Best Version of the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter captainmike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Clementine Vulgate
Click to expand...
Is that the Vulgate that preceeded St. Jeromes’ Latin Vulgate? Is this the one that so many of the Early church Fathers are always quoting from?:confused: If so, where may a copy be found? I use the Douay-Rheims Challanor Revision (I gave my New American away because I was tired of all the changes to the meanings and of all the misleading commentary) because it seems to be the most consistantly like what I read when I read the Fathers.
 
I don’t think there is any “Best Bible”-available.
It is yet to be or ever will be.
All English translation of the Bible has its limitations

The Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) is a reliable English Translation, often used by many Biblical Scholars.

My opinion for a good investment of Bible with Study commentary are

The Navarre Bible Old Testament - Complete Set
This set contains all seven of the published Navarre Old Testament books. This set includes: The Navarre Bible - The Pentateuch The Navarre Bible - Joshua-Kings The Navarre Bible - Chronicles to Maccabees The Navarre Bible - Wisdom Books The Navarre Bible - Psalms and Song of Solomon …

The Navarre Bible New Testament - Complete Set
This discounted 12 volume set includes one each of the Navarre New Testament with extensive explanations of the meaning of the scriptural text and its implications for everyday life. Titles also sold separately. See also: The Navarre Bible Old Testament - 6 Vol. Set See our entire selection …
Author: Navarre University

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - Complete Set (N.T.)
This set includes the following Ignatius Catholic Study Bibles: Gospel of Luke, The Acts of the Apostles, The Gospel of John, The Gospel of Mark, and The Gospel of Matthew, The Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, The First and Second Letters of St. Paul to the Corinthians, The Letters of St. Paul to …
Author: Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch

…But in separate Books though ( However - reliable Catholic teaching and references.)

ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/shop.axd/Search?keywords=Ignatius+Study+Bible&x=23&y=14

.
 
Here are my criteria:
  1. I want Luke 1:28 to say "full of grace;
  2. I want traditional (non-feminist) language;
  3. I want it to be accurate (orthodox);
  4. I want it to be readable (so that I can read it to my not-quite-teenage kids).
thanks
 
captainmike said:
Here are my criteria:
  1. I want Luke 1:28 to say "full of grace;
  2. I want traditional (non-feminist) language;
  3. I want it to be accurate (orthodox);
  4. I want it to be readable (so that I can read it to my not-quite-teenage kids).
thanks
Click to expand...
I think you are looking at the RSV Second Catholic Edition. I believe the first Catholic Edition retained archaic language when referring to God.
 
Dear friend,
If you have your criteria for an English Translation no one English translation will meet your needs.

As an exaggeration - Commisison a British tranlator it will be dated 9.12.2006 i.e. 9th December 2006.
Call an American translator it will be dated 12.9.2006
  1. Full of grace - I know it is in the DR version.
2
.01. Douay Rheims-Challoner (very literal)
02. Haydock Douay Rheims (Troy-Challoner) (very literal)
03. Original Douay Rheims (ridiculously literal)
04. Confraternity Bible (NT only) (literal)
05. Mgr Knox Bible (literal)
06. Ignatius Study Bibles (by book) (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
07. Navarre Bible (1966 RSVCE) (literal)
08. Ignatius 2nd Catholic Ed RSVCE (Rev of the 1966) (literal)09. Oxford RSVCE Readers Ed ('71 RSV + the '66 CE verses) (literal)
10. 1966 Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence)
11. Christian Community Bible (1st-3rd Edtns) (dynamic eq) 12. New American Bible 1970 (dynamic equivalence)
13. New American Bible 1986 (in-between formal and dynamic eq)
14. New Revised Standard Version (“literal” w/ inclusive lang)15. Christian Community Bible (Later Edts) (dynamic eq)
16. 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (dynamic equivalence)
17. Catholic Living Bible (dynamic equivalence)
18. Good New Bible (dynamic equivalence)

1-12 are free from inclusive language
13-18 contain varying amounts of inclusive language
  1. I want it to be accurate (orthodox); Probably the earlier translations will meet your requirement. But "what is Orthodox?..What is accurate?? - Whose Judgement for Orthodoxy and Accuracy???)
  2. I want it to be readable (so that I can read it to my not-quite-teenage kids). - Whgat’s their standard of understanding of English???.. imaes??? ideas???
Looks like you have to translate the Bible for the Original languates into English to meet with all your own criteria.!!!

Looks like it is easier to please the Pope e or Mother Teresa.
Maybe, all of us should emulate their way of LIVING the Gospel messate that just looking for the best translation.

Take life with a pinch of salt and have a good laugh!!!
Don’t be too hard on yourself.
May God have mercy on us.
God Bless you and family
 
As I have been following this thread, and numerous threads like this, I have come to the conclusion that there are two answers to this question.

The first answer comes from a liturgical consideration the second a personal consideration.

As for the best translation from a liturgical sense I would say is the authorized translation (authorized by Rome) that is being used by the particular Church (that is diocese). Given the nature of the liturgy, both on the local level and for the Church Universal, the criteria for the translations a slighly different because the translation must not only attempt to be faithful to the text in the original languages but maintain the traditional liturgical sense as well. For example, one of the major criticism of the NAB is its use of inclusive language, such as should we use a term “humankind” instead of “Mankind” or “humans” instead of “Man” (please note here I am not talking about not using “Father” for “God the Father” and other terms like that). When doing personal reading of scriptures I don’t it would make a great difference depending on what the individual already has on his or her mind - what the disposition is. However, one important criteria for the liturgy is a negative criteria, namely, readings and prayers should not cause confusion, there must be a standard of uniformity. While the liturgy my be the worship of the people of God in a particular locale, it is also the worship of the Body of Christ, the Church (Universal).

So the best translation of the bible for the liturgy is the approved translation being used by that Church. (It is also a proclamation of faith to trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the bishop of the particular diocese when choosing the translation (or as it has been the practice the confrerence of bishops agreeing on which translation is to be used). I think we still believe that the bishops, in communion with Rome, are still the guardians of the Apostolic Tradition. So ultimately, as I see it, if the translation used has been approved by Rome, then the choice must have been the work of the Holy Spirit and who am I to dispute that?

The second part of my answer is, starting with that a particular translation has been approved and contains no errors in Faith or Morals (look for the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) then the best translation is the one that will get you to read the Bible and be inspired by it. My preferance is the NAB, but that is just me but if the various translations from the vulgate inspire someone else, then that is the Bible they should use. All one has to do is read a few threads over a months time to pick up the weaknesses of every translation there is, so given that each translation has its strenghts and given weaknesses, the best translation is the one that inspires you most.
 
Dear Tome

Logical separation for the use of English Translations of the Bible.

Liturgical use

As I know in America & the west - The NAB is used while Britain and the East (including Singapore) we still use the JB texts - although I understand, is being reviewed at this time.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
Bible Versions & Commentaries -
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Personal Use
Our Parish gives each Catacumenate a copy of TEV since it is a (Universal Common bible and easy to understand English)

Many modern Bible Scholars are inclined to use the RSV. Of course when a verse is researched, it is best to used the various literal and dynamic translations to comparte to the Original Hebrew or Greek texts and the Latin translation.

If you ask some they will stick by the Psalm of the KJV because of its Poetic reading style.

Mother Angelica still enjoys her “JB 1966 edn” although with the commentaries and references to early Church Fathers, she recommends the Navarre Bible .(RSV + Latin texts & Commentary)

I personally have the NAB & RSV ce on CD Rom The Catholic Illustrated Bible (Harmony Media). I wrote to them recently and they are now negotiating to pute the Complete Navarre Bible series on CD-rom, which I am excited and waiting for. I also own and enjoy The Ignatius Study Bible (RSV ce) with notes and commentaries by Dr Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch

catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/NIVbias.doc
Are All Bible Translations Created Equal?The Protestant Bias of the NIVA Study of the Word Tradition

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
Catholic Answers - Bible Translations Guide

Hence, no Perfect English translation, just striving to perfection just like all of us in the Catholic Church, sinners striving to be Saints…

Cheers.
 
TOME said:
…As for the best translation from a liturgical sense I would say is the authorized translation (authorized by Rome) that is being used by the particular Church (that is diocese)…For example, one of the major criticism of the NAB is its use of inclusive language, such as should we use a term “humankind” instead of “Mankind” or “humans” instead of “Man” (please note here I am not talking about not using “Father” for “God the Father” and other terms like that).…However, one important criteria for the liturgy is a negative criteria, namely, readings and prayers should not cause confusion, there must be a standard of uniformity. While the liturgy my be the worship of the people of God in a particular locale, it is also the worship of the Body of Christ, the Church (Universal)…
Click to expand...
richardeekw said:
Dear Tome

Liturgical use

As I know in America & the west - The NAB is used while Britain and the East (including Singapore) we still use the JB texts - although I understand, is being reviewed at this time…
Click to expand...
The U.S. lectionary is based on the NAB but is not identical to it. Some parts of the NAB did not satisfy the Vatican for use in the Liturgy and were therefore changed in the lectionary. These changes have so far as I know, not been incorporated into the commonly available NAB. Tonight’s mass for the Immaculate Conception highlighted a good example. The Gospel contained Luke 1:28, rendered in the NAB as:
  • And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”*
What we heard from the pulpit was:

And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
 
richardeekw said:
Dear Tome

Logical separation for the use of English Translations of the Bible.

Liturgical use

As I know in America & the west - The NAB is used while Britain and the East (including Singapore) we still use the JB texts - although I understand, is being reviewed at this time.
Click to expand...
The review being done is actually now part of the translation of the 2002 Missale Romanum. For liturgical use, in Commonwealth Countries, the 1966 JB text is used. The Holy See has only allowed the NAB in the US only. Canada uses the NRSV, but the Holy See has rejected it, but the Bishops there have yet to change. The RSV-CE has also been approved for liturgical use, and if I remember correctly the East Indies uses it.

When one tunes into Vatican Radio or watches Vatican Television on the internet through EWTN, the English Translation of the program uses the JB texts for the liturgy.

NAB vs 1966 JB? Well personally I still take the 1966 JB because it has ZERO inclusive language.
 
The Douay-Rheims Bible, and for those who can’t understand the somewhat “old English” the RSV Catholic Bible is also a good Bible.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The Douay-Rheims Bible, and for those who can’t understand the somewhat “old English” the RSV Catholic Bible is also a good Bible.
Click to expand...
Umm…the RSV-CE still has arachaic language (not sure about the 2nd edition though) Yet in the RSV-CE John 3:16 is still mistranslated.
 
demerzel85 said:
Umm…the RSV-CE still has arachaic language (not sure about the 2nd edition though) Yet in the RSV-CE John 3:16 is still mistranslated.
Click to expand...
You say “archaic” when you refer to “thee/thou/thine”; I prefer “traditional”.
 
Caesar said:
Douay-Rheims is about the best english Catholic Bible out there. Of course you could always get the Latin Vulgate 😉

But since you are just being confirmed, perhaps the D-R is a bit advanced (antique language and some changes on the passage numbering and some of the words makes it difficult for those new to the faith). Perhaps a good start would be the New American Bible or the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition.

Good luck 👍
Click to expand...
With the links in your post to Latin Mass sites, I’m shocked you’d even acknowledge the NAB or NRSV, both extremely non-traditional and loaded with inclusivisms. I’m sure you meant to say “RSV-CE” or “1966 JB”. (Please tell me you did.)
 
demerzel85 said:
Umm…the RSV-CE still has arachaic language (not sure about the 2nd edition though) Yet in the RSV-CE John 3:16 is still mistranslated.
Click to expand...
How is it mistranslated?

Here is what my RSV say,
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
Click to expand...
DR-Bible:
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whoever believeth in Him may not perish, but have life everlasting. John 3:16
Click to expand...
The NAB John 3:16:
“For Go so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.”
Click to expand...
All both version of the Bible still convey the same message that whoever believes in Jesus will not damned but will have everlasting life.

I don’t know why people can say there is a mistranslation when I can clearly see the main context of message is still preached.

My personal preference is the Douy-Rheims Bible more than the others.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
How is it mistranslated?

Here is what my RSV say,
DR-Bible:

The NAB John 3:16:

All both version of the Bible still convey the same message that whoever believes in Jesus will not damned but will have everlasting life.

I don’t know why people can say there is a mistranslation when I can clearly see the main context of message is still preached.

My personal preference is the Douy-Rheims Bible more than the others.
Click to expand...
His issue is probably the lack of “begotten.”
 
NRSV CE is a great translation. The NAB has horrific commentary and I would never recommend it. It can truly harm the faith of a new believer or at least cast doubt reagrding the trurth of scripture and the authority of the Catholic Church. I have an NAB but only read the commentary to illustrate where scripture scholarship has gone terribly wrong. The Douey version is faithful but difficult to read.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
How is it mistranslated?

Here is what my RSV say,
DR-Bible:

The NAB John 3:16:

All both version of the Bible still convey the same message that whoever believes in Jesus will not damned but will have everlasting life.

I don’t know why people can say there is a mistranslation when I can clearly see the main context of message is still preached.

My personal preference is the Douy-Rheims Bible more than the others.
Click to expand...
No the John 3:16 in the DRV reads: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but** may** have life everlasting.”

Nope the part about eternal life is not definite, belief alone saves no one.

Refer to forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107374
 
Manfred said:
With the links in your post to Latin Mass sites, I’m shocked you’d even acknowledge the NAB or NRSV, both extremely non-traditional and loaded with inclusivisms. I’m sure you meant to say “RSV-CE” or “1966 JB”. (Please tell me you did.)
Click to expand...
Well surprisingly the NRSV got John 3:16 right by removing the sola fides concept. The NAB is also faithful in this aspect. But well inclusive language is still deliberate mistranslation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top