Biblia clerus' RSV flawed!

  • Thread starter Thread starter brianmichael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not a big fan of the Biblia Clerus site myself. I hope those who like the RSV-CE do go that site.
 
brianmichael,
OK…so maybe it has been overlooked? Have you contacted the site to let them know that those sections are missing? Its not likely to be intentional, since the other Deuterocanonical books are there.

Tobinator,
How could you not like this site? It has the Biblical text with references to the Church Fathers, the Popes and Saints, and Church documents. Is it simply because they don’t use your beloved Douay-Rheims as the English text?
 
McCorm,
I’ll try to contact them.
PLus, lay off the Tobinator - i find that the site’s actually hard to find this or that commentary (per specific verse )when you click the little “Comment” buttons - it’s very frustrating
 
brianmichael,

Fair enough. However, just because it could be a bit more user friendly, doesn’t diminish its usefulness…particularly for those who don’t have access to the Fathers. And even if you did have regular access to the Fathers and other Church documents, the fact that they are cross-referenced to the Scriptures is invaluable…even if they haven’t got the complete versions of Daniel and Esther up there yet.
 
mccorm45 said:
brianmichael,
OK…so maybe it has been overlooked? Have you contacted the site to let them know that those sections are missing? Its not likely to be intentional, since the other Deuterocanonical books are there.

Tobinator,
How could you not like this site? It has the Biblical text with references to the Church Fathers, the Popes and Saints, and Church documents. Is it simply because they don’t use your beloved Douay-Rheims as the English text?
Click to expand...
The content is fine. The layout of the site needs an overhaul.
 
mccorm45 said:
Thats fine…but at least it is available for reference.
Click to expand...
on the bright side of the things we have been lucky have an abundant amount of references on numerous websites including biblia clerus. I am still working on overcoming my differences with the RSV-CE. Lately I have been using the RSV-CE for a secondary source as opposed to the NAB. The NT and the Psalms are terrible in the NAB as well as the footnotes. My primary sources are still the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. The RSV-CE is quite a bit more accurate in the NT and Psalms as compared to the NAB. The NAB OT isn’t half bad though. Not exactly what I expect though
 
tobinatorstark said:
on the bright side of the things we have been lucky have an abundant amount of references on numerous websites including biblia clerus. I am still working on overcoming my differences with the RSV-CE. Lately I have been using the RSV-CE for a secondary source as opposed to the NAB. The NT and the Psalms are terrible in the NAB as well as the footnotes. My primary sources are still the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. The RSV-CE is quite a bit more accurate in the NT and Psalms as compared to the NAB. The NAB OT isn’t half bad though. Not exactly what I expect though
Click to expand...
I agree for the most part with your assessment of the NAB. The OT is decent, although the alternative verse numberings are very annoying, particularly in the Prophets. The Psalms are indeed dreadful, and remain the #1 reason as to why I don’t use the NAB regularly. As for the NT, it is better than the original NAB NT. As a matter of fact, it tends to be more formal/literal than most translations out there, minus the RSV, DR, NASB, or ESV.
 
mccorm45 said:
I agree for the most part with your assessment of the NAB. The OT is decent, although the alternative verse numberings are very annoying, particularly in the Prophets. The Psalms are indeed dreadful, and remain the #1 reason as to why I don’t use the NAB regularly. As for the NT, it is better than the original NAB NT. As a matter of fact, it tends to be more formal/literal than most translations out there, minus the RSV, DR, NASB, or ESV.
Click to expand...
The more and more I get involved with God’s word the less I became interested in reading from the NAB. When I switched from the NAB to the D-R. I felt something. I felt something was missing with NAB. Still something didn’t settle with the RSV-CE. I am just starting to see of the answers I was looking for about the translation that I was hoping to understand months ago.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am still working on overcoming my differences with the RSV-CE. Lately I have been using the RSV-CE for a secondary source as opposed to the NAB. The NT and the Psalms are terrible in the NAB as well as the footnotes. My primary sources are still the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. The RSV-CE is quite a bit more accurate in the NT and Psalms as compared to the NAB. The NAB OT isn’t half bad though. Not exactly what I expect though
Click to expand...
There are differences in the various RSV CE bibles.Have you checked out all the work that was done comparing the “different” RSV CE bibles available

mycanes.miami.edu/~m.edmundson/ScepterChangesC.htm

I like reading different versions. My favorite next to the Douay Rheims is a beautiful Leather Confraternity bible that I found on e-bay.The Confraternity was between the Douay and 1970 NAB.The 2005 Oxford Press/Scepter Press/ Catholic Bible Compact Version RSV CE.And,last but not least, is my 1970 NAB This one was before the 1986 revisions to the New testament and Psalms.
.
 
The Douay-Rheims is by far my favorite and I have only read the Confraternity Edition a few times. The RSV-CE has been a nail in the heel because of its Protestant orgins
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top