Contemporary English Bible

[lak611]

Thanks for the warning. I’m really sick and tired of translations which try to mimic Google translation services.

Actually, I do have the NJB, but in my native Portuguese. Thank goodness this translation didn’t opt to pander to political correctness.

Yet, I’m looking for an English bible, as it’s the language that I hear at Mass and that those who I talk to speak.

I’m afraid that I’ll just have to get over the DR’s old English…

What about getting the NJB in English?

 

[silentdeb]

It’s just that for me, a foreigner, old English does get in the way…

Ah, that makes sense - I’m sorry, I didn’t think of that at all, how thoughtless of me!

 

[Augustine]

What about getting the NJB in English?

Isn’t it the one which panders to feminism, stopping short of calling the First Person of the Trinity “mother”?

 

[Augustine]

Ah, that makes sense - I’m sorry, I didn’t think of that at all, how thoughtless of me!

No need to apologize! You couldn’t know.

Perhaps, it’s about time for me to familiarize myself with Ye Old English.

 

[silentdeb]

No need to apologize! You couldn’t know.

Perhaps, it’s about time for me to familiarize myself with Ye Old English.

grinning As it’s about time I familiarized myself with Ye Old Latin… bought the Teach Yourself Beginner’s Latin, at least! :whacky: Just need to STUDY it …

And too, my dear! I do hope you find a Bible translation that gives you what you need.

 

[lak611]

No need to apologize! You couldn’t know.

Perhaps, it’s about time for me to familiarize myself with Ye Old English.

The NJB is better than than NAB in terms of the “inclusive language”. I would recommend that you get the English NJB.

 

[Augustine]

The NJB is better than than NAB in terms of the “inclusive language”. I would recommend that you get the English NJB.

That’s an interesting point. Besides, it would be convenient to correlate the Portuguese and English versions. I’ll check it out, thanks.

 

[Augustine]

On a side note, why do Catholic scholars buy the unbiblical Protestant notion of sola scriptura, which led our separate brethren to conclude, almost gnostically, that the Truth is in the original languages of the Scriptures? Of course, this is no easy, if not impossible, enterprise. Thus, even for them, translation is a must. But as we all know, translating is interpreting.

As a Catholic, I want the Church to teach me through her interpretation of the scriptures, for she’s the true repository of Faith, the pillar of truth, thanks to the Holy Spirit’s aid. Why would I want anything different?

Enough ranting…

 

[Manfred]

On a side note, why do Catholic scholars buy the unbiblical Protestant notion of sola scriptura, which led our separate brethren to conclude, almost gnostically, that the Truth is in the original languages of the Scriptures? Of course, this is no easy, if not impossible, enterprise. Thus, even for them, translation is a must. But as we all know, translating is interpreting.

As a Catholic, I want the Church to teach me through her interpretation of the scriptures, for she’s the true repository of Faith, the pillar of truth, thanks to the Holy Spirit’s aid. Why would I want anything different?

Enough ranting…

Catholics’ going back to the original languages of Scripture is not equivalent to their buying into “sola Scriptura”. It was Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu which pushed Catholic scholars towards the originals.

1. The Fathers of the Church in their time, especially Augustine, warmly recommended to the Catholic scholar, who undertook the investigation and explanation of the Sacred Scriptures, the study-of the ancient languages and recourse to the original texts. However, such was the state of letters in those times, that not many–and these few but imperfectly–knew the Hebrew language. In the middle ages, when Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate.
2. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.

To read the whole encyclical, go here:

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12da.htm

And if you already have the Portuguese Jerusalem Bible, you should enjoy the English New Jerusalem Bible. As Laura (lak611) also mentioned, its use of gender-inclusive language is QUITE restrained compared to either the NRSV or the NAB.

 

[Augustine]

Catholics’ going back to the original languages of Scripture is not equivalent to their buying into “sola Scriptura”. It was Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu which pushed Catholic scholars towards the originals.

I’m afraid that I didn’t express my thoughts clearly: I think that the tendency towards literal translation is a fruit of Protestant influence in this country. It’s not so prevalent in other Latin countries where most of the Bible scholars are Catholic and a good portion of them are clerics.

It’s the duty of the Church to open the Scriptures to the faithful, not to obfuscate it with a deficient translation (as in a literal one) or political correctness, but to instruct us to the mystery of Salvation.



PS: I’ll certainly check the NJB out.

 

[Manfred]

I’m afraid that I didn’t express my thoughts clearly: I think that the tendency towards literal translation is a fruit of Protestant influence in this country. It’s not so prevalent in other Latin countries where most of the Bible scholars are Catholic and a good portion of them are clerics.

It’s the duty of the Church to open the Scriptures to the faithful, not to obfuscate it with a deficient translation (as in a literal one) or political correctness, but to instruct us to the mystery of Salvation.



PS: I’ll certainly check the NJB out.

Just so we’re clear on this: a literal translation, such as the Douay-Rheims or the RSV Catholic Edition, is NOT synonymous with a “politically-correct” translation, such as the Revised NAB or the NRSV.

Literal translations get as close to the original languages as is possible without losing (too much) readability. Politically-correct translations cater to special-interest groups with agendas, such as a married clergy or women priests.

 

[lak611]

Just so we’re clear on this: a literal translation, such as the Douay-Rheims or the RSV Catholic Edition, is NOT synonymous with a “politically-correct” translation, such as the Revised NAB or the NRSV.

Literal translations get as close to the original languages as is possible without losing (too much) readability. Politically-correct translations cater to special-interest groups with agendas, such as a married clergy or women priests.

The NJB, however, is not politically correct even though is does use some inclusive language and is a dynamic equivalence translation. It is much better than the RNAB or NRSV.