Best catholic Bible version to read?

[Jehuty_X]

Hi all!
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

// la biblia latinoamericana is a hideous translation…i agree 100% with you…(i can’t stand the spanish dialect it uses either)
// what’s bad about la nueva biblia de jerusalén??? i have it and love it (both 2nd and 3rd edition)…
// the one that is not mention much either is sagrada biblia por felix torres amat which is translated directly from the latin vulgate (my mother has the family bible version) and it’s beautiful…

// question to all…
is there a difference between the st. joseph new american bible from the st. benedict new american bible???

 

[Sailka]

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 proble

 

[Sailka]

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

                                                                                           Welcome!  Catholic Answers is wonderful   site.  Thank you for your contribution.  :blessyou:                  Tony

 

[rbrtncl]

// la biblia latinoamericana is a hideous translation…i agree 100% with you…(i can’t stand the spanish dialect it uses either)
// what’s bad about la nueva biblia de jerusalén??? i have it and love it (both 2nd and 3rd edition)…
// the one that is not mention much either is sagrada biblia por felix torres amat which is translated directly from the latin vulgate (my mother has the family bible version) and it’s beautiful…

// question to all…
is there a difference between the st. joseph new american bible from the st. benedict new american bible???

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.
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.
The NAB version is also too much of a “dynamic version”.
Literal bibles, even with our current language, render the text as close as posible to the original texts.
Sorry I got confuse with the RSV-CE & wrote CNV-CE which is wrong.
The best translation there is in English today is the “Navarra Bible”. It is based, for a good reason, on the RSV-CE version.
As far as the Spanish version of “Torres Amat” is concerned it is a great bible translated from the venerable Latin Vulgate. I believe though that is not in printing anymore. I need to further check on it. Now, the 'Sagrada Biblia" version by Nacar Colunga is translated from the original languages into Spanish.
I personally use in English the “Navarra Bible”. And in Spanish I use either the “Biblia de Navarra” or the Nacar Colunga version of the “Sagrada Biblia”.
In my opinion any other versions need to be weighted against these gold standars.
Why is so great to read the bible in the original texts? Hebrew, Greek, etc. Simply, because the sacred texts are informing you exactly as the Holy Spirit inspired them.
On the other hand, what dynamics versions always do is interpretating for you.
The Tradition & the Magisterium are more than sufficient frameworks for us reading the most accurate & literal texts, assuming that we are not able to read from the original languages, my case & of many others.
God bless,
Rob

 

[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.
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.
The NAB version is also too much of a “dynamic version”.
Literal bibles, even with our current language, render the text as close as posible to the original texts.
Sorry I got confuse with the RSV-CE & wrote CNV-CE which is wrong.
The best translation there is in English today is the “Navarra Bible”. It is based, for a good reason, on the RSV-CE version.
As far as the Spanish version of “Torres Amat” is concerned it is a great bible translated from the venerable Latin Vulgate. I believe though that is not in printing anymore. I need to further check on it. Now, the 'Sagrada Biblia" version by Nacar Colunga is translated from the original languages into Spanish.
I personally use in English the “Navarra Bible”. And in Spanish I use either the “Biblia de Navarra” or the Nacar Colunga version of the “Sagrada Biblia”.
In my opinion any other versions need to be weighted against these gold standars.
Why is so great to read the bible in the original texts? Hebrew, Greek, etc. Simply, because the sacred texts are informing you exactly as the Holy Spirit inspired them.
On the other hand, what dynamics versions always do is interpretating for you.
The Tradition & the Magisterium are more than sufficient frameworks for us reading the most accurate & literal texts, assuming that we are not able to read from the original languages, my case & of many others.
God bless,
Rob

// thank you for your reply rbrtncl…
// i will check lucas 1;28 and do some comparisons when i get the chance…
// the bible by félix torres amat is still in print, though not as much as the douai-rheims (it seems)
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/742/
store.pandevida.com/browse.cfm/4,12362.htm
// i never read la sagrada biblia por nacar-colunga… i have to check that one out when i get the chance…

// oh y bienvenido…

 

[white_sheep]

I just thought I would point out how silly it is for you guys to say that there is a Bible with Protestant origins. Inconceivable!

 

[Sailka]

I just thought I would point out how silly it is for you guys to say that there is a Bible with Protestant origins. Inconceivable!

Welcome to CAF, White Sheep. :tiphat: You jumped right in and Posted!. We have great worldwide site with over million visits a month. We look forward to your participation :compcoff:

 

[tobinatorstark]

I just thought I would point out how silly it is for you guys to say that there is a Bible with Protestant origins. Inconceivable!

how so

 

[nate12387]

how so

I think what he is trying to say is that the bible comes from the Catholic Church, as in the Catholic Church made the bible. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be a bible with protestant origins in that sense. There, However, are protestant translations to that bible. In that sense, there are bibles with protestant origins(or translations).

 

[SoulRebel777]

The notes of the Nab are pure demonic undermining Filth and would have better use for toilet paper then Notes on the scriptures.

If you could seperate those notes from the words of Sacred Scripture they should all be burned into ashes , they are beyond scandalous and are compete Junk .

 

[nate12387]

The notes of the Nab are pure demonic undermining Filth and would have better use for toilet paper then Notes on the scriptures.

If you could seperate those notes from the words of Sacred Scripture they should all be burned into ashes , they are beyond scandalous and are compete Junk .

Why do you say that?

 

[rbrtncl]

Hi guys!
I just read about the notes of the NAB.
Yeah, they are really bad, bad bible interpretation.
The notes are such a liberal interpretation that forces the real meaning of the texts.
I truly cannot understand how come these notes came about in a Catholic bible, nor I do understand how being a bible supported by the bishop’s conference such a notes were approved/accepted.
I am not personally impressed by the NAB and much more less about those notes at the botton.
As far as those notes are concerned the NAB is BAD.
Keep using your SRV (or NSRV if you want a more modern text) and of course you can totally rely upon the Navarra Bible as well as the excellent notes for a real Catholic exegesis.
Ciao,
Rob

 

[tobinatorstark]

I think what he is trying to say is that the bible comes from the Catholic Church, as in the Catholic Church made the bible. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be a bible with protestant origins in that sense. There, However, are protestant translations to that bible. In that sense, there are bibles with protestant origins(or translations).

agreed

 

[rbrtncl]

// thank you for your reply rbrtncl…
// i will check lucas 1;28 and do some comparisons when i get the chance…
// the bible by félix torres amat is still in print, though not as much as the douai-rheims (it seems)
tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/742/
store.pandevida.com/browse.cfm/4,12362.htm
// i never read la sagrada biblia por nacar-colunga… i have to check that one out when i get the chance…

// oh y bienvenido…

I have not seen Jehuty X around;
Thank you for confirming that the Torres Amat Bible is still around. As a matter of fact I found the new TA Version done by a Colombian priest (sorry don’t remember his name) & is a real, real good translation. Not to forget this is the Spanish, current translatiom, from the Vulgata. Thus, worthwhile to keep.
Now, the excellent Nacar-Colunga Version, can be bought directly from the editors: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. I think the address has changed but the one I know is "BAC, de La Editorial Catolica, S.A., Mateo Inurria, 15. Madrid.
Make sure googling it.
God bless,
Rob

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi guys!
I just read about the notes of the NAB.
Yeah, they are really bad, bad bible interpretation.
The notes are such a liberal interpretation that forces the real meaning of the texts.
I truly cannot understand how come these notes came about in a Catholic bible, nor I do understand how being a bible supported by the bishop’s conference such a notes were approved/accepted.
I am not personally impressed by the NAB and much more less about those notes at the botton.
As far as those notes are concerned the NAB is BAD.
Keep using your SRV (or NSRV if you want a more modern text) and of course you can totally rely upon the Navarra Bible as well as the excellent notes for a real Catholic exegesis.
Ciao,
Rob

The notes of the NAB are horrible. I much prefer the Haydock Bible Commentary on a breakdown of the scripture. With NAB I continually miss a point or 2. I much prefer to read the Douay-Rheims for scripture. I am still not convinced on the RSV-CE or NRSV yet. Maybe I am missing something, I am not sure. I have gotten the most out of the Douay-Rheims. I am not however saying that the Douay is the best Bible for everyone. In earlier post on this thread, I seemed a little anti-RSV-CE, but now am recanting those feelings. I still don’t feel comfortable with the RSV-CE yet. Many seem to get a lot out of it though

 

[Sailka]

The notes of the Nab are pure demonic undermining Filth and would have better use for toilet paper then Notes on the scriptures.

If you could seperate those notes from the words of Sacred Scripture they should all be burned into ashes , they are beyond scandalous and are compete Junk .

Were you there, in New Testament times? Those who Wrote the words of the NT were. And their Direct Intellectual, Truth descendants: * The RC Bishops, Magesterium: * here The US Conference of Catholic Bishops authorize/publish the New American Bible. :bible1: Know that all Catholic Bishops in the world are required to have Doctorates?
And Your credentials, authority, references for calling the Notes demonic toilet paper?
The Catholic Church operative is * The Truth*, no spins. That is The Responsibility of the Bishops in teaching and administering The Church

 

[Manfred]

The notes of the NAB are horrible. I much prefer the Haydock Bible Commentary on a breakdown of the scripture. With NAB I continually miss a point or 2. I much prefer to read the Douay-Rheims for scripture. I am still not convinced on the RSV-CE or NRSV yet. Maybe I am missing something, I am not sure. I have gotten the most out of the Douay-Rheims. I am not however saying that the Douay is the best Bible for everyone. In earlier post on this thread, I seemed a little anti-RSV-CE, but now am recanting those feelings. I still don’t feel comfortable with the RSV-CE yet. Many seem to get a lot out of it though

Toby,

In a thread I started near the end of 2005, “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”, you’ll find a whole lot to chew on. In fact, you’ll note that most, if not all, of the corrections I proposed, were from the Douay-Rheims. At the time I began the thread, I had no idea there was going to be an RSV-2CE. The latter I regard as a “work-in-progress”, since it corrected few, if any, of the poorer renderings of the RSV-CE.

If I had to pick a few RSV-CE renderings most in need of correction, the following would have to be among them:

Matthew 16:18 “…the powers of death shall not prevail against it”

Matthew 16:26 and parallels “For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?”

Luke 1:34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

John 19:5 Pilate said to them, “Look at the man!”

Revelation “Hallelujah”

Luke 1:34 has to be the lamest rendering in the whole RSV!

 

[tobinatorstark]

Toby,

In a thread I started near the end of 2005, “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”, you’ll find a whole lot to chew on. In fact, you’ll note that most, if not all, of the corrections I proposed, were from the Douay-Rheims. At the time I began the thread, I had no idea there was going to be an RSV-2CE. The latter I regard as a “work-in-progress”, since it corrected few, if any, of the poorer renderings of the RSV-CE.

If I had to pick a few RSV-CE renderings most in need of correction, the following would have to be among them:

Matthew 16:18 “…the powers of death shall not prevail against it”

Matthew 16:26 and parallels “For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?”

Luke 1:34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

John 19:5 Pilate said to them, “Look at the man!”

Revelation “Hallelujah”

Luke 1:34 has to be the lamest rendering in the whole RSV!

Thank this info is most helpful

 

[SoulRebel777]

Salika the Tradition of the Church hasn’t been these Modernistic Viiewpoints from these USACatholic Bishops .

The Early Fathers would choke on there food if they read there approved nab notes. Im with the Early Fathers and the tradition of the Church.

Nab notes come from Satan.

 

[Sailka]

Salika the Tradition of the Church hasn’t been these Modernistic Viiewpoints from these USACatholic Bishops .

The Early Fathers would choke on there food if they read there approved nab notes. Im with the Early Fathers and the tradition of the Church.

Nab notes come from Satan.

The the USA Bishops and the RCC And the NAB are all wrong? We’re so glad that you know it all, and tell us.

Anyone besides Satan agree with you? Try Reality; Its Real and beautiful, as everything Catholic is. The Church, not us messed up members. All of us except you, of course. :yawn: :dts:

I’m sure you’de call the Tridentine Mass the only traditional Mass? Try researching The Early Church of First 200 years, as I did.
Question for you: Who originated the “Sign of Peace” in Every Mass?