I pray daily for God to give me more empathy and charity in this regard and for many other things so I will probably just have to leave them to their constant new Bible translations designed to make things “easier” and hope it doesn’t result in a dumbing down like we discussed on the Danish Bible thread. Also, some of the changes like gender inclusive language just seem to be to be unnecessary. I am a woman and never had any difficulty understanding that I and all other women were included in the terms “mankind” or “men” used in the generic sense to mean all humans.

Anyway, I am derailing the thread with my pet peeves so I will step off and leave it…but I tend to agree with the person who said they would just stick to the Douay-Rheims. I don’t need 10 new Bibles, nor do I want to plow through 10 new Bibles. One or two will do me just fine. I like to hear the readings the same way every time. if I need a new insight then I can read a new commentary without needing a whole new translation to go with it. That’s just me.
 
One has to remember that that which was used for four centuries dominated over the Vulgate.

Also, one has to keep in mind that there are three of several uses of the Bible: personal use (including prayer), scholarship and teaching, and liturgy. And there are two of several factors that affect translation: new findings about historical documents, etc., and readership. The Church considers these and other points in the following statement:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

In short, the Church wants translations that are the best (i.e., based on updated scholarship), that can be understood by Catholics in one region or another (which means the translations have to be in the vernacular), and that are suitable for liturgy.

In your case, what you are looking for are Bibles for personal use only. In which case, you might prefer two translations and another person might prefer two other translations, and so on. Hence, many translations.
 
It is confusing, but the aim is usually to make it less confusing.

The RSV, and later the NRSV, were commissioned by the National Council of Churches so that here could be a translation that most, if not all, would accept. The RSVCE was to make a translation that would be acceptable to Catholics, basically just adding the parts not contained in the Masoretic text used by protestants and Jews.

RSV2CE came after the Vatican rejected the use of the NABRE in the liturgy. Someone, not the NCC, decided to create a new version hat the Vatican would accept (and updated the thees and thous to yous while they were at it). It is essentially a sectarian Catholic version, and I emphasize the oxymoronic nature of that term.

The ESV is another sectarian version apparently, which Catholics are probably using because the NRSV is unavailable.

IOW, sectarian interests are subverting the ecumenical efforts. This creates confusion, and the multiplication of viewpoints and translations.
 
I like New Living Translation personally but I also have many others including a Greek to English
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Maybe having new translation after new translation is important to Bible scholars, but to me this is just confusing and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
I was about to ask the same thing.

Thank God for the Bible Gateway website, it has tons of different versions of the bible… but I do tend to go between the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, The King James Version and the Living Bible.

Do we really need another version of the Bible, but then again maybe a new version will get people to pick it up again… just to read the differences. 🙂
 
Dovekin said:
(and updated the thees and thous to yous while they were at it
Click to expand...
I have to say that I am against this. Having a singular form of you clarifies some things. We have a lot of informal differentiation between the singular and plural second person which would be inappropriate in the Bible, so we should just keep the thees and thous.
 
Last edited:
I would be willing to get a copy, although it is not likely to displace the RSV-CE as my go-to Bible.

However, at this time, there is no way I’m throwing that kind of money for a paperback edition, no matter how good the cover’s paper is. For that amount, I should be getting at least a bonded leather cover, or ultrasoft, if not genuine leather. Paperback Bibles should cost only in the range of only $10 to $17 thereabouts.
 
Last edited:
ralfyman said:
So he had been using the regular verb for “eating” to describe the Eucharist, and now he switches to a different verb, the verb in John 6:54 and 6:56 which really means “to chew.”
Click to expand...
I heard Dr Grey translate that as “to gnaw.” on one of his Bible studies for EWTN
 
porthos11 said:
However, at this time, there is no way I’m throwing that kind of money for a paperback edition, no matter how good the cover’s paper is. For that amount, I should be getting at least a bonded leather cover, or ultrasoft, if not genuine leather. Paperback Bibles should cost only in the range of only $10 to $17 thereabouts.
Click to expand...
They say that more editions will be coming out, including a “more affordable paperback version.” I expect the slipcase and the foil stamping raised the price on this edition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top