My Opinion of Protestant Bibles

[colliric]

I’ve had a little bit of a read of several protestant bibles.; I realize scripturally they are not up to scratch in various passages for Catholc doctrines and some of the bibles don’t bother with important books to the catholic faith, called deutrocanon or Apocrypha.

But I thought I like to give an opinion on how well they actually read as well as their compatibility with the Catholic Church.

1611 King James Version. This is one of 4 bibles I have the privilege of owning, It is the one I like to read the most even though it is quite lacking in terms of it is often found in book stores in a form which is NOT the original. The KJV included the deutrocanon in 1611, and sadly most copies no longer have that in. Luckily Penguin Books has come out with the first complete 1611 version of the book, which is paperback, and very affordable(most versions of this one with the apocrypha cost around $60 or more even). I found this bible was not only a classic book in itself as a translation, but in a good majority of passages it is very catholic friendly, especially the full version of it. In fact I saw this version happily sitting on a bookshelf in the “new” section of my local Catholic bookshop. I’m not at all surprised as this is specifically an Anglican bible and much of the doctrines of this faith came from the fact it was initially part of the Catholic Church. Despite it’s many translation flaws we now know of, this is still the best, most catholic compatible, protestant bible.

New King James Version -
I heard this one was translated both from the original KJV and the Latin Vulgate. I also own this one because it was given to me for free from the Gideons, It’s quite well written for modern times. It does however lack the Deutrocanon, and although it’s translated from the Vulgate, why get a protestant version when you can get a Catholic one and know that it’s 100% accurate? Still it is a nice book to read and I read the Gospels and Revelation in this translation when I took my Christian faith up again(I previously had a “Good News” bible, but that’s a catholic bible so I won’t discuss it here).

New International Version -
This is perhaps the most deceptive bible I have ever read. It’s still the bible, but unfortunately it’s a terrible translation, and a bad read too. The NIV is completely anti-catholic, and it shows too. Several important passages have been completely misrepresented here, abiet I will not say it was deliberate, especially what Jesus says to Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. One thing I don’t like about Protestant bibles is how they seem to throw out all the good along with the bad from previous translations. The KJV and NKJV translated this passage directly from the greek and got it right, Jesus says to judas “Friend, wherefore(Read it as “why” or “to what purpose”) art thou come?”, he does not say what the corrupted NIV text has, which is “Friend, do what you came to do”. This is just one of the passages where it doesn’t bother with a direct translation of what has been said. This is a corrupted translation and doesn’t deserve anyone’s time.

The Message -

I don’t like this version either, although it is one bible I haven’t read, after hearing it read aloud in my previous Pentacostal church, I realize how misleading this bible can be. Firstly when translating the bible, I find it is heretical to assume one can completely understand the message of the bible and “adapt it” for others. This is a terrible rule of translation, one which the Catholic easy reading bible, the “Good News Bible”, does not follow thank God.

The good news version is simply a translation word for word into simple English, while “The Message” is a re-write of it. Regardless of such terrible disregard to scripture accuracy, and although I will never read it(Why bother when I’ve got the “Good News: Catholic Edition”?), I think this is probably a better read than the NIV, which is more subtitle in it’s terrible translative work, and therefore a more damaging translation.

 

[Contarini]

1611 King James Version. This is one of 4 bibles I have the privilege of owning, It is the one I like to read the most even though it is quite lacking in terms of it is often found in book stores in a form which is NOT the original. The KJV included the deutrocanon in 1611, and sadly most copies no longer have that in. Luckily Penguin Books has come out with the first complete 1611 version of the book, which is paperback, and very affordable(most versions of this one with the apocrypha cost around $60 or more even). I found this bible was not only a classic book in itself as a translation, but in a good majority of passages it is very catholic friendly, especially the full version of it. In fact I saw this version happily sitting on a bookshelf in the “new” section of my local Catholic bookshop. I’m not at all surprised as this is specifically an Anglican bible and much of the doctrines of this faith came from the fact it was initially part of the Catholic Church. Despite it’s many translation flaws we now know of, this is still the best, most catholic compatible, protestant bible.

New King James Version -
I heard this one was translated both from the original KJV and the Latin Vulgate. I also own this one because it was given to me for free from the Gideons, It’s quite well written for modern times. It does however lack the Deutrocanon, and although it’s translated from the Vulgate, why get a protestant version when you can get a Catholic one and know that it’s 100% accurate? Still it is a nice book to read and I read the Gospels and Revelation in this translation when I took my Christian faith up again(I previously had a “Good News” bible, but that’s a catholic bible so I won’t discuss it here).

New International Version -
This is perhaps the most deceptive bible I have ever read. It’s still the bible, but unfortunately it’s a terrible translation, and a bad read too. The NIV is completely anti-catholic, and it shows too. Several important passages have been completely misrepresented here, abiet I will not say it was deliberate, especially what Jesus says to Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. One thing I don’t like about Protestant bibles is how they seem to throw out all the good along with the bad from previous translations. The KJV and NKJV translated this passage directly from the greek and got it right, Jesus says to judas “Friend, wherefore(Read it as “why” or “to what purpose”) art thou come?”, he does not say what the corrupted NIV text has, which is “Friend, do what you came to do”. This is just one of the passages where it doesn’t bother with a direct translation of what has been said. This is a corrupted translation and doesn’t deserve anyone’s time.

The Message -

I don’t like this version either, although it is one bible I haven’t read, after hearing it read aloud in my previous Pentacostal church, I realize how misleading this bible can be. Firstly when translating the bible, I find it is heretical to assume one can completely understand the message of the bible and “adapt it” for others. This is a terrible rule of translation, one which the Catholic easy reading bible, the “Good News Bible”, does not follow thank God.

The good news version is simply a translation word for word into simple English, while “The Message” is a re-write of it. Regardless of such terrible disregard to scripture accuracy, and although I will never read it(Why bother when I’ve got the “Good News: Catholic Edition”?), I think this is probably a better read than the NIV, which is more subtitle in it’s terrible translative work, and therefore a more damaging translation.

I agree with you on the NIV (though I might have put it less strongly), and I’m glad you appreciate the KJV (many Catholics are understandably prejudiced against it). I don’t think the NKJV relied on the Vulgate–that’s the first I’ve heard of this.

I disagree with you about the Message, and I think you owe it to yourself to have a look at it sometime instead of basing your opinion on hearing it read once. I also reacted very badly when I encountered it in this form (it was used for the liturgical Scripture readings at a Eucharist I attended at the Episcopal Cathedral in Louisville Ky.–in all fairness they did this because it was a special Eucharist run by the young people of the congregation, but it was still a very bad idea).

When taken for what it is–a paraphrase of the Bible, highly idiosyncratic and not suitable for liturgical use, but giving a fresh take on the text–I think the Message is excellent. Peterson has a vibrant style (admittedly he often misfires, but when he’s on he’s really on), and his intention was not to replace more traditional versions. I enjoy reading the Message from time to time, although I’d never use it for my “main course.”

Edwin

 

[Manfred]

Colliric,

Any thoughts on the New American Standard?

While I agree with you on the Non-Inspired Version ,
I don’t share your enthusiasm for the Good News paraphrase.

And, no, the NKJV is not a translation from the Vulgate, but from something called the “textus receptus”, as was the KJV.

Manfred

 

[Baraq]

The Received Text is by far the best preservation of God’s Word available. The KJV is the best reflection of it…no question

Manfred, the NASB uses the same Nestle Greek NT used by the other modern translations. Have you ever read the renunciation of the corrupt text by one of its editors?

""The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.” Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface…I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended… I used to laugh with others… However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them… the deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many… Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…” 55.

 

[colliric]

Colliric,

Any thoughts on the New American Standard?

While I agree with you on the Non-Inspired Version ,
I don’t share your enthusiasm for the Good News paraphrase.

And, no, the NKJV is not a translation from the Vulgate, but from something called the “textus receptus”, as was the KJV.

Manfred

No this is not 100% correct, the NKJV used the Vulgate in several passages where the translators struggled finding modern words to express what the KJV meant. It therefore is a translation of both Vulgate and KJV mixed. It does not use the Textus Receptus at all, and any direct trans of Textus Receptus in NKJV is simply because it is actually translating the KJV rather than the work that the KJV itself translated.

These are the 6 translations the translators used when crafting the NKJV:

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is actually a Catholic approved OT bible too, it was used for the OT.​

The Septuagint, for the old testament.​

The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate was the major source used for the New Testament.​

The Dead Sea Scrolls.​

The Majority Text, or MT.​

and of cause last but not least KJV.

 

[Manfred]

The Received Text is by far the best preservation of God’s Word available. The KJV is the best reflection of it…no question

Manfred, the NASB uses the same Nestle Greek NT used by the other modern translations. Have you ever read the renunciation of the corrupt text by one of its editors?

""The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.” Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface…I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended… I used to laugh with others… However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them… the deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many… Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…” 55.

Baraq,

Just what was the issue with Dr Logsdon? Obviously, he is/was a KJV-Onlyist, as are you.

Look - the problem is NOT with the Textus Receptus, the Nestle-Aland, the UBS, or the Vulgate - it’s with the darn translators!! I hope you can see this.

Manfred

 

[Contarini]

The Received Text is by far the best preservation of God’s Word available. The KJV is the best reflection of it…no question

Manfred, the NASB uses the same Nestle Greek NT used by the other modern translations. Have you ever read the renunciation of the corrupt text by one of its editors?

""The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.” Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, questions by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord…We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface…I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong; it’s frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it…When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended… I used to laugh with others… However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them… the deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many… Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…” 55.

First of all, the number 55 is not adequate documentation. I presume it’s a page number. But what work is it a page number of? How might I find this work, to check up on what you are saying?

In the second place, Logsdon is speaking (in the passage you quote) only of the NASV translation. He says nothing whatever about the Nestle-Aland text. You try to insinuate that his remarks refer to the text, but you haven’t the faintest shadow of ground for doing so. He may have concluded (for whatever reason) that the translation was bad without casting the slightest imputation on the text. Or you may be right and he decided the text was bad–but you need evidence that specifically says so.

And try to give more than a cryptic number next time, OK?

Edwin

 

[BrooklynBoy200]

I’ve had a little bit of a read of several protestant bibles.; I realize scripturally they are not up to scratch in various passages for Catholc doctrines and some of the bibles don’t bother with important books to the catholic faith, called deutrocanon or Apocrypha.

But I thought I like to give an opinion on how well they actually read as well as their compatibility with the Catholic Church.

1611 King James Version. This is one of 4 bibles I have the privilege of owning, It is the one I like to read the most even though it is quite lacking in terms of it is often found in book stores in a form which is NOT the original. The KJV included the deutrocanon in 1611, and sadly most copies no longer have that in. Luckily Penguin Books has come out with the first complete 1611 version of the book, which is paperback, and very affordable(most versions of this one with the apocrypha cost around $60 or more even). I found this bible was not only a classic book in itself as a translation, but in a good majority of passages it is very catholic friendly, especially the full version of it. In fact I saw this version happily sitting on a bookshelf in the “new” section of my local Catholic bookshop. I’m not at all surprised as this is specifically an Anglican bible and much of the doctrines of this faith came from the fact it was initially part of the Catholic Church. Despite it’s many translation flaws we now know of, this is still the best, most catholic compatible, protestant bible.

New King James Version -
I heard this one was translated both from the original KJV and the Latin Vulgate. I also own this one because it was given to me for free from the Gideons, It’s quite well written for modern times. It does however lack the Deutrocanon, and although it’s translated from the Vulgate, why get a protestant version when you can get a Catholic one and know that it’s 100% accurate? Still it is a nice book to read and I read the Gospels and Revelation in this translation when I took my Christian faith up again(I previously had a “Good News” bible, but that’s a catholic bible so I won’t discuss it here).

New International Version -
This is perhaps the most deceptive bible I have ever read. It’s still the bible, but unfortunately it’s a terrible translation, and a bad read too. The NIV is completely anti-catholic, and it shows too. Several important passages have been completely misrepresented here, abiet I will not say it was deliberate, especially what Jesus says to Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. One thing I don’t like about Protestant bibles is how they seem to throw out all the good along with the bad from previous translations. The KJV and NKJV translated this passage directly from the greek and got it right, Jesus says to judas “Friend, wherefore(Read it as “why” or “to what purpose”) art thou come?”, he does not say what the corrupted NIV text has, which is “Friend, do what you came to do”. This is just one of the passages where it doesn’t bother with a direct translation of what has been said. This is a corrupted translation and doesn’t deserve anyone’s time.

The Message -

I don’t like this version either, although it is one bible I haven’t read, after hearing it read aloud in my previous Pentacostal church, I realize how misleading this bible can be. Firstly when translating the bible, I find it is heretical to assume one can completely understand the message of the bible and “adapt it” for others. This is a terrible rule of translation, one which the Catholic easy reading bible, the “Good News Bible”, does not follow thank God.

The good news version is simply a translation word for word into simple English, while “The Message” is a re-write of it. Regardless of such terrible disregard to scripture accuracy, and although I will never read it(Why bother when I’ve got the “Good News: Catholic Edition”?), I think this is probably a better read than the NIV, which is more subtitle in it’s terrible translative work, and therefore a more damaging translation.

I think something is wrong with my bible then. It’s a Catholic Student Bible, and it has that line you mentioned from the NIV, plus some other things. I’ll get a new one.

 

[lak611]

Any thoughts on the New American Standard?

I like the NASB, but I have the most recent revision of it. I don’t have the original NASB, which the other posters seem to be debating about.

I don’t like the NIV either, too much of a dynamic equivalence translation. NASB is much more literal.

I like KJV the best of Protestant translations, followed by NASB. NKJV just sounds clunky, especially read out loud. If I were reading the Bible in public, I’d choose KJV just because it sounds better than NKJV.

I really don’t like any paraphrases: not Message, not Good News, not NLT. I realise that there is a purpose for them, for instance for a person without a lot of English skills, but I personally have no use for them.

 

[Manfred]

No this is not 100% correct, the NKJV used the Vulgate in several passages where the translators struggled finding modern words to express what the KJV meant. It therefore is a translation of both Vulgate and KJV mixed. It does not use the Textus Receptus at all, and any direct trans of Textus Receptus in NKJV is simply because it is actually translating the KJV rather than the work that the KJV itself translated.

These are the 6 translations the translators used when crafting the NKJV:

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is actually a Catholic approved OT bible too, it was used for the OT.​

The Septuagint, for the old testament.​

The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate was the major source used for the New Testament.​

The Dead Sea Scrolls.​

The Majority Text, or MT.​

and of cause last but not least KJV.

Well, maybe not, but may I direct your attention to the following article?

bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think the NASB is the least bad Protestant bible but why have bad at all?

Douy-Rheims-Haydock rules!

 

[lak611]

I think the NASB is the least bad Protestant bible but why have bad at all?

Douy-Rheims-Haydock rules!

I have a Douay-Rheims, but not the Haydock version. Mine actually was published in 1951. It was my mother’s old Bible which she gave me when she got a new one (NAB ). The only things I don’t like about the Douay-Rheims are the differents names of the books and different numbering of the Psalms. I also own an NAB, which is my least favourite Catholic Bible. In addition, I have an NRSV-CE and RSV-CE, both of which I like; although I think the RSV-CE is better because it does not use gender neutral language like the NRSV-CE does.

Having a Protestant Bible is useful in witnessing to Protestants. I have KJV with Apocrypha, so I have all the books, actually a few extra because there are books in the Apocrypha that are apocryphal to Catholics but canonical to Orthodox Christians.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First of all, the number 55 is not adequate documentation. I presume it’s a page number. But what work is it a page number of? How might I find this work, to check up on what you are saying?

In the second place, Logsdon is speaking (in the passage you quote) only of the NASV translation. He says nothing whatever about the Nestle-Aland text. You try to insinuate that his remarks refer to the text, but you haven’t the faintest shadow of ground for doing so. He may have concluded (for whatever reason) that the translation was bad without casting the slightest imputation on the text. Or you may be right and he decided the text was bad–but you need evidence that specifically says so.

And try to give more than a cryptic number next time, OK?

Edwin

Here is the page - watch.pair.com/another.html​

“Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times…I don’t want anything to do with it…” 55

Footnote 55 is a quotation from Gail Riplinger.

I found the entire text by using the last sentence as a search term.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

OP said>>

New International Version -
This is perhaps the most deceptive bible I have ever read. It’s still the bible, but unfortunately it’s a terrible translation, and a bad read too. The NIV is completely anti-catholic, and it shows too. Several important passages have been completely misrepresented here, abiet I will not say it was deliberate, especially what Jesus says to Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane.

I’m not a fan of the NIV myself but can you show us where it is anti-catholic? Also, why is it that Catholics always complain about something being anti-catholic? What about using the term anti-Christian? If you were to say anti-Christian alot more Protestants may agree with you. Because…we are Christians too.

 

[colliric]

I have a Douay-Rheims, but not the Haydock version. Mine actually was published in 1951. It was my mother’s old Bible which she gave me when she got a new one (NAB ). The only things I don’t like about the Douay-Rheims are the differents names of the books and different numbering of the Psalms. I also own an NAB, which is my least favourite Catholic Bible. In addition, I have an NRSV-CE and RSV-CE, both of which I like; although I think the RSV-CE is better because it does not use gender neutral language like the NRSV-CE does.

Having a Protestant Bible is useful in witnessing to Protestants. I have KJV with Apocrypha, so I have all the books, actually a few extra because there are books in the Apocrypha that are apocryphal to Catholics but canonical to Orthodox Christians.

I would love a copy of the Douay-Rheims…

It’s not at my local Catholic book shop though… they only have the NT.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I think something is wrong with my bible then. It’s a Catholic Student Bible, and it has that line you mentioned from the NIV, plus some other things. I’ll get a new one.

Get yourself an RSV-2nd Catholic Edition or a Jerusalem Bible. Both solidly orthodox modern Catholic translations. Avoid the NRSV-CE (contains inclusive language).

 

[Manfred]

I would love a copy of the Douay-Rheims…

It’s not at my local Catholic book shop though… they only have the NT.

I got mine (softcover by TAN) from an online used bookdealer; it was in mint condition, in shrink-wrapping, no evidence it had ever been used; paid less than $25 for it, including S&H.

Try www.bookfinder.com

 

[colliric]

OP said>>

I’m not a fan of the NIV myself but can you show us where it is anti-catholic? Also, why is it that Catholics always complain about something being anti-catholic? What about using the term anti-Christian? If you were to say anti-Christian alot more Protestants may agree with you. Because…we are Christians too.

The NIV decides to obscure the role of Mary in two distinct passages in Luke during the annunciation:
Luke 1:28 “Favored one,” it should actually be “Woman who has been Graced”(or “Woman who is made Full of Grace” which can possibly be truncated into “Full of Grace”)
“How Shall it be?” is incorrectly translated as “How Can it be?” inferring two completely different things. “Can” makes one believe the Virgin Mary is questioning the Angel’s assertion she will birth the messiah, while the correct translation instead infers that she already believes the angel’s statement and is asking about proceedings.

The NIV also decides to blurr the distinction between the word Tradition and the phrase “Tradition of Men”, translating the phrase as the one word. This is dangerous and makes people think that all traditions are an affront to god, rather than those traditions invented by men. Of cause the NIV therefore contradicts itself in a way other bibles don’t.

There are many other passages where it shows it’s bias.

Of cause this arguement isn’t just over the NIV translation, but over the greater argument that Protestant Sola Scriptura doctrine is fundamentally flawed.

timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/007992.html
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_18.htm
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_85.htm
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_103.htm

Once again let me assert In terms of Protestant Bibles the least anti-catholic one was written 400 years ago.

 

[Manfred]

I have a Douay-Rheims, but not the Haydock version. Mine actually was published in 1951. It was my mother’s old Bible which she gave me when she got a new one (NAB ). The only things I don’t like about the Douay-Rheims are the differents names of the books and different numbering of the Psalms. I also own an NAB, which is my least favourite Catholic Bible. In addition, I have an NRSV-CE and RSV-CE, both of which I like; although I think the RSV-CE is better because it does not use gender neutral language like the NRSV-CE does.

Having a Protestant Bible is useful in witnessing to Protestants. I have KJV with Apocrypha, so I have all the books, actually a few extra because there are books in the Apocrypha that are apocryphal to Catholics but canonical to Orthodox Christians.

I promised myself I would express no interest in the “NRSV-CE”, but I’m addicted to this stuff; so - how does the NRSV-CE render Luke 1:28?

 

[Manfred]

Get yourself an RSV-2nd Catholic Edition or a Jerusalem Bible. Both solidly orthodox modern Catholic translations. Avoid the NRSV-CE (contains inclusive language).

As mentioned in another thread, the RSV-2CE appears to be a work-in-progress with respect to Liturgiam Authenticam and the inconsistency with where/how changes were made. The original RSV-CE (1965-66) is more stable and has been around longer, at least as long as the Jerusalem Bible.