Best catholic Bible version to read?

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Mr. Nicodemo,

You know more about these two documents than I do. I have seen mention of Bibles bearing the monicker Navarre, Navarra, etc., as translated or edited in various languages recently, but I have not seen one. I shall have to find out more about this one.

As for the polyglot Bible that you mention, I have to plead ignorance about that, too!

The Revised Standard Version (not referring here to the N.R.S.V., which is later and less reliable than the R.S.V., including the R.S.V.-C.E.), of which you mention that annotated edition, has many virtues. It is literate and dignified in language, for one thing, welcome after so many “street language” translations that have followed. Best of all is the very careful attention to nuance. As I mentioned elsewhere, the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament are difficult to translate as well as the R.S.V. did, and as the English Standard Version (E.S.V.), the latest (and, for once, improved) “take” on the R.S.V. also does. (Alas, the E.S.V., which has even finer and more elegant style than even the R.S.V. itself has, does not yet include the deutero-canonical books of the O.T., at least not yet.) There is a level of conveyance of nuance in the R.S.V.'s and E.S.V.'s translation that is hard to equal. Unfortunately, the modernist bias of the liberal translators spoils the translation of many passages, specially Messianically prophetical ones in the O.T. and, in the N.T., many that are of capital importance doctrinally regarding Christology and the Holy Trinity. Atop that, the translators often resort to appallingly bad and minority readings (when this suits their devious and unbelieving agenda) from manuscript sources that do not deserve preferment over majority readings. These defects badly mar what should have been a definitively fine version for the 20th and now the 21st centuries.

Well, I shall sign off here and set about learning more about this English Navarra Bible.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

// i wonder, is the nab (new american bible) dynamic or literal (formal) or both dynamic and literal???

 

[tobinatorstark]

// i wonder, is the nab (new american bible) dynamic or literal (formal) or both dynamic and literal???

I have seen source say its dynamic. I will post sources when I find them

 

[Jehuty_X]

I have seen source say its dynamic. I will post sources when I find them

// i have read a website that says it’s literal (catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm))…

// oh i’ve been wanting to ask you what version of the douai-rheims bible do you own? how is the quality of the bible (including the paper quality) overall?

// thank you for your reply.

 

[Cajetan]

Not taking into account study bibles (such as the Navarre Bible series and the Ignatius Study Bible series, both of which use the RSV:CE but are naturally valued primarily for their commentary content), but rather the bare Scripture translations, overall I think that the RSV:CE is probably the most solid and reliable for today’s English-speaking Catholic.

I actually like the NRSV:CE quite a bit, particularly the New Testament. Granted, it utilizes inclusive-language in some areas and I probably wouldn’t have started reading it were it not the ‘official’ translation of the Canadian Church, but it is often quite good.

I’m a great admirer of the venerable Douay-Rheims Bible; however, when reading it I often find myself ‘oohing’ and ‘ahhing’ over the – IMO – beautiful Middle English and not really drinking in the Word as I do with, say, the RSV:CE. Same deal with the Knox Version, which is a masterly literary translation of the Latin Vulgate by the late Ronald A. Knox (much more ‘dynamic’ than the DRB). But that’s just me. I generally encourage people to read them.

 

[rosinski]

i wonder, is the nab (new american bible) dynamic or literal (formal) or both dynamic and literal???

The Bible Translations Guide right here on Catholic Answers talks about it here:

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Plus there are many good charts on the internet that show all the translations on a literal/dynamic scale. Here is a good one:

apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

As you can see the NAB is towards the middle, but leans slightly towards the literal side.

Rick

 

[Jehuty_X]

The Bible Translations Guide right here on Catholic Answers talks about it here:

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Plus there are many good charts on the internet that show all the translations on a literal/dynamic scale. Here is a good one:

apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

As you can see the NAB is towards the middle, but leans slightly towards the literal side.

Rick

// wow…thank you…

// i was thinking if i should buy the nab (for worship, study, pray, reading, etc) or not… i wanted to purchase this one catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1011031/Catholic-Holy-Bible-NAB-Burgundy-Flexcover/?category=472 … i’m still not sure…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Cajetan,

Yes, you do have some classy and wise preferences regarding reliable Bible translations. For all the reservations that I have about aspects of the R.S.V. (C.E. or otherwise), I do use it a lot and admire its nuance and precision in so many passages and especially in whole books of the Wisdom Literature of the canonical and deutero-canonical O.T. Yeah, even the N.R.S.V. is really rather good, too, in its way; it certainly does function well as Scripture for liturgical reading, especially compared to the often rather dreadful and “tone-deaf” (in prose style terms) N.A.B.

The Knox Version is quite beautiful, one of the loveliest of 20th century translations, though just a bit too loose at times in its translation of some passages (mostly from the Vulgate which is its primary base) for use as a first-resort tool for close study of the Sacred Texts. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles, too, have elevated style, so far as modern versions to.

Like you, I dearly cherish the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version (especially the standard North American variant rather than the British, Catholic Truth Society, text of it); we all owe an huge debt of gratitute to the saintly Bp. Richard Challoner for having made such a thing of loveliness out of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which before his elegant revisions did read more than a little clunkily.

I love that phrase “Tiber Swim Team”! Are you a convert? I remember an old Protestant Episcopal Church priest, Canon Lockett Ford Ballard (Trinity Church, Newport, R.I.) who once mused that, rather than to remain a Protestant Episcopal priest, if he were younger he “would swim the Tiber”! (He never did so, I assume due to the creature comforts of a PECUSA church pension.)

Saint Gertrude’s Prayer is lovely and fragrant with devotion, though I would bear in mind the plight of all sinners, living and departed, rather than to dwell on Purgatory when praying it.

Good words, guy!

Jerry Parker

 

[rosinski]

// wow…thank you…

// i was thinking if i should buy the nab (for worship, study, pray, reading, etc) or not… i wanted to purchase this one catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1011031/Catholic-Holy-Bible-NAB-Burgundy-Flexcover/?category=472 … i’m still not sure…

I’d consider this one too:

catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111093/Catholic-Bible-Personal-Study-Edition-Paperback/?category=472

The “Reading Guide” in this is 462 pages of additional commentary, notes, maps and questions. It’s also available in hardcover.

catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111094/Catholic-Bible-Personal-Study-Edition-Hardcover/?category=472

There is another NAB Study Bible called “The Catholic Study Bible, Second Edition” that is very similar (Reading Guide is 525 pages). The Reading Guide is a bit more advanced but it does not have study questions. Your call. This one is available in softcover, hardcover and leather. Make sure you get the Second Edition though, as the revisions were worth it.

BTW, you can easily find all of these study bibles on eBay for 25-50% off the retail prices. That is where I purchased both of mine.

Rick

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Manfred et al.,

I want to put on record, despite having mentioned the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version of the Bible elsewhere, my high regard and affection for this great translation of Holy Writ. This text is a shortened adaptation that I wrote for another source:

The Douay-Rheims Bible, for those who have used it carefully and comparatively along with others of the relatively few truly reliable Bibles in English (there being far too many translations of a loosely paraphrastic, liberal bias-affected, and/or sloppily translated quality), whether of Roman Catholic or Protestant provenance. Fortunately, the rock-solid Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible still is available in a choice of editions and bindings. TAN Book’s paperback edition (published in 2000, not 1995, according to the data on the copy seen), is the best buy, for price combined with good quality, of the various range of options for obtaining a currently available edition of this surpassingly fine and lovely translation.

That holy missionary bishop of difficult times, Richard Challoner, immensely improved the text of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Critics of the Douay-Rheims often ignore his contribution and only refer to the Douay-Rheims as it first was published in the years before the Authorised “King James” Bible (of 1611) appeared and before Bp. Challoner made his great and scholarly improvements to the Douay-Rheims Bible. The only Roman Catholic Bible that is on its level is the Confraternity Version, which, alas, the mediocre New American Bible displaced on the market-place, to sad effect. The translation by Ronald Knox, also from the Clementine Latin Vulgate, has much literary merit (as, of course, the Douay-Rheims came to have as Challoner so gracefully revised it), but cannot compare to the accuracy and reliability of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner or Confraternity Bibles, since Knox’ translation method was rather too free at times. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles have much merit (including literarily), and are translated, for the New Testament (and also for the deutero-canonical books of the O.T. books), from the Greek (alas, in one of the mutilated "critical texts that modernist scholars wrongly prefer to the Ecclesiastical Greek “Received” Text, also called the “Textus Receptus”, of the N.T.), but even they have to cede place of honour to the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and Confraternity Versions (the latter being, of course, based on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts along with an healthy regard for the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate).

The Clementine Latin text, that underlies the Douay-Rheims Version, as already noted above, is superior to the tawdry, corrupted Greek “critical texts” (usually the numerous editions of the Nestlé/Aland or the United Bible Societies texts of the New Testament, all having a liberal and Westcott-Hort corrupt preponderance of often quite aberrant readings for the New Testament). It truly is better to translate from the Clementine Vulgate’s fine Latin text than from tarnished Greek “critical texts”, which tend to be more extreme than the more cautious critical text that underlies the Confraternity Version’s New Testament) that betray the sacred words of the New Testament, even if, ideally, it is best to translate faithfully from the Textus Receptus or Majority Text of the N.T., as the translators of the A.V./K.J.V., with such supreme authority and probity, so did.

There are minor divergences between the American and British Douay-Rheims-Challoner texts, which have varied somewhat in editions over the years published in both countries. Good editions of British texts of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner translation long were available, including in inexpensive editions, from the Catholic Truth Society (C.T.S.). This reader’s collection includes the C.T.S. edition in relatively small (but stoutly thick) format published in 1956 (with imprimatur and preface dated 1955), which states on the verso of the title page and in the preface, that modifications to the British Challoner text of 1955 are due to “certain emendations, mainly of a grammatical nature, to the [then] current Douay texts … [and also] to provide for easier reading.” Most traditionalist Roman Catholic and other readers probably will prefer the older 1899 American text, for which TAN Books and Baronius Press alike have opted to print or to reprint, to the slightly different 1955 or other British text. The prefaces of TAN Books’ hardcover and later paperback editions differ, the latter lengthier, accounting for the 2000 paperback TAN edition’s description as being an “Enlarged Softcover Edition”, a difference that would affect few readers’ choice to make a choice between these TAN editions. The buyer can always “tip in” a photocopy of the preface to the other edition, as this reader has done, to have both under one cover.

When all has been said, the Douay-Rheims, undeniably to the unprejudiced and discerning reader, is a genuinely beautiful translation of God’s word; as Challoner revised the translation, it rivals even the beauty of the A.V./K.J.V. so beloved to Protestants (too many of whom, alas, have bought mutilated editions of it that omit the A.V. Bible’s translation of the deutero-canonical books in its so-called “Apocrypha”). That is in no small part due to Challoner’s effort to import into the Douay-Rheims Bible much of the beauty and clarity of expression in the Authorised Version; he succeeded in upgrading the style of the Douay-Rheims Bible without bowing to the A.V.'s moderately Protestant/Anglican bias in certain passages.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

Hi Jehuty:
The problem with the New Jerusalem Bible is that it is a too “dynamic” of a version.
When the dynamic focus is too prominent then the translators are “thinking for you” because the presumption is that you can read the texts such a way as if we were reading with our actual language.

// what valid proof do you have that the newer versions of la nueva biblia de jerusalén are dynamic?

Please, go to Luke 1:28 and you’ll see how that effort is self defeating. Our mother is not “happy” but “full of grace”. Hope you could compare the JB with the NJB.

// «Alégrate, llena de gracia, el Señor está contigo.» that’s what it says… full of grace is right there… your point?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuty and others,

Yes, the problem of “dynamic equivalence” in more and more Bible translations is a serious one. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles use the technic somewhat extensively, but, at least, with restraint, so that the meaning of what the sacred authors wrote only occasionally is compromised. Most outright paraphrases go quite a lot further in departing from the text and in distorting it.

The paraphrastic or “dynamic equivalence” technics give free reign to translators who like to introduce their own opionions surreptitiously (or even inadvertently) into the Holy Bible when they translate it or portions thereof. Stick the the “formal equivalence” versions: Douay-Rheims-Challoner, Confratermity, Revised Standard Version (Catholic and Second Catholic Editions), and the few other Roman Catholic Bibles that take a responsable approach to the Sacred Texts!

Jerry Parker

 

[rbrtncl]

// what valid proof do you have that the newer versions of la nueva biblia de jerusalén are dynamic?

// «Alégrate, llena de gracia, el Señor está contigo.» that’s what it says… full of grace is right there… your point?

Right. Es la traduccion correcta
I liked a lot what Jerry Parker had said about the problem of the “dynamic” translations. I totally agree.
For me, please give me my straightforward translations (NSRV, La biblia de Navarra, etc). All the rest, kind of have the ‘flavors’ of those “genetically engineered” foods .
rob

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Here’s one for you Jerry. This was the 2nd reading in all of the US liturgies this past Sunday taken from the NAB:

NAB 2 Cor 1:22

he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.

That almost made my ears bleed.

Challoner D/R 2 Cor 1:22

Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.

Vulgate 2 Cor 1:22

et qui signavit nos et dedit pignus Spiritus in cordibus nostris

Definition of pignus: gage, collateral, surety, pawn, persons in pledges of, pledge, token

Does any banker, borrower, lender, or even silly consumer confuse collateral or pledge with first installment??

When I first heard it, I thought I must’ve been hearing things, so I thumbed through the in-pew missalette, and there it was.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Here’s one for you Jerry. This was the 2nd reading in all of the US liturgies this past Sunday taken from the NAB:

NAB 2 Cor 1:22

That almost made my ears bleed.

Challoner D/R 2 Cor 1:22

Vulgate 2 Cor 1:22

Definition of pignus: gage, collateral, surety, pawn, persons in pledges of, pledge, token

Does any banker, borrower, lender, or even silly consumer confuse collateral or pledge with first installment??

When I first heard it, I thought I must’ve been hearing things, so I thumbed through the in-pew missalette, and there it was.

My turn to beat a dead horse…I hope the OP is still reading For me, if you are serious about reading scripture than you cannot rely on one Bible. I have an NAB Catholic Study Bible, a Douay Rheims, an Ignatius RSV 2CE and even an NIV. The Douay Rheims has been invaluable to me but my favorite daily reader is the RSV 2CE. Just to give a small example:
1 Corinthians Chapter 13 verse 13 struck me:
RSV 2CE:
So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

NAB:
So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

My question…what exactly is the “love” they are speaking of? In English “love” is a very strange word. I love my wife and I love Popeye’s chicken…not the same in case you were wondering. Now, the Douay Rheims:
And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

Aha! but also…what? Charity? Going to my trusty dictionary (merriamwebster.com) I find that Charity means:
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

Now that was far more specific and meaningful to me than “love”. So, again my point is you need more than one Bible translation…and that is just keeping things in English.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Rob,

You wrote: I liked a lot what Jerry Parker had said about the problem of the “dynamic” translations. I totally agree. For me, please give me my straightforward translations (NSRV, La biblia de Navarra, etc). All the rest, kind of have the ‘flavors’ of those “genetically engineered” foods.

Thanks for that kudo, Rob! Actually this matter of genuine translation (and thus, at the best, of full equivalence) and of paraphrase (so-called, “dynamic equivalence”) is not merely applicable to the Bible, but to any matter of translation, secular or sacred.

And, like you, I say, as you put it so robustly and rightly, “Give me … [the] straightforward translations”, not the loose, fast and easy, slick and sleazy versions! We need what the Holy Ghost inspired, not somebody’s self-important “take” thereon!

Jerry Parker

 

[Jehuty_X]

Jehuty and others,

Yes, the problem of “dynamic equivalence” in more and more Bible translations is a serious one. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles use the technic somewhat extensively, but, at least, with restraint, so that the meaning of what the sacred authors wrote only occasionally is compromised. Most outright paraphrases go quite a lot further in departing from the text and in distorting it.

The paraphrastic or “dynamic equivalence” technics give free reign to translators who like to introduce their own opionions surreptitiously (or even inadvertently) into the Holy Bible when they translate it or portions thereof. Stick the the “formal equivalence” versions: Douay-Rheims-Challoner, Confratermity, Revised Standard Version (Catholic and Second Catholic Editions), and the few other Roman Catholic Bibles that take a responsable approach to the Sacred Texts!

Jerry Parker

// i honestly dislike dynamic equivalence translations…how sure are the translators on the way they think the author tried to say? pretty much they should leave it alone and just translate it and stop trying to think on what the author meant…

Right. Es la traduccion correcta
I liked a lot what Jerry Parker had said about the problem of the “dynamic” translations. I totally agree.
For me, please give me my straightforward translations (NSRV, La biblia de Navarra, etc). All the rest, kind of have the ‘flavors’ of those “genetically engineered” foods .
rob

// nrsv??? to each his own i guess…though you still did not answer my question…

Rob,

You wrote: I liked a lot what Jerry Parker had said about the problem of the “dynamic” translations. I totally agree. For me, please give me my straightforward translations (NSRV, La biblia de Navarra, etc). All the rest, kind of have the ‘flavors’ of those “genetically engineered” foods.

Thanks for that kudo, Rob! Actually this matter of genuine translation (and thus, at the best, of full equivalence) and of paraphrase (so-called, “dynamic equivalence”) is not merely applicable to the Bible, but to any matter of translation, secular or sacred.

And, like you, I say, as you put it so robustly and rightly, “Give me … [the] straightforward translations”, not the loose, fast and easy, slick and sleazy versions! We need what the Holy Ghost inspired, not somebody’s self-important “take” thereon!

Jerry Parker

 

[Manfred]

My turn to beat a dead horse…I hope the OP is still reading For me, if you are serious about reading scripture than you cannot rely on one Bible. I have an NAB Catholic Study Bible, a Douay Rheims, an Ignatius RSV 2CE and even an NIV. The Douay Rheims has been invaluable to me but my favorite daily reader is the RSV 2CE. Just to give a small example:
1 Corinthians Chapter 13 verse 13 struck me:
RSV 2CE:
So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

NAB:
So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

My question…what exactly is the “love” they are speaking of? In English “love” is a very strange word. I love my wife and I love Popeye’s chicken…not the same in case you were wondering. Now, the Douay Rheims:
And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

Aha! but also…what? Charity? Going to my trusty dictionary (merriamwebster.com) I find that Charity means:
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity

Now that was far more specific and meaningful to me than “love”. So, again my point is you need more than one Bible translation…and that is just keeping things in English.

My point is that you should definitely include the Douay-Rheims among the more than one translations you choose to possess.

In the Tridentine liturgy, 1 Corinthians 13 was NOT the reading for the Nuptial Mass, since the correct rendering of “agape” is “charity”, not “eros”. FYI, the TLM Nuptial mass reading was from Ephesians 5.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jehuty et alia,

We had written:

Jerry Parker: *Yes, the problem of “dynamic equivalence” in more and more Bible translations is a serious one. The Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles use the technic somewhat extensively, but, at least, with restraint, so that the meaning of what the sacred authors wrote only occasionally is compromised. Most outright paraphrases go quite a lot further in departing from the text and in distorting it. *

The paraphrastic or “dynamic equivalence” technics give free reign to translators who like to introduce their own opionions surreptitiously (or even inadvertently) into the Holy Bible when they translate it or portions thereof. Stick the the “formal equivalence” versions: Douay-Rheims-Challoner, Confratermity, Revised Standard Version (Catholic and Second Catholic Editions), and the few other Roman Catholic Bibles that take a responsable approach to the Sacred Texts!

**Jehuty: ** I honestly dislike dynamic equivalence translations. how sure are the translators on the way they think the author tried to say? Pretty much they should leave it alone and just translate it and stop trying to think on what the author meant.

RBTNCL: I liked a lot what Jerry Parker had said about the problem of the “dynamic” translations. I totally agree. For me, please give me my straightforward translations (NSRV, La biblia de Navarra, etc). All the rest, kind of have the ‘flavors’ of those “genetically engineered” foods.

**Jehuty: ** NRSV??? to each his own I guess – though you still did not answer my question.

**Jerry P.: ***Thanks for that kudo, Rob! Actually this matter of genuine translation (and thus, at the best, of full equivalence) and of paraphrase (so-called, “dynamic equivalence”) is not merely applicable to the Bible, but to any matter of translation, secular or sacred.

And, like you, I say, as you put it so robustly and rightly, “Give me … [the] straightforward translations”, not the loose, fast and easy, slick and sleazy versions! We need what the Holy Ghost inspired, not somebody’s self-important “take” thereon!*

**Jehuty: ** NRSV??? to each his own I guess – though you still did not answer my question.

---

I realise that no translation, of the Bible or of much of anything else, is possible without some freedom in rendering; excessively literal translations can result in nonsense, since not all idioms and figures of speech correspond across languages. Nonetheless, a “formally dynamic” translation only uses paraphrase sparingly, enough to convey meaning without resort to recasting the wording where it is not necessary. The great Roman Catholic translations are exemplary in regard to this, whether translated mostly from the Clementine Latin Vulgate (e.g., Douay-Rheims-Challoner, Confraternity Version N.T.) or from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (e.g., Revised Standard Version–Catholic Edition and Second Catholic Edition).

Another fine formal equivalence translations-based Bible is the Orthodox Study Bible, translated entirely from Greek, i.e. the Greek Septuagint O.T. (the recent translation known, a bit awkwardly, as the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint) and the Greek Received Text N.T. (New King James Version). Incidentally, all of the translations into English of the O.T. canonical and deutero-canonical Scriptures of which I have knowledge (and mostly own) are formal equivalence translations.

Rob likes the Biblia de Navarra, a Spanish translation, and there are a few other very fine ones in Spanish, variously from the Clementine Latin Vulgate or from the Hebrew Masoretic O.T. and Recived Text N.T. I would urge those who know French to find for themselves the great translation (the only one into French that has long and widely been considered to be truly of literary stature), of Louis-Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy (his surname also sometimes modernised as Lemaître de Sacy), a 17th Century, supremely lovely translation, from the Latin (with some unacknowledged resort to the Hebrew and Greek). I have contributed a review of the edition thereof published by the firm R. Laffont in 1990, to Amazon’s WWW site for France (Amazon.fr).

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is, indeed, mostly a formal equivalence translation. Where it departs from applying such translation method is not so much in paraphrase as in resort (usually moderate, but sometimes inappropriate) to inclusive (feminist-instigated) language. In places the NRSV improves upon the RSV, in others it worsens it. However, even the NRSV is better than outright paraphrases, e.g. than the infamous TEV (“Good News”) Bible and others like it.

A big problem with modern translations in general is the matter of the underlying texts from the which the translators have made their translations. Many translations of the N.T. are from appallingly corrupt N.T. Greek manuscript sources. Because of that, a formal equivalence translation from the Clementine Latin Vulgate often is preferable to a translation done from Greek N.T. sources riddled with minority and mixed manuscript readings.

No translator can convey the Sacred Texts into English with utter perfection, but the chances of misrepresenting the Holy Spirit are far greater when a translator paraphrases too freely, giving occasion (inadvertently or intentionally) to his bias and preconceptions. So, indeed, as Rob and I say (combining our phrases) so forthrightly and stalwartly, “Give us the straightforward translations, not the loose, fast and easy, slick and sleazy versions!”

Jerry Parker

 

[Dan86]

I like the Douay-Rheims. The Jerusalem Bible and NRSV:CE are okay. The NAB is awful. Many verses have been removed from the NAB. Here are some examples: Matt 18:11,23:14; Mark 9:44,46; 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; Acts 15:34, 23:24,7; 28:29; 1 John 5:7.