Best catholic Bible version to read?

[porthos11]

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

That is indeed Trent speaking, and declares that the Vulgate is free of error in faith and morals, and is indeed authentic.

It did not say that the Vulgate cannot be improved upon, and that’s exactly what the Church did with the Nova Vulgata.

Therefore I don’t reject anything said in the Latin Vulgate. As to tamper with its text by changing words and cutting off parts a verse would by in violation of the last part, right??? Rejection is not always saying that you don’t accept it

It’s the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus that did the tampering by putting in something that’s not supposed to be there. If you want to enforce the Immaculate Conception, you use the Greek, and you do not look for the blessed among women in the angel’s greeting but in Elizabeth’s which was made under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. “Blessed among women” does NOT belong in Luke 1:28. That’s why the Nova Vulgata (promulgated by authority of Pope John Paul II) no longer includes that extraneous text in that verse.

And you’re dead wrong. The Immaculate Conception happened when Mary was conceived, easily 14 or so years before the Annunciation ever happened.

And yes, it’s very easy to determine with present technology the authenticity of newly discovered manuscripts. That’s chicken to today’s scholars. Radio-carbon dating, plus archaeology and anthropology makes dating very accurate. There’s hardly anything bold about it.

 

[colliric]

Thing is, I don’t because the Pope in Divino Afflante Spiritu had already encouraged, and even in a manner of speaking, ordered that new translations be made of the original languages, and that Catholic biblical scholarship should recognize the superiority and authority of the original language manuscripts over any translation, Vulgate included.

But the KJV is not a translation of the Vulgate,** but of the original languages.** Unfortunately, the TR on which it’s based is badly defective, and the succeeding centuries have brought original language studies to a great level of accuracy.

This is NOT correct, as the cover page specifically states. It is NOT a translation of the original languages inof itself, instead it says “And with Former translations diligently compaired and revised”. It openly states that it’s translative work is one of comparison with other translations(inc the Rheims and the Vulgate) and revision of those translations. This is the exact same relationship the RSV actually has with the KJV itself. The RSV and KJV both therefore have no honest claim to be entirly new translations of the original languages, and they even say so(RSV says on it’s title page it’s a revision of the KJV).

It is not a full translation out of the original Greek. It’s primary “Former translation” source is well known to have been the Latin Vulgate(at least by Association of having primarily “borrowed” from the Rheims and also as having used openly the Vulgate itself, as well as the Textus Recepticus version of the Greek which in fact had referenced the Vulgate too because the transcriber did not have access to some parts of the original language docuements so choose to translate the Vulgate and fill in the “gaps”, this may not have been known to the KJV translators, but still is important to note), that is why it is exceptionally simular in language to the Rheims including in Luke1:28’s second half. It primarily uses the Latin translation by Saint Jerome as it’s translative benchmark.

 

[tobinatorstark]

This is NOT correct, as the cover page specifically states. It is NOT a translation of the original languages inof itself, instead it says “And with Former translations diligently compaired and revised”. It openly states that it’s translative work is one of comparison with other translations(inc the Rheims and the Vulgate) and revision of those translations. This is the exact same relationship the RSV actually has with the KJV itself. The RSV and KJV both therefore have no honest claim to be entirly new translations of the original languages, and they even say so(RSV says on it’s title page it’s a revision of the KJV).

It is not a full translation out of the original Greek. It’s primary “Former translation” source is well known to have been the Latin Vulgate(at least by Association of having primarily “borrowed” from the Rheims and also as having used openly the Vulgate itself, as well as the Textus Recepticus version of the Greek which in fact had referenced the Vulgate too because the transcriber did not have access to some parts of the original language docuements so choose to translate the Vulgate and fill in the “gaps”, this may not have been known to the KJV translators, but still is important to note), that is why it is exceptionally simular in language to the Rheims including in Luke1:28’s second half. It primarily uses the Latin translation by Saint Jerome as it’s translative benchmark.

nicely said

 

[mccorm45]

This is NOT correct, as the cover page specifically states. It is NOT a translation of the original languages inof itself, instead it says “And with Former translations diligently compaired and revised”. It openly states that it’s translative work is one of comparison with other translations(inc the Rheims and the Vulgate) and revision of those translations. This is the exact same relationship the RSV actually has with the KJV itself. The RSV and KJV both therefore have no honest claim to be entirly new translations of the original languages, and they even say so(RSV says on it’s title page it’s a revision of the KJV).

It is not a full translation out of the original Greek. It’s primary “Former translation” source is well known to have been the Latin Vulgate(at least by Association of having primarily “borrowed” from the Rheims and also as having used openly the Vulgate itself, as well as the Textus Recepticus version of the Greek which in fact had referenced the Vulgate too because the transcriber did not have access to some parts of the original language docuements so choose to translate the Vulgate and fill in the “gaps”, this may not have been known to the KJV translators, but still is important to note), that is why it is exceptionally simular in language to the Rheims including in Luke1:28’s second half. It primarily uses the Latin translation by Saint Jerome as it’s translative benchmark.

That is simply not correct. The KJV translators used the “Textus Receptus” for the Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament as their main sources. They did however consult various translations of the time, including the Douay-Rheims. The DR was often cited for its style, particularly some of the prose found in the New Testament.

The reason that you have the second half of Luke 1:28 is because the “textus receptus” included it…and it is not the earliest New Testament manuscript we have now. While the KJV used primarily the “textus receptus”, most current Bible translations, including the RSV/NRSV/NAB, use earlier Greek text’s than the “textus receptus”.

Translation scholars analyze all of the early manuscripts, written in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, in order to decide what the earliest and most authentic text is.

Here is a great article written by Jimmy Akin for your consultation: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

 

[porthos11]

This is NOT correct, as the cover page specifically states. It is NOT a translation of the original languages inof itself, instead it says “And with Former translations diligently compaired and revised”. It openly states that it’s translative work is one of comparison with other translations(inc the Rheims and the Vulgate) and revision of those translations. This is the exact same relationship the RSV actually has with the KJV itself. The RSV and KJV both therefore have no honest claim to be entirly new translations of the original languages, and they even say so(RSV says on it’s title page it’s a revision of the KJV).

It is not a full translation out of the original Greek. It’s primary “Former translation” source is well known to have been the Latin Vulgate(at least by Association of having primarily “borrowed” from the Rheims and also as having used openly the Vulgate itself, as well as the Textus Recepticus version of the Greek which in fact had referenced the Vulgate too because the transcriber did not have access to some parts of the original language docuements so choose to translate the Vulgate and fill in the “gaps”, this may not have been known to the KJV translators, but still is important to note), that is why it is exceptionally simular in language to the Rheims including in Luke1:28’s second half. It primarily uses the Latin translation by Saint Jerome as it’s translative benchmark.

Sorry, YOU are incorrect. The KJV clearly states:
**
TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES**
AND WITH FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED

This simply means they translated from the original language manuscripts of the time, but compared their work with other translations, such as the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, and Douay.

It is NOT a translation of the Vulgate at all, but of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, which is badly defective.

 

[tobinatorstark]

That is simply not correct. The KJV translators used the “Textus Receptus” for the Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament as their main sources. They did however consult various translations of the time, including the Douay-Rheims. The DR was often cited for its style, particularly some of the prose found in the New Testament.

The reason that you have the second half of Luke 1:28 is because the “textus receptus” included it…and it is not the earliest New Testament manuscript we have now. While the KJV used primarily the “textus receptus”, most current Bible translations, including the RSV/NRSV/NAB, use earlier Greek text’s than the “textus receptus”.

Translation scholars analyze all of the early manuscripts, written in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, in order to decide what the earliest and most authentic text is.

Here is a great article written by Jimmy Akin for your consultation: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Why doesn’t this Jimmy Akin character ever post here???

 

[RedSoxFan]

I bet he would if he has a free chance, but I doubt he gets that very often.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I had never even heard of him until 2 days ago

 

[RedSoxFan]

He is well worth knowing. It happens a lot of times like that. I never knew who Fr. Mitch Pacwa is. Now I am watching him now on tv. I can’t get enough of the guy.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’d like to hear Catholics who support the RSV-CE tell us why in those instances where it contradicts or departs from the the Nova Vulgata on matters of doctrine–why it is right and the Nova Vulgata is wrong!

And don’t give me the lame excuse that its translation in English never contradicts or departs from what the Nova Vulgata is conveying.

The Nova Vulgata reads “In Persona Christi” in 2 Corinthians 2:10–“In the person of Christ”.

It doesn’t say “In the presence of Christ” like the RSV-CE says.

Don’t tell me that doesn’t amount to a DOCTRINAL difference concerning the ABSOLUTION that St. Paul gave to the incestuous Corinthian whose sin he had RETAINED in the First Book of Corinthians.

You or I or anyone can forgive anyone else’s sin “In the presence of Christ”.

Unless one is priest or bishop or pope one cannot forgive another person “In the PERSON of Christ.”

That is a significant DOCTRINAL difference. And Trent REQUIRES Catholics in DISPUTATIONS to hold the Vulgate without error!

And all the improvements that the RSV-CE might have do not trump one error in doctrine!

The RSV-CE is doctrinaly in error and the Nova Vulgata isn’t!

Therefore the best English Catholic bible version to read would be one that departs from it the least.

Which rules out the NAB, The Jerusalem Bible, the RSV-CE or the Catholic NRSV.

The Confraternity New Testament and the Douay Rheims Challoner Haydock Old Testament and the Bea Psalter authorized by Pope Pius XII are closer than all the others to the Nova Vulgata.

Are they perfect?

No!

Can they be improved? Yes!

Are they Doctrinaly without error as long as they don’t depart from the Vulgate? Yes!

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata using ancient texts that did not depart from the Vulgate on doctrinal matters but only on non doctrinal matters where that was warranted be the ideal translation? Yes!

Would the devil be opposed to a translation like that? Yes! He works everyday through sometimes good meaning people to make sure it never happens!

 

[juliamajor]

that’s why you own a parallel bible- so you can compare and see what is more accurate.

 

[mccorm45]

that’s why you own a parallel bible- so you can compare and see what is more accurate.

Indeed! And you should also get a Greek-English Interlinear NT…very helpful, particularly in combination with a parallel Bible and lexicon.

 

[RedSoxFan]

I’d like to hear Catholics who support the RSV-CE tell us why in those instances where it contradicts or departs from the the Nova Vulgata on matters of doctrine–why it is right and the Nova Vulgata is wrong!

And don’t give me the lame excuse that its translation in English never contradicts or departs from what the Nova Vulgata is conveying.

The Nova Vulgata reads “In Persona Christi” in 2 Corinthians 2:10–“In the person of Christ”.

It doesn’t say “In the presence of Christ” like the RSV-CE says.

Don’t tell me that doesn’t amount to a DOCTRINAL difference concerning the ABSOLUTION that St. Paul gave to the incestuous Corinthian whose sin he had RETAINED in the First Book of Corinthians.

You or I or anyone can forgive anyone else’s sin “In the presence of Christ”.

Unless one is priest or bishop or pope one cannot forgive another person “In the PERSON of Christ.”

That is a significant DOCTRINAL difference. And Trent REQUIRES Catholics in DISPUTATIONS to hold the Vulgate without error!

And all the improvements that the RSV-CE might have do not trump one error in doctrine!

The RSV-CE is doctrinaly in error and the Nova Vulgata isn’t!

Therefore the best English Catholic bible version to read would be one that departs from it the least.

Which rules out the NAB, The Jerusalem Bible, the RSV-CE or the Catholic NRSV.

The Confraternity New Testament and the Douay Rheims Challoner Haydock Old Testament and the Bea Psalter authorized by Pope Pius XII are closer than all the others to the Nova Vulgata.

Are they perfect?

No!

Can they be improved? Yes!

Are they Doctrinaly without error as long as they don’t depart from the Vulgate? Yes!

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata using ancient texts that did not depart from the Vulgate on doctrinal matters but only on non doctrinal matters where that was warranted be the ideal translation? Yes!

Would the devil be opposed to a translation like that? Yes! He works everyday through sometimes good meaning people to make sure it never happens!

I noticed that the KJV translates 2 cor ch 2 verse 10 at in the “person of Christ”. I also have the comparative catholic bible. It only has the new testament but only the Douay-Rheims has that translation. The Confraternity Bible and Knox Bible are not among the translations listed in that bible. Honestly I wish more were translated in this way.

 

[porthos11]

I noticed that the KJV translates 2 cor ch 2 verse 10 at in the “person of Christ”. I also have the comparative catholic bible. It only has the new testament but only the Douay-Rheims has that translation. The Confraternity Bible and Knox Bible are not among the translations listed in that bible. Honestly I wish more were translated in this way.

I have already cited this a dozen times before only to have this poor exegesis pop up again.

The primary translation for “prosopon” is not person, but "face, which is rendered in Latin as “persona”, which is properly translated into English as “persona” or “presence”. The more precise Greek for “person” is “hypostasis”. The “presence” of Christ is therefore not a “lie” or “denies” in persona Christi as some would like to pretend, but a proper and reasonable translation of the Greek term.

I absolutely believe in “in persona Christi” when it comes to the Sacraments, but it’s useless energy wasted to tie into knots over a properly translated verse that denies nothing of Catholic dogma whatsoever.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’d like to hear Catholics who support the RSV-CE tell us why in those instances where it contradicts or departs from the the Nova Vulgata on matters of doctrine–why it is right and the Nova Vulgata is wrong!

And don’t give me the lame excuse that its translation in English never contradicts or departs from what the Nova Vulgata is conveying.

The Nova Vulgata reads “In Persona Christi” in 2 Corinthians 2:10–“In the person of Christ”.

It doesn’t say “In the presence of Christ” like the RSV-CE says.

Don’t tell me that doesn’t amount to a DOCTRINAL difference concerning the ABSOLUTION that St. Paul gave to the incestuous Corinthian whose sin he had RETAINED in the First Book of Corinthians.

You or I or anyone can forgive anyone else’s sin “In the presence of Christ”.

Unless one is priest or bishop or pope one cannot forgive another person “In the PERSON of Christ.”

That is a significant DOCTRINAL difference. And Trent REQUIRES Catholics in DISPUTATIONS to hold the Vulgate without error!

And all the improvements that the RSV-CE might have do not trump one error in doctrine!

The RSV-CE is doctrinaly in error and the Nova Vulgata isn’t!

Therefore the best English Catholic bible version to read would be one that departs from it the least.

Which rules out the NAB, The Jerusalem Bible, the RSV-CE or the Catholic NRSV.

The Confraternity New Testament and the Douay Rheims Challoner Haydock Old Testament and the Bea Psalter authorized by Pope Pius XII are closer than all the others to the Nova Vulgata.

Are they perfect?

No!

Can they be improved? Yes!

Are they Doctrinaly without error as long as they don’t depart from the Vulgate? Yes!

Would an English translation of the Nova Vulgata using ancient texts that did not depart from the Vulgate on doctrinal matters but only on non doctrinal matters where that was warranted be the ideal translation? Yes!

Would the devil be opposed to a translation like that? Yes! He works everyday through sometimes good meaning people to make sure it never happens!

point well taken

 

[mozier]

Personally, I use the New Living Translation-Catholic Edition (NLT-CE), for my own reading. The English in it is very modern and easy to follow. I would not recommend it for a serious study, but if you really want to “get” certain parts of the Bible, it does so in a language you can definitely follow and understand. Later, you can read a more formal version and understand what is said much better, so I have found out for myself.

Over the years, many of St. Paul’s writings haven’t been easy for me to follow. They don’t call him “St. Paul of the Run-On Sentence” for nothing! But when I read The Epistle to the Romans in the NLT-CE, my eyes were wide open as I finally, after years of reading the Douay-Rheims and NAB (great translations!), “got” what St. Paul was saying. The English was so clear and basic that I said, “So THAT is what he has been saying all this time! Now I understand St. Paul much better!”

So by all means, the NLT-CE for easy to read, and any of the good English translations given before me for more serious study.

 

[RedSoxFan]

I have already cited this a dozen times before only to have this poor exegesis pop up again.

The primary translation for “prosopon” is not person, but "face, which is rendered in Latin as “persona”, which is properly translated into English as “persona” or “presence”. The more precise Greek for “person” is “hypostasis”. The “presence” of Christ is therefore not a “lie” or “denies” in persona Christi as some would like to pretend, but a proper and reasonable translation of the Greek term.

I absolutely believe in “in persona Christi” when it comes to the Sacraments, but it’s useless energy wasted to tie into knots over a properly translated verse that denies nothing of Catholic dogma whatsoever.

Are you serious pal? Get a grip.

The problem isn’t how it was translated into English a hundred years ago or how it’s translated now. The problem is that there is difference between the two. Someone is going to say “in the person of Christ” isn’t accurate. That is why the changed the translation. In the "presence"or in the “sight” of Christ is accurate. So when a Catholic says the priest is doing something In persona Christi “in the person of Christ” they are misusing scripture yet again and are just plain wrong. That is the problem.

And you might be in the need of break. This sort of thing will come up time after time. If the amount of repetition is getting to you, take a few days off so you don’t burn out.

 

[porthos11]

Are you serious pal? Get a grip.

Would you care to elaborate on this profound exhortation?

The problem isn’t how it was translated into English a hundred years ago or how it’s translated now. The problem is that there is difference between the two. Someone is going to say “in the person of Christ” isn’t accurate. That is why the changed the translation. In the "presence"or in the “sight” of Christ is accurate. So when a Catholic says the priest is doing something In persona Christi “in the person of Christ” they are misusing scripture yet again and are just plain wrong. That is the problem.

Cite where my analysis is wrong.

 

[tobinatorstark]

And you might be in the need of break. This sort of thing will come up time after time. If the amount of repetition is getting to you, take a few days off so you don’t burn out.

Redsoxfan I agree with you

 

[mccorm45]

And you might be in the need of break. This sort of thing will come up time after time. If the amount of repetition is getting to you, take a few days off so you don’t burn out.

Redsoxfan I agree with you

Nice, like that has anything to do with this discussion.