King James Bible

[turtleoompa]

JeaneH,

Are you a Protestant? Take a moment and look at the list of editors and translators that put the NAB together for us. The USCCB chose the NAB for a good reason, it is the best translation that we have in modern english for use in the mass.

With due respect to the Douay-Reimes crowd, the archaic language and the lack of foot notes make this bible inappropriate for use in the 21st century. The various “glosses” and transliterations that have made their way into this five hundred year old english translation of the latin Vulgate make it inappropriate for use in the mass and in my opinion for use in study.

With regards to the RSV(CE), many people like this translation, but dare I say, that the almost exclusive use of Protestant editors and translators makes this bible also suspect.

As Carl Keating has said on many occasions, perhaps the best bible…is the one you actually take down off the shelf and read.

Faith, Hope, CHARITY

 

[Manfred]

JeaneH,

Are you a Protestant? Take a moment and look at the list of editors and translators that put the NAB together for us. The USCCB chose the NAB for a good reason, it is the best translation that we have in modern english for use in the mass.

With due respect to the Douay-Reimes crowd, the archaic language and the lack of foot notes make this bible inappropriate for use in the 21st century. The various “glosses” and transliterations that have made their way into this five hundred year old english translation of the latin Vulgate make it inappropriate for use in the mass and in my opinion for use in study.

With regards to the RSV(CE), many people like this translation, but dare I say, that the almost exclusive use of Protestant editors and translators makes this bible also suspect.

As Carl Keating has said on many occasions, perhaps the best bible…is the one you actually take down off the shelf and read.

Faith, Hope, CHARITY

Other than the fact that it is THEIRS, why else would the USCCB choose the NAB?

Whole catechisms at one time were based on the Douay-Rheims. I don’t know of any based on the NAB. And Archbishop Wuerl (now of Wash., DC), in his “Teaching of Christ” catechism, used the RSV-CE.

 

[JeanneH]

JeaneH,

Are you a Protestant? Take a moment and look at the list of editors and translators that put the NAB together for us. The USCCB chose the NAB for a good reason, it is the best translation that we have in modern english for use in the mass.

With due respect to the Douay-Reimes crowd, the archaic language and the lack of foot notes make this bible inappropriate for use in the 21st century. The various “glosses” and transliterations that have made their way into this five hundred year old english translation of the latin Vulgate make it inappropriate for use in the mass and in my opinion for use in study.

With regards to the RSV(CE), many people like this translation, but dare I say, that the almost exclusive use of Protestant editors and translators makes this bible also suspect.

As Carl Keating has said on many occasions, perhaps the best bible…is the one you actually take down off the shelf and read.

Turtleoompa

I am Catholic and I am not the only Catholic on this forum that does not trust the NAB. I agree with Manfred.
See the thread NAB: to be trusted?

I own several Catholic and Protestant bibles but my favorite is the Jerusalem Bible.

Faith, Hope, CHARITY

 

[turtleoompa]

Brothers and Sisters,

Be careful; the idea that the Douay-Reims, or any other translation is better than another translation because it is older and somehow has a nostalgic history i.e pre-Vatican II is intectually problematic. In point of fact this “smacks” of the Fundamentalist mind set and reminds me of the old joke that goes something like this… “if the King James version was good enough for Saint Paul, then it’s good enough for me!” (I actually saw this on a bumper sticker once a couple of years ago).

It is my understanding that the Church only considers the original Vulgate the only inerrant translation of sacred scripture. If I am not mistaken, at the Council of Trent, the Church proclaimed the Vulgate as the official inerrant version of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no such proclamation either by a Pope or by a Church Council that says the same about any other translation of Sacred Scripture, including the Douay-Reimes, RSVCE, or the NAB. Of course, the autographs of Sacred Scripture have been universally accepted by the Church as being inerrant.

Bottom line, if the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in the United States has decided that the NAB is the most appropriate translation of the bible for use in the sacred liturgy…that is good enough for me. However, if you are interested in a study bible, I am told that the RSV-CE is an excellent translation.

The NAB and the RSVCE are both modern english translations from the original bible languages; whereas the Douay-Reims is a translation of a translation.

If we are interested in only using perfect versions of the bible to use for our spiritual growth…then we need to learn how to read fourth century Latin, first century Greek, Hebrew, and perhaps a little Aramaic; as for me…too old, too tired, and too busy trying to live a Christian life. I will rely on the bible that the Church presents to me as being appropriate for use in our liturgical service.

If I recall, the Church takes bible translations pretty seriously. Does anybody remember Hus or Wycliff???

Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to refer everyone to Catholic Answers’ on-line library, “Bible Translation Guilde” which is on their website.

Faith, Hope, CHARITY

 

[Manfred]

It is my understanding that the Church only considers the original Vulgate the only inerrant translation of sacred scripture. If I am not mistaken, at the Council of Trent, the Church proclaimed the Vulgate as the official inerrant version of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no such proclamation either by a Pope or by a Church Council that says the same about any other translation of Sacred Scripture, including the Douay-Rheims, RSVCE, or the NAB. Of course, the autographs of Sacred Scripture have been universally accepted by the Church as being inerrant.

The NAB and the RSVCE are both modern english translations from the original bible languages; whereas the Douay-Rheims is a translation of a translation.

Brethren,

The Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate considered “substantially correct” by the Council of Trent, and suitable for disputations, expositions, preaching, treaching.

 

[Cranch]

If I recall, the Church takes bible translations pretty seriously…

You’re right. Which is why the Vatican determined the 1991 NAB Psalter and parts of the 1986 NAB New Testamant are unsuitable for use in the U.S. lectionary and mandated the lectionary be amended. As a result no available version of the NAB matches the current U.S. lectionary.

 

[runandsew]

The only thing I have an issue with the KJV is some of the translations are what I consider anti-catholic.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

That is the only place in the KJV where Petros is translated “stone”
Most Bible’s translate it “Peter”.

RSV
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

I think they did this to counter the verse in Matthew where Jesus gives Peter his new name, and which the Catholic church uses as one of the proofs for the papacy.

Every other time the English word “stone” is used, it is translated from the Greek word “Lithos”
Every other time the Greek word “Petros” is used, it is translated to the English word “Peter”
Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Growing up in a southern baptist church, I always used a King James Bible, but since I became catholic I’ve been told that the King James version is the “evil” bible. What gives? I have only been a practising catholic since Easter of 2006 and I am still learning about my faith. What bible should I,as a catholic, read?

Bigbear:

I’ve never heard the KJV refered to as “Evil” by any of the Catholic authorities I’ve known. It’s just that most editions of the KJV leave out some of the books of the Bible, many of which were used by the Early Church Fathers, Although the original KJV included the Jewish Deutro-Canon as has been accepted by the Catholic Church since the time of the Post-Apostolic Church and the Eastern Churches since before the split.

The KJV didn’t have access to many of the documents and linguistic scholarship in the original Biblical languages that modern translations have access to, and many of the words and phrases that were used in the KJV have changed meaning so drastically that many passages in the KJV no longer carry the same meaning as they did when the KJV was translated or in the original texts.

That doesn’t make the KJV evil, just not the translation you want to use for reading and study.

I agree with the brothers who suggest the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition, It’s a very good literal translation from the best available texts, and several people I trust use it as their study Bible and for reading and teaching.

You also might want to check out the dwindling supply of copies of the Jerusalem Bible (not the NEW Jerusalem Bible) which might be the best Dynamic Equivalence Translation (Phrase by Phrase) of all time with EXCEPTIONAL Notes.

search.ebayexpress.com/ps/items/_W0QQ_nkwZjerusalem%20bible?_ipg=90

amazon.com/Jerusalem-Bible-Readers-Alexander-Jones/dp/0385499183

I hope this helps.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Not to keep repeating things but—I don’t like the NAB I find some of the footnotes suspect. Just my 2 cents worth.

Jeaanne:

I’ll second that. In some cases, I’ve seen footnotes that were completely at odds with the scriptures they were footnoting. It doesn’t help that the translation is a bit clunky.

The thing I don’t like are the assumptions about prophecy that are reflected in the their notes on the aging of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament. If you ignore the assumptions and go by writing styles and other contemporaneous events in the Roman Empire, you arrive at dates that are 10 years earlier than theirs.

It’s almost like the commentators want readers to be sceptical of the authorship of the books, when there does seem to be evidence for a different, less sceptical viewpoint.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[thommie]

You’re right. Which is why the Vatican determined the 1991 NAB Psalter and parts of the 1986 NAB New Testamant are unsuitable for use in the U.S. lectionary and mandated the lectionary be amended. As a result no available version of the NAB matches the current U.S. lectionary.

Aha!

Thanks for mentioning that - I was wondering why the Lectionary in my Catholic Study Bible doesn’t seem to match what I have seen online (or wasn’t that what you meant to say?).

I have not had my NAB long enough to form an opinion of the translation, but I was somewhat surprised to see in the introduction (or maybe it was the reader’s guide) of the Catholic Study Bible that they seem to have bought into the “documentary hopothesis” (the JEPD stuff) that I had always thought was an aberation of the more liberal Protestant denominations. It just surprised me to see a publication bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur that denied, or at least questioned, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

 

[Cranch]

Aha!

Thanks for mentioning that - I was wondering why the Lectionary in my Catholic Study Bible doesn’t seem to match what I have seen online (or wasn’t that what you meant to say?)

No, what I’m saying is the language of a psalm or other scripture reading you hear in church can be different from the same passage as it appears in the current NAB because the Vatican objected to parts of the NAB translation and had those parts retranslated for use in the mass lectionary.

 

[thommie]

Thanks for the clarification, Cranch.

 

[Cranch]

Thanks for the clarification, Cranch.

:tiphat: You’re welcome!

 

[HailMary]

you really need to find a Bible that includes the so-called Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books (Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Macabees and so on). These books have been part of the canon of the Bible (which was set by the Catholic Church, after all, so we should know!) since the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 300s.

Actually, the original KJV of the bible included all the books of the bible:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Difference_in_the_contents but later the Protestants removed them.
I would never use this bible, of course.

I use the RSV-CE (bible studies), or DR(both), or the Jersalum Bible(devotional)

 

[Anima_Christi]

Growing up in a southern baptist church, I always used a King James Bible, but since I became catholic I’ve been told that the King James version is the “evil” bible. What gives? I have only been a practising catholic since Easter of 2006 and I am still learning about my faith. What bible should I,as a catholic, read?

I recommend the Douay-Rheims, you’ll love it.

 

[jamannor]

The best bible is a bible that you’ll read. I’ve found that I love about three different ones. I own the KJV, it was my first bible that I got after I ended first grade in my methodist church. I also have new american catholic bible, and the one I use in my bible study is the new international version. When I was a leader of my bible study I found different translations very helpful. There are also books out there that can help with the tranlations and talk about the language used. I’m at the office at them moment, but they can be very useful.

Remember though, the best bible is the bible you’re going to read. Have fun!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Brethren,

The Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate considered “substantially correct” by the Council of Trent, and suitable for disputations, expositions, preaching, treaching.

YET… Consider the two sons in the Vinyard
How can you translate ‘novissimus’ as ‘the first’
Ephrem Syrus witnesses Tatian saying ‘the youngest’
Reading ‘first’ as would be correct in context as ‘first-born’ and ‘novissimus’ as last born, gives a response by the Judeans which is in compliance with Roman military law, which explains our Lord’s condemnation. Reading ‘novissimus’ as ‘first’ confounds Latin, and makes no sense of Our Lord’s condemnation.

 

[Zooey]

The best bible is a bible that you’ll read. I’ve found that I love about three different ones. I own the KJV, it was my first bible that I got after I ended first grade in my methodist church. I also have new american catholic bible, and the one I use in my bible study is the new international version. When I was a leader of my bible study I found different translations very helpful. There are also books out there that can help with the tranlations and talk about the language used. I’m at the office at them moment, but they can be very useful.

Remember though, the best bible is the bible you’re going to read. Have fun!

 

[colliric]

Evil? I don’t think so. Incomplete though - you really need to find a Bible that includes the so-called Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books (Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Macabees and so on). These books have been part of the canon of the Bible (which was set by the Catholic Church, after all, so we should know!) since the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 300s.

And I believe some passages in the KJV were deliberately translated with an eye to making them sound less supportive of the Catholic position than they really are.

If you like the older-style language of the KJV then the best Bible for you would be the Douay-Rheims. **This was translated a little earlier than the KJV and is in much the same style. **Otherwise the Revised Standard Version CE (Catholic Edition) would be a good choice.

Actually KJV came out first by less than a year, both were finished in 1611.

Also the original KJV included the deutro books as “apocrypha”(why they are not present in modern editions of that bible is to me due to the increase in anti-catholicism in protestant circles) and of the protestant bibles is the least contradictory to the catholic faith with a good 70% of the contentious passages translated in complete tandem with the catholic Rheims version, it even dared used “Hell”(and it was the last bible ever to do so) in the “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” passage. Not suprising considering it was translated mostly for Anglicans, who also hold the spiritual heaven and hell doctrine.

The NIV is the most anti-catholic bible ever, in most of the contentious passages it is completely off when compared to the Reims version, while the KJV gets a fair wack of the important passages to catholic doctrine right(although not 100% of them).

Of the protestant bibles, the KJV in it’s original 1611 full form with Apocrypha is arguably the lest anti-catholic of those bibles. And this shows how anti-catholicism has grown during the mean time, because the NIV is a terribly off putting translation, Jesus did not say to Judas “Do what you came here to do” the Rheims and KJV got that passage right when they used “Friend, wherefore(Rheims uses “Whereto”) art thou come?”.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Concerning Douay and KJV Gospels: There is so much identicality of text that it is impossible to hold that there was not either a great deal of co-operation between the two colleges, or that there was a greater deal of spying and cross-copying going on.
I believe though, actually, that Douay was first to complete the Gospels, so KJV could be basicly a copy thereof, slightly edited to improve the language.