R
Roger12345
Guest
Which is a better translation - the New American Bible or the Douay - Rheims Bible?
- Status
T
Tietjen
Guest
That would depend on personal opinion. For Liturgical use in the US, the New American Bible is the only version authorized by the Church. The D-R Bible is much older (pre-KJV) and is authorized by the Church (along with several other versions) for personal use. My favorite is the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE).
H
Holly3278
Guest
I prefer the Douay-Rheims version out of the two that you gave. Overall I would prefer the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition though.
P
patrick457
Guest
Out to complicate things here, but by “Douai-Rheims” and “New American Bible” what exactly do you mean? 
I mean, when you speak of the ‘Douai-Rheims’ it could either refer to the original 1582 Rheims New Testament-1609/10 Douai Old Testament or (more commonly) to the ‘revision’ of this translation by Bishop Richard Challoner. Also the NAB: do you mean the original 1970 edition, the second or third edition, or the NAB-RE? 
I mean, when you speak of the ‘Douai-Rheims’ it could either refer to the original 1582 Rheims New Testament-1609/10 Douai Old Testament or (more commonly) to the ‘revision’ of this translation by Bishop Richard Challoner. Also the NAB: do you mean the original 1970 edition, the second or third edition, or the NAB-RE?
L
Luvtosew
Guest
nab 1970 edition
P
Pilgrim1701
Guest
Out to complicate things here, but by “Douai-Rheims” and “New American Bible” what exactly do you mean?
I know. The old ‘which is the best edition of the the best version of the best translation of the the best bible…(in hard back with a nice font)’ argument.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Nice choice! It’s certainly the most “orthodox” of the three NABs, that’s for sure.
Well, it depends.
If you want a “safe” translation - one that will not have you questioning some of the speculations and ideas advanced in the footnotes, or leave you puzzled about the inerracy of the Bible itself, then I’d vote for the Douay-Rheims Challoner. (You can also find Haydock’s Commentary to this version online, and it’s an excellent study aid.)
If you’re OK with modern “liberal-to-moderate” Biblical scholarship, some inclusive language, and texts that are not based on the Vulgate, then the NAB is all right.
In other words: if you’re new to the faith, and unfamiliar with modern Bible scholarship, the D-R is way ahead. If you’re already familiar and well grounded, and know how to separate speculation from authentic Church teaching, the NAB is quite readable. (I have both.)
M
Myqyl
Guest
Since I primarily read Scripture on my Kindle (Fire) I have several different editions (using Olive Tree’s Reader) so when I come across something to ponder I can read each translation. I usually start in the NAB though, and cycle through DR, YLT, KJ and ASV when I want to see alternates.
This is, of course, opinion.
This is, of course, opinion.
S
savedOneByFaith
Guest
I prefer the NAB 1970 edition, but there are times where it helps to look at multiple translations, as well. I have been given to look at Young’s Literal Translation at times in order to get a contrasting point of view. I also use the Apologetics Study Bible, based on the Holman Christian Bible, in order to try to get more information about the original texts, and add context. When understanding the Word of God, context is key. There are different hermeneutics to look at the Word with, and sometimes we need to look at it from the perspective of the people. When I lived in the diocese of Tucson, the parish priest where I lived introduced the idea of using the hermeneutic of using the culture around the earthly writer in order to better understand their communication. Luke’s Physician status, for example, or the culture and poetry of the ancient Hebrews.
Steer clear of the Amplified Bible and The Message, as they were written with a very specific agenda in mind.
Steer clear of the Amplified Bible and The Message, as they were written with a very specific agenda in mind.
P
patrick457
Guest
Or soft cover or good ol’ leather. Or a metal case for the adventurous.
I know. The old ‘which is the best edition of the the best version of the best translation of the the best bible…(in hard back with a nice font)’ argument.
C
Chris_Etzel
Guest
“So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.”
Great article if you haven’t read it:
catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide
P
patrick457
Guest
Deciding which translation is ‘better’ is really subjective, and you’ll get a lot of answers. I think that both translations have their own qualities: the DR (I assume the Challoner is meant) is a more literal translation than the NAB - albeit a translation of a translation - and is in archaic ‘Biblese’ English. The NAB is a more modern version, is a little more ‘dynamic-equivalent’, and has notes.
Depending on your opinion, any of these elements could be a plus point or no: if you ask me, the Challoner’s faithfulness to the source text (in this case the Vulgate), while not approaching the woodenly-literal approach of the original DR, is still very decent, although I don’t have much of a thing for the ‘thees’ and ‘thous’. The NAB IMHO is more readable, but I’m not much of a fan of its sometimes thought-for-thought rendering and (in the second-third editions) the inclusive language. (You’ve probably figured out that I like literal translations.
) Unlike some folks here, the footnotes and prefaces don’t bother me anymore like they used to. IMHO the problem is not so much what they contain but rather the way information is presented - which is really a gripe I have with many modern biblical stuff. Theories are presented as if they are established fact. For one, while admittedly the documentary hypothesis and the Q theory are the majority opinions today, they aren’t gospel truth. I’d rather that other alternative theories be given fair treatment and let the reader make up his mind.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Truer words have never been spoken.
I think Jesus will ask many to give an account of their lives and many will make excuses that they were never told about particular things being right or wrong or that they weren’t aware that Jesus taught this or that doctrine. I think Jesus will show many the pile of Bibles which they had acccess to but never read, will recount the many hours they spent online without looking at an online Bible, and show them all the times they stared endlessly at a smartphone and point out that never once downloaded a free Bible app.
-Tim-
H
HillbillyHermit
Guest
For me, it’s the New American Bible. I’ve never been one to use thee, thy, thou, hither, or thither in daily conversation, so reading it on a daily basis isn’t my cup o’ tea.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Well as long as the font is the same as the original, I guess it passes as a good translation.
I know. The old ‘which is the best edition of the the best version of the best translation of the the best bible…(in hard back with a nice font)’ argument.
P
patrick457
Guest
In which case ITHINKWENEEDTOSTARTPRINTINGBIBLESWHICHGOLIKETHIS RMYBVNSMTHNGLYKTHS (SHTKYLGNHTMSTRCCMBTR)Well as long as the font is the same as the original, I guess it passes as a good translation.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In which case ITHINKWENEEDTOSTARTPRINTINGBIBLESWHICHGOLIKETHIS RMYBVNSMTHNGLYKTHS (SHTKYLGNHTMSTRCCMBTR)
One certainly has to be impressed with the reading skills of people of that period. People would be totally lost today without spaces, lower case, and punctuation.
J
Jerome7
Guest
A lot of people repeat that saying. I take issue with it. There are many problems with recent Bible translations: loose translations, inclusive language, imposing erroneous doctrine on the text, and more. As for the footnotes and commentary, most of it treats the text as a merely human work, not divinely-inspired Scripture.
We have many choices for Bible texts. We should use good discernment in which translations to use.
H
HillbillyHermit
Guest
Thank you, Jerome7, for bringing up the inclusive language issue. That got me searching for some answers. This was found at EWTN’s site: NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1995
This document concerns the Liturgy, but don’t we deserve the same standards for our Bibles in our homes too? I think so.
Of particular interest, and the most clear to me, was the last paragraph of the document.
I used to think there was no big deal, as long as the translation had an imprimatur. But now, seeing something from Rome on the matter, I feel there’s good reason why these standards are set. Maybe a complete understanding of the wherefores isn’t reached yet, but I trust what comes from the Vatican as being led by the Holy Spirit and true.
P
ProVobis
Guest
From a copyright and royalty standpoint, there are two different standards.
- Status