My Opinion of Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter colliric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manfred said:
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?
Click to expand...
Since you asked… “Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.”
 
colliric said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well unfortunately mordern Catholic Translations sometimes are just poor translations as well. The verse is from Matthew 26:50

DRV: Friend, whereto art thou come?

RSV-CE: Friend, why are you here? (Footnote: do what you have come)
NAB: Friend, do what you have come for.
NRSV: Friend, do what you are here to do.
JB & NJB: My friend, do what you are here for.
CCB: Friend, do what you came for.
GNB: Be quick about it friend. (Footnote: Why are you here friend?)

The average Catholic who hears the JB, NAB (or NRSV for Canada) would not even know about the difference.
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.
Click to expand...
The Good New Bible is about THE most poorly translated works ever produced. In Luke 2:21 it even gets the number of days after birth where circumsion takes place, wrong. Its eight days later, not a week later. I’ve already cross-reference with Genesis 17, and there it states eight days. And just because of the mention of the foreskin in that chapter, one verse is omitted.

Better than GNB? Christian Community Bible. Better translation & substantial commentary.
 
demerzel85 said:
Umm… the one TAN is currently selling is from Loreto Publications.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of them, what is wrong with them? I looked at my copy (that I purchased in the late '90s) and it says “TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford Illinois.”
 
RNRobert said:
I’ve never heard of them, what is wrong with them? I looked at my copy (that I purchased in the late '90s) and it says “TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford Illinois.”
Click to expand...
The Douay Rheims printed by TAN Books is currently out of print. What TAN is selling is the Douay Rheims printed by Loreto Publications. What’s wrong? I am not sure myself.
 
demerzel85 said:
The Douay Rheims printed by TAN Books is currently out of print. What TAN is selling is the Douay Rheims printed by Loreto Publications. What’s wrong? I am not sure myself.
Click to expand...
I got a hardbound Douay Rheims from Tan’s website about a year ago. I did not like it… it felt cheap. I’m not sure how else to describe it. I did not like the paper quality at all. Of course, I’m only talking about the cover and the pages, not the content.

I went out and got the Baronius Press DRV -soft leather, several months later. I loved this one, except the gold flaked off the pages a bit. Other than that I really like it.

As far as protestant Bibles, the only one I have ever read is the KJV. I think the language is so beautiful, especially the Psalms. However, accuracy is more important, and for me that includes having the deuterocanonical books. So, I will stick with DRV.
 
demerzel85 said:
Well unfortunately mordern Catholic Translations sometimes are just poor translations as well. The verse is from Matthew 26:50

DRV: Friend, whereto art thou come?

RSV-CE: Friend, why are you here? (Footnote: do what you have come)
NAB: Friend, do what you have come for.
NRSV: Friend, do what you are here to do.
JB & NJB: My friend, do what you are here for.
CCB: Friend, do what you came for.
GNB: Be quick about it friend. (Footnote: Why are you here friend?)

The average Catholic who hears the JB, NAB (or NRSV for Canada) would not even know about the difference.

The Good New Bible is about THE most poorly translated works ever produced. In Luke 2:21 it even gets the number of days after birth where circumsion takes place, wrong. Its eight days later, not a week later. I’ve already cross-reference with Genesis 17, and there it states eight days. And just because of the mention of the foreskin in that chapter, one verse is omitted.

Better than GNB? Christian Community Bible. Better translation & substantial commentary.
Click to expand...

I find the so-called DRV impossible - it’s like a poor plagiarised edition of the AV, or else it is next to incomprehensible or often simply wrong. And it is too Latinate. Catholics are hopeless at writing English - with the possible exception of Cardinal Newman, the great English stylists since the rise of Modern English have all been Protestants. As for modern English in the Liturgy, or in & Church documents - the less said, the better. It is painful to have to cut one’s way through such interwined & clinging masses of polysyllabic verbosity.​

Anyways: the Apostles didn’t write in archaic Greek - so why do English-speaking Christians have to use archaic English ? The Apostles used the language of their day, for they had a message they were trying to make understood; so why must we be different ? 🙂

As for translating - translators have to translate the text before them; not some other text they aren’t translating, so as to give the impression that text A agrees with text B elsewhere, when it doesn’t. Translators of Vergil don’t translate quotations of lines from Homer as quoted by Milton or Vergil - they translate what the text of Vergil’s own work says. So with the Bible: the Letter to the Hebrews quotes several Psalms: that’s no reason to translate what those Psalms say, if one is translating Hebrews. If there are differences, then so be it.

The one version I don’t like is “The Living Bible” - bible-researcher.com/lbp.html. It’s intelligible (which is good) - but to gain this it gets rid of too much of the detail that makes the first-century world that of the first century, instead of the twentieth. It’s one thing to talk of the “Israelis” in the OT - but when Paul is made to talk about “getting to heaven”, then the text is being distorted. It’s useless for study - like the AV; the RV is far superior in that respect, though still inferior to the RSV. The NEB is a pleasure to read - and has very few notes apart from those which point out its readings.

The JPS Tanakh is well worth having, BTW.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

I find the so-called DRV impossible - it’s like a poor plagiarised edition of the AV, or else it is next to incomprehensible or often simply wrong. And it is too Latinate. Catholics are hopeless at writing English - with the possible exception of Cardinal Newman, the great English stylists since the rise of Modern English have all been Protestants. As for modern English in the Liturgy, or in & Church documents - the less said, the better. It is painful to have to cut one’s way through such interwined & clinging masses of polysyllabic verbosity.​

Click to expand...
Amen! Western Catholics should stick to Latin 👍
 
As far as The Message goes, I have a copy. Now I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone who is doing some serious scripture study. It does have a statement regarding it’s use a for reading purposes only & to get a different translation for study reasons. It really helped me understand scripture a lot more but I also had in mind that this was not an exact translation. Once I got a basic understanding then I went on to more complex versions.

This method worked for me but in no way am I recommending this for everyone.

For an online version of the DRV:

drbo.org/

This was given by someone else here on the forums & I am eternally grateful for it. Now I can learn the real “red meat” of scripture, so to speak
 
colliric said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, and when “paradosis” (the word normally translated “tradition”) is used in a positive sense they translate it as “teaching” or something like that.

And then there’s the NIV’s persistent translation of words connoting “perfection” or “sanctification” in a way that implies that something other than becoming free from sin is spoken of. God forbid that Christians should actually try to be holy. . . .

Edwin
 
If you try to be holy then you aren’t really a Christian since you are trying to earn your way into Heaven!

Why didn’t anyone mention the New World Translation? Isn’t that the best?😉

I just ordered a KJV of the Bible from Mormon.org as I really need one and they are sending them out free with a complimentary visit from your neighborhood missionaries.
Sounds like a good deal to me.

God Bless
Scylla
 
I heard that TAN is very “pre-vatican 2”. I don’t know if this is true; I’m not even interested in looking it up. I’m telling you what I heard though.

I have a book by TAN called “This is the Faith”. Haven’t read it all yet but I have read some.
 
Dr. Arthur Farstad, a translator and editor of the NKJV, was a close personal friend and an elder at our church, so I was quite familiar with the endeavor as it was going on.

It is, first and foremost, a revision of the KJV. It is actually the 5th revision - the KJV that you buy today from a bookstore is actually the 4th revision, done in 1769 (IIRC), although as the original post says, 1611 editions are available (and a lot of fun to read). The underlying Greek text is therefore the Textus Receptus, although most editions have the NU and Majority Text renderings in the margin.

The article on bible-researcher.com refers to Dr. Farstad as a Conservative Baptist. Actually, he was Plymouth Brethren through and through.

When preaching, I used the NKJV, and sometimes pointed out a better way to translate a verse, or portion of a verse. On one such occassion, Dr. Farstad afterwards told me that many of the members of the committee would have agreed with me, but one of their guiding principles was that, if the KJV translation was feasible, they were to use it (modernized to today’s English).

To the best of my knowledge, there is still no translation based on the Majority Text, with the exception of a translation of the Gospel according to John, which I have seen in pamphlet form entitled “Living Waters.”

A mutual friend told me that Dr. Farstad was the one who “sold” Holman on the Christian Standard translation. I would be surprised if he didn’t have the Majority Text in mind for the translation, but he passed away just as the project was getting started, and it ended up being another translation of the Critical Text. 😦

Dr. Farstad wrote a book about the translation of the NKJV, entitled The New King James Version in the Great Tradition.

Sorry for being so long-winded on this. Dr. Farstad passed away in 1998, and I still miss him.
 
scylla said:
If you try to be holy then you aren’t really a Christian since you are trying to earn your way into Heaven!

Why didn’t anyone mention the New World Translation? Isn’t that the best?😉

I just ordered a KJV of the Bible from Mormon.org as I really need one and they are sending them out free with a complimentary visit from your neighborhood missionaries.
Sounds like a good deal to me.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
You do realize it will probably include “Another testament”?

I should talk! I have a copy of the book of Mormon once given to me because I liked talking to these people about faith to help me personally understand them and where they come from because their church pushes a “christian exterior, momon interior” so I was confused about them, I have not and will not ever actually read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top