Bible translations and bible translation question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ite_ad_Ioseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ite_ad_Ioseph

Guest
Hey everyone, it’s been a while for me here.
Please pray for me.

What bible does everyone use? I decided to start reading the NKJV-CE for the sake of ease since I have an app w it on my phone and it’s not a bad translation. It’s from Ignatius press.
The early church used the LXX bible tho, so sometimes I feel like I’m missing out on something by reading this translation.

The books in the various English catholic translations which have missing parts in the Hebrew where there are parts in greek, how do those translations deal with that? Translate the Hebrew and not the Greek unless the Hebrew isn’t present?
 
Ite_ad_Ioseph said:
Hey everyone, it’s been a while for me here.
Please pray for me.

What bible does everyone use? I decided to start reading the NKJV-CE for the sake of ease since I have an app w it on my phone and it’s not a bad translation. It’s from Ignatius press.
The early church used the LXX bible tho, so sometimes I feel like I’m missing out on something by reading this translation.

The books in the various English catholic translations which have missing parts in the Hebrew where there are parts in greek, how do those translations deal with that? Translate the Hebrew and not the Greek unless the Hebrew isn’t present?
Click to expand...
Um, I don’t think there’s an NKJV-CE. If it’s Ignatius press, then you mean RSV-CE, perhaps?

Generally speaking, modern English translations translate from the Masoretic text and it’s a generally reliable source. However, where the text is corrupt, i.e. suffered in transmission, usually one of a few things are performed:
  1. Reference is made to one of the ancient sources, such as the LXX, Theodotion, Syriac/Targum, Vulgate and if substantial agreement is reached there, the translation is from an alternate source and usually duly noted.
  2. If no agreement can be found, then the committee comes to a consensus as to what the best rendering is, and translate as a reconstructed passage.
  3. Ignore the text and leave it blank (…) in the English. Sometimes, it’s just not possible to reconstruct with any sources available.
 
Ite_ad_Ioseph said:
The books in the various English catholic translations which have missing parts in the Hebrew where there are parts in greek, how do those translations deal with that? Translate the Hebrew and not the Greek unless the Hebrew isn’t present?
Click to expand...
I have a translation known as Today’s English Version (TEV), published by Catholic Bible Press (a division of Thomas Nelson of Nashville, Tennessee) under the title *Good News Bible for Catholics. *This edition is not, unfortunately, a true Catholic Bible, since the arrangement of the books follows the order found in Protestant Bibles.

The texts of Daniel and Esther that appear under those titles in the OT are translations of the Hebrew MT. The Septguagint variations are given the same treatment in this edition that is sometimes seen in Protestant Bibles: they are relegated to the end of the OT in the “Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha.”
 
Ite_ad_Ioseph said:
Revised from what?
Click to expand...
In short:

A revision of the American Standard Bible published in 1901. This revision was undertaken by the National Council of Churches, who held the copyright to the ASV.

The American Standard Bible itself is an American edition of the Revised Version, published in 1885. The ASV is the RV, with the variants suggested/preferred by the American members of the RV committee.

The RV itself, is the first official revision of the Authorized (i.e. King James) version.

Therefore, in terms of history and copyright, the RSV (and now the NRSV) is THE official, direct descendant of the King James Version of the Bible.
 
After spending years studying Bible manuscripts and Patristic writings and later middle ages commentaries into medieval commentaries, seeing the various versions used and the Church flourishing with every text type, I am personally not stuck on a particular translation. Not to say I dont have my preferences, because I do lean towards the traditional versions like the Douay Rheims. As for the Septuagint I am thankful for translations of it because it played a huge part in the Church, especially the Greek Fathers and even the Latin because early on many of the Old Latin OT were translations of the LXX. Whatever translation that you are being enlightened from is good. But beware of the dime a dozen translations that are so watered down or agenda driven, this is the problem with everybody and their brother publishing a Bible translation
 
COPLAND_3 said:
After spending years studying Bible manuscripts and Patristic writings and later middle ages commentaries into medieval commentaries, seeing the various versions used and the Church flourishing with every text type, I am personally not stuck on a particular translation. Not to say I dont have my preferences, because I do lean towards the traditional versions like the Douay Rheims. As for the Septuagint I am thankful for translations of it because it played a huge part in the Church, especially the Greek Fathers and even the Latin because early on many of the Old Latin OT were translations of the LXX. Whatever translation that you are being enlightened from is good. But beware of the dime a dozen translations that are so watered down or agenda driven, this is the problem with everybody and their brother publishing a Bible translation
Click to expand...
 
My favorite is a Douay-Confraternity from 1949. Close second is the Knox. After that, lately, I have been reading the Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha (“Deuterocanon”) from Oxford/Cambridge Press. It is, IMHO, superior to the all-too-ecumenical New American Bible and its derivative, the NAB/RE. Not perfect, but easier to defend Catholic teaching from than the current Catholic bible. And, on eBay, ThriftBooks and Amazon, VG-Like New copies may be had for $4-$5.
 
If your using a King James Version of the Bible then you do NOT have the complete Bible.
The Catholic Bible has seven additional books that the Protestant Bibles do NOT have.

The seven books NOT found in Protestant Bibles are:

Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch

I’m sure that you could find a Catholic Bible wherever you live that
is easy to read and understand, and I would certainly recommend
you get one. Here in the U.S. we have the NAB (New American Bible)
which is a very good Catholic translation.
 
Herculees said:
If your using a King James Version of the Bible then you do NOT have the complete Bible.
The Catholic Bible has seven additional books that the Protestant Bibles do NOT have.

The seven books NOT found in Protestant Bibles are:

Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch

I’m sure that you could find a Catholic Bible wherever you live that
is easy to read and understand, and I would certainly recommend
you get one. Here in the U.S. we have the NAB (New American Bible)
which is a very good Catholic translation.
Click to expand...
The Ignatius Press version of the RSV IS Catholic, and HAS all of the Apocryphal books.

Furthermore, it is NOT too difficult to find KJV bibles containing the Aprocrypha.

Finally, the KJV with the Apocrypha is less Protestant (IMHO) than the NABRE!
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Finally, the KJV with the Apocrypha is less Protestant (IMHO) than the NABRE!
Click to expand...
Amen! The American Church cries out for a better translation. While the Revised English Bible is not perfect, it had substantial Catholic (UK Church) influence on its translation, and is easier to defend Catholicism from.

Of note is some degree of interest expressed by Cambridge Press when I inquired about a Catholic Edition of the Revised English Bible. Anyone wishing to request that Cambridge publish a Catholic Edition, you may direct your request here.
 
po18guy said:
My favorite is a Douay-Confraternity from 1949. Close second is the Knox. After that, lately, I have been reading the Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha (“Deuterocanon”) from Oxford/Cambridge Press. It is, IMHO, superior to the all-too-ecumenical New American Bible and its derivative, the NAB/RE. Not perfect, but easier to defend Catholic teaching from than the current Catholic bible. And, on eBay, ThriftBooks and Amazon, VG-Like New copies may be had for $4-$5.
Click to expand...
One of my most simple tests of a Catholic bible translation is how it translates Luke 1:28 and whether it states that Mary is “full of grace”. Many Catholic bibles will correctly state that Mary is “full of grace”, but the NABRE fails my simple test because it reads that passage as “favored one”. Hence, I tell all Catholics to avoid this translation even though it is inexplicably promoted by the USCCB.

Why in the world a Catholic organization would translate that passage as “favored one” is beyond me. The Catechism clearly teaches that Mary is “full of grace” (490). In addition to being a misleading (improper?) translation, it plays right into the hands of Protestants who then can use a “Catholic” bible to question the Immaculate Conception.

The only explanation I can see for this translation is that the Church, yet again, fell prey to not wanting to rock the boat with Protestants. Fearing that the truth might offend they translated in a way that could be accepted by all. I can’t see another reason.

-Ernie-
 
drac16 said:
I use the ESV (English Standard Version).
Click to expand...
Hello,

I truly don’t mean to offend, but the English Standard Version is a false bible as it doesn’t include the 7 books that the Church has always used. I’ll explain my reasoning.

The Church in 400 A.D. decreed that there were 27 books in the NT and 46 books in the OT that were divinely inspired. And remember this timeframe was way before the multiple Christian denominations that we see today so this isn’t a Catholic thing per se. There was just 1 Church at that time. No others claimed to be that one Church. And that one Church said that there were 73 books that were divinely inspired.

To further the history, the bible was then translated into Latin by Jerome, who personally felt that there should be 39 books in the OT, but submitted to the authority of The Church by translating all 73 books into the Latin Vulgate. This version of the bible became the bible of The Church for the next 1000 years.

I’ve heard some Catholics tell me to chill out when it comes to the 66 book bible because rather than it being false they say it is simply “incomplete”. The problem I have with this line of thinking is that Protestants believe they are correct when they assert that the 7 additional books aren’t inspired. It’s as if I tell you that there were only 45 states or 9 Commandments and assert them to be true. Would you say that I’m “incomplete” or wrong? What if in a spelling test I spell the word “believe” as “believ”? Would the teacher tell me that I’m “incomplete” or wrong? In a similar vein, the 66 book bible is wrong.

Obviously, I’m a little passionate about this topic. My main reason is that I firmly believe the Protestant faith is built on error. An erroneous bible, which leads to erroneous belief systems. One can’t read 2 Macc 12:46 and believe in “faith alone” or “once saved always saved” (why pray for someone who has died if they’re already saved or damned?). These core tenets of the Protestant belief system come crashing down as a result of the truths within the real 73 book bible.

I’m very passionate about the truth and I truly apologize if this offends. You may even be thinking, “geez, I didn’t expect to get lectured just by saying what bible I read from!” and if that’s the case I’m sorry. You just gave me an opportunity to preach a little! I’d welcome any and all feedback and thoughts.

-Ernie-
 
Ernie07 said:
Hello,

I truly don’t mean to offend, but the English Standard Version is a false bible as it doesn’t include the 7 books that the Church has always used. I’ll explain my reasoning.

The Church in 400 A.D. decreed that there were 27 books in the NT and 46 books in the OT that were divinely inspired. And remember this timeframe was way before the multiple Christian denominations that we see today so this isn’t a Catholic thing per se. There was just 1 Church at that time. No others claimed to be that one Church. And that one Church said that there were 73 books that were divinely inspired.

To further the history, the bible was then translated into Latin by Jerome, who personally felt that there should be 39 books in the OT, but submitted to the authority of The Church by translating all 73 books into the Latin Vulgate. This version of the bible became the bible of The Church for the next 1000 years.

I’ve heard some Catholics tell me to chill out when it comes to the 66 book bible because rather than it being false they say it is simply “incomplete”. The problem I have with this line of thinking is that Protestants believe they are correct when they assert that the 7 additional books aren’t inspired. It’s as if I tell you that there were only 45 states or 9 Commandments and assert them to be true. Would you say that I’m “incomplete” or wrong? What if in a spelling test I spell the word “believe” as “believ”? Would the teacher tell me that I’m “incomplete” or wrong? In a similar vein, the 66 book bible is wrong.

Obviously, I’m a little passionate about this topic. My main reason is that I firmly believe the Protestant faith is built on error. An erroneous bible, which leads to erroneous belief systems. One can’t read 2 Macc 12:46 and believe in “faith alone” or “once saved always saved” (why pray for someone who has died if they’re already saved or damned?). These core tenets of the Protestant belief system come crashing down as a result of the truths within the real 73 book bible.

I’m very passionate about the truth and I truly apologize if this offends. You may even be thinking, “geez, I didn’t expect to get lectured just by saying what bible I read from!” and if that’s the case I’m sorry. You just gave me an opportunity to preach a little! I’d welcome any and all feedback and thoughts.

-Ernie-
Click to expand...
Of course it does.

amazon.ca/English-Standard-Version-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289102
 
Ernie07 said:
My main reason is that I firmly believe the Protestant faith is built on error. -Ernie-
Click to expand...
Recently I was reading Monsignor Ronald Knox’s “The Belief of Catholics.” In the preface, he wrote something that struck home with me. Relating that, in the book’s previous editions, “Protestant controversialists” had twisted his words, he lamented the fact that he was compelled to write a clarification regarding two pages in particular.

What I was struck with is that Protestantism is not founded on Christ - our Lord founded His Church 1,500 years earlier. Protestantism is founded on controversy surrounding Christ.

That is a huge difference and explains why it is degenerating into obsolescence.
 
porthos11 said:
Of course it does.

amazon.ca/English-Standard-Version-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289102
Click to expand...
Two things… First, I downloaded the Bible app from bible.com, which includes the ESV version. The version they provide doesn’t include the 7 deuterocanonical books. It sounds like there are multiple versions of the ESV version. Crazy sounding, but true!

Secondly, I have to admit that I take offense in your ESV reference as it relates to their use of the term “apocrypha”. Apocrypha is defined as, “related writings not forming part of the accepted Canon”. That should be an offensive definition to every Catholic. Those 7 books are every bit a part of the real Bible as any of the other books.

We need to stop being so ecumenical that it stops us from voicing the truth or being so accepting of falsehoods. It’s as if we act like we need to apologize for believing in truth and that we’re responsible for any divisiveness. It’s just frustrating to me so I apologize if I’m coming on too strong.

Thanks.

-Ernie-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top