Most literal translation?

[CalCatholic]

The English Standard version is a word-for-word translation. It’s Protestant, but I think it’s nice to have other translations for study.

I had bought a copy of the ESV years ago because it was based upon the RSV and it had eliminated the (thees and thous). I loved the RSV-CE but the thees and thous in the Psalms were killing me. But in 2006 when the RSV-2CE came out, there was suddenly no need for the ESV because now there was a second Catholic edition of the RSV without the thees and thous and was approved by the Vatican.

 

[Manfred]

Here we are very much into the realm of personal opinions. But I do think the views of bishops should be treated with respect.

Perhaps, but the fact that the NRSV and the RNAB texts - both heavily inclusive - are in Lectionaries, while the NJB with its restrained use of inclusive language is not, makes me feel otherwise.

In Ireland (as in England, Scotland and Wales) the readings at Mass are from the JB, and not the NJB.

And the NJB will never even receive consideration for such use.

My favorite is still the NRSV (CE), next to this I like the NASB and the NAB.

The NASB is not really in the same class as are the other two for a number of reasons. However, I would prefer the NASB over the highly-vaunted NIV.

As for the NRSV-CE and NAB: I much prefer the RSV-CE (not the RSV-2CE) and the NJB, respectively.

 

[stpetric]

I’m prepared for the most painfully literal version possible. I want the closest thing next to reading the original language, even if it makes little sense. Any suggestions?

They’re evangelical protestants translations, but the early 20th century American Standard Version (which is NOT the RSV) and its 1960s successor, the New American Standard Bible are based on the premise that literal is best. Consequently, they’re not always easy to read – but they ARE literal!

 

[Blessed_Hope]

I would stay away from all the Protestant translations. NSAB, KJV, NIV, The Message. If you want a strong literal translation the Douay-Rheims is it, followed by the RSV-CE

I prefer a good ole King James . Just curious, and not trying to be difficult, what is it that makes you say you would “stay away” from a Protestant translation??? I guess Im asking you to clarify for me why you see some as a Protestant translation. I do know the the Rheams, Douay Bible has catholic roots…and of course I have seen most mention that particular one!
have a great day!

 

[Jolly_Joe]

What does the original poster mean by the word “literal”?

 

[tobinatorstark]

I prefer a good ole King James . Just curious, and not trying to be difficult, what is it that makes you say you would “stay away” from a Protestant translation??? I guess Im asking you to clarify for me why you see some as a Protestant translation. I do know the the Rheams, Douay Bible has catholic roots…and of course I have seen most mention that particular one!
have a great day!

I am Catholic not Protestant. Why would I want Protestant theology when I can have Catholic theology?? I will say that the King James is the best Protestant Bible on the market today. But isn’t suited for Catholic reading. It bears no imprimatur or Nihil Obstat, which says its alright to read it. Plus the King James has errors in it. ie. Douay-Rheims Matthew 6:9-13 and the King James 6:9-13

Douay-Rheims

Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

King James Version

After this maner therefore pray yee: Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen.Giue vs this day our daily bread. And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.

notice the difference?? How does that not contradict Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6 and Apoc.22:18-19

Deut 4:2

You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Prov. 30:6

Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:

Apocalypse 22:18-19

For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

 

[David_Zampino]

I am Catholic not Protestant. Why would I want Protestant theology when I can have Catholic theology?? I will say that the King James is the best Protestant Bible on the market today. But isn’t suited for Catholic reading. It bears no imprimatur or Nihil Obstat, which says its alright to read it. Plus the King James has errors in it. ie. Douay-Rheims Matthew 6:9-13 and the King James 6:9-13

I disagree that the KJV is the best Protestant Bible on the market today. It was certainly the best of its time – and is a masterpiece of Elizabethan English. But in the last 400 years or so, there have been other manuscripts discovered, better Greek New Testaments, advances in Biblical scholarship – and your average “man in the street” does not speak in Elizabethan English any more!

 

[jjoelness]

I’m prepared for the most painfully literal version possible. I want the closest thing next to reading the original language, even if it makes little sense. Any suggestions?

I think the NASB does a good job of of being “literal.” I believe what you are asking for is Formal Equivalence. Ask for that at the Bible store.

I would disagree with the poster who recommended the Douay OT and original Rheims NT or even the Latin Vulgate because they user older, less reliable texts as a base (like the King James). Don’t get me wrong, they were good translations for their day, but we know so much more (and have many more texts) for today’s study of scripture.

If you are trying to get at the original language (but don’t know Greek) then look at several different versions side-by-side. Normally, whenever there is a difference, there is something interesting going on in the Greek text.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I think the NASB does a good job of of being “literal.” I believe what you are asking for is Formal Equivalence. Ask for that at the Bible store.

I would disagree with the poster who recommended the Douay OT and original Rheims NT or even the Latin Vulgate because they user older, less reliable texts as a base (like the King James). Don’t get me wrong, they were good translations for their day, but we know so much more (and have many more texts) for today’s study of scripture.

If you are trying to get at the original language (but don’t know Greek) then look at several different versions side-by-side. Normally, whenever there is a difference, there is something interesting going on in the Greek text.

I strongly disagree with you. We can’t prove that the Vulgate used less reliable text nor can we prove that those using the so called “original texts” are more reliable. Please provide proof that the Vulgate uses less reliable texts.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I disagree that the KJV is the best Protestant Bible on the market today. It was certainly the best of its time – and is a masterpiece of Elizabethan English. But in the last 400 years or so, there have been other manuscripts discovered, better Greek New Testaments, advances in Biblical scholarship – and your average “man in the street” does not speak in Elizabethan English any more!

but the Elizebethan English doesn’t have to be a problem. What do you consider to be the best Protestant Bible around???

 

[David_Zampino]

but the Elizebethan English doesn’t have to be a problem. What do you consider to be the best Protestant Bible around???

No, Elizabethan English does not have to be a problem. However, the reality is, is that for most people (Catholic OR Protestant) it is a problem. Most Americans (honestly, most English-language speakers period) struggled through a few Shakespeare plays in high school and/or college – and that’s it. Call it laziness, if you like – but it is, in fact, reality.

In addition, languages do evolve over time. For good or for ill, the meanings of words change as well. Even within a particular language, usage and colloquialisms vary from place to place and from nation to nation. This, too, is reality.

I can read Elizabethan English. I have no particular difficulty with Shakespeare. But ask me to read *The Canterbury Tales * and I’m going to have difficulty. Ask me to read *Beowulf *-- and it’s going to be a real problem! And I have rather more education than your average bear!

That is why there will always be a need for translations which are easily accessible for the “man-in-the-street” (or, if you prefer, the “man-in-the-pew”!) Heck, that was the original purpose for St. Jerome’s *Vulgate *in the first place – Vulgate, from “vulgar” – not in the sense we use “vulgar” today, but meaning rather “common” – hence the Vulgate was the Bible in the “common language” or the language most commonly spoken by the “average person” at the time.

My favorite Protestant translation remains the original Revised Standard Version. The Oxford Annotated Revised Standard Version is one of two that I commonly use for teaching, the other being the RSV 2nd Catholic edition.

Blessings,

 

[ronin67]

I would stay away from all the Protestant translations. NSAB, KJV, NIV, The Message. If you want a strong literal translation the Douay-Rheims is it, followed by the RSV-CE

Why wouldn’t you recommend any Protestant translations? NASB, ESV, KJV, and the NKJV are all great Christian bibles. The NASB is suppose to be one of the best literal translations out their (minus the non-canon Apocrypha).

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed:thumbsup:

 

[tobinatorstark]

Why wouldn’t you recommend any Protestant translations? NASB, ESV, KJV, and the NKJV are all great Christian bibles. The NASB is suppose to be one of the best literal translations out their (minus the non-canon Apocrypha).

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed:thumbsup:

Catholic theology. I don’t want to fill my head with anything that contradicts the Catholic Church and her teachings. Protestant translations are fine for those who are not Catholic not fine for those who are Catholic.

 

[eccehomo]

Hi, there: The most “literal” translation I have found can be found at website: www.peschitta.org
Now, understand that this is a nearly word for word from Aramaic to English. The grammar is very different so this translation is difficlut to understand. It IS, however, a direct translation.

Peace and all good
Eccehomo

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi, there: The most “literal” translation I have found can be found at website: www.peschitta.org
Now, understand that this is a nearly word for word from Aramaic to English. The grammar is very different so this translation is difficlut to understand. It IS, however, a direct translation.

Peace and all good
Eccehomo

your link isn’t it

peshitta.org/

I think this is what you meant. Been to this site many time. Wonderful site

 

[NoelFitz]

Eccehomo

Th Bible was not written in Aramaic.

In general the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek.

 

[NoelFitz]

I read:

I will say that the King James is the best Protestant Bible on the market today.

I have heard it said that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus Christ it is good enough for me.

Some one asked for evidence that the texts we have are better than those St Jerome had.

The answer is obvious over recent years very many manuscripts have been found, going back earlier that 300 CE.

They argument between Catholic and Protestant Bibles is not very helpful. For the NT most scholars, who are not interested in textual studies use the Greek NT of the United Bible Societies. This is a joint Catholic/Protestant initiative, with Cardinal Martini on the editorial Board.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I read:

I have heard it said that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus Christ it is good enough for me.

Some one asked for evidence that the texts we have are better than those St Jerome had.

The answer is obvious over recent years very many manuscripts have been found, going back earlier that 300 CE.

They argument between Catholic and Protestant Bibles is not very helpful. For the NT most scholars, who are not interested in textual studies use the Greek NT of the United Bible Societies. This is a joint Catholic/Protestant initiative, with Cardinal Martini on the editorial Board.

We have no physical proof that the manuscripts that were used in modern translations are older than those used by Jerome because they (the manuscripts used by Jerome) are non existant.

 

[David_Zampino]

We have no physical proof that the manuscripts that were used in modern translations are older than those used by Jerome because they (the manuscripts used by Jerome) are non existant.

I guess it would have to mean what you consider “proof”. We have no proof that they are NOT extant either! Who knows what archeological treasure troves still remain to be discovered! St. Jerome spent a long time in those caves in Bethlehem, you know!

The facts of the matter are these:

• St. Jerome, unlike many scholars of his day, was a student, not only of the Greek text, but of the Hebrew text as well. This is of enormous value.
• We have no certain knowledge – one way or the other – of the sources to which St. Jerome may have had access.
• There ARE extant manuscripts which pre-date St. Jerome, some of which he may well have had access to in his time and by virtue of his position as the secretary to Pope St. Damasus I.
• St. Jerome’s intent was to translate the Scriptures into the common language of the day, hence the name Vulgate.
• Since the publication of both the Douay-Rheims and the King James Bibles, there have been numerous discoveries of texts and manuscripts.
• Both the Douay-Rheims AND the King James Bible were publishing triumphs in the English language not only for Catholics and Protestants, but for the English-speaking world.
• The translators of both of these Bibles did not have access (obviously!) to the discoveries of the last 400 years.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I guess it would have to mean what you consider “proof”. We have no proof that they are NOT extant either! Who knows what archeological treasure troves still remain to be discovered! St. Jerome spent a long time in those caves in Bethlehem, you know!

The facts of the matter are these:

• St. Jerome, unlike many scholars of his day, was a student, not only of the Greek text, but of the Hebrew text as well. This is of enormous value.
• We have no certain knowledge – one way or the other – of the sources to which St. Jerome may have had access.
• There ARE extant manuscripts which pre-date St. Jerome, some of which he may well have had access to in his time and by virtue of his position as the secretary to Pope St. Damasus I.
• St. Jerome’s intent was to translate the Scriptures into the common language of the day, hence the name Vulgate.
• Since the publication of both the Douay-Rheims and the King James Bibles, there have been numerous discoveries of texts and manuscripts.
• Both the Douay-Rheims AND the King James Bible were publishing triumphs in the English language not only for Catholics and Protestants, but for the English-speaking world.
• The translators of both of these Bibles did not have access (obviously!) to the discoveries of the last 400 years.

but nothing proves their accuracy or lack of accuracy.