Best Version of the Bible?

[Cranch]

But didn’t you say earlier that you don’t like the thees and thous?

I think you must be referring to the post shown below. You read a little too much between the lines, I’m afraid. I was simply steering captainmike away from RSV-1CE because of point 4 of his criteria. I wasn’t making any statement about my own preferences. I very much like the thees and thous. It may be an accident of the evolution of English, but they impart a difference in tone from our everyday speech that, for me, heightens the sense of the sacred in scripture.

Originally Posted by captainmike

To be quite honest with you, I don’t recall there being that many verses in the Ignatius 2nd Edition that were more similar to the Douay Rheims anyway. There were maybe a handful that were similar that we found, so unless you know of a good bit more that changed compared to what I have reported in the RSV:CE Needs Corrections thread, then I don’t know what to say.

That handful is what I’m thinking of. Not least of which is Isaiah 7:14. If the KJV and the NASB can get it right, then a Catholic Edition sure should! But let’s not go there again . Understand, I’m not trying to get you to change your judgment; just trying to explain my preference. With all do respect, as impressive as your research has been , we’re still parsing a tiny fraction of the total text here. Anyway, that handful of “similar to the D-R” verses did prompt a question I wanted to ask you, though. They are about the only OT verses mentioned in the research coming out of that thread. Is that because the 1971 RSV revision was to the NT only or simply that you guys put your focus there?

 

[Manfred]

Richard, practically all of your posts seem to carry the implication that those of us here who have no SSL’s have no right to critique Bible translations.

We are Catholic and have EVERY right to critique Bible translations. The initials SSL do not guarantee correctness or orthodoxy. All you need to do is pick up the NRSV or open your NAB to the book of Psalms to see this. It was “scholars” who translated the masterpiece called the New World Translation. It was “scholars” who said that Jesus couldn’t really predict the future.

We can critique translations because many if not most of us speak and write English as a first language, and can decently critique with a little knowledge of first-year Greek. And most of all, we do not need the initials SSL to read the Catechism and see what the Church teaches as truth and check it vis-a-vis the Bible.

I have a 4-year-old cairn terrier whom i take for a lengthy walk twice a day, which gives me some time to mull over some of the matters I read in these threads. So, porthos, once again, you’ve nicely articulated one of my conclusions re the “arrogance” attributed to those of us who’ve dared to critique the various English translations; to wit, while we may not know Hebrew, Greek, any of the other ancient tongues, or even Latin, we do know English (some more, some less; sorry), and we know how well a passage is or is not rendered. Moreover, few, if any of us are arguing for our own home-grown renderings; nay, rather, we prefer some of the tried-and-true traditional renderings, most of which conform to the original languages, at least to the extent scholars have so told us.

And you’re right on this: the Vatican itself rejected outright the revised 1991 psalter of the NAB. The English was horrendous, but worse was its impact on the theology. And this, the work of accredited scholars. Yup, I’m impressed.

 

[mmortal03]

I think you must be referring to the post shown below. You read a little too much between the lines, I’m afraid. I was simply steering captainmike away from RSV-1CE because of point 4 of his criteria. I wasn’t making any statement about my own preferences.

I was thinking that was what you meant, I just wanted to double-check.

 

[mmortal03]

So here is my rough draft comparison:
**
Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bible:** Contains about 160 more revisions over the Ignatius 2nd Edition (about 180 total compared to the original RSV:CE), along with a handful of verses moved to and from the footnotes. Retains the thees, thys, and thous that the RSV specifically did (though I need a confirmation on whether the crucial archaic second person singulars were retained, which would have been the only practical retention of the old language. I don’t think they were.)

**Examples of more accurate verses within it that have been past noted on the forum (a more thorough review of the 1971 revisions needs to be done, but these so far are the most important): **
Luke 1.34: “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (the second clause is still ridiculously ambiguous, but the first has been fixed)
John 19.5: “Behold, the man” (talk to Manfred about this one)
Matthew 19.5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6.16: “one flesh” (more accurate)
Luke 23.42: “into your kingdom” (ditto)

Chief examples listed to contrast with the Ignatius Second Edition below:
Isaiah 7.14: MT “young woman” (not traditional, however, it accurately renders the verse based on an overall choice to translate from the Hebrew)
Psalm 8.5: MT “little less than God” (also matches the Hebrew)
Matthew 16.18: “powers of death” (too sanitary and paraphrastic, should be “gates of Hell”)
footnote “gates of Hades”
Throughout OT: “steadfast love”/"***" (more accurate translation/and no censoring)
Exodus 15.13: “steadfast love” (more accurate)
Various last supper references: “cup” (more accurate)
1 John 5.16-17 “mortal sin” (generally a semantical Catholic vs Protestant issue)
Song Sol. 2.10: “Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away” (don’t know enough about the OL sources to comment)
Song Sol. 2.12: “time of singing” (ditto)
Psalms 2.12: “kiss his feet” (ditto)
Psalms 110.3: “Your people will offer themselves freely…”
Psalms 110.3: “…upon the holy mountains…”
Psalms 110.3: “…like dew your youth will come to you.” (ditto)

Ignatius 2nd Edition: Has around 10 unique changes compared to the Oxford Press edition (and about 30 changes total compared to the original RSV:CE). Removes all archaic language.

The unique changes found so far:
Isaiah 7.14: LXX “virgin” (traditional and matches the LXX)
Psalm 8.5: LXX “little less than the angels” (matches the LXX)
Matthew 16.18: “gates of Hades” (better than “powers of death”, but needs to be “gates of Hell”)
footnote “powers of death”
Throughout OT: “mercy”/“donkey” (ambiguous and less accurate word choice compared to OxP/silly censoring the language)
Exodus 15.13: “merciful love” (this is following the previous line’s trend and trying to retain symmetry)
Various last supper references: “chalice” (inaccurate anachronism included to make it sound more “Catholic”)
1 John 5.16-17 “deadly sin” (generally a semantical Catholic vs Protestant issue)
Song Sol. 2.10: “Arise, my love, my dove, my fair one, and come away” (don’t know enough about the OL sources to comment)
Song Sol. 2.12: “time of pruning” (ditto)
Psalms 2.12: “rejoice”, “kiss his feet” moved to footnotes. (ditto)
Psalms 110.3: “Yours is dominion…”
Psalms 110.3: “…in holy splendor…” (1959/1971 translation footnoted)
Psalms 110.3: “…I begot you.” (1959/1971 translation footnoted) (ditto)

 

[mmortal03]

That handful is what I’m thinking of. Not least of which is Isaiah 7:14. If the KJV and the NASB can get it right, then a Catholic Edition sure should! But let’s not go there again .

I don’t want to get into that argument either in this thread, though I will note that I personally don’t find a problem with either rendering, because it isn’t an issue of what is right, in my opinion, but instead an issue of which source text one chooses to translate accurately. If the translators’ goals were to use the Hebrew texts as their primary sources, then I like their choice for source uniformity that comes with the rendering of it as “young woman”. With that said, I can’t wait for those new Septuagint translation projects to conclude and see how they rendered it!

Understand, I’m not trying to get you to change your judgment; just trying to explain my preference. With all do respect, as impressive as your research has been , we’re still parsing a tiny fraction of the total text here.

First of all, let me make it clear that I own both, and that I mean no malice with anything I am posting here. Second of all, it is completely true that we are contrasting what amounts to being, in absolute terms, a small number of differences. With that said, I think that Oxford Press’ choice to bring these one-hundred eighty revisions to the Catholic edition of the RSV outweighs the addition of our tentative count of thirty changes and the removal of archaic language that makes up the Ignatius 2nd edition, in terms of relevance, practicality, accuracy, AND numerical amount.

One final thing that ticked me off about the Ignatius 2nd Edition was that Ignatius labeled it on their website as “Conforms to Liturgiam Authenticam” and also stated on the title page that it was “Revised according to Liturgiam Authenticam”. This is VERY misleading on Ignatius Press’ part, because the result doesn’t deserve this description. You could say that NEITHER publisher here is being completely honest with their presentations.

Anyway, that handful of “similar to the D-R” verses did prompt a question I wanted to ask you, though. They are about the only OT verses mentioned in the research coming out of that thread. Is that because the 1971 RSV revision was to the NT only or simply that you guys put your focus there?

Exactly. The Old Testament of the RSV has remained untouched in all editions of the RSV (except for the addition of the Deuterocanonical books and in those few spots that were changed by Ignatius that we have found so far.)

 

[Cranch]

**
Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bible:** …Retains the thees, thys, and thous that the RSV specifically did (though I need a confirmation on whether the crucial archaic second person singulars were retained, which would have been the only practical retention of the old language. I don’t think they were.)

I’m confused here. Aren’t thee and thou second person singulars?

**Examples of more accurate verses within it that have been past noted on the forum (a more thorough review of the 1971 revisions needs to be done, but these so far are the most important): **
Luke 1.34: “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (the second clause is still ridiculously ambiguous, but the first has been fixed)
John 19.5: “Behold, the man” (talk to Manfred about this one)
Matthew 19.5, 19:6, 1 Corinthians 6.16: “one flesh” (more accurate)
Luke 23.42: “into your kingdom” (ditto)

Fully agree. These renderings belong in the Ignatius. (I learned of the crucial nuance between shall and can in Luke 1:34 on this forum.)

I wish I had a clearer understanding of the process Oxford went through to produce their edition. Did they actually violate copyrights? That seems incredible, but leaves me uneasy if true. As I recall, someone over there seems a little confused (or misinformed) about the base text used. In the absence of proper oversight, I worry about textual integrity. You said you have the new Oxford, right? Can you provide any salient info regarding the process of revision from a preface or introduction (who was involved, translation philosophy, texts consulted, etc.)?

I think of Ignatius as being a specifically Catholic operation. Maybe that’s neither here nor there, but it makes me more comfortable. For example their concern for addressing (however inadequately) Liturgiam Authenticam speaks well. One big question I have is: why did they choose not to incorporate (most of) the 1971 RSV changes, either back then or for RSV-2CE?

The Old Testament of the RSV has remained untouched in all editions of the RSV (except for the addition of the Deuterocanonical books and in those few spots that were changed by Ignatius that we have found so far.)

Thanks for that. Wonder why that is.

 

[Manfred]

I’m confused here. Aren’t thee and thou second person singulars?

Fully agree. These renderings belong in the Ignatius. (I learned of the crucial nuance between shall and can in Luke 1:34 on this forum.)

I wish I had a clearer understanding of the process Oxford went through to produce their edition. Did they actually violate copyrights? That seems incredible, but leaves me uneasy if true. As I recall, someone over there seems a little confused (or misinformed) about the base text used. In the absence of proper oversight, I worry about textual integrity. You said you have the new Oxford, right? Can you provide any salient info regarding the process of revision from a preface or introduction (who was involved, translation philosophy, texts consulted, etc.)?

I think of Ignatius as being a specifically Catholic operation. Maybe that’s neither here nor there, but it makes me more comfortable. For example their concern for addressing (however inadequately) Liturgiam Authenticam speaks well. One big question I have is: why did they choose not to incorporate (most of) the 1971 RSV changes, either back then or for RSV-2CE?

Thanks for that. Wonder why that is.

Great post, Cranch!

Ignatius blew it with its RSV-2CE in so many places in the NT alone; e.g., why didn’t they change “Truly, truly, i say to you” to “Amen, amen, I say to you”? And in the OT why didn;t they fix “in you shall all nations of the earth bless themselves” as “in you shall all nations of the earth be blessed”? No, IMHO, this is way too little to be in conformance with LA. Even without the long-awaited (5+ years and counting!!!), LA itself gave excellent guidelines for rendering words and phrases which I could have followed myself. Better to wait for RSV-3CE.

As far as a “translation philosophy” in an intro to the Oxford RSV Catholic Bible: fuhgeddaboudit; if I remember correctly what mmortal and jpy wrote, they use the very same intro as the 1966 RSV-CE.

 

[mmortal03]

I’m confused here. Aren’t thee and thou second person singulars?

Yes, they are, however, I just looked it up and this is the deal:

“The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which first appeared in 1946, retained the pronoun thou exclusively to address God, using you in other places. This was done to preserve a reverent tone that would be familiar to those who read the Psalms and similar text in devotional use.”

So, for the RSV, the translators only retained ‘thou’ when used in the vertical case (man<->God), meaning that any contextual or situational information that one might have been able to draw from the horizontal use of ‘thou’ (man to man) is lost in the RSV. To put it another way, there are situations where the subject being addressed (either a group or an individual) changes between sentences, and without the horizontal second person singular used, the situation is otherwise ambiguous, but sometimes critically important to know.

“The New Revised Standard Version (1989) omits thou entirely, and notes that it is incongruous and contrary to the original intent of the use of thou in Bible translation to adopt a distinctive pronoun to address the Deity.”

I completely agree with the NRSV committee here.

 

[Cranch]

Yes, they are, however, I just looked it up and this is the deal:

“The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which first appeared in 1946, retained the pronoun thou exclusively to address God, using you in other places. This was done to preserve a reverent tone that would be familiar to those who read the Psalms and similar text in devotional use.”

So, for the RSV, the translators only retained ‘thou’ when used in the vertical case (man<->God), meaning that any contextual or situational information that one might have been able to draw from the horizontal use of ‘thou’ (man to man) is lost in the RSV. To put it another way, there are situations where the subject being addressed (either a group or an individual) changes between sentences, and without the horizontal second person singular used, the situation is otherwise ambiguous, but sometimes critically important to know.

“The New Revised Standard Version (1989) omits thou entirely, and notes that it is incongruous and contrary to the original intent of the use of thou in Bible translation to adopt a distinctive pronoun to address the Deity.”

I completely agree with the NRSV committee here.

I agree too. The funny thing is, this points to another similarity that the D-R and the RSV-2CE share: internal consistency in both horizontal and vertical usage of the second person singular. Granted, one uses the archaic form and one doesn’t but the end result is the same!

 

[Manfred]

I agree too. The funny thing is, this points to another similarity that the D-R and the RSV-2CE share: internal consistency in both horizontal and vertical usage of the second person singular. Granted, one uses the archaic form and one doesn’t but the end result is the same!

Uh, Cranch, would you kindly reword this for the thick among us?

What is “internal consistency”?

Did the RSV-2CE actually remove the thee/thou/thine form in the Psalms and elsewhere in man <-> God communications?

How could the “end result” be the same?

 

[Cranch]

I agree too. The funny thing is, this points to another similarity that the D-R and the RSV-2CE share: internal consistency in both horizontal and vertical usage of the second person singular. Granted, one uses the archaic form and one doesn’t but the end result is the same!

Uh, Cranch, would you kindly reword this for the thick among us?

What is “internal consistency”?

Did the RSV-2CE actually remove the thee/thou/thine form in the Psalms and elsewhere in man <-> God communications?

How could the “end result” be the same?

First a prologue: In an earlier post, mmortal03 pointed out that the RSV used archaic language only vertically (man → God), not horizontally (man <-> man). In other words the RSV translation uses two different methods of expressing the 2nd person singular. Comparing different parts of the one whole is what I mean by “internal”. Therefore the RSV is within itself (internally) inconsistent in its treatment of the 2nd person singular. mmortal03 points out the NRSV committee thought this a bad thing and unified the usage in its translation (thus achieving internal consistency).

Now, both the RSV-2CE and the Douay-Rheims are consistent (i.e. horizontal & vertical) within themselves in the treatment of the 2nd person singular, but opposite each other in the way this was achieved. Yes, the RSV-2CE does away with thee, thine, etc. in the vertical, using instead you and your to match the horizontal. That is consistent. The D-R on the other hand uses the archaic exclusively in both the horizontal and vertical. That is also consistent. In this way the end result (internal consistency in the hor. & vert. 2nd person singular) is the same in both the RSV-2CE and the D-R. But they are not consistent one to the other. I used the “internal” modifier in the original post to show each of these two translations is consistent within itself but not with each other.

I hope after this confusing explanation, the original brief post reads better for you.

 

[mmortal03]

First a prologue: In an earlier post, mmortal03 pointed out that the RSV used archaic language only vertically (man → God), not horizontally (man <-> man). In other words the RSV translation uses two different methods of expressing the 2nd person singular. Comparing different parts of the one whole is what I mean by “internal”. Therefore the RSV is within itself (internally) inconsistent in its treatment of the 2nd person singular. mmortal03 points out the NRSV committee thought this a bad thing and unified the usage in its translation (thus achieving internal consistency).

Now, both the RSV-2CE and the Douay-Rheims are consistent (i.e. horizontal & vertical) within themselves in the treatment of the 2nd person singular, but opposite each other in the way this was achieved. Yes, the RSV-2CE does away with thee, thine, etc. in the vertical, using instead you and your to match the horizontal. That is consistent. The D-R on the other hand uses the archaic exclusively in both the horizontal and vertical. That is also consistent. In this way the end result (internal consistency in the hor. & vert. 2nd person singular) is the same in both the RSV-2CE and the D-R. But they are not consistent one to the other. I used the “internal” modifier in the original post to show each of these two translations is consistent within itself but not with each other.

I hope after this confusing explanation, the original brief post reads better for you.

Yep, and my outlook on all this has always been that they SHOULD remove the archaic language, but mark the cases where the 2nd person singular is used so that we can tell the difference whenever it is critical.

 

[Manfred]

First a prologue: In an earlier post, mmortal03 pointed out that the RSV used archaic language only vertically (man → God), not horizontally (man <-> man). In other words the RSV translation uses two different methods of expressing the 2nd person singular. Comparing different parts of the one whole is what I mean by “internal”. Therefore the RSV is within itself (internally) inconsistent in its treatment of the 2nd person singular. mmortal03 points out the NRSV committee thought this a bad thing and unified the usage in its translation (thus achieving internal consistency).

Now, both the RSV-2CE and the Douay-Rheims are consistent (i.e. horizontal & vertical) within themselves in the treatment of the 2nd person singular, but opposite each other in the way this was achieved. Yes, the RSV-2CE does away with thee, thine, etc. in the vertical, using instead you and your to match the horizontal. That is consistent. The D-R on the other hand uses the archaic exclusively in both the horizontal and vertical. That is also consistent. In this way the end result (internal consistency in the hor. & vert. 2nd person singular) is the same in both the RSV-2CE and the D-R. But they are not consistent one to the other. I used the “internal” modifier in the original post to show each of these two translations is consistent within itself but not with each other.

I hope after this confusing explanation, the original brief post reads better for you.

Cranch,

As a poster in another thread would tend to write:

THANK YOU !!!

Seriously, your explanation herein is very lucid and easy to comprehend, not confusing at all; thus, no need for me to re-read an earlier post.

“Thee/thou/thine” usage rules!

Manfred

 

[Cranch]

Seriously, your explanation herein is very lucid and easy to comprehend, not confusing at all; thus, no need for me to re-read an earlier post.

“Thee/thou/thine” usage rules!

Manfred

Glad to hear it, Manfred!

 

[mmortal03]

Just as a disappointing update, the preliminary reports show that we were probably mislead about the contents of the Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bible Reader’s Version, so please ignore my previous comments about the Reader’s version and take them to refer only to the Compact Version.

It looks like the Reader’s Version may turn out to be the Ignatius First Edition with a new binding and some very small number of changes. We haven’t been able to exhaustively verify what its contents are yet (I don’t have a copy yet), but it doesn’t look to be as excellent as its Compact cousin. Please refer to here for the latest: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1788075 .

 

[richardeekw]

Just as a disappointing update, the preliminary reports show that we were probably mislead about the contents of the Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bible Reader’s Version, so please ignore my previous comments about the Reader’s version and take them to refer only to the Compact Version.

It looks like the Reader’s Version may turn out to be the Ignatius First Edition with a new binding and some very small number of changes. We haven’t been able to exhaustively verify what its contents are yet (I don’t have a copy yet), but it doesn’t look to be as excellent as its Compact cousin. Please refer to here for the latest: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1788075 .

All-in-All, it is all about $$$ - Who makes the Profit? - the Publishers?..
My opinion is:
a) Use a Catholic Bible with the "Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat
endorsement by the Bishop.
b) If you feel strongly against a particular English Translation,
gather all your concerns on the “English words/phrases
used” in the translation and write to the Catholic Editors -
who are usually one with LSS (Licentiate in Sacred
Scriture &/or SSD/STD &/or PhD, to request for their
rationale for choosing such “English ords/phrases”
instead of your preferred “English word/phrase”. - I think
such an exercise will be more fruitful that many
Lay “theologians” attempting to search for the BEST
version of the English translation, whichm I thank cannot
be found; and by then we will all have no time to LIVE
the WORD…

The Bible is not only for “Scholars” but for humble people of all races to LIVE THE teachings of the LORD. When our time is up we will NOT be judged in having correctly “chosen the Perfect English Translation” BUT how we have LIVED THE TEACHINGS.
(CS Lewis in “Screwtape letters” says that the devil knows that people on earth know that there is a God but to distract them - teach them that “there is no hurry…”)

If you are not already aware of what Scripture Scholars must learn to obtain an LSS; here is one with an LSS & STD

William L. Burton, ofm
Antonianum Friary
2054 N. Humboldt Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60647
773.450.0176
www.biblicist.net

The Pontifical Biblical Institute offers two degrees, the licentiate (SSL) and the doctorate (SSD).

When I received my SSL from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, our language requirements were as follows:

**Modern Languages: **
You had to qualify in Italian, German and English.
If any of these was your native tongue, you had to add another one.
I qualified in Italian, German and French.

Biblical Languages:
Introductory and Advanced Hebrew,
Introductory and Advance Koine Greek, Aramaic, Latin
and another Biblically useful ancient language. Some of which were Arabic, Syriac, Sanskrit, Akkadian, Hittite, Coptic, Greek of the Septuagint, etc.

I finished my SSL there in 1995 and am not sure what their language requirements are today.

I finished my doctorate, not at the Biblical Institute, but at the
Pontifical Gregorian University in Biblical Theology, an STD.

I understand and sympathize with your point about our questioning scholars about their translations but that doesn’t mean that some translations aren’t better than others for some uses.

For example,
for academic work,
I prefer the New Revised Standard Version - Oxford Annotated edition.
But
it’s not very “beautiful” English and therefore doesn’t sound so good in liturgical settings. For that, I think the New American is better.

The Jerusalem Bible is wonderful for its footnotes.

Of course, nothing compares to the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic but we can’t expect folks to study these languages in order to read the scriptures. So we have to choose the best translation available for a particular use.

I apologise to everyone for being so lengthy; but I think this and similar threads on “the Best English Bible” is endless. It would be better if you or someone volunteer to gather all concerns/comments and write to the Editors for their comments. - then their comments can be posted for everyone’s benefit.

God Bless and have Mercy on us all.

 

[demerzel85]

All-in-All, it is all about $$$ - Who makes the Profit? - the Publishers?..
My opinion is:
a) Use a Catholic Bible with the "Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat
endorsement by the Bishop.
b) If you feel strongly against a particular English Translation,
gather all your concerns on the “English words/phrases
used” in the translation and write to the Catholic Editors -
who are usually one with LSS (Licentiate in Sacred
Scriture &/or SSD/STD &/or PhD, to request for their
rationale for choosing such “English ords/phrases”
instead of your preferred “English word/phrase”. - I think
such an exercise will be more fruitful that many
Lay “theologians” attempting to search for the BEST
version of the English translation, whichm I thank cannot
be found; and by then we will all have no time to LIVE
the WORD…

The Bible is not only for “Scholars” but for humble people of all races to LIVE THE teachings of the LORD. When our time is up we will NOT be judged in having correctly “chosen the Perfect English Translation” BUT how we have LIVED THE TEACHINGS.

Well a lot of things are missing from the Good News Bible and just reading it alone one will not be able to live the teachings of the Lord, simply because crucial teachings are just not there. The Good News Bible has been imprimatured for both the 1st and 2nd edition, but unfortunately in terms of adherence to the Sacred Traditions that have been passed down to us, it is very seriously lacking. Yes, living whatever has been taught is important, but when what is taught is watered down, then the actual way of living is not followed.

Why does one need an acurate translation of Scripture? Simply because the written part of Sacred Tradition needs to be preserved. When recent translations of Scripture refuse to use ‘full of grace’ for the episode when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, something is wrong. Neither the Greek nor the Latin translates to ‘rejoice so highly favoured’. The Good New Bible along with most Protestant translations deliberately mistranslated John 3:16.

The NJB, NRSV and NAB all have been Imprimatured, but they all have inclusive language. Inclusive language is at variance with the Sacred Traditions that have been passed down to us.

Best Translation of Scripture? With all the advances in knowledge and the various discoveries as well as research done, there is not a single Translation that beats the Douay Rheims.

“Amen I say to you…” vs “I tell you most solemnly…”

“Blessed are the…” vs “How happy are the…”

In terms of emphasis and meaning, there are BIG differences.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Right now I would say that the best Bible would be the best possible edition of the Douai-Rheims.

I would say that would be a Haydock-Challoner-Douai-Rheims–but I would like to see a Catholic Truth Society Douai-Rheims or a Carey Revision to the New Testament of the Douai-Rheims to see if anything was SLIGHTLY improved upon.

Does anyone know if there are other lesser known variants of the Douai-Rheims other than the Challoner and Haydock ones that might be worth reading?

 

[richardeekw]

Well a lot of things are missing from the Good News Bible and just reading it alone one will not be able to live the teachings of the Lord, simply because crucial teachings are just not there. The Good News Bible has been imprimatured for both the 1st and 2nd edition, but unfortunately in terms of adherence to the Sacred Traditions that have been passed down to us, it is very seriously lacking. Yes, living whatever has been taught is important, but when what is taught is watered down, then the actual way of living is not followed. …

Dear demerzel85
Senior Member

I totally agree with you that for “Biblical studies” a good English Translation or/(s) is/are necessary… The GNB is an easy read for starters, when English is not their mother-tongue.

What is the use of having the BEST English Translation of the Bible on shelf when it is not being pick-ed up to be read?.. or understand the English word-phrase used…etc.
The points you have raised are execellent for someone wanting to buy a 2nd bible translation to begin some form of “Bible study”.

Maybe with your interest in English Translationsa, here is an idea.

• , Compile in a template showing all the STRENGTHS and DEFECTS of some commonly used Catholic and Ecumenical Bibles (DR,RSV,NAB,GNB,Community Bible etc)
• Have your article endorsed by Catholic Answers (and like their articles published have Imprimatur endorsement) for the benefit of everyone at CA website.

The GNB is, I understand an ecumenical Bible approved for use by all Christian denominations.

Do remember that there are many Singaporeans who do not read English as their first language.- that is why some Parishes hand out free Good News /. Community Bible to RCIA enquirers. The last I know, Holy Family Church is one.

f you feel so strongly against the Good News Bible, you should spek to the Parish Prish AND the Archbishop of your concerns probably accompanied by your Spiritual Director …

There are many stages in our FAITH Development.and we cannot expect everyone to be at our level.
Peace, my friend, God Bless

 

[lak611]

I totally agree with you that for “Biblical studies” a good English Translation or/(s) is/are necessary… The GNB is an easy read for starters, when English is not their mother-tongue.

The GNB is, I understand an ecumenical Bible approved for use by all Christian denominations.

The GNB really cannot be considered a “translation”. It is actually a paraphrase, much like the Living Bible or New Living Translation. You are correct in stating that it would be a good Bible for people who speak English as a second language and not well-versed in English. It also would be a good Bible for children, since the reading level is a lot lower (probably around 5th grade level) rather than 12th grade level like the Douay-Rheims.