bible versions

  • Thread starter Thread starter passivesquid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

passivesquid

Guest
i know that there are diffeerent versions of the bible, what version/sdo us catholics officaly use and read?
 
passivesquid said:
i know that there are diffeerent versions of the bible, what version/sdo us catholics officaly use and read?
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims, Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and New Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition are all Catholic Bibles. I recommend the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition or Douay-Rheims because they do not have inclusive language. The New Jerusalem Bible is probably the best of the ones that do have inclusive language. The New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition are the worst in terms of the inclusive language.
 
I just started reading the Douay-Rheims version and really like it. I bought it a few years ago, but never opened it. It is a lot easier to read than I expected. I would recommend this one to anyone. Plus the tradition with this version helps me feel everything in it is trustworthy. 👍
 
In terms of Catholic Translations: Douay Rheims, Confraternity Bible, Msgr Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Christian Community Bible.

The Revised Standard Version and Good New Bible are Protestant translations.
 
demerzel85 said:
The Douay Rheims is a literal translation, but where some verses just make no sense in other translations, its crystal clear in the Douay.
Click to expand...
It may be difficult for someone who is not familiar with Shakespearean English. There is a lot of archaic English in it. It does require a higher reading level than the more modern translations.
 
lak611 said:
It may be difficult for someone who is not familiar with Shakespearean English. There is a lot of archaic English in it. It does require a higher reading level than the more modern translations.
Click to expand...
Well after some time one gets so used to it that reading a version without it just seems strange and alien 😉
 
demerzel85 said:
Well after some time one gets so used to it that reading a version without it just seems strange and alien 😉
Click to expand...
True. I had no problem with the archaic English because I actually did read and enjoy Shakespeare. I also took a 16th-18th century British literature course in college.
 
demerzel85 said:
In terms of Catholic Translations: Douay Rheims, Confraternity Bible, Msgr Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Christian Community Bible.

The Revised Standard Version and Good New Bible are Protestant translations.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Isn’t the RSV-CE revised to conform with Catholic doctrine where necessary?
 
RobDH said:
I’m confused. Isn’t the RSV-CE revised to conform with Catholic doctrine where necessary?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. It is the only modern translation that was suitable for use in the liturgy without any revisions. The RNAB needed revision to be acceptable for the liturgy, and it’s Psalms were rejected for the liturgy outright. The NRSV-CE was rejected but is still in use in Canada (although the Canadian bishops have been told to fix it).
 
RobDH said:
I’m confused. Isn’t the RSV-CE revised to conform with Catholic doctrine where necessary?
Click to expand...
No. John 3:16 is translated to support the once saved always saved heresy. Both the 1st and 2nd Catholic Editions contain this error.
 
passivesquid said:
i know that there are diffeerent versions of the bible, what version/sdo us catholics officaly use and read?
Click to expand...
I use the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) but also own NIV, NLT, and a Comparitive Study Bible (Amp, NKJV, NIV, NASB in one). :bible1: :coffee:
 
imamom said:
I use the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) but also own NIV, NLT, and a Comparitive Study Bible (Amp, NKJV, NIV, NASB in one). :bible1: :coffee:
Click to expand...
The NIV, NLT, NKJV are clear cut Protestant Bibles, that more often than not are plain mistranslations.
 
demerzel85 said:
No. John 3:16 is translated to support the once saved always saved heresy. Both the 1st and 2nd Catholic Editions contain this error.
Click to expand...
Ok, now I’m REALLY confused.

The RSV-CE I have reads…
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

My Douay-Rheims reads…
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

In my New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, the literal English translation beneath the Greek (not the NRSV interlinear text in the column beside the Greek) reads…
FOR~THUS LOVED - GOD THE WORLD, THAT THE SON, THE UNIQUE ONE, HE GAVE, THAT EVERYONE BELIEVING IN HIM MAY NOT PERISH BUT HAVE LIFE ETERNAL (capitalization and punctuation copied as printed in their text)

The NRSV column text in the interliner reads…
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

I don’t see any difference in the above renderings, aside from archaic phrasing and difference in Greek word placement vs. English word placement.

Could you please elaborate on your statement concerning heresy?
 
RobDH said:
Ok, now I’m REALLY confused.

The RSV-CE I have reads…
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
My Douay-Rheims reads…
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
Click to expand...
Well just looking at the English there is a big difference between the two with the dropping of the ‘should’ from ‘have eternal life’. Both the RSV-1CE and RSV-2CE are like this. The way it is translated leaves it wide open to OSAS.

On the other hand the DRV is very clear that the OSAS interpretation is not possible at all.

More on forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=107374
 
demerzel85 said:
The NIV, NLT, NKJV are clear cut Protestant Bibles, that more often than not are plain mistranslations.
Click to expand...
I **know **this. 🙂 Which is why I use a NJB. (New Jerusalem Bible.) I was just stating my Bible collection.
 
demerzel85 said:
Well just looking at the English there is a big difference between the two with the dropping of the ‘should’ from ‘have eternal life’. Both the RSV-1CE and RSV-2CE are like this. The way it is translated leaves it wide open to OSAS.

On the other hand the DRV is very clear that the OSAS interpretation is not possible at all.

More on forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=107374
Click to expand...
As you’ve suggested, I’ve read the above thread. Then I did some checking online in various Greek sites that I’ve visited before. I also did a bit of checking in several Greek lexicons I have, plus some online lexicons. With all of this in mind, I have to agree with the following quotes from the aforementioned thread…
Verbum said:
Hi Dem–,

I think an analysis of the Greek text will help you make up your mind on what tranlation is best : (a circumflex accent on an “e” or “o” indicates an “eta” or “omega” respectively)

Please note that “ôste” with indicative introduces a result clause, whereas “ina” with subjonctive introduces a purpose clause. (Note that the Latin has to use “ut” with the subjonctive in both cases). Now here’s a literal translation :

So for loved the God the world that his son the only-born he-gave, so that every the believer in him not be-lost but have life eternal.

We have three elements :

(1) God loves the world

(2) The result is that he gives his only Son

(3) The purpose of this gift is salvation

Now let’s try to put this into more palatable English :

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son in order that everyone who believes in Him not be lost but have eternal life.

There are different ways of expressing purpose in English and some were more popular at one time than another. In my view, all the translations you cited are corrrect.

Verbum
Click to expand...
In particular I see this as the real answer to the question…
Verbum said:
Hi Dem_,

…everyone who believes in Him [might/may/should] not be lost…

You may have noted that these auxiliary verbs (might, etc.) do not exist in Latin and Greek. So it is a non-issue really.

Verbum
Click to expand...
I do appreciate the time you took to answer my question as to your views, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
 
RobDH said:
I do appreciate the time you took to answer my question as to your views, but respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
Click to expand...
For what its worth… the 1582 Rhemes NT reads “For so God loved the world that he gave his only-begotton Son, that everyone who believeth in him, perish not, but may have life everlasting.” [Using current spelling]

Belief does not guarantee life everlasting 😉

For reference the 1611 KJV reads “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
 
I could not find this thread to reply since I was looking under the scripture forum which is where we discuss, obviously, bible versions among other things.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=83627
this is included in the sticky “read this before you post” on that forum

if you are asking about translations approved by the Catholic Church, that is your resource, if you are talking about personal opinions of some participants who style themselves as traditional Catholics, and in so doing reject all authorized translations that do not meet their personal criteria and preference, you are in the right place here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top