Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosaryKindaGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benedictgal said:
If you are comfortable with the style of King James, you may want to check into getting the Doauy-Rheims Bible. It is, for all practical purposes, the Catholic version of the King James.

Ignatius Press offers the RSV-CE 2nd edition. This is an excellent translation because it was done in conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam, the Church’s official document on translations of the scriptures and liturgical texts.
Click to expand...
I’d second that, but I personally prefer the RSV as for me it’s more readable. Most of the Scripture instructors that I’ve had at the Seminary in my MA Theology program seem also to like the RSV.

I’d suggest that you perhaps look at a parallel version, so you can see passages right next to each other, before deciding on a particular vesion.
 
Does anyone know if there are any parallel versions that have the Latin beside the English translation?

Steve
 
So I’m a bit confused…if the NAB is so bad, why is it the one listed on the
USCCB website?

And, secondly, why doesn’t the Vatican step in and make them change it to a proper translation? :confused:
 
CntrySngr72 said:
So I’m a bit confused…if the NAB is so bad, why is it the one listed on the
USCCB website?

And, secondly, why doesn’t the Vatican step in and make them change it to a proper translation? :confused:
Click to expand...
All translations have positive and negative points. Many here dislike the NAB because of the commentary notes that come with it, which at times can be a bit speculative. It ends up not being very helpful to some people, particularly those reading the Bible for the first time. It would have been nice, perhaps, to have a better balance between scholarly and devotional notes.

As for me, the NAB is ok. I think the NT is quite good, while the OT seems to be a bit dated. Unfortunately, the NAB Psalms, which were revised in 1991, went a little too far in the area of inclusive language, using vertical inclusive language in reference to God. Rightly, the Vatican has not allowed that translation of the Psalms to be used in the Mass in the US, along with not having it on the Vatican website. However, the Vatican still has the rest of the NAB on its english website: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

While I have not problem with anyone who uses the NAB, I typically refer to the NRSV or RSV.
 
mccorm45 said:
All translations have positive and negative points. Many here dislike the NAB because of the commentary notes that come with it, which at times can be a bit speculative. It ends up not being very helpful to some people, particularly those reading the Bible for the first time. It would have been nice, perhaps, to have a better balance between scholarly and devotional notes.

As for me, the NAB is ok. I think the NT is quite good, while the OT seems to be a bit dated. Unfortunately, the NAB Psalms, which were revised in 1991, went a little too far in the area of inclusive language, using vertical inclusive language in reference to God. Rightly, the Vatican has not allowed that translation of the Psalms to be used in the Mass in the US, along with not having it on the Vatican website. However, the Vatican still has the rest of the NAB on its english website: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM .
Click to expand...
Actually, the psalms are going to be replaced with the Grail Psalter, which was just voted on by the USCCB during one of their last meetings. The problem with the RNAB as it is used in the Lectionary, is that it does not follow Liturgiam Authenticam. Granted, the Lectionary was revised in 1998, three years before LA was promulgated, I believe that it will now have to be revisited to bring it into comfortmity with the documents of the Church.

As someone who proclaims the readings, I find the Lectionary very difficult to publicly read. The Epistles are replete with run-on sentences that tend to go on for several lines. What I have had to do is read the readings on my own using my RSV-CE 2nd edition so that I get the rhythm and the message down. Even the translation in Spanish is better.

While I have not problem with anyone who uses the NAB, I typically refer to the NRSV or RSV
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, the psalms are going to be replaced with the Grail Psalter, which was just voted on by the USCCB during one of their last meetings. The problem with the RNAB as it is used in the Lectionary, is that it does not follow Liturgiam Authenticam. Granted, the Lectionary was revised in 1998, three years before LA was promulgated, I believe that it will now have to be revisited to bring it into comfortmity with the documents of the Church.

As someone who proclaims the readings, I find the Lectionary very difficult to publicly read. The Epistles are replete with run-on sentences that tend to go on for several lines. What I have had to do is read the readings on my own using my RSV-CE 2nd edition so that I get the rhythm and the message down. Even the translation in Spanish is better.

While I have not problem with anyone who uses the NAB, I typically refer to the NRSV or RSV
Click to expand...
Very true. I have found reading the NAB aloud to be a bit akward at times as well. I too would rather have the NRSV or RSV.

One thing about the Grail Psalms. While they will be used in the Liturgy in the near future, they will not necessarily be contained in the NAB translation itself. Until a new translation is commissioned, it will continue to be the '91 Psalms, which is a shame.
 
I agree that the NAB New Testament is not bad, but no matter what translation I try out for a while (and I have used most of them), it seems I always come back to the RSV-2CE as my favorite. The psalms are my favorite and I use them in place of the grail psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours. It is also a good translation for study and conversing with other Christians, because it is an ecumenical translation and does not use inclusive language.
 
RosaryKindaGuy and company,
You can help out the economy by getting the NavarreBibles:rolleyes:…but seriously, the RSVCE has no equal - trust me, every Priest i’ue asked suggested either the JB or the RSVCE…the Navarre commentaries have no equal on this earth so far…

Toby,
I actually loue the NRSV - it’s the rightful successor to the RSV if only there were a NavarreBible version to it…simply changing the incl. language in yer head makes it worthwile; giue it a shot, friend.

McCorm,
(from yer blog:)

NTWright + (T)NIV = disaster

LMAO!!!
 
I think the best bible to get is a Confraternity Douay Bible with an English translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII.

That way you get the accuracy of a Vulgate based Old Testament and New Testament–the New Testament is more readable than the Douay Rheims Challoner New Testament–it is based on the Vulgate in lieux of the Greek–the Old Testament is Vulgate based and more readable than the KJV because Challoner’s English is from 1750 instead of 1611–and the Psalms are more in the direction of St. Jerome’s last translation of the Psalms which were directly from Hebrew–but not tending towards the Masoretic text like most non Vulgate based Psalms do.

Such bibles may not be perfect–but I think they are closer to accurate than any other bibles published.

They are free from error in regards to doctrine because they are Vulgate based.

Most were published from 1952 and before but a few were published in 1954.
 
brianmichael said:
RosaryKindaGuy and company,
You can help out the economy by getting the NavarreBibles:rolleyes:…but seriously, the RSVCE has no equal - trust me, every Priest i’ue asked suggested either the JB or the RSVCE…the Navarre commentaries have no equal on this earth so far…

Toby,
I actually loue the NRSV - it’s the rightful successor to the RSV if only there were a NavarreBible version to it…simply changing the incl. language in yer head makes it worthwile; giue it a shot, friend.

McCorm,
(from yer blog:)

NTWright + (T)NIV = disaster

LMAO!!!
Click to expand...
brianmichael,

Thanks! I hope the blog is both informative as well as humorous.
 
brianmichael said:
RosaryKindaGuy and company,
You can help out the economy by getting the NavarreBibles:rolleyes:…but seriously, the RSVCE has no equal - trust me, every Priest i’ue asked suggested either the JB or the RSVCE…the Navarre commentaries have no equal on this earth so far…

Toby,
I actually loue the NRSV - it’s the rightful successor to the RSV if only there were a NavarreBible version to it…simply changing the incl. language in yer head makes it worthwile; giue it a shot, friend.

McCorm,
(from yer blog:)

NTWright + (T)NIV = disaster

LMAO!!!
Click to expand...
I simply just don’t care for NRSV. Changing the inclusive language in my isn’t going to solve anything. Any translation, I have tried, I always go back to the Douay. I can barely pick up a NAB, so what makes NRSV different with using even more inclusive language. When I read the Catechism, I always have Douay-Rheims with me to reread scripture.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I simply just don’t care for NRSV. Changing the inclusive language in my isn’t going to solve anything. Any translation, I have tried, I always go back to the Douay. I can barely pick up a NAB, so what makes NRSV different with using even more inclusive language. When I read the Catechism, I always have Douay-Rheims with me to reread scripture.
Click to expand...
To each his own. Plus there is nothing wrong about using multiple translations.
 
mccorm45 said:
To each his own. Plus there is nothing wrong about using multiple translations.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree on using multiple translations, right now in my daily life I am using the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, NAB and the Grail Psalms. As said before when reading the Catechism I always look up the verses in the Douay to clarify anything that the RSV-CE leaves behind. I have more appreciation for the RSV-CE and misjudged it in the past, but you already knew that. I have also use the RSV-CE to get some points across in my CRHP, even though I use the Douay and RSV-CE and Vulgate there and everyone else uses NAB. I only use the NAB for my Liturgy of the Hours and the same with the Grail Psalms. Still sometimes I go back and look the Douay on that even.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I absolutely agree on using multiple translations, right now in my daily life I am using the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, NAB and the Grail Psalms. As said before when reading the Catechism I always look up the verses in the Douay to clarify anything that the RSV-CE leaves behind. I have more appreciation for the RSV-CE and misjudged it in the past, but you already knew that. I have also use the RSV-CE to get some points across in my CRHP, even though I use the Douay and RSV-CE and Vulgate there and everyone else uses NAB. I only use the NAB for my Liturgy of the Hours and the same with the Grail Psalms. Still sometimes I go back and look the Douay on that even.
Click to expand...
It is great to see that we finally agree on something! 😃 👍
 
I believe that the textual varient choices that the RSV and the NRSV uses are from a Protestant viewpoint.

The notion that “scholars” objectively approach such choices from no theological view point is ludicrous.

It is about like saying that since The New York Times is written by “eminent journalists” then it must be objective.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I believe that the textual varient choices that the RSV and the NRSV uses are from a Protestant viewpoint.

The notion that “scholars” objectively approach such choices from no theological view point is ludicrous.

It is about like saying that since The New York Times is written by “eminent journalists” then it must be objective.
Click to expand...
Of course scholars hold to an approach that comes from a theological point of view. All translators do. Even folks here on this forum who decry any use of a Bible translation other than one based on the Vulgate, even though the Church encourages translations from the Greek and Hebrew for the past 50 years, have a bias.

The problem with that statement is that the NRSV was translated by an ecumenical translation team that incorporated Catholics and Protestants. Plus the Church clearly doesn’t have a problem with those choices if they are willing to give ecclesiastical approval of the NRSV not only for private reading, but also for Liturgy. (The recent approval of the NRSV for Canada seems to indicate this. Whatever modifications have been made for approval, the textual varient choices are most likely unchanged for the most part.)
 
The fact that any translation team includes non Catholics IS the problem!

The Fullness of Truth doesn’t equate with “Ecumenical textual varient choices” that substitute words which may not be necessarily UNTRUTH but are certainly LESS than the Fullness of Truth!

As long as the NRSV and RSV translate 2 Corinthians 2:10 as forgiving “in the presence of Christ” versus “in the PERSON of Christ” they will not have the Fullness of Truth!

See how many “Ecumenical Protestant biblical scholars” are “Ecumenical” enough to concede that translation.

You won’t find any!

The translation choice involves doctrine.

The Vulgate does not err in doctrine.

“Ecumenical translations” DO!

Not in a diametrically opposed fashion or in a UNTRUE fashion but in a fashion that is LESS than the Fullness of Truth contained in the Vulgate.

The Vulgate isn’t perfect–I would be in favor of translations other than the Vulgate that do not SLACK when it comes to doctrine.

I just don’t know of any.

Now one could correct the doctrinal Lack of the Fullness of Truth in translations that have Protestant scholars–but of course Protestants scholars wouldn’t be that “Ecumenical”!

Ecumenism that diminishes in ANY amount the Fullness of Truth contained in the scriptures is a vice!

Vulgate onlyism is also a vice because the Vulgate can be improved by biblical scholarship that more accurately discovers the Fullness of Truth in original language texts.

That does not mean watering down the Fullness of Truth on doctrinal matters contained in the bible.

100% accuracy on non doctrinal passages of the scripture in various non Vulgate translations of the bible will never trump doctrinal lack of error contained in the Vulgate.

The TRUELY Ecumenical Council of Trent guided by the Holy Spirit stated that the Vulgate could be used “in all disputations”.

If Protestant biblical scholars are truely “Ecumenical” then they would accept the Vulgate’s lack of error on doctrinal matters when they make textual varient choices.

They don’t!

That’s the problem!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top