Help! Good Christian Bible Wanted!

[Khalid]

I want to get a Douay-Rheims or a Confraternity or maybe an RSV-2CE (see questions below) Bible because I’m sick of:

1. 
   *]“Young Woman” at Isaiah 7:14
   
   *]“Your devout will not see the pit” instead of “Your holy one will not see corruption” in Ps 16
   
   *]“Greetings, favored one” at Luke 1:28
   
   *]General purposeful avoidance of translating any passage in what might be considered a messianic, prophetic, Christological, or traditional manner, translating the messianic passages as “Jewishly” as possible.
   
   I’m sick of all of these Old Testaments which are essentially Jewish Tanakhs because they’re so stripped of all Christology and Messianic interpretation. It’s like they’re ashamed to be Christian. However, Protestant Bibles like the *NASB *that have a Christian Old Testament, I don’t trust in the New Testament, and, in any case, they don’t have all of the books. Also, in all these new translation’s Psalms, the headings never denote a Christian understanding of the passage like they do in the KJV or NKJV, but are just incipits or famous words taken from the Psalm, again, like they are ashamed to interpret the Bible in light of Christ (or are cowed by ecumenism). This is reflected in the notes on even the NABRE: the quarter-page or more worth of notes on Psalm 22 don’t once mention Christ, nor does Psalm 16, except to cross-reference it with the Book of Acts, which one wouldn’t be able to find the relevant passage if one wasn’t aware of the LXX and alternate, correct translation.
   
   Does the RSV-2CE have solidly Christian translations and interpretations through and through, that generally match up with the New Testament quotations? The RSV is my favorite general Bible, but it’s hard to mentally rewrite poorly interpreted passages in the mind; it takes something away from the experience. The imprimatur also reassures me, even though the imprimatur seems to have proved rather worthless in recent years (the *NAB *and NJB and even the NABRE seem like they should have a Rabbinical certification on the Old Testament and an imprimatur on the New). I have the RSV-2CE ICSBNT, but not the OT/full Bible.
   
   My ideal solution would be to have the full Navarre Bible; right now I only have the New Testament (in two hardcover omnibus volumes and three paperbacks), but I have plenty of good NTs - the* ICSBNT*, the* Navarre Bible*, the Confraternity NT- but very few good, Christian Old Testaments, none of which I trust fully: even with imprimatur, I can’t trust the NABRE Psalms, as I’ve found some Christological Psalms (2, 16, 22) to be either muted or completely effaced to be hardly messianic (16, “let my devout one see Sheol”). Beyond that, I really like the NABRE Psalms as a new, much fresher translation that flows better than the ESV, but at the cost of losing the Messianism.
   
   I find my *New English Translation of the Septuagint *to be one of my best Old Testaments! What?!
   
   I’ve made a compromise by using the *NABRE *for some of the Old Testament, the ESV with Apocrypha for Isaiah, Psalms, Daniel, and Jeremiah (more and more for all of the OT), and the NAB and RSV-2CE for the New Testament (due to “the pillar and foundation”, “hail Mary”, proper translations of “ergon” and derivatives [as “works”] and “episkopos” and derivatives [as “bishop” instead of the Protestant “overseer” or “elder”]).
   
   I’ll have to do full read-throughs of all of the Christological books one day to see which versions bring it out the best, and which can be trusted.
   
   It’s annoying, and reduces my ability to get anything done in Bible study, because of the constant referencing of passages and uncertainty, hoping that anything that has an “alternate rendering” that’s Christological will be rendered in the footnotes, so I can then read it in another version. So, I’ll use the *NABRE *for the fresh rendering, often the ESV with Apocrypha if there is a footnote, all the while reading the chapter headings in the Orthodox Study Bible - New Testament and Psalms and the notes therein to make sure I don’t miss one.
   
   (it doesn’t really hurt my faith - it would if I was a sola scriptura Protestant - but it still bothers me, having to check anything with possibly Messianic implications in several versions) about accuracy in translation and lost Christological or Messianic meaning. This is less of a problem with the NT, as I can read Greek, and generally know what it’s supposed to say (sometimes this is a problem, as the Greek doesn’t denote whether the church is “the pillar” or “a pillar” in the grammar, only in the context); I’m much less learned in the OT, and can’t read a spot of Hebrew or Aramaic, not even their scripts.
   
   The following regards the OT only: I’m set with New Testaments.
   
   Are all of the Christological passages and headings given their full and proper translation and impact in the RSV-2CE, such as they are in the KJV and presumably RSV-2CE? I’m pretty sure they are in the DR, but I would appreciate someone who knows to chime in anyways. From what I know, I’ve narrowed it down to these two possible translations. Something with good, orthodox notes is preferable, at least to clarify the text in places, although they don’t have to be a study Bible like the Ignatius New Testament. However, if all I can get is a text edition, I’ll take it, instead of these watered-down Old Tanakhs!
   
   Paragraph form is really a plus too. I find it hard to read when each verse is its own paragraph. If anyone knows of a DR or a CF or an RSV-2CE that’s paragraphed, let me know. If the books are equal in their proper translation of Christological passages in the OT, paragraph formatting is the decider, over and above even annotation.
   
   I want a CHRISTIAN OLD TESTAMENT, not a Tanakh! Help!

 

[AntalKalnoky]

My definitive favorite Bible is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) ** The New American Bible**, because Each book history is there, and innumerable Verse annotations about original uses/meanings. The Bishop’s Conference and The Church is the Authoritative Source on Biblical Culture of the time; meaning of verses. It’s important tlo remember the Bible, especially the Old Testament was not written in modern English recently; something ignored by some fundamentalists and Sola Scriptura. 1 Timothy 3:15 States where Truth on Earth Is: In the Apostles, now the Council of Bishops (Catholic Magesterium)

Also, Martin Luther removed 7 Books that conflicted with his new ideas, now called The Apocrypha by Protestants. Martin also famously Changed the Wording of one Verse by Removing “By Works” to support his idea of being saved by Faith Alone. So the Protestant Bible is very Diffrent, Altered from the Historic Bible The Catholic Church Follows, Reads Daily in 3 year Cycle. The Old Testament is the Preface to Christ and His Church. Innumerable predictions were Fulfilled By Christ and The New Testament.

Not many Know that Only the Catholic Church of 1.3 Billion Lives every part of the Bible; Every feature of The Church is In The Bible, as God Intended. :bible1: The KJV and Protestant Bibles are Different in many key ways, as are Interpretations, from the Intentions of God. The innumerable Differences in Bible verse Meanings is why Over a Thousand Protestant Ministers have Converted to Catholic: “Journey Home” on EWTN is Multi-year Series of Intrerviews with Convert Ministers; fascinating series on Why Ministers Convert to Catholic, and Christ’s 7 Sacraments. The old Testament is a part of Catholic Church, Culture. A Daily Psalm Reading is one of my favorites at Daily Mass (The Last Supper Feast)

 

[Khalid]

The Old Testament kis the Preface to Christ and His Church. Innumerable predictions were Fulfilled By Christ and The New Testament.

I have all of the above Bibles, and this is my problem: they’re written to minimize the role of Christ in the Old Testament, both in translation and commentary. I gave some examples: Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Isaiah 7:14. I have to read these Bibles with a critical eye to try and discern traces of Messianic implication, and read all of the footnotes to find the pretty-often situations where the chosen translation says one thing, and the footnote says, “Oh, some old translations said it like so, which means “Jesus is the Messiah”, but it’s not ecumenical to say that.”

For example, in the NABRE, Psalm 16 is rendered “…and he will not let your devout see the pit.” That’s not messianic. It makes it sound like God is going to protect righteous people from being killed. The proper translation is “…and he will not let your holy one see corruption”, which is a clear prophecy of Jesus’ three days in the tomb and resurrection. I have to constantly read NABRE, RSV, NRSV, NJB, etc. looking out for these kinds of errors or misjudgments in translation. I’m looking for a “traditional” Bible in which every prophecy that has to do with Christ is translated so as not to obscure the fact that it’s about Christ: a “traditional” rendering, as is in the Vulgate, where all prophecies of Christ are translated clearly.
However, I’m trying to read in English to get my skill in English up (see my signature), and I also don’t have a real Vulgate (only a digital Sisto-Clementine Vulgate, and a hardback “New Vulgate”), and I’d like to have a Bible that is Vulgate-reliable when it comes to making sure each and every prophecy of Christ is there. That’s why I thought the DRC to be a good idea, because it’s translated from the Vulgate, but my English isn’t good enough to be able to grasp the archaic verbiage without great effort. Thus I asked about the RSV-2CE, hoping that it was as Christological and Christ-centered in the Old Testament as the Vulgate, and, presumably, the DRC are.

It feels like a great loss when even a single prophecy of Our Lord is obscured, even though there are many others. I’m thinking the Douay-Rheims, the RSV-2CE, or the Confraternity Bible fit the bill, but I don’t have them, so I can’t check to see how the verses are rendered.

I want an Old Testament that is obviously and unashamedly Christian, not a Torah in disguise!

To compare a few verses in the ESV (the best I’ve found for Christ-prophecy clarity, but it’s a Protestant Calvinist undertaking, so I’m not comfortable with it, and I have to read it critically but in a different way - looking out for inconsistencies with the Church’s doctrine):

Whether or not the NABRE has an imprimatur, these are poor renderings:

Psalm 2:11 NABRE
Serve the Lord with fear
Exult with trembling
Accept correction lest he become angry and you perish along the way
when his anger suddenly blazes up.
Blessed are all who seek refuge in him!

Psalm 2:11-12 ESV (same content, different numbering)
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling
Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish in the way
his wrath is quickly kindled
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Psalm 16:10 NABRE
For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol
Nor let your devout one see the pit.

Psalm 16:10 ESV
For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol,
Nor let your holy one see corruption.

Psalm 17:15 NABRE
I am just - let me see your face
When I awake, let me be filled with your presence.

Psalm 17:15 ESV (about the Beatific vision)
As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness,
When I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness.

I’m a Catholic, by no means a sola scripturist or a Protestant, but it feels wrong to be reading a Bible where the Light of our Lord is partially hidden in the Old Testament, “under a bushel basket” as it were, instead of “on a hill for all to see”. So, carrying the metaphor, I’m asking, “Is there any Catholic translation that has these verses ‘on a hill for all to see’”? I’ve narrowed it down to the RSV-2CE and the Douay-Rheims, because I have all of the other Catholic Bibles.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Luke 1: 28 is No where Else in the Bible carefully worded Announcement to Teenage Mary that She is Unique in the World, in accepting becoming The Mother Of God: Jesus. Your wording is quite different from the USCCB New American Bible CAREFULLY Translated for ACCURACY worldwide by Old Language, Culture Experts, including Protestant, in the 1970’s: **

• "Upon arriving, the angel said to her: “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.”

** USCCB New American Bible. See how Highly different, Accurate the Wording is? No woman in History was described in such Uniquelly Praising Words, by the Angel. Uniquelly Catholic Beliefs, even Dogma, from the First Century, backed by That Uniquelly worded Verse is the Reason for Declaring Mary Free of Sin, etc; The Ideal Mother/Woman. :bible1:

 

[Jehuty_X]

// if you want to view the douay-rheims (challoner) edition before purchasing it, below is the link to the whole douay-rheims (challoner) edition…i would recommend the purchase!

drbo.org/

 

[RichP]

I’m looking for a “traditional” Bible in which every prophecy that has to do with Christ is translated so as not to obscure the fact that it’s about Christ: a “traditional” rendering, as is in the Vulgate, where all prophecies of Christ are translated clearly.
However, I’m trying to read in English to get my skill in English up (see my signature), and I also don’t have a real Vulgate (only a digital Sisto-Clementine Vulgate, and a hardback “New Vulgate”), and I’d like to have a Bible that is Vulgate-reliable when it comes to making sure each and every prophecy of Christ is there.
…
It feels like a great loss when even a single prophecy of Our Lord is obscured, even though there are many others.
…
I’m a Catholic, by no means a sola scripturist or a Protestant, but it feels wrong to be reading a Bible where the Light of our Lord is partially hidden in the Old Testament, “under a bushel basket” as it were, instead of “on a hill for all to see”. So, carrying the metaphor, I’m asking, “Is there any Catholic translation that has these verses ‘on a hill for all to see’”? I’ve narrowed it down to the RSV-2CE and the Douay-Rheims, because I have all of the other Catholic Bibles.

For me personally, I enjoy taking the time to read different translations of the Bible to see how their translations differ.

I think your problem is with the obscurations that are inherently part of the translation process. In addition, English itself can be the cause of “fuzziness” quality of the translations when one Greek word might have five legitimate English translations.

You may never find ONE translation that meets your needs… However, it is not wrong to read or use a Bible with an Imprimatur. An Imprimatur only says there is nothing in conflict with Church teachings. It does not guarantee an 100% accurate translation nor does it signify that it is BEST translation.

Even though you want to use an English translation, this may cause you too much frustration… Since your Latin is better than your English, I would recommend dumping all the English translations and using the Nova Vulgate. There have been translation issues found in the original Vulgate which led to the creation of the Nova Vulgate. The DRC was based on the original Vulgate so if the original Vulgate had translation errors, these errors were included in the DRC even if they were translated correctly from Latin…

The Nova Vulgate is on-line at: vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html

Unfortunately, there is no English translation of the Nova Vulgate. I hope this helps!

 

[Khalid]

Luke 1: 28 is No where Else in the Bible carefully worded Announcement to Teenage Mary that She is Unique in the World, in accepting becoming The Mother Of God: Jesus. Your wording is quite different from the USCCB New American Bible CAREFULLY Translated for ACCURACY worldwide by Old Language, Culture Experts, including Protestant, in the 1970’s: **

• "Upon arriving, the angel said to her: “Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.”**
  

                                                                                                           USCCB   New  American  Bible.  See  how  Highly   different,   Accurate  the Wording  is?  No   woman  in  History  was described  in  such  Uniquelly  Praising  Words,   by   the    Angel.    Uniquelly  Catholic Beliefs,   even  Dogma,     from the  First  Century,  backed  by  That  Uniquelly   worded   Verse is  the  Reason   for  Declaring  Mary  Free  of  Sin,    etc;  The  Ideal  Mother/Woman.    :highprayer::bible1:

I know that that’s not the most accurate rendering, which is “Hail, full of grace [gratia plena]! Blessed are you among women, blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”

The Latin has the entire thing, the RSV-2CE has everything until “blessed is the fruit”. This matches up with both received prayers and the liturgy, and is a 1600-year-old translation dating to St Jerome himself. It is the Catholic wording, and is important.

It’s ironic that you use the verse to support the Immaculate Conception; it’s a stretch. With the traditional Catholic wording, (“full of grace”), it is natural conclusion that Mary was born without sin - for what is the state of grace, but the state of sinlessness? Being highly favored does not mean free of sin; being full of grace does.

“Hail, highly favored daughter” does not have the same impact, tradition, or doctrinal implications as “Hail, full of grace”; it (“favored one”) is culled from Protestant tradition, the first one of which to use it was the famous King James Bible.

I’m not sure if you’re understanding my writing or my questions, whether you’re a bot, or whether you’re absolutely in love with the NAB to the point of overlooking its flaws. Or a bot that doesn’t understand my question that’s programmed to respond to anything including “Bible” with the NAB.

No doubt, the NAB and NABRE is a good translation (especially in relation to ecclesiastical terms in the New Testament and in ease of reading, and some unique renderings such as keeping “Raca” untranslated, etc.) in most places in the New Testament and the Old, but misses some important Messianic prophecy, such as “A young woman will soon give birth” and “Your holy one will not see corruption”. I think the RSV-2CE is better in the New Testament (I’ve not read the Old), the JB and NJB and the are at least as good, and the ESV has a better Old Testament (albeit the New is warped to a congregationalist-Calvinist-Protestant theology).

To state my question for the third time, in a slightly different way, what Bibles do not obscure or occlude even a single prophecy of Christ? The NAB misses one of the most important, Isaiah 7:14. I’m not saying it’s a bad translation - I use the NABRE and ESV for English reading - but, as I’ve said, I’d like to read one that has the full Light of Christ prefigured in the Old Testament, both in the proto-Gospel of Isaiah and elsewhere. I’m used to the Vulgate and Septuagint, and both contain several prophecies of Christ and Our Lady that are missed in English translations I have read.

For example, Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate is a prophecy and a promise through Eve to the New Eve (Our Lady the Blessed Virgin) that she will be given the privilege and honor of crushing the head of the serpent [defeating Satan]. No English translation includes this sense.

ESV: Gn 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

Vulgate(Author’s translation) Gn 3:15 I will put hatred and animosity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait [to strike] at her heel.

Reading “ipsa” as “ipsum”, it becomes “Her seed shall crush your head and you will lie in wait to strike at the heel of her seed”, becoming a prophecy of Jesus’ temptation and eventual conquest of Satan and his legions.

Either way, the Vulgate has captured a nuance of text that’s lost to modern translations.

I have plenty of historical-critical Bibles and commentaries, from the New Oxford Annotated and the New Jerome Commentary and the International Bible Commentary to the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture: I want something that I can read the Old Testament in as Scripture, not as an exercise in interpretation. If I had the money, I’d buy one of each (a Confraternity, a Douay, and a RSV-2CE; I already have the NAB, NABRE, JB, NJB, RSV, NRSV, RSV-2CE NT, the Confraternity NT, REB, NLT, KJV, NKJV, NASB, AMP, NIV, and Navarre Bible NT; between those, I have half a dozen New Testaments that conform to Catholic doctrine and have their strengths and weaknesses, and two that conform perfectly to Catholic doctrine (the Confraternity and RSV-2CE based on Luke 1:28 and renderings of “ergon” and “episkopos”).

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I have all of the above Bibles, and this is my problem: they’re written to minimize the role of Christ in the Old Testament, both in translation and commentary. I gave some examples: Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Isaiah 7:14. I have to read these Bibles with a critical eye to try and discern traces of Messianic implication, and read all of the footnotes to find the pretty-often situations where the chosen translation says one thing, and the footnote says, “Oh, some old translations said it like so, which means “Jesus is the Messiah”, but it’s not ecumenical to say that.”

For example, in the NABRE, Psalm 16 is rendered “…and he will not let your devout see the pit.” That’s not messianic. It makes it sound like God is going to protect righteous people from being killed. The proper translation is “…and he will not let your holy one see corruption”, which is a clear prophecy of Jesus’ three days in the tomb and resurrection. I have to constantly read NABRE, RSV, NRSV, NJB, etc. looking out for these kinds of errors or misjudgments in translation. I’m looking for a “traditional” Bible in which every prophecy that has to do with Christ is translated so as not to obscure the fact that it’s about Christ: a “traditional” rendering, as is in the Vulgate, where all prophecies of Christ are translated clearly.
However, I’m trying to read in English to get my skill in English up (see my signature), and I also don’t have a real Vulgate (only a digital Sisto-Clementine Vulgate, and a hardback “New Vulgate”), and I’d like to have a Bible that is Vulgate-reliable when it comes to making sure each and every prophecy of Christ is there. That’s why I thought the DRC to be a good idea, because it’s translated from the Vulgate, but my English isn’t good enough to be able to grasp the archaic verbiage without great effort. Thus I asked about the RSV-2CE, hoping that it was as Christological and Christ-centered in the Old Testament as the Vulgate, and, presumably, the DRC are.

It feels like a great loss when even a single prophecy of Our Lord is obscured, even though there are many others. I’m thinking the Douay-Rheims, the RSV-2CE, or the Confraternity Bible fit the bill, but I don’t have them, so I can’t check to see how the verses are rendered.

I want an Old Testament that is obviously and unashamedly Christian, not a Torah in disguise!

To compare a few verses in the ESV (the best I’ve found for Christ-prophecy clarity, but it’s a Protestant Calvinist undertaking, so I’m not comfortable with it, and I have to read it critically but in a different way - looking out for inconsistencies with the Church’s doctrine):

Whether or not the NABRE has an imprimatur, these are poor renderings: Welcome to The Church Christ Founded, and is the only One Living Christ as He Wants. You seem to want the entire Bible to be Directly Christ Centered. The Problem is the Old Testament was written in the Cultural Norms, words, understandings of Those times. The NAB is The Most Accuratlley Worded English Translation of the Original Sources; Focused on Accuracy of The Word, meanings THEN. The Culture and Manner of Speaking is Key, and Best Known by Catholic Scholars Since Then. Total honesty lack of Bioas is key to Catholicism. It would be FALSE to Redifine, Reword it by Men now as Christ centered. It was Not. “The Book of Psalms” is described in the NAB as a collection of Religious Songs from about the 5th Century Current Era mostly and some to 2nd BCE.

Christ  was in  general   FORETOLD  in  the  Old  Testament,    as  Mary  and  the Church  of  Jesus  was,  In  General;  proving  Divinelly  Inspired.

Psalm 2:11 NABRE
Serve the Lord with fear
Exult with trembling
Accept correction lest he become angry and you perish along the way
when his anger suddenly blazes up.
Blessed are all who seek refuge in him!

Psalm 2:11-12 ESV (same content, different numbering)
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling
Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish in the way
his wrath is quickly kindled
Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (from the Original 1983 (C) NB): “Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice before him, with trembling (2) pay homage to him, Lest he be be angry and you perish from the way, when his anger blazes suddenly. Happy are all who take refuge in him.” (2) …a shorter reading, “pay homage to him with trembling,” may have been tthe original. Pay homage: literally, “kiss his feet.”

.

. There Never Was a ‘Christian’ Old Testament, because it was written LONG Before Christ/Christianity, when Only The Hebrew Faith was The True Faith, and was written by them. The Catholic Church Since Christ Understood Their Culture, Their Laws, Their meanings, Their Words and Verses.

 

[Khalid]

I too love comparing different versions, which I’ve been doing for a long time now, along with a detailed study of the Greek and Latin, and textual and eventually higher criticism that grew out of that initial fascination with differentials between the texts. After a while, I’ve come to know what the NT is supposed to say well enough that I can re-dub a poor translation in my mind to bring it up to par. I base my understanding of the OT on the Septuagint, and on prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament.

(My understanding of “what they’re supposed to say” is in agreement with the Magisterium, but the Magisterium doesn’t dictate word-for-word which translations are allowed and which aren’t beyond guidelines; my understanding is a “conservative” or “traditional” one of the text, which is to say, an Old Testament that reads like it’s an Old Testament followed by the New, instead of the Torah with the New Testament tacked on the end - this “Tanakh effect” is highlighted by annotation that doesn’t mention prophecy or Christ in obviously messianic passages that are even quoted by the NT, beyond cross-referencing them; if I wanted to read the Tanakh according to the Masoretic text and only the Masoretic text from a Jewish perspective without any Christian interpretation [which I did often as a Muslim, as I found Jewish interpretations to be much more agreeable and amenable to harmonization than Christian ones], I would pick up my NJPS translation “Jewish Study Bible”.)

But I’ve never had a version in English to just read, without constant comparison to other versions; I’d like the experience of having a Bible-as-a-Bible, instead of a Bible-as-a-study-tool or Bible-as-historical-document. Even in Latin I frequently compare the Nova to the Sisto-Clementine Vulgate, and my Greek isn’t good enough to read the Novum Testamentum Graece (which, by the way, includes such a massive critical apparatus it’s like having all of the translations in one book!) like a book in English or Latin; it requires effort instead of just reading.

PS Your zeal for the NAB, even if seemingly misguided in regards to the verse you quoted, is nearly infectious.

 

[Khalid]

. There Never Was a ‘Christian’ Old Testament, because it was written LONG Before Christ/Christianity, when Only The Hebrew Faith was The True Faith, and was written by them. The Catholic Church Since Christ Understood Their Culture, Their Laws, Their meanings, Their Words and Verses.

I get this; you misinterpret me. I’m saying only that I want those parts of the Old Testament that refer to Christ to be clear and centered on Christ and not obfuscated.

For example, a small selection, including some both where the NABRE did an excellent job, and some where it didn’t.

Isaiah 7:14 (“Virgin” is about Christ, “Young woman” not so much)
Isaiah 9:5 (the NAB is grating on the ears here, but accurate)
Isaiah 52-56 Suffering Servant Songs (the NAB nailed these pretty much perfectly)
Psalm 2 (decent in the NAB)
Psalm 16 (complete obscured in the NAB)
Psalm 17 (obscure in the NAB without alternate readings; about the beatific vision)
Psalm 22 (the NAB is pretty good on this)
Genesis 3:15 (the NAB got a certain message across, but not the one in the Vulgate text; both prefigure Christ in different ways)

Of course the entire OT isn’t about Christ, but it’s liberally sprinkled with references to him when translated and understood correctly. I wouldn’t expect Leviticus or the Books of Kings or Samuel or Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemiah or Maccabees to contain any references to Christ (but he’s there if you look hard enough). I wouldn’t expect it in Genesis, Exodus, or Deuteronomy either, but there he is. I would expect it in the Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, Sirach, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets.

Or, “the Bible should translate those passages the Church Fathers agreed referred to Christ as if they referred to Christ, instead of coming up with new translations with dubious justification (such as the all-pervasive “young woman” and “hail, favored one”) instead of traditional interpretations that are just as reliable (such as “virgin” and “full of grace”). This doesn’t mean to keep passages that are obviously spurious such as 1 John 5:7 in the Bible, but it doesn’t mean to take them out, either, if they have been used faithfully by the Church in living memory (such as John 7:53-8:11) as, ultimately, the Canon is of the Church, not the other way around”.

It’s unfair to my English to say that my Latin is better than it now; my English has become as good as my Latin. Certain aspects of Latin (smaller vocabulary, conjugation and declension, strict grammatical rules) make it easier to master. Maybe now I should say, “my Latin is better than my Greek”, but that’s a non-sequitur from “I attend the Tridentine Mass because my Latin is better than my Greek”, unless the only other church in the area was Greek Orthodox.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I know that that’s not the most accurate rendering, which is “Hail, full of grace [gratia plena]! Blessed are you among women, blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” [SIGN] That is not at all the Translation of the Original Wording; see the Bishop’s NAB Wording I gave From the Oldest, most Original sources, Sir! The NAB was From the Original Sources, by the Best Experts of the Culture/Wording/Phrasing of the First Century, as Authorized Accurate By the Vatican: Magesterium and Pope.
[/SIGN] …It’s ironic that you use the verse to support the Immaculate Conception; it’s a stretch. With the traditional Catholic wording, (“full of grace”), it is natural conclusion that Mary was born without sin - for what is the state of grace, but the state of sinlessness? Being highly favored does not mean free of sin; being full of grace does.
“Hail, highly favored daughter” does not have the same impact, tradition, or doctrinal implications as “Hail, full of grace”; it (“favored one”) is culled from Protestant tradition, the first one of which to use it was the famous King James Bible. **

• Highly Favored Daughter is the Official, Most Accuratelly Translated From The Original Sources, by the Vatican, USCCB. FAR more is Known now Of Early Sources, which King James Era biased against the Pope ‘translation’ Then knowledge. Very Much Historic Findings have been found Since, for Far more understanding now.

/**B][/SIGN]
I’m not sure if you’re understanding my writing or my questions, whether you’re a bot, or whether you’re absolutely in love with the NAB to the point of overlooking its flaws. Or a bot that doesn’t understand my question that’s programmed to respond to anything including “Bible” with the NAB. [SIGN] ** I’m a 70 Year old “revert” to the Catholic Church, and 20 year Student of greatest Details of The Church. I attend Gospel Study with Pentecostal Converts To The Catholic Church. They use the Early Church Fathers statements on the Gospel Verse topics and words we study. We don’t look for Our Ideas, but the Most Accurater Meanings/Lessons Of the Verses. **

[/SIGN]
To state my question for the third time, in a slightly different way, what Bibles do not obscure or occlude even a single prophecy of Christ? The NAB misses one of the most important, Isaiah 7:14. I’m not saying it’s a bad translation - I use the NABRE and ESV for English reading… [SIGN]** I repeat, Khalid, The Newest Catholic translations are OF The Old Testament Era Pre-Christ Verses, without Any Spin. One needs to Know the Manner of Teachinmg of That Era: God Killing all Children, entire villages was the FIGURATIVE manner of Teaching to the Uneducated Hebrew Masses Then. The Transations are The Most Accurate Possible, By the Greatest unbiased Experts. Any incorrectly worded Catholic Bible, or even One Verse **would be quickly Condemned, Corrected by the Experts at the Vatican, and would be world News headline. [/SIGN]
For example, Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate is a prophecy and a promise through Eve to the New Eve (Our Lady the Blessed Virgin) that she will be given the privilege and honor of crushing the head of the serpent [defeating Satan]. No English translation includes this sense. **[SIGN] The Vatican does not **Change the Words of the Bible ****to teach lessons. There are numerous Catholic Bible Study Books And Courses for that. It’s Not The Translation Version of the Bible, But The Words of God we Can Not Change, as numerous Protestant Versions have. [/SIGN]
ESV: Gn 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Vulgate(Author’s translation) Gn 3:15 I will put hatred and animosity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait [to strike] at her heel.

Reading “ipsa” as “ipsum”, it becomes “Her seed shall crush your head and you will lie in wait to strike at the heel of her seed”, becoming a prophecy of Jesus’ temptation and eventual conquest of Satan and his legions. (That is your Interpretation, Khalid, Not Catholic)
Either way, the Vulgate has captured a nuance of text that’s lost to modern translations.
I have plenty of historical-critical Bibles and commentaries, from the New Oxford Annotated and the New Jerome Commentary and the International Bible Commentary to the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture:… If I had the money, I’d buy one of each (a Confraternity, a Douay, and a RSV-2CE; I already have the NAB, NABRE, JB, NJB, RSV, NRSV, RSV-2CE NT, the Confraternity NT, REB, NLT, KJV, NKJV, NASB, AMP, NIV, and Navarre Bible NT; between those, I have half a dozen New Testaments that conform to Catholic doctrine and have their strengths and weaknesses, and two that conform perfectly to Catholic doctrine (the Confraternity and RSV-2CE based on Luke 1:28 and renderings of “ergon” and “episkopos”).

 

[Khalid]

An imprimatur certainly means a lot these days after the Grail Psalms and the New Jerome Commentary got one. I can’t imagine a book more directly damaging to faith and morals in the unprepared or naive than the NJBC. The Psalms are a book of the Bible, and if I recall correctly, the Grail Psalms received imprimatur, but were judged so defective, the imprimatur was later revoked. It wasn’t news-worthy outside of some Catholic circles.

Bibles are translated and mistranslated all the time: the ESV has “the church is a pillar and foundation of truth”, instead of “the pillar”. The NWT has “the word was a god”. Both are based on the same lack of a definite article, and are technically correct translations, but miss the meaning of the text. The RSV-2CE has “virgin” at Is 7:14 and “full of grace” at Lk 1:28. The NABRE has “young woman” and “favored daughter” respectively. Both have imprimatur, and are correct from their own traditions (Septuagint/Vulgate-influenced-NT and Masoretic text/Nestle-Aland 25th respectively) but the translations are substantially different. However, “translation” and “mistranslation” are largely matters of opinion. That’s why there’s not a world-wide official English translation, only guidelines; some places use the JB, some the RSV, some the NAB. None follow Liturgiam Authenticam fully, but in one area (leaving Aramaic untranslated), the NAB follows it more than the others, but it departs from Nova Vulgata readings frequently, and comparison in light of the Nova Vulgata was part of LA the last time I looked.

The Vulgate was long ago, at the Tridentine council, declared free of moral or doctrinal error to be used without fear in disputations. The Vulgate says “gratia plena”, or “filled with grace”. From this follows the Immaculate Conception.

I don’t see how one can be wrong and the other right. Both are right based on different textual traditions. I think, based on the Tridentine statements about the Vulgate, that the “full of grace” rendering is more accurate, at least doctrinally (as it supports the Immaculate Conception) and is also a valid translation of the Greek (albeit a “B” grade reading in Nestle-Aland).

If antiquity is what made a Bible accurate, all of them should be based off of the Septuagint, which predates the Masoretic text by 1000 years, and this is where the reading “virgin” in Isaiah comes from, even though the modern MT reads “almah” instead of “bethulah” - but the Septuagint is more ancient than the MT! By the logic of “ancientness”, the LXX should overrule the MT in almost all circumstances, but it doesn’t because ancientness is not the only criterion of authenticity.

As I’ve said, I like the NABRE but have my issues with it; and you certainly don’t seem to see the issues that many acknowledge in it.

For example, when it comes to the “virgin” reading, why should “young woman” be adopted instead, when it is the reading of a later and possibly altered text, that the Greek and Latin, both more ancient, witness against, especially when it has direct bearing on 1) Messianic prophecy and 2) the dogma of the Virgin Birth?

And, what is with the adversarial nature? We’re talking about Bible translations. The NAB is decent. It has it’s merits. It’s not perfect, nor is any translation, and it’s not the only translation with imprimatur, or the only translation approved by a council of bishops, and the USCCB isn’t the only council of bishops in the world - the council of England and Wales adopted the JB and NJB, the council of Canada the RSV-CE. Each translation has strengths and weaknesses. None are perfect, and none should receive the kind of seemingly overzealous defense you’re giving the NAB, even in if it did not contain what are widely regarded as flaws, or at least infelicities, in places, as does every other translation on the face of the Earth. No Bible yet published contains the most accurate translation of all verses all of the time - if it did, no other Bible would be sold.

 

[Khalid]

Factual correction: I think it was Pius XII, not the Fathers of Trent, who said that about the Vulgate.

 

[Andrew1983]

Khalid my brother, I can entirely understand your frustration completely with the issue of Old Testament verse translation. I myself prefer the St. Ignatius RSV-2CE over the NABRE (which strangely I bought knowing full well what was inside…I think I just wanted another Catholic Bible), simply because it’s still in modern English, thus easy to read, and also because it’s a good Conservative translation that most accurately reflects Church Teaching and Tradition.

I do have a Douay-Rheims / Clementine Vulgata, but that’s BIG and expensive, so I generally don’t walk around with that, nor is it compact. I would say that is most certainly the MOST Catholic of Catholic Bibles, barring St. Jerome’s Vulgate and any manuscripts that survived.

I also have an entire set of the Navarre Study Bible, but that’s expensive to purchase.

So, in short, if you’re just looking for a good Catholic Bible to have around that’s compact, I’d go for the St. Ignatius RSV-2CE. It’s usually the primary translation I tend to work with when doing my personal commentaries. I do switch to the Navarre at times, but they use the RSV 1st edition which has this whole “young woman” nonsense in Isaiah 7:14. Luckily, because it’s a Study Bible, there is a footnote that reads “virgin” as well.

 

[Khalid]

I have the Navarre Bible New Testament, which wasn’t too expensive. The omnibus Gospels and Acts was about $30, the omnibus St Paul was about $30, and I got Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation for $4 each. The Old Testament is $250 minimum from what I’ve seen.

I got a used Confraternity-Douay for $7 off of Amazon, and a used Douay-Challoner for $10. The RSV-2CE is $26 (I can use a hardcover Bible but prefer leatherbound - and $26 is cheap for a leatherbound - and can’t stand paperback… it seems disrespectful to the Scriptures to put it in a throw-away format, a belief that probably comes from my time as a Muslim, where the Koran is virtually worshipped, and has more regulations surrounding it than one of the religiously-copied Torah scrolls has amongst Haredi Jews).

Are you saying the RSV-2CE has all of the proper (or “traditional”) renderings in the OT like the Douay and Vulgate, and unlike the NABRE and RSV-CE?

I believe someone on this forum in a different thread said something to the effect that, “I can prove/argue Catholic doctrine from a King James Bible more effectively than I can from a modern Catholic Bible” - I know the feeling with some of these readings.

I have a really hard time using the ESV w/ Apocrypha (Deuterocanon + the Books of Esdras and 3-4 Maccabees), because even in the Psalms, whenever I read a passage, I always open up the Jerusalem Bible or NABRE to check it for heretical doctrinal implications, and if I’m using the JB or NABRE I check it in the ESV for Christological implications, but I just don’t like using Protestant Bibles! There seems something wrong with it (using a Protestant Bible for primary reading of passages), but it’s hard, maybe impossible, to explain. I thought a Protestant Bible that had the full canon in it would be better.

It’s ironic, that, in general, in the OT, the ESV has more traditional Catholic renderings and interpretations than the modern Catholic Bibles. The NT is another story; the NABRE and JB are better for the NT than any Protestant Bibles I’ve read (too much warping of words to try to make it say faith alone/Scripture alone/no Church/no Perpetual Virginity, etc., especially in some of the commentaries on Revelation that explicitly state that the Whore of Babylon is the Holy Mother Church) but the “ecumenical” Expanded 1977 RSV comes close.

Despite any complaints about one or two specific readings (Luke 1:28), the NAB NT is actually extremely accurate and highly literal, much more so than it’s generally made out to be. It’s the only English Bible I’ve read where you can almost get the taste of the Greek from reading it due to the retained word-order, etc., but it makes for some inelegant readings in places.

 

[Andrew1983]

Here are some of texts from the RSV-2CE for your review:

Isaiah 7:14 - “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Psalm 2:11 - “Serve the Lord with fear, with trembling rejoice, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 16:10 - “For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your godly one see the Pit.”

Psalm 17:15 - “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with beholding your form.”

Luke 1:28 - "And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

Personally, I’m fine with them, even if the Psalms come from the Hebrew Psalter and not the Greek Psalter (though to be honest, I never read from the Book of Psalms, since it’s just not something that comes up in apologetics).

I hope this is of some value to you.

 

[CalCatholic]

Here are some of texts from the RSV-2CE for your review:

Isaiah 7:14 - “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Psalm 2:11 - “Serve the Lord with fear, with trembling rejoice, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 16:10 - “For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your godly one see the Pit.”

Psalm 17:15 - “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with beholding your form.”

Luke 1:28 - "And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

Personally, I’m fine with them, even if the Psalms come from the Hebrew Psalter and not the Greek Psalter (though to be honest, I never read from the Book of Psalms, since it’s just not something that comes up in apologetics).

I hope this is of some value to you.

These translations of the RSV-2CE match up pretty well with the NETS translation of the Septuagint:

Isaiah 7:14; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and you shall name him Emmanouel.”

Psalm 2:11-12; “Be subject to the Lord with fear, and rejoice in him with trembling. Seize upon instruction, lest the Lord be angry, and you will perish from the righteous way, when his anger quickly blazes out. Happy are all who trust in him.”

Psalm 15(16):10; “because you will not abandon my soul to Hades or give your devout to see corruption.”

Palm 16(17):15; “But as for me, I shall appear to your face in righteousness; I shall be fed when your glory appears.”

 

[Zooey]

// if you want to view the douay-rheims (challoner) edition before purchasing it, below is the link to the whole douay-rheims (challoner) edition…i would recommend the purchase!

drbo.org/

I was going to suggest this!! The Douay-Rheims Challoner is online, why not take advantage of it?

I believe that, for a more modern translation, that you may well be someone who will enjoy reading the RSV-CE. It actually is a revision of the earlier RSV, & the revisions have gone through & deliberately restored many Messianic & other conservative translations which had been a stumbling block to many in the “regular” RSV.

I hope this helps.
God bless.

 

[RPRPsych]

Very good thread. Thanks to Khalid for highlighting this important issue.

I personally own a lot of Bibles myself, and this is my take on them:

Today’s English Version (Catholic Edition): The nice part about this one is that it includes the Apocrypha (1 and 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh) for interested readers. But the language is way too colloquial, and it flunks the Isaiah 7:14 test. Probably best for younger readers (under supervision!) or people who have trouble with English.

Revised Standard Version: As has been already pointed out, there are 2 versions of this. The first one (RSV-CE) has a few problems with translation, but is generally sound. The RSV-2CE probably has the soundest translation of the modern versions, but the introductory notes are weak in places (especially the Prophets).

Jerusalem Bible: I have a huge soft corner for this one. The Reader’s Edition doesn’t have too many notes, but the translation is fairly good, particularly on Isaiah 7:14 (“maiden” is a fairly good compromise translation of “almah”, conveying both meanings of the Hebrew) and 1 Corinthians 9:5-6 (“woman / sister” instead of the Protestant reading “wife”). The use of the personal name of the Lord, “Yahweh”, can be troublesome, but I just read “LORD” to myself whenever I encounter it. I also own a copy of this in French (bought in the bookstore at Lourdes!) and it’s slightly better than the English one.

New Jerusalem Bible: The first one I bought with my own salary The Old Testament is quite dodgy (including a rather unusual translation of Jeremiah 31:22), and the notes to it are, sadly, very heterodox. The New Testament is much better. However, the insistence on “politically correct” language (“human beings” instead of “man”, “virulent skin-disease” instead of “leprosy”) can be quite jarring.

New American Bible: I expected much better from this Catholics, to say the least - but the notes and introductions to almost ALL the books have problems, and the language is awkward at times. The Revised version (NABRE), which is the one I own, has fixed some problems with the Psalms, but it’s still not a very good translation. Though most modern Catholic bibles all have problems with “modernism”, this one is the worst affected.

Christian Community Bible: Unfortunately, I own an “Indian” edition of this which is full of horrible annotations that not only try to link Christianity to Hinduism, but also openly accuse the authors of the sacred books of error on many occasions. The text itself is fairly good, and preserves traditional readings in many places.

English Standard Version: This is basically a revision of the Protestant RSV, edited to remove problems in the Old Testament. It’s good, but does not include the 7 “Deuterocanonical” books.

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition: This version has trouble with inclusive language (much more than the New Jerusalem Bible), but no major problems. The introductory notes and “Biblical timeline” provided in my copy are surprisingly sound and orthodox, even with regard to the dating of the Prophets. If you can tolerate the inclusive language, this one is pretty good.

Douay-Rheims Bible, Challoner Revision: Probably my favourite as far as orthodoxy is concerned. The language is rather archaic, but very readable, and the text preserves verses that are arbitrarily “dropped” in modern translations (Ecclus. 24:16, 1 John 5:7-8, Matt. 18:10-11, Luke 9:54, and the threefold warning on Hell in Mark 9:44-48) I’d honestly recommend getting this one and using it as a primary source; it’s not very expensive (I’ve bought one for approximately 3,100 rupees, which is about $65-70 I think.)

There is also an online “Catholic Public Domain Version” translated by Ron Conte. It follows the Douay-Rheims tradition, but has some dubious word choices (Rev. 22:15 is translated “outside are dogs, and drug users…” - a very doubtful translation of the Greek pharmakos). I’m not sure about the “official status” of this one, though.

Of course, my sincere wish is for a “contemporary English” translation that follows the Douay-Rheims, and also includes the helpful historical and archaeological notes from the Jerusalem Bible. This seems to be a distant hope at the time, but I shall keep praying for one!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

My recommendation for a bible is one from 1949-1952 that had the Confraternity New Testament–the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament and the Bea Psalter–a new English translation of the Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII and done by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1945.

This combination is Catholic–not liberal–comes with conservative notes–and is the best Vulgate based bible in my opinion.

The Confraternity New Testament and the Bea Psalter are improvements in my opinion over the Douay Rheims New Testament and the Douay Rheims Psalms.