W
w_stewart
Guest
If I do not have the Douay Bible, Novo Vulgata, and Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE, what is the best alternative?
- Status
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
The Vulgate is the most accurate translation of the Bible. St. Jerome translated the Greek in a very literal, word-for-word translation, and the DR simply repeats this word-for-word translation.
R
ragincajunjoe
Guest
that’s not entirely true. The current Douay-Rheims has been modified a little bit to mesh with some of the Greek and Hebrew texts.
My preferred English Bibles are the New American Bible, the New American Standard Bible and the New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition with Anglicized Spelling), in sptite of the claim that if the King James Version was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for us.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
The answer to which translation is the most accurate is a rather difficult one. The major reason is that the accuracy is not a single answer because people’s languages, even in the same language differ.
So the translation that is the most accurate really depends on which one comes the closest to matching your language.
Take the issue of gender neutral, you here from all kinds of people how bad that is. Yet even the so called non gender neutral translations use a gender neutral translation something like a third of the time.
The accuracy depends on the reader’s language. Take the word chairman. Is the gender of the chairman, male, female, or either?
If you read chairman and you only think it applies to men, a more gender neutral translation would fit you better. If on the other hand you understand that either a man or a woman can be a chairman, then a high level of gender neutrality is not needed by you in a translation.
That’s just one example but one which for some reason a certain segment of English speaking people have changed in understanding quite a bit. When someone makes a translation for that group here comes a bunch of often older people who’s English does not require the changes and they complain about how bad it is. It’s not surprising they don’t like it, their English is not the target.
A lot of people complain bitterly about the NIV. Let me tell you it is an amazing translation because it is aimed at such a wide English speaking audience, people who vary greatly in how they speak and use English. And it does an amazing job of translating such that English speaking people around the world can read it and understand it. It’s not surprising it’s been so popular because it has a very broad audience.
Take on the other hand the New English Bible. Now it’s so elegant in many passages, the people who did it obviously know and love their English. Yet the fact that it’s basically British means that to say an American certain passages read a bit strange at best.
So just to sum up. There is no one most accurate translation because people’s languages vary too much even among a single language, at least the major languages.
I would recommend thinking a bit about your language, and then looking at the translations aimed at your group. Chances are, the one who’s target best matches you will be the one that is most accurate for you.
JJ
So the translation that is the most accurate really depends on which one comes the closest to matching your language.
Take the issue of gender neutral, you here from all kinds of people how bad that is. Yet even the so called non gender neutral translations use a gender neutral translation something like a third of the time.
The accuracy depends on the reader’s language. Take the word chairman. Is the gender of the chairman, male, female, or either?
If you read chairman and you only think it applies to men, a more gender neutral translation would fit you better. If on the other hand you understand that either a man or a woman can be a chairman, then a high level of gender neutrality is not needed by you in a translation.
That’s just one example but one which for some reason a certain segment of English speaking people have changed in understanding quite a bit. When someone makes a translation for that group here comes a bunch of often older people who’s English does not require the changes and they complain about how bad it is. It’s not surprising they don’t like it, their English is not the target.
A lot of people complain bitterly about the NIV. Let me tell you it is an amazing translation because it is aimed at such a wide English speaking audience, people who vary greatly in how they speak and use English. And it does an amazing job of translating such that English speaking people around the world can read it and understand it. It’s not surprising it’s been so popular because it has a very broad audience.
Take on the other hand the New English Bible. Now it’s so elegant in many passages, the people who did it obviously know and love their English. Yet the fact that it’s basically British means that to say an American certain passages read a bit strange at best.
So just to sum up. There is no one most accurate translation because people’s languages vary too much even among a single language, at least the major languages.
I would recommend thinking a bit about your language, and then looking at the translations aimed at your group. Chances are, the one who’s target best matches you will be the one that is most accurate for you.
JJ
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
It is which translation comes closest to matching the original text in your language.
Because people’s languages differ, which translation is the most accurate also differs.
It is obvious for instance if I am an English speaker and you pull out a French and an English translation. The English is the most accurate.
It’s less obvious if you translate based on English as spoken in Chicago, but it is going to be read by someone in Perth, Australia. But it is still there. The most accurate English translation for the person in Perth will be the one that most accurately reproduces the original text in his language. Since his language differs from the person in Chicago the answer for which is the most accurate translation can be different for each of them even though both nominally speak English.
JJ
Because people’s languages differ, which translation is the most accurate also differs.
It is obvious for instance if I am an English speaker and you pull out a French and an English translation. The English is the most accurate.
It’s less obvious if you translate based on English as spoken in Chicago, but it is going to be read by someone in Perth, Australia. But it is still there. The most accurate English translation for the person in Perth will be the one that most accurately reproduces the original text in his language. Since his language differs from the person in Chicago the answer for which is the most accurate translation can be different for each of them even though both nominally speak English.
JJ
M
Manfred
Guest
Understandable, perhaps, but doctrinally unbiased, hardly. It’s got a clear evangelical bent, not in total accord with Catholic doctrine. (Look elsewhere on this Forum for specific examples of why the NIV is not the best for serious study.) Besides, it doesn’t contain the Deutero-canonical works accepted by the Catholic Church. No Catholic scholars were part of its translation team.
The best Catholic bible version with a British flavor would be The New Jerusalem Bible (1985). I refuse to recommend the original (1966) Jerusalem Bible because it’s too “free” a translation for serious study.
You DO bring up a good point, Jolly Joe, but to use as a criterion a version whose English, in this case, resonates most closely with that of any given individual or group of individuals is probably OK for a first attempt at reading the bible, sort of like baby food; eventually, the reader will have to graduate to “solid food”, i.e., a more literal (read, “more carefully-translated”) version.
I don’t think you want to leave people the impression it’s OK to read and stay with versions such as The Living Bible, The New Living Translation, The New Contemporary Version, or The Message; it’s really not, especially if the version is not Catholic and the reader is.
M
myredeemerlives
Guest
I’ve had both the King James and the NIV but I’ve by far found the New King James version to be the best. I got a study version of it and it’s awesome.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Thanks to your outstanding discussions here, I’m off to buy a D-R translation of the Bible. I love the idea of reading a Catholic Bible specifically edited to roll back the Reformation. I’ve always fashioned myself a Counter-Reformation warrior, in the tradition of Phillip II and Saint Ignatius Loyola. 
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Yet another thread filled with baseless, overly-simplistic, inaccurate or incorrect assertions about the various translations of Sacred Scripture.
T
thistle
Guest
I haven’t read the NIV but isn’t it the case there is a general view that the NIV should be avoided because its a terrible translation?
[/quote]
Ron
You wrote:
I find this discussion interesting and I like to hear the views of others interested in the Bible.
I fail to see how all the contributors can be considered as *writring baseless, overly-simplistic, inaccurate or incorrect assertions. *
You wrote:
Would you like to expand a little on why you think contributions are inaccurate etc.?
I find this discussion interesting and I like to hear the views of others interested in the Bible.
I fail to see how all the contributors can be considered as *writring baseless, overly-simplistic, inaccurate or incorrect assertions. *
P
patg
Guest
If only God had inspired someone to preserve such a thing…
C
ckempston
Guest
Hmmm, curious. Nestle, TR, and Byzantine all say “us” (Gr: hemas). I wonder why they translated it this way.
R
ragincajunjoe
Guest
for study? yeah it should be avoided (it doesn’t have the deuterocanon at all so you couldn’t perform a lot of studies. for devotion, it’s kind of iffy at best. But it can be a great tool for apologetics work (the NIV was the translation I read as a Protestant and after reading the NIV I came to believe that the Catholic Church was the Church Christ founded)
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
The explanation can be found in the NET footnotes.
In 5.9 the “us” is explained by this footnote.
Then the “us” that appears in the Textus Receptus in verse 10:
So you end up with no specific word given in verse 9 but the people are implied, and the word “them” is supplied by verse 10 and the people in verse 9 and 10 are the same so they stay consistent with supplying “them” in verse 9 to make it clear to the reader.
JJ
C
ckempston
Guest
Thanks for clearing that up!
- Status