W
w_stewart
Guest
Which Bible translation existing today is the most accurate translation of the original texts? Is it Douay Rheims?
- Status
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
The Douay Rheims bible is the translation from the latin one from like the third of fourth century. It is a bit hard to follow at times, it’s kind of archaic (sp?). I think that the New American bible is good. Beyond that, I can’t say. Those are the only Catholic bibles I have. 
P
patg
Guest
Just pointing out that we don’t have the original texts of any of the gospels. None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament. Thus the term “accuracy” is somewhat misleading since you have to first know which sources were used and how accurate those sources are.
C
ckempston
Guest
Your best bet is to use multiple translations. I personally prefer Young’s Literal, the NASB, and my Interlinear Greek. Avoid the NIV like the plague, because its translators are a bunch of lying Word of God distorters.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
try the NASV
F
Foreigner
Guest
H
HannahLisa
Guest
I wouldn’t call the NIV translators “a bunch of lying Word of God distorters,” but if you want the most accurate English translation you’ll probably want one which is very “literal.” There are definitely Bible translations which do this better than the NIV.
F
Fidelis
Guest
It’s missing seven books and parts of two others.
F
Fidelis
Guest
I wouldn’t use any of these as a primary Bible – they are are missing seven entire Old Testament books and parts of two others.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I would say that the Vulgate would be the most accurate since it was translated from many different manuscripts. However as stated before the originals do not exist anymore. As far as accuracy I would have to say that the Vulgate would be the most accurate, but don’t hold me to it
P
Penitant
Guest
The three that I would suggest are
- The Douay Rheims
- The Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition
- The Jerusalem Bible (NOT the New Jerusalem Bible)
As for the NIV, avoid it. In Greek, there is one word that can be translated as either ‘teaching’ or ‘tradition’. In the NIV, whenever this word is used positively, it is rendered as ‘teaching’. Whenever it is used negatively, it is rendered as ‘tradition’. Obviously, it’s translators imposed their own interpretation upon the text rather than being consistent.
Pax Tecum,
Zach
M
Manfred
Guest
I really don’t understand people’s affections for the 1966 Jerusalem Bible. Sure, it does not have gender-inclusive language, but its renderings are more often than not innovative and so non-traditional that it makes me wonder if this is how we want to present sacred writ or not. It’s way too paraphrastic, too colloquial; it has expressions such as “March the seventh” in Tobit 2, and “every Sunday” in 1 Cor. 16.
The 1985 New Jerusalem Bible is way more consistent in its use of “key theological terms” in the Synoptic Gospels, and its gender-inclusive language is very restrained compared to that in the RNAB or NRSV.
The RSV-2CE is a “work-in-progress”; it didn’t implement enough of the recommendations of Liturgiam Authenticam. As a result, it has even more quirks than the RSV-CE. I’d recommend sticking with the original 1965-66 RSV-CE.
Now re the D-R: RIGHT ON!!
W
w_stewart
Guest
In Douay Rheims Bible, Apocalypse 5:8-9 states:
In other modern versions, like NIV and NRSV, “us” and “our” are replaced with “them” and “their”.
KJV on the other hand agrees with that of Douay.
Which translation is correct? Is it a requirement to go back to the Greek Bible to settle issues as this?
Emphasis mine.
In other modern versions, like NIV and NRSV, “us” and “our” are replaced with “them” and “their”.
KJV on the other hand agrees with that of Douay.
Which translation is correct? Is it a requirement to go back to the Greek Bible to settle issues as this?
S
SFH
Guest
Nova Vulgata and La Bible de Jerusalem
M
Manfred
Guest
There is no “Greek Bible”; only several thousand manuscripts written in Greek of the NT books. There is something called the “critical” Greek text, e.g., Nestle-Aland, or that of the United Bible Societies, which sifts through all the available texts and notes the variants. Or you can rely on “reliable” biblical scholars to resolve this for you. FWIW, most Catholic apologists would point you in the direction of the RSV-CE.
[8] And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
[9] and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
[10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,…”
The RSV uses the term “men” in v. 8, and “them” in v. 10 agrees with it. I don’t think the RSV alters the meaning in the wrong direction at all.
But you should avoid trusting the NIV or NRSV.
W
w_stewart
Guest
It is funny, though, that the versions I “like” include NIV and NRSV. I pick the latter because it is a Catholic version.
Anyway, is the translation of Douay on Revelation 5:8-11 accurate, specifically the use of “us”, “our” instead of "them and “their”?
Anyway, is the translation of Douay on Revelation 5:8-11 accurate, specifically the use of “us”, “our” instead of "them and “their”?
R
ragincajunjoe
Guest
depends what you mean by original texts I suppose. The Douay-Rheims is the translation that follows the Latin Vulgate most closely. The RSV-2nd Catholic Edition combines traditional interpretation of many verses with a translation from the Greek New Testament and various codices for the Old Testament. I don’t know a lot about the New Jerusalem Bible so I can’t help you with that one. The NAB is a very watered-down version of the Bible and tries to be PC in some areas by using inclusive language that was not what the original text used. I suppose out of the above list … the best two are the Douay and the RSV-2CE.
S
SFH
Guest
You can order it from the Vatican bookstore on-line
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Challoner revision of the Douai Rheims Bible (what most people mean when they say the Douay) is based on the Clementine Vulgate of 1598. We don’t any of the original texts of St. Jerome’s work in the late fourth and early fifth century.
The Nova Vulgata is available online on the Vatican Website.
vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html
Among the Latin versions, I prefer the Clementine Vulgate.
The NRSV was initially rejected for use in the Mass because of extensive use of inclusive language.
The RSV does not translate the OT in the light of the NT. Also, most of the translators were Protestant, so the text is not translated in light of the Catholic faith.
- Status