Favorite Bible translation

[jonbhorton]

What issues do you have with the NASB (besides “morning star” in Isaiah?), or the NKJV? I’ve generally found them to be the most excellent modern English translations.

What issues do you have with the NASB (besides “morning star” in Isaiah?), or the NKJV? I’ve generally found them to be the most excellent modern English translations.

My main issue with these translations which become too familiar and mundane in language is basically this:

It lacks the necessary layers with which to provide full and clear understanding, and yet still provide further mystery and layers for study and the real fun stuff of friendly debate, and surefire linguistic ammo for fleshing out doctrine- particularly in context (which it seems these new translations often lack, even in hinting). This is more prevalent in the truly idiotic translations, i.e. “The Message”, “Good News”, “NIV/NIV-UK”, etc. It still exists in the others. I find that in the English, the Douay-Rheims is supreme in its usefulness. The NIV, particularly, caused more confusion and questions than the King James Version ever did, and ironically, I was led to some very Catholic concepts via the KJV. Once I started exploring for a Catholic translation, I happened upon the DR, never knowing it existed prior to my search, and was mesmerized. Eventually, I’ll learn enough Latin to read the Latin only text, and then, I’ll learn Greek, and then, Hebrew. And If I die before this happens, or if these are the end times prior to my death, I shall not waver in my faith. But as far as Bible translations are concerned, I’d prefer to be as close as possible to the original while still holding tight to, and learning, Church doctrine with which to make sense of what I read.

I am further from that goal with anything further from the original progression of translation.

To put it bluntly, I frankly have little favor for anything modern, but I am imprisoned by time and lack of understanding in what led to this horrible place we find ourselves.

The only way to understand the end is to start at the beginning, but backwards study leads to forward understanding. In reality, the modern translations may be spot on and able to be more understandable for the common man. In my experience, I find they lead to more confusion and a liberal thought process which is decidedly able to be cherry picked and leads to aphorisms rather than instruction manuals.

Furthermore, the modern language just simply encourages speed reading and invariably one must consult the original languages to understand concepts. Even worse, we find language being actually twisted.

I’d personally rather just cut to the chase and better myself while learning bit by bit what is being relayed in the text versus just being spoon fed things at a reading level which is insulting and wholly lacking in beauty and fulness.

The progressive process of making society dumber can only serve an evil end. I choose to partially combat that end by not allowing myself to be reduced to some factoidal-tidbit-Christian which nods and smiles like a frigging idiot, having not faith but inculcated emotion and faith which is as defensible as a balloon in a needle factory.

The Bible is, in a prophetic context, outside of this dimension. I’d prefer to be as close to the original as possible and as far away from the opinions of egos as possible in turn.

Any semblance of something being irreconcilable with an earlier translation/doctrine is, in my opinion, worthless.

 

[ProVobis]

Not quite the original heh?

What about the Greek original manuscripts? Not to mention the Hebrew ones.

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[drforjc]

OT: RSVCE
NT: Confraternity Version

 

[Crusader13]

I really like my RSVCE published by Scepter. The readability though is a little tough at times because unlike the RSVCE 2nd edition, the sections appear to run together and aren’t seperated or broken up.

I bought a DR bible about a year ago and I’ve tried several times to read through it and even though I love most of it, sometimes I have to refer to my RSVCE to understand a particular passage. So rather then constantly going back and forth I usally just stick to my RSVCE.

My one question however, is why do so many people dislike the RSVCE, but yet that’s the one bible that is constantly recommended by so many well respected Catholic theologians!

 

[matthewdknight]

I too love the Douay-Rheims and the Clementina Vulgata. I want the version published by the SSPX which has both texts side-by-side…if anyone was thinking of buying me a late Christmas gift.

What do you all think of the Catholic Public Domain Version? I downloaded the Bible app on my iPad a few days ago and spotted that translation in the list. I’ve used it for the Divine Office Psalms once or twice since then. It seems a little awkward, but maybe that’s just because it’s English and my tongue is used to Latin now!

 

[bmullins]

I like my Ignatius Study Bible, so RSV. I have a basic understanding of Latin and Hebrew, but not enough to get into reading any of those versions. So I stick with something in English. (Greek gives me a headache, so I tend to avoid it unless I need to know a specific word in context.)

 

[Khalid]

I really like my RSVCE published by Scepter. The readability though is a little tough at times because unlike the RSVCE 2nd edition, the sections appear to run together and aren’t seperated or broken up.

I bought a DR bible about a year ago and I’ve tried several times to read through it and even though I love most of it, sometimes I have to refer to my RSVCE to understand a particular passage. So rather then constantly going back and forth I usally just stick to my RSVCE.

My one question however, is why do so many people dislike the RSVCE, but yet that’s the one bible that is constantly recommended by so many well respected Catholic theologians!

Because the OT was translated by a committee of extremely liberal Protestants with the express goal of removing or eliminating any “supernaturalism” - i.e. prophecy before the fact, especially Messianic prophecy - that they could find, even when this contravened the very laws of the clear Hebrew they had in front of them, and they had to resort to “conjectural emendations”, which are supposed to be used only when the Hebrew - and all other ancient translations - are corrupted beyond repair, i.e. pretty much never.
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study (Zondervan 1969):

It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility … It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases … are in clear violation of the Hebrew.

Let alone consulting the Septuagint, except when it again would remove a prophetic passage; not when it would restore the interpretation of a lost one. It denied all of the traditional Protestant exegesis and translation; to this day, it still has not caught on outside of liberal circles, which have mainly moved to the NRSV (the same thing with neutered language), and amongst mildly-conservative Catholics (or Catholics who know anything about Biblical translation, as the RSV is superior to the modern Catholic editions), to whom the RSV seems conservative because of the outrageous liberalism of our other translations (NJB, NAB).

The simple lay Catholic will likely not read the Bible at all, or will read the NAB. The liberal Catholic will read the NAB, NRSV, or the NJB, or the REB. The somewhat conservative Catholic, or those with some care in translation, but who still want an easy read, will read the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. The traditional Catholic, and those with great care for Biblical translation, will read the DRC, or a conservative Protestant version (the KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, etc.), if they can not read the original tongues or Latin, in which case they (whether traditional, conservative, moderate or liberal) would read some combination of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, and some translation. (I can read not a spot of Hebrew or Aramaic, so I read the Septuagint: based on literal English translations of each, I believe it to be generally more reliable as well.)

The NT of the RSV-CE is also void of traditional Catholic exegesis, and has a bad influence of Westcott and Hort in it (especially the discredited theory of “Western non-interpolations”), but is still much better than the OT.

The Catholic Edition changed nothing in the unusable OT, and changed things of only middling importance - and then, only to do with the so-called “Marian problem” - in the NT. Almost all of the RSV-CE changes were taken in to the regular RSV in the 1971 revision (the New Oxford Annotated RSV Expanded Edition), except for Lk 1:28.

 

[Catholicproud]

RSV-CE, the Saint Benedict & CSS editions, or the DRV but I find the olde Engish too difficult to read, plus there are alot of good reasons to read the RSVCE

 

[mccorm45]

You don’t need to speak it.

sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

I have a similar version on my Kindle. I’m skeptical of all translations myself.

Of course, the Latin Vulgate is a translation.

 

[CalCatholic]

Of course, the Latin Vulgate is a translation.

Which the makes the Douay-Rheims a translation of a translation, which today under the guidance of ‘Liturgiam Authenticam’, a modern translation (in the same situation) would not be allowed to be used for Liturgical applications in the Church.

 

[Safia]

Is there a particular translation that’s preferred doctrinally? What version do bishops, etc., use in writing books in English? Is there a common version?

I own the RSV. I was told it’s the best, but I never looked into it (which I realize, now, that I should’ve).

 

[faithful437]

I find that the Douay-Rheims is the most true, I own a Vulgate with the DR on one side of the page and the Latin on the other (I read Latin fairly well). I also like the new Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, although only the New testament is availble.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course, the Latin Vulgate is a translation.

So is the Greek Vulgate. (Not necessarily reflected here but the Greeks loved to write epic sytle, by the way.)

The Latin Vulgate is actually a translation of the older Vetus Latina, using the older Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic texts as a guide.

But any English translation will be at least a once-removed translation, pick your style. *De gustibus non est disputandum. *

That said, my favorite is a side-by-side-by-side. More authentic.

newadvent.org/bible/

But I like the interlinear version as well.

sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm

 

[Crusader13]

Well that information does help. In fact last night I went back to reading my DRC bible. A few times I used my RSV as a guide when I didn’t understand a particular phrase. Does anyone use or recommend the Confraternity bible? I just posted a different topic in regards to two Marian Edition family bibles that I have, one dated 1953 and the other 1968. It seems like the Confraternity bible is well respected, but it’s so difficult to find and therefore not many people use it.

I did spend some time researching it yesterday evening and it was a little confusing in trying to determine when the Confraternity bible was finally completed and which bibles will have those completed books in them, depending on the date of publication. Still my question is this. When the Confraternity bible was completed did the church just take those completed books and use them in the NAB or is the NAB a completely different translation, having nothing in common with the Confraternity bible? I only ask because I would like to use my newly acquired Confraternity bible, but not if it’s only slightly better than the NAB.

 

[Khalid]

The Confraternity New Testament is excellent. It’s one of the best, along with the DRC, KJV, and Knox, and better than the runners-up, the NASB and NKJV.

The OT is acceptable, but is not good (it’s a precursor to the NAB, and has the same kind of stilted English throughout). Most of the prophecies are still where they should be. It has a small bias against traditional interpretation and the supernatural (and against Jesus’ statements on the authorship of Scripture), but not nearly as much so as modern Catholic versions, and still generally offers the traditional interpretation as a possibility, even if not a probability. It’s a weird mix of sorts, and, based on the wording of some of the passages and many of the notes, feels like a committee of checks-and-balances had some members pushing for completely secular, naturalistic hermeneutics (as won out in the NAB), and some pushing for traditional, theistic Christian hermeneutics. It has bad Psalms, both English-wise (cacophonic prose) and translation-wise. The rest of the OT is decent, but not good (it was the first version with the horrendous “God-Hero, Wonder-Counsellor” stuff); several books were never translated for the CCD version, and are published with the rest of the Bible in the Douay version: thus the name “Confraternity-Douay Bible” that it’s often sold under.

The NAB is based on the Confraternity Bible in part. The Book of Genesis is completely different in the NAB; the CCD has the traditional, correct translations (“In the beginning, God created… the Spirit of God” instead of the horror that is the NAB’s Gen 1:1-2). Most of the rest of the CCD OT is very similar in wording to the NAB: the main change in the NAB, as compared to the CCD, was a systematic discounting of the supernatural, a complete break with traditional interpretation, a wholehearted embracing of the higher critical flavor of the day, and a systematic elimination of all prophecies from the OT, generally in the translation itself, but many times adding notes to say, “this is not a prophecy”, or late dating, when the prophecy itself can not be “conjecturally emended” out of the text (as in Isaiah 52:13-53:12). The CCD had not gone nearly so far, and is much more traditional.

The NT in the CCD is completely different, and is based on the DRC corrected by the Greek.

The NAB from the CCD is much like the RSV from the ASV. An extremely liberal update (the RSV was more liberal when it was released than the NRSV is today, for an example of how far the labels “conservative” and “liberal” have shifted in a direction favorable to liberals, so that they may win the war of semantics) to remove prophecy and the supernatural and to embrace the most secular, skeptical criticism of the day, to an update that was designed to help bring older translations in to conformity with the results of modern textual criticism, while remaining faithful and Christian.

KJV → ASV → branching to liberal RSV and faithful NASB → branching again to the so-liberal-as-to-be-useless NRSV and faithful ESV.

Vulgate → DRC → CCD → NAB, with most of the changes to the OT occurring between DRC and CCD, but the “important” changes, e.g. those removing prophecy, any possibility of traditional theistic Christian interpretation, and those with doctrinal implications, taking place in the CCD → NAB re-translation (such as the up-take of many conjectural emendations from the NJPS Jewish translation and a systematic effort to choose whatever reading, no matter how poorly attested or interpreted, that is least Christian or prophetic in character).

In the CCD OT, one can see what the NAB may have looked like if extremely liberal/modernist forces hadn’t taken control of the translation process, and the result, while not as excellent as older translations and some Protestant ones, is far better than anything we have that is “specifically Catholic” (i.e. imprimatur’d) today.