R
RNRobert
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. Did you mean to insert a link to the site?
- Status
R
RNRobert
Guest
Of the three of them, I like the RSV best. The DRB is pretty accurate, but can be somewhat difficult to read with some of the archaic words and Latin-isms (ex: ‘similitude’ for ‘parable’ ). I also find the Greek renderings of Hebrew names (i.e. ‘Isiaias’ for ‘Isaiah,’ ‘Micheas’ for ‘Micah’) annoying- sometimes it’s hard to figure out WHO theyre referring to!
C
csr
Guest
And what would you recommend for a non-Catholic?
M
Melchior
Guest
R
RNRobert
Guest
Thanks. I’ll check it out when I have time.
M
Melchior
Guest
Without question. This is even more true for the NASB, ESV and NKJV. They are all thoroughly conservative and that makes them closer to to true Catholic teaching in that they hold scripture in the highest regard. The same cannot be said for so called modern Catholic translations that have liberal/skeptical slants that would make the church fathers cry.
Just because they are Protestant does not make them anti-Catholic. The best Bible scholars of the 20th century from a conservative perspective have been Protestant. It is just a fact that 20th century Cahtolic scholarship was exceedingly liberal and in fact followed in the foot-steps of liberal mainline protestants.
An even though some may say different the most recent version of the NAB is no better a translation than the NIV it is basically the Cahtolic equivalent, only much more liberal. It is a lousy translation as well. And the RSV may have a catholic edition but it too is a Protestant Bible. And it is inferior the ones I listed above (again from a traditional/conservative theological perspective).
Mel
J
jurist12
Guest
I agree with the poster who stated that the ESV (English Standard Version is probably the best english translation available.) I realise that it doesn’t include the deutero-canonical books but if one needs to read them one can either purchase a copy of them separately or simply have a RSV-CE to read them. I have noted that many Catholics like and use the RSV-CE but one must realise that the RSV has some “liberal” bias, though mild when compared to the NRSV(New Revised Standard Version), the NAB, or the New Jerusalem Bible. The ESV is relatively new but it a translation done by conservative Bible scholars. It is very “Sacramental Friendly” unlike other modern conservative Protestand versions like the NIV, New King James Version or New American Standard Version. I have emailed the ESV publisher about printing an edition of the ESV with the Deutero-Canonical Books as used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I feel that if they do this then the ESV will become THE translation for both Catholics and Orthodox in the U.S. and Canada. Even without the Deutero-Canonical books I still suggest that Catholics and Orthodox use the ESV as their main translation instead of the RSV-CE or the NAB. As I stated above the Deutero-Canonical books can be purchased separately (Oxford University Press publishes them as a separate volume) or Online. In Christ, jurist12
R
RNRobert
Guest
I recently bought the NRSV. I was just browsing in a bookstore and saw it. i bought it mainly because it had the Old Testament Apocryphal books (what Protestants call the Pseudographica) like 3 and 4 Maccabees, 2nd and 3rd Esdras, Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Manasseh- some of which are considered canonical by the Orthodox. Translation is Ok but I like the RSV a tad better. What I didn’t likewas that the Deuterocanonical books were lumped with the Apocrypha in the middle and not among the OT. I guess that’s because it’s primarily a Protestant Bible.
J
Jadesfire20
Guest
I’ve never liked the NIV. It may be easier to read but the less literal the translation the more likely you are to have a translation bias in favor of a certain viewpoint. I highly recommend the NASB. Its very literal so there is a lower risk (IMHO) of translation bias. For example :
2 Thess 2:15:
NIV-“So then brothers stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or letter”
NASB-“So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us”
There is also no inclusive language like in NAB. But it is a more difficult read. I keep the NAB around for the deuterocanon.
2 Thess 2:15:
NIV-“So then brothers stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or letter”
NASB-“So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us”
There is also no inclusive language like in NAB. But it is a more difficult read. I keep the NAB around for the deuterocanon.
C
csr
Guest
The thread is not expressly about the NAB, but some have mentioned it and we are discussing translations: I just want to toss out there that Robert Sungenis has on his website an article critical of the NAB. He believes that its commentaries are “spiritually dangerous”, and that the NAB ought to be on the Index. Quite a biting review.
C
copland
Guest
csr
But if I was to carry a Protestant translation I would carry the RSV or NASB.
I would recommend a non-catholic to become Catholic.http://forums.catholic-questions.or...holic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gifAs far as a good English translation I would still use an NAB or RSV-CE, unless of course it may offend fellow church goers. I have carried my NAB as a Protestant. And I was willing to answer anyones question to why I was carrying it by telling them it is very accurate. It is the same Bible as any other Protestant Bible with the exception of the deuterocanonicals.And what would you recommend for a non-Catholic?
But if I was to carry a Protestant translation I would carry the RSV or NASB.
B
boppysbud
Guest
“And what would you recommend for a non-Catholic? 
”
I would recommend the RSV or NRSV to a non-Catholic.
The main problem I have with the NIV, besides being a Protestant translation, is that is is a biased fundamentalist Bible.
I you read the introduction and forward to the NIV you will notice that all the contributing translators and denominations are fundies.
You will not find a single Main-Line Protestant or Catholic, or Orthodox amoung their number.
I have also noticed a number of Catholic Fundamentalists on this thread, bosting about how conservative certain translations are.
I take an entirely different tack on this. I don’t examine a Bible to see if it is liberal or conservative, nor do I expect a Bible translation to back up my pre-concieved notions.
What I think is the salient question is whether or not a Bible translation is actually faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek.
”I would recommend the RSV or NRSV to a non-Catholic.
The main problem I have with the NIV, besides being a Protestant translation, is that is is a biased fundamentalist Bible.
I you read the introduction and forward to the NIV you will notice that all the contributing translators and denominations are fundies.
You will not find a single Main-Line Protestant or Catholic, or Orthodox amoung their number.
I have also noticed a number of Catholic Fundamentalists on this thread, bosting about how conservative certain translations are.
I take an entirely different tack on this. I don’t examine a Bible to see if it is liberal or conservative, nor do I expect a Bible translation to back up my pre-concieved notions.
What I think is the salient question is whether or not a Bible translation is actually faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
C
copland
Guest
I would not go that far simply because most fundamentalists hate the NIV and consider the KJV as the only inspired translation. But I do agree that it is biased.
S
system
Guest
Well, the NAB is biased in the sense that some passages are interpreted according to what the Church has held to be true over the course of the centuries, especially in those cases where the Vulgate says something different from modern translations, such as Luke 1:28.
J
Jordan_Rizk
Guest
The NIV Bible is full of heresy in my own opinion.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
LOL! How in the world did this 9 year old thread get resurrected??
But, for an update, the ESV is now available with the deuterocanonicals, although they’re separate in the back, not in the OT where they should be, in case anyone is interested. One of our very young, VERY orthodox parochial vicars has told me the ESV is actually his favorite translation. He doesn’t like the NAB at all.
In Christ,
Ellen
But, for an update, the ESV is now available with the deuterocanonicals, although they’re separate in the back, not in the OT where they should be, in case anyone is interested. One of our very young, VERY orthodox parochial vicars has told me the ESV is actually his favorite translation. He doesn’t like the NAB at all.
In Christ,
Ellen
B
bauerice
Guest
At one time the NIV was the Bible the Evangelical Christians prefered most, A couple years ago Zondervan retooled the NIV. Now even the Evangelicals have dismissed it in favor of the ESV. I am not a fan of either. I read the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, NRSV-Catholic edition and the Protestant New American Standard Bible.
- Status