B
Broobarker
Guest
Does anyone know which is easier to read and understand?
- Status
N
NHInsider
Guest
I like the RSV better, it feels more “dignified.” I don’t know the reading-levels of either but they “feel” about the same as far as ease of understanding.
If you’re looking for an easy-to-read I’d go with the Contemporary English, which is available in a Catholic edition.
If you’re looking for an easy-to-read I’d go with the Contemporary English, which is available in a Catholic edition.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Depends what you are reading it for.If for pleasure or meditation I suggest anything your comfortable with. For study,I’d stick with RSV, but get the Oxford annotated or a study bible
S
swampboy
Guest
I would agree with that noted in previous posts. I think the RSV would be a better all around choice. However, I often find myself going to the New Jerusalem Bible to clarify certain passages…and if you get the full edition you get a huge amount of study notes and cross-references. You just have to be willing to accept the NJB translation for what it is and not expect it to sound like the RSV or KJV because it won’t and never will.
J
juliamajor
Guest
To clarify passages I use my parallel bible- four different translation all in a convenient package-RSV, NAB,NJB, NEB.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Probably the NAB is easier to read, but the RSV-CE is probably easier to understand and it is more accurate than the NAB, but I would rather stick with my Douay-Rheims and consult with the NAB or RSV-CE on a time to time basis
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The NAB is a dynamic equivalence inclusive labnguage awkward mess.
The RSV-2CE is basicaly just a Protestant bible with a verse or two changed–the deuterocanonical books added–and “Catholic” and “2d edition” in the name.
The only reason it is popular among some Catholics who frequent these forums is because the NAB is so bad.
The RSV is the KJV revised so it reads smoothly.
The RSV is more Protestant than the King James!
I never have been able to understand why anyone would choose a bible that uses “original language texts?” from a Protestant bias in the choosing of textual varients.
Course I don’t understand why anyone would choose any text that errs in doctrine when the Vulgate doesn’t.
I’m not saying the Vulgate shouldn’t be judged against newly discovered ancient language texts.
I just don’t believe that the most of the people who do such things could care less about what the Catholic Church has taught concerning the scriptures over the centuries.
The Confraternity Version New Testament and the Douay Rheims Old Testament would require only mild changes in view of ancient laguage texts to be improved.
That would make for a REAL bible.
Who wouldn’t like a bible like that?
I’ll tell you who–the NAB lovers and the people who make money off of that translation.
All the inclusive language Catholics. All the Latin only Vulgateists. And all the “Ecumenical liberal Catholics” who like using Protestant varients.
Add to that all the people who really are that way but won’t admit it and cherish the “original language texts” mantra because they know that no conservative Catholic group of scholars will attempt to translate the bible because most of them are Latin only conservatives.
Just think how easy the Vulgate would be able to be read in modern today’s English if anyone tried to translate it into English.
And does it make sense that the vatican issues countless documents but the one document that they don’t translate into English is the Bible?!
Can anyone explain to me what sense that makes?
And can anyone explain to me why readability trumps doctrinal accuaracy?
Can anyone explain to me what would be wrong with a Catholic bible using Anglicanized names?
I don’t go with the Douay Rheims and with the Confraternity Version New Testament or the Douay Rheims Old Testament because they’re perfect–they aren’t–but at least they’re doctrinaly accurate.
The RSV-2CE is basicaly just a Protestant bible with a verse or two changed–the deuterocanonical books added–and “Catholic” and “2d edition” in the name.
The only reason it is popular among some Catholics who frequent these forums is because the NAB is so bad.
The RSV is the KJV revised so it reads smoothly.
The RSV is more Protestant than the King James!
I never have been able to understand why anyone would choose a bible that uses “original language texts?” from a Protestant bias in the choosing of textual varients.
Course I don’t understand why anyone would choose any text that errs in doctrine when the Vulgate doesn’t.
I’m not saying the Vulgate shouldn’t be judged against newly discovered ancient language texts.
I just don’t believe that the most of the people who do such things could care less about what the Catholic Church has taught concerning the scriptures over the centuries.
The Confraternity Version New Testament and the Douay Rheims Old Testament would require only mild changes in view of ancient laguage texts to be improved.
That would make for a REAL bible.
Who wouldn’t like a bible like that?
I’ll tell you who–the NAB lovers and the people who make money off of that translation.
All the inclusive language Catholics. All the Latin only Vulgateists. And all the “Ecumenical liberal Catholics” who like using Protestant varients.
Add to that all the people who really are that way but won’t admit it and cherish the “original language texts” mantra because they know that no conservative Catholic group of scholars will attempt to translate the bible because most of them are Latin only conservatives.
Just think how easy the Vulgate would be able to be read in modern today’s English if anyone tried to translate it into English.
And does it make sense that the vatican issues countless documents but the one document that they don’t translate into English is the Bible?!
Can anyone explain to me what sense that makes?
And can anyone explain to me why readability trumps doctrinal accuaracy?
Can anyone explain to me what would be wrong with a Catholic bible using Anglicanized names?
I don’t go with the Douay Rheims and with the Confraternity Version New Testament or the Douay Rheims Old Testament because they’re perfect–they aren’t–but at least they’re doctrinaly accurate.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I agree with you to a point. I started reading the NAB 2 years ago this week as a matter of fact. I loved reading it, but something was a miss. It was spirituality. I was in search of a better Bible and come across the Douay-Rheims. I was quite impressed with it and that it is a word for word translation of the Vulgate was a plus. Until 2 years ago I never heard of the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims much less the RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible etc. I only knew the King James and New American and even then I didn’t know the difference until I got studying. The Douay-Rheims filled the void that the NAB left me with. I have been leary about the RSV-CE because of its Protestant origins. The Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate have been proven many times to be durable and lasting. I respect others that read other translations, but for me doctrinal matters of the Church is what I look for in a Bible not readability
J
juliamajor
Guest
Scott hahn uses the RSV,My local seminary uses the RSV,the pope uses the RSV, many scholars use the RSV. Read and trust what you like- but don’t put out a polemical on the RSV and act like it’s wrong for Catholics to use it-it isn’t.I use it but that’s my personal choice , I feel the language is reverent and the text accurate, at least as accurate as any text can get. Like stated above I use it with my parallel. When studying the NT I have a 12 version parallel with DRV , KJV, and Greek
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I realize the Scott Hahn uses it and he is very wise man. Seminary?? Are you in the seminary??? It seems very common around here to use the RSV-CE or in your case using multiple translation. How thick is your 12 version parallel??
M
mccorm45
Guest
Many seminaries are open to lay students. I, myself, am working on a graduate degree in theology at my local diocesan seminary and will not be getting ordained.
Parallel Bibles:
- Catholic Comparative NT: amazon.com/Catholic-Comparative-New-Testament-Douay-Rheims/dp/019528299X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238875171&sr=1-9
- Precise Parallel NT: amazon.com/Precise-Parallel-New-Testament-International/dp/0195284127/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238875171&sr=1-3
- Complete Parallel Bible: amazon.com/Complete-Parallel-Bible-Apocryphal-Deuterocanonical/dp/019528318X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238875315&sr=1-2
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Hm. I didn’t know that.I always thought that the seminary was for those getting ordained in some way. I will your links that you have provided
M
mccorm45
Guest
Yeah, it depends on the seminary. I have had classes with commuter students, like myself, priests and deacons, and seminarians.
J
juliamajor
Guest
My new parish priest just ordained came to my Bible class affirmed it’s use in the Archdiocese of NY.My twelve paralells- not very thick but tiny print (for these old eyes) and really thin paper.It was a gift from one of my students- and it is very useful for NT.
M
Manfred
Guest
I find it hard to believe that Benedict XVI actually “uses” or reads the RSV.
As for the “scholars” who use it: true, they might prefer it over the other Catholic versions, especially the (R)NAB or the (N)JB, but only because it’s more formal-equivalent than these others. It is far from being the best or most accurate version for Catholics, though its readability is quite good.
Check out the thread in this Forum “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”.
V
Vman358
Guest
**Are there any parallel Bibles using the [Old] Jerusalem Bible? **
I think the OJB OT is based on Hebrew with notes if there’s a variance in the Greek [LXX], while the NJB OT is based on the Greek [LXX / Septuagint] with notes if there is a variance in the Hebrew texts. There are some other differences as well.
I’d like to see NAB-RE, RSV II - CE, OJB, NJB, DR, Original Greek / Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic (Peshitta), and throw in a few protestant Bibles like NIV or KJV, just we can see what they’re reading. And of course, lots and lots of notes, commentary, word study, CCC refs, council excerpts, opinions of early church fathers, whether right or wrong on a doctrine (Scott Hahn does a good job of portraying this), etc.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
Wow, you don’t want much!
UPS would not be able to deliver it, it would have to come by truck it would be so big.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
You can get most of these (in parallel format) with Bible software. I use Logos, but I know people who use other software such as Bibleworks, Accordance, OliveTree – and they seem to also have a large number of translations (which can be displayed in parallel) available.
Since I use Logos, I will address that. Of the translations you mention, it has the NAB, NABRE (forthcoming), RSV2, NJB, DR, Greek, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta available. The only translations you mention that are missing are the OJB (but it has the NJB) and the RSV-CE (but the RSV2 is available). There are also a wide variety of other Bibles – I have approximately 100 translations on my installation. It has a wide variety of other Catholic resources and a Catholic product manager. It is also available on smart phones, iPads, Windows, Mac, through any Web browser etc. (I am sure that the other Bible software is equally great – since I use Logos, that is what I am commenting on here.)
V
Vman358
Guest
Wow, that’s great! Thanks, I’ll check it out!
E
ETEXAS
Guest
For me…I from Anglican roots had an AV and “old” RSV as my first Bibles…so the RSVCE…comes easily to me…I am not a huge NAB guy…keep trying my Brothers and Sisters…it just “don’t” sing to me!
- Status