Bible translations?

[Axion]

In my opinion for serious study you need more than one version. This is because none is perfect and many give different understandings or bring out different facets of the same passage.

I like the JB, though I dislike the use of “Yahweh”, the deliberate rewording of favourite passages and some of the notes which like those of NAB reflect liberal critical theories rather than Catholic teaching.

The Christian Community Bible is a Catholic Bible with good spiritual notes.

The RSV is tradional and clear.

the NIV and GNB subtly twist some passages into a more protestant understanding so that you wouldn’t notice it withou comparison versions.

 

[garysibio]

In my opinion for serious study you need more than one version. This is because none is perfect and many give different understandings or bring out different facets of the same passage.

If possible, more than one language.

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

I use three different translations:

1. The New Jerusalem Bible. This version does use a bit of inclusive language but not to the point of being obnoxious like the NRSV or NAB. It is very readable and accurate. (There is also a version called The Jerusalem Bible which is older and lacks the inclusive language, but is not as accurate as the New Jerusalem Bible.)
2. The English Standard Version. This translation was actually done by Evengelical Protestants but it is nonetheless very accurate. It is not quite as readable as the NJB. They released a version of this translation which includes the books which Catholics accept but Protestants reject as well as a couple that the Greek Orthodox churches accept but we reject.
3. The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, especially the recent Ignatius Press revision. Again, this is a very accurate translation which you will probably see most often used in these forums and on EWTN’s programming. It was also a Protestant translation but the changes for the Catholic edition were done by Catholics.

I would stay away from the Douay-Rheims, New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version. There are just too many problems with them. The D-R uses archaic language including words whose meanings have chaged drastically. Also, while it contains no doctrinal errors, it does contain translation errors, a distinction which some here don’t seem to be able to make. The NAB and NRSV were translated with the goal of being poticically correct rather than accurate. The Psalms of the NAB were specifically rejected for use in the Mass by the Vatican.

Gary

ESV??? Why are you using non approved Bibles??? I agree with you on the RSV-CE and not using the NAB and the NRSV. Yes many problems with them. I wholeheartedly disagree with using a non approved Bible translation like the ESV. I also disagree with the NJB, it is too inclusive and the original Jerusalem Bible does not have any inclusive language. I also disagree with the staying away from the Douay-Rheims. It is the most accurate English Bible. If you don’t understand a word, look it up. There are many dictionaries from many different periods of times out on the Internet. No Catholic should touch a non approved Bible period!!!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Can anyone out there explain to me why anyone should prefer a translation that might be superior in non doctrinal details WITH errors in doctrine over a translation that might have errors in non doctrinal details WITH no error in doctrine?!

I may be in the minority around here but I don’t favor the Douay Rheims Challoner or Confraternity Version because they are perfect.

I don’t favor them because I don’t think that they can’t be improved–they can!

And I’m not a fan of archaic language–I don’t worship at the throne of latinized names.

I don’t worship at the throne of latin verse numbering.

But I do know that translations of the bible that don’t doctrinally deviate from the Latin Vulgate are likewise doctrinally error free!

Would the devil prefer us to rely on translations of the bible that are doctrinally error free or translations of the bible that with many great points in their favor contain doctrinal errors?

The answer is obvious!

That’s not to say that there is not value in reading translations that do have doctrinal errors but may be superior in other areas–they should be read so that whatever truth they have in them that is superior can reach us.

But please–if the Ecumenical Council of Trent states that the Vulgate can be relied on in ALL disputations–are you going to tell me that minor detail superiority in non doctrinal areas and readability should trump that?

Improving the bible–getting it as close to what the original writers of it actually penned–we should all be for that.

Non Vulgate translations of the bible so far haven’t been able to do that on doctrinal matters.

Until they do translations that are in the Vulgate tradition are the clear choice!

 

[swampboy]

ESV??? Why are you using non approved Bibles??? I agree with you on the RSV-CE and not using the NAB and the NRSV. Yes many problems with them. I wholeheartedly disagree with using a non approved Bible translation like the ESV. I also disagree with the NJB, it is too inclusive and the original Jerusalem Bible does not have any inclusive language. I also disagree with the staying away from the Douay-Rheims. It is the most accurate English Bible. If you don’t understand a word, look it up. There are many dictionaries from many different periods of times out on the Internet. No Catholic should touch a non approved Bible period!!!

If I recall correctly the ESV is an update of the RSV using more modern information. Although not “Church approved” it is supposed to be highly accurate…similar to the NASB which I do not believe has any version available with the Apocrypha, but is regarded as one of the most literal translations available. I read the DR Haydock version and am relatively familiar with the archaic language from my love of the KJV but still find both give me a headache. Others may not be fas amiliar and would therefore tend to shy away from something that is antiquated…especially with all of the modern translations that are out there that eliminate the need to read anything that makes your head hurt…the DR is accurate and sounds “authentic” but is a chore to read and outdated when it comes to scholarship. Not to mention it is a translation of a translation which was later modified by Challoner to make it more readable…partially following your personal nemesis the KJV!! As I noted in a previous thread I personally do not think that reading a Protestant bible is an issue as long as it is an accurate translation, as anyone with a solid faith is highly unlikely to defect due to the hidden messages encrypted in the text.

 

[Rolltide]

If you can’t make up your mind, you could simply use them all! lol

Here’s a Catholic parallel New Testament that contains the Douay-Rheims, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Christian Community Bible all side-by-side for study and comparison.

amazon.com/Catholic-Comparative-New-Testament-Douay-Rheims/dp/019528299X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237183901&sr=8-1

 

[tobinatorstark]

If I recall correctly the ESV is an update of the RSV using more modern information. Although not “Church approved” it is supposed to be highly accurate…similar to the NASB which I do not believe has any version available with the Apocrypha, but is regarded as one of the most literal translations available. I read the DR Haydock version and am relatively familiar with the archaic language from my love of the KJV but still find both give me a headache. Others may not be fas amiliar and would therefore tend to shy away from something that is antiquated…especially with all of the modern translations that are out there that eliminate the need to read anything that makes your head hurt…the DR is accurate and sounds “authentic” but is a chore to read and outdated when it comes to scholarship. Not to mention it is a translation of a translation which was later modified by Challoner to make it more readable…partially following your personal nemesis the KJV!! As I noted in a previous thread I personally do not think that reading a Protestant bible is an issue as long as it is an accurate translation, as anyone with a solid faith is highly unlikely to defect due to the hidden messages encrypted in the text.

What about Catholic doctrinal matters. Protestant Bibles have Protestant doctrine in it. Can you point out in a Protestant where it differs doctrinally???

 

[juliamajor]

If you can’t make up your mind, you could simply use them all! lol

Here’s a Catholic parallel New Testament that contains the Douay-Rheims, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Christian Community Bible all side-by-side for study and comparison.

amazon.com/Catholic-Comparative-New-Testament-Douay-Rheims/dp/019528299X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237183901&sr=8-1

If your just using it for the NT than it’s great.I have a parallel Bible with NRSV, NAB, REB and NJB-which I use for OT.Parallels are very useful in clarifying some really difficult verses.The only problem is most parallels do not come with notes- so have a commentary handy.

 

[tobinatorstark]

If your just using it for the NT than it’s great.I have a parallel Bible with NRSV, NAB, REB and NJB-which I use for OT.Parallels are very useful in clarifying some really difficult verses.The only problem is most parallels do not come with notes- so have a commentary handy.

Not always the case. Look at Matthew 6:9-13, verse 13 especially. How does the Catholic NAB and NJB end?? Look at those same verses emphasize on 13 again. How do the Non-Catholic translations end??? They are added to. It also adds to the meaning of that verse. It violates Deut. 4:2, Proverbs 30:6 and Apocalypse 22:18-19. My advice remains the same. Only used Bibles approved by the Catholic Church. Other Bibles are just asking for trouble

 

[Mattjolley]

but the NJB has an imprimatur? Doesnt that mean its approved by the Catholic Church?

 

[garysibio]

Can anyone out there explain to me why anyone should prefer a translation that might be superior in non doctrinal details WITH errors in doctrine over a translation that might have errors in non doctrinal details WITH no error in doctrine?!

I may be in the minority around here but I don’t favor the Douay Rheims Challoner or Confraternity Version because they are perfect.

I don’t favor them because I don’t think that they can’t be improved–they can!

And I’m not a fan of archaic language–I don’t worship at the throne of latinized names.

I don’t worship at the throne of latin verse numbering.

But I do know that translations of the bible that don’t doctrinally deviate from the Latin Vulgate are likewise doctrinally error free!

Would the devil prefer us to rely on translations of the bible that are doctrinally error free or translations of the bible that with many great points in their favor contain doctrinal errors?

The answer is obvious!

That’s not to say that there is not value in reading translations that do have doctrinal errors but may be superior in other areas–they should be read so that whatever truth they have in them that is superior can reach us.

But please–if the Ecumenical Council of Trent states that the Vulgate can be relied on in ALL disputations–are you going to tell me that minor detail superiority in non doctrinal areas and readability should trump that?

Improving the bible–getting it as close to what the original writers of it actually penned–we should all be for that.

Non Vulgate translations of the bible so far haven’t been able to do that on doctrinal matters.

Until they do translations that are in the Vulgate tradition are the clear choice!

Your assumption that any translation which is not based on the Vulgate contains doctrinal errors. That’s the exact same logic that KJV-only Fundamentalists use except that, instead of the Vulgate, they use Erasmus’ Textus Receptus.

There are only three English translations of the Bible which have been OK’d for liturgical use and none of them were based on the Vulgate. In it’s English documents the Vatican uses a translation which was not only not based on the Vulgate but which was largely done by Protestants.

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

Your assumption that any translation which is not based on the Vulgate contains doctrinal errors. That’s the exact same logic that KJV-only Fundamentalists use except that, instead of the Vulgate, they use Erasmus’ Textus Receptus.

There are only three English translations of the Bible which have been OK’d for liturgical use and none of them were based on the Vulgate. In it’s English documents the Vatican uses a translation which was not only not based on the Vulgate but which was largely done by Protestants.

Gary

So are you trying to refer to him as a Vulgate-onlyist??? That is a bold move if that is what you are trying to say. The Vulgate doesn’t contain any doctrinal errors, however English translations do. The Vulgate was declared free of any moral or doctrinal error by the council of Trent. A fair assumption would be that the D-R is close to having no doctrinal error. It is the most accurate English translation bar none. We just prefer to use the likes of the D-R, Confraternity and Ronald Knox Translations for various reasons.I respect the decisions by the Bishops. I don’t necessarily agree with their decisions. They have approved certain translations and that is fine. Just don’t expect me to read each translation. I can’t recommend the modern versions for various reasons. My view on translations is not the same as yours. If one disagrees with me reading the D-R as opposed to reading the RSV-CE so be it. If you prefer to read the RSV-CE instead of the D-R, so be it. I also object reading any non approved Bibles. Catholics have a Nihil Obstat and imprimatur for a reason.

 

[garysibio]

If I recall correctly the ESV is an update of the RSV using more modern information. Although not “Church approved” it is supposed to be highly accurate…similar to the NASB which I do not believe has any version available with the Apocrypha, but is regarded as one of the most literal translations available. I read the DR Haydock version and am relatively familiar with the archaic language from my love of the KJV but still find both give me a headache. Others may not be fas amiliar and would therefore tend to shy away from something that is antiquated…especially with all of the modern translations that are out there that eliminate the need to read anything that makes your head hurt…the DR is accurate and sounds “authentic” but is a chore to read and outdated when it comes to scholarship. Not to mention it is a translation of a translation which was later modified by Challoner to make it more readable…partially following your personal nemesis the KJV!! As I noted in a previous thread I personally do not think that reading a Protestant bible is an issue as long as it is an accurate translation, as anyone with a solid faith is highly unlikely to defect due to the hidden messages encrypted in the text.

You are correct about there being no version of the NASB with the deuterocanonical books. I wrote to the publishers once suggesting that they release a version. I even mentioned that some people on the forum had good things to say about it and it would likely sell well. They said they had no plans to do so and it was very unlikely they ever would.

The D-R is fine if, as in your case, you have a working knowledge of Shakespearean English. I don’t and see no reason to acquire one.

As long as a translation is accurate, I don’t care who did the work. Some people complain about the ESV’s rendering of 1 Tim 3:15 but that is what the Greek says. As I mentioned in another thread, I don’t think that the use of the indefinite article there is a problem for Catholics. I see it as more closely mirroring the Church’s teaching.

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

You are correct about there being no version of the NASB with the deuterocanonical books. I wrote to the publishers once suggesting that they release a version. I even mentioned that some people on the forum had good things to say about it and it would likely sell well. They said they had no plans to do so and it was very unlikely they ever would.

The D-R is fine if, as in your case, you have a working knowledge of Shakespearean English. I don’t and see no reason to acquire one.

As long as a translation is accurate, I don’t care who did the work. Some people complain about the ESV’s rendering of 1 Tim 3:15 but that is what the Greek says. As I mentioned in another thread, I don’t think that the use of the indefinite article there is a problem for Catholics. I see it as more closely mirroring the Church’s teaching.

Gary

Why would you suggest not acquiring a D-R if it suites his needs???