Best catholic Bible version to read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Still in Pope Pius XII encyclical doesn’t use any reference to Rev. 22:18-19 nor does it use any reference to Deut. 4:2. I does use reference to II Timothy 3:16-17. Yet this encyclical doesn’t answer my question at all. Why do all you RSV-CE enthusiasts throw this encyclical in my face like it is the only one that exist and that I must obey this encyclical only??? Take it for granted it is a great encyclical, but it doesn’t answer my question
 
tobinatorstark said:
Still in Pope Pius XII encyclical doesn’t use any reference to Rev. 22:18-19 nor does it use any reference to Deut. 4:2. I does use reference to II Timothy 3:16-17. Yet this encyclical doesn’t answer my question at all. Why do all you RSV-CE enthusiasts throw this encyclical in my face like it is the only one that exist and that I must obey this encyclical only??? Take it for granted it is a great encyclical, but it doesn’t answer my question
Click to expand...
I think it has been answered. The fact that the Church has decided that translations should be done from the “original languages” means that they think that is the best possible means by which we can get to the original words and intent of the authors. The fact that the Church has recognized that we now have many more early manuscripts and better exegetical tools to do this work is essential to answering your question. Don’t you want to have the most accurate text as possible? There is no reason to be scared of this? Holy Mother Church surely isn’t.

Also, no one is forcing you to “obey” a Papal encyclical. Thats squarely up to you.
 
Need I remind you that I wanted in regards of Rev 22:18-19 and Deut. 4:2 and yet nothing has referenced those 2 scripture passages.I think I need to either contact a priest, bishop, cardinal or the Pope himself for a reliable answer
 
tobinatorstark said:
Need I remind you that I wanted in regards of Rev 22:18-19 and Deut. 4:2 and yet nothing has referenced those 2 scripture passages.I think I need to either contact a priest, bishop, cardinal or the Pope himself for a reliable answer
Click to expand...
Let me see if I am following you correctly. Are you suggesting that because the RSV, and all other modern translations, have subtracted verses that were once found in the vulgate that there is some kind of curse on them, citing Rev 22 amd Deut 4?
 
mccorm45 said:
Let me see if I am following you correctly. Are you suggesting that because the RSV, and all other modern translations, have subtracted verses that were once found in the vulgate that there is some kind of curse on them, citing Rev 22 amd Deut 4?
Click to expand...
No. what I am asking is in regards to both the texts that translated the Vulgate and those that translated modern versions. If one has a certain verses and other texts with the same verses, but are shortened up. If one text is supposed to be “better and more accurate” so does that mean either the texts that the Vulgate were translated from were wrong or possibly the texts that modern translations were translated from. How does that not affect Rev 22:18-19, Dut. 4:2, which are about adding and subtracting from the word and how would it be subject to II Timothy 3:16-17?? Wouldn’t one set of texts fall into Heresy?? Why or why not???
 
tobinatorstark said:
Need I remind you that I wanted in regards of Rev 22:18-19 and Deut. 4:2 and yet nothing has referenced those 2 scripture passages.I think I need to either contact a priest, bishop, cardinal or the Pope himself for a reliable answer
Click to expand...
oBBoth those verses were part of the common usage of the day.Dt 4:2 see the ANET Code of Hammurabi uses the same injunction_ this was to show it’s importance in the life of the community Rev 22:18-19 is an injunction to reinforce the claim that the contents originate with God. Also used commonly in apocalyptic texts like 1 enoch 104:9-13. heck if that where literal EVERY translation would be like the highway to hell. Every translation is an interpretation.It’s just the nature of the beast.So every translator must be going to hell in a handbasket-!maybe we should read the original texts in the original language-doh! they don’t exist . Even if they did they would have to be translated into a form that we would understand. Do you really think that Moses talked like some Shakespearean actor?You can have more literal or less literal but you can’t have completely literal.Translating anything ancient is extremely difficult- words were used differently and had different import according to place and/or time.Then in Hebrew you have the problem of no vowels-same in aramaic.So in the case of translations the more the merrier , because none of them are perfect so I use many different translation when studying in order to make sure i’ve grasped it correctly. Usually you can do this by means of consensus. Believe me you don’t have to be a Biblical scholar to know the JW, NWT stinks!.For my teaching though I use the RSV - to me it’s easier and clearer- and students need clarity.But read on !the best Bible for anyone is the one they use:thumbsup:
 
tobinatorstark;:
If one has a certain verses and other texts with the same verses, but are shortened up. If one text is supposed to be “better and more accurate” so does that mean either the texts that the Vulgate were translated from were wrong or possibly the texts that modern translations were translated from.
Click to expand...
Manuscript differences can occur due to:
  • The result of mishearing, or misreading a word. Using examples in English.
    ** The words “through”, and “threw” sound the same in English. The scribe writes the wrong word;
    ** The words “then” and “them” look very similar. The scribe misreads the “n”, as an “m”. (In Hebrew, this type of error is extremely common.);
  • The scribe sees the gloss, but writes in in the wrong place. (As part of the verse, instead of as a note to the verse.)
  • The scribe repeats the verse, because he lost his place;
  • The scribe omits a verse, because he lost his place;
  • The scribe thinks a gloss is needed, so adds it to the side;
  • The scribe thinks that the addendum, is not an addendum;
In no instance was the scribe intentionally changing the text to something that was “wrong”. In some, perhaps most instances, the intentional additions were in the nature of a commentary on the text.

Then, when translating, there is a different set of issues to be considered.
  • Does one translate units of measurements into something that the reader understands, or leaves them as in the original;
    ** He walked five miles. He walked 8 kilometers. He walked 43 and half stadia. He walked 12 and a half li. He walked 40 furlongs. He walked 2.61E-13 parsecs.
  • Does one translate expressions literally, or into an “equivalent” expression, or something else;
    ** For example, does one say “Jack was terminated with extreme prejudice by John”, or does one say “Jack is an example of the type of wetwork John does”, or does one say or does one say “John killed Jack”.
xan

jonathon
 
jblake said:
Manuscript differences can occur due to:
  • The result of mishearing, or misreading a word. Using examples in English.
    ** The words “through”, and “threw” sound the same in English. The scribe writes the wrong word;
    ** The words “then” and “them” look very similar. The scribe misreads the “n”, as an “m”. (In Hebrew, this type of error is extremely common.);
  • The scribe sees the gloss, but writes in in the wrong place. (As part of the verse, instead of as a note to the verse.)
  • The scribe repeats the verse, because he lost his place;
  • The scribe omits a verse, because he lost his place;
  • The scribe thinks a gloss is needed, so adds it to the side;
  • The scribe thinks that the addendum, is not an addendum;
In no instance was the scribe intentionally changing the text to something that was “wrong”. In some, perhaps most instances, the intentional additions were in the nature of a commentary on the text.

Then, when translating, there is a different set of issues to be considered.
  • Does one translate units of measurements into something that the reader understands, or leaves them as in the original;
    ** He walked five miles. He walked 8 kilometers. He walked 43 and half stadia. He walked 12 and a half li. He walked 40 furlongs. He walked 2.61E-13 parsecs.
  • Does one translate expressions literally, or into an “equivalent” expression, or something else;
    ** For example, does one say “Jack was terminated with extreme prejudice by John”, or does one say “Jack is an example of the type of wetwork John does”, or does one say or does one say “John killed Jack”.
xan

jonathon
Click to expand...
Thanks for providing a positive answer
 
We shouldn’t look at the present state of English translations of the Bible and ask why?

We should view visions that never were and ask why not?

“Without a vision the people perish”.

The clear vision of the truth is taught by the Catholic Church.

That isn’t bias–that’s a fact. All other visions of the truth are biased.

Sometimes–as is the case with translation of the bible–the truth is hard to see and one must do the best that they can.

When things are hard to see one must use the best vision possible.

The best vision possible will come from the Catholic Church.
 
Roman_1 said:
So, Which is it? I have a plethora of versions, And I can’t decide which is most accuratwe and which is in common with most other catholics and Catholic Apologists. I find I am not very comfortable with the NAB, as the notes seem to contradict the inspiration of the scriptures, on the other hand, they do point out alot of places where the Gospels differ significantly (another of my problems)… Thanks to all who reply
Click to expand...
Code: 
                                                                                           There can be only One, to understand the context and meaning of the Bible, which was not written in English   a few  decades ago:   The New American Bible,  with  25% being a vast number of   historical explanations  and references
authorized by our Bishops, the successors of the NT earthly authors, the Church Fathers. Live in Jesus Tony 👍
 
I think it’s good to read the Douay-Rheims because it’s a translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, and this was the text used by all Western Christians from when it was written, up to the Protestant Reformation.

This does NOT mean it is the most accurate bible translation . . . not even close. I’ve gathered from my readings on the matter that the Latin Vulgate had some significant problems on a few points.

However, it WAS extremely important to the development of the early Church, and its theology as well. The Latin Vulgate was the bible of so many saints and timeless theologians that I feel like it should be read just for that.

Also, I really love the style of the Douay-Rheims. It just seems so . . . full and rich. Not sure if that’s the right word, but more modern (though accurate) translations like the RSV-CE just seem sterile in comparison. I have the NAB, the RSV-CE, and the Douay-Rheims, and my favorite in terms of sitting down and reading is the DR by far.

After I finish reading DR, though, I’ll be reading the RSV-CE. I currently use it to look up verse citations in the catechism and modern church documents, since it’s so well-respected these days, but I’m reading the DR first because of its importance and the very valuable comments.

I’d say my biggest beef with the RSV-CE and NAB (I rarely use that one, got it for my birthday when I was like 13) is the lack of orthodox footnotes. Bishop Challoner’s footnotes in the DR really help along the understanding for me, and I’d love it if they came out with an RSV-CE with good Catholic footnotes.
 
Hi,
There is much good information in this thread. I exclusively used the NAB for pretty much 36 years of my life. I read the standard NAB and a pocket NAB (St Joseph) given to me by my mother in 2003. The NAB has much commetary with the text and very good introduction to each book of the bible with historical information
Code: 
    I never heard of the RSV CE, Douay Rheim and Jerusalem bibles until I started to watch EWTN.  Based on what I got from EWTN and experts like Scott Hanh I decided to buy an RSV CE first edition Igantius Bible (pocket bible).  

   I read thru it very easily and the commentary was very good but I would have liked a bit more commentary.  It really flowed well and the english used in this bible is pretty much the english of today.  It was also more literal than the NAB and I really liked that.  So, for the past 5 years of my life I have been reading the RSV CE.

   I have now purchased a copy of the Douay Rheim  with Challoner noote (2007) by Baronius press after reading thru this thread.  I am really excited to be reading such an esteemed and venerable bible.  

   I am in the middle of Exodus right now so just 1400 or so pages to go.  It is a bit more of a challenge to read thru the Douay Rheim because of the older english in the text but I am determined. 

   I have learned that in older english often the verb is in front of the noun (ex "said he" instead of "he said") and some common words the vowels are different (ex shew=show, shewed=showed, divers=diverse) so be ready for that. 

   Also, I have learned that in the Douay Rheim there are no paragraphs.  The text is arraged by verse so that makes it a bit more work to see transitions form one thought to another.  (ex Genesis Chapter 1 in the NAB and RSV CE there is a paragraph or two for Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc but in Douay Rheim you get colums of verses).

   The reversed verbs and nouns, spelling of common words, and lack of paragrah arragement are slowing me down but I am going to do it.  I see why the RSV CE and Jerusalem (1966)are reccomended by EWTN and Catholic answers.
 
Hi,
There is much good information in this thread. I exclusively used the NAB for pretty much 36 years of my life. I read the standard NAB and a pocket NAB (St Joseph) given to me by my mother in 2003. The NAB has much commetary with the text and very good introduction to each book of the bible with historical information
Code: 
    I never heard of the RSV CE, Douay Rheim and Jerusalem bibles until I started to watch EWTN.  Based on what I got from EWTN and experts like Scott Hanh I decided to buy an RSV CE first edition Igantius Bible (pocket bible).  

   I read thru it very easily and the commentary was very good but I would have liked a bit more commentary.  It really flowed well and the english used in this bible is pretty much the english of today.  It was also more literal than the NAB and I really liked that.  So, for the past 5 years of my life I have been reading the RSV CE.

   I have now purchased a copy of the Douay Rheim  with Challoner notes (2007) pocket bible by Baronius press after reading thru this thread.  I am really excited to be reading such an esteemed and venerable bible.  I really enjoyed the 3 papal encyclicals and the beautiful maps and art.

   I am in the middle of Exodus right now so just 1400 or so pages to go.  It is a bit more of a challenge to read thru the Douay Rheim because of the older english and layout of the text in the text but I am determined. 

   I have learned that in older english often the verb is in front of the noun (ex "said he" instead of "he said") and some common words the vowels are different (ex shew=show, shewed=showed, divers=diverse) so be ready for that.  

   Also, I have learned that in the Douay Rheim there are no paragraphs.  The text is arraged by verse so that makes it a bit more work to see transitions form one thought to another.  (ex Genesis Chapter 1 in the NAB and RSV CE there is a paragraph or two for Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc but in Douay Rheim you get colums of verses).

   The reversed verbs and nouns, spelling of common words, and lack of paragrah arragement are slowing me down but I am going to do it.  I see why the RSV CE and Jerusalem (1966) are commonly reccomended by EWTN and Catholic answers.
Ernie
 
Hi all!
I’m new to CAF & I’m not responding to anything in particular.
Well, some people are asking what is the best Spanisn language Bible.
Please, if you can, pass along this info so that the community would benefit from it.
There are two excellent translations in Spanish.
Of course the to “Biblia de Navarra” is excelent. Now, almost nobody mentions the “Sagrada Bible, version de Nacar-Colunga”" which is totally faithful to the original texts. The publishers are BAC, in Spain.
The Jerusalem Bible in Spanish is very good too, but not those edited after the late 70’s, where the correctness started altering the texts. And of course forget about la “Nueva Biblia de Jerusalem”. Real bad…
Another two bibles not to be used are: “La Biblia Latinoamericana”,. Very inaccurate. The worst offender is “Dios Habla al Hombre” from the SBU, which is but a bad paraphrasis.
In English the NSV-CE is the best, & the Navarre Bible, based on it, is excelent too, not to mention the great notes it brings.
Hope it helps.
Robert Nicodemo
 
Most, even Bishops, call the Tridentine Mass of the Council of Trent, 1500’s “Traditional”. It was a New International Mass to replace the many national, local masses. But few know that Vatican II reasearched the earliest Mass of the Last Super, and added the Kiss of Peace/Sign of Peace ** initiated by the Apostles, and several first 2 centuries prayers of the celebrant. It appears the Novus Ordo is much earlier form of Mass than the Tridentine of 500 years ago.
Documentation is Mass of the Early Christians/Aquilina/Our Sunday Visitor

Live in Jesus :highprayer: Tony
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top