NAB Bible

[Manfred]

There is no RSV-CE only movement comparable with the nutjobs into King James Onlyism.

The strengths of the RSVCE are that it follows the majestic Tyndale-King James tradition; it is very literal around 8% deviation from the Greek; it was broadly accepted in the 20th-century amongst conservative Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians and even scholarly evangelicals like it.

Mese,

I’d really be interested in hearing where you got the “8% deviation from the Greek” measure for the RSV.

What makes the KJV-onlyists “nutjobs” isn’t their attachment to the KJV per se; it’s more their rabid anti-Catholicism and narrow-mindedness. (Heck, give them credit for eschewing the NIV!)

 

[Cranch]

The DRV in its time would be classified as being very accurate but it is written in Old English and a person attempting to decipher the Old English meanings can easily get the wrong meaning from certain passages.

Though your meaning is clear, I just wanted to point out that Old English—also known as Anglo-Saxon—died out in the 12th century. The Douay-Rheims bible (New Testament 1582, Old Testament 1609) was a translation into the Elizabethan English of the 16th century, which is technically early modern English. The Challoner revision of the D-R, made in the mid-18th century, has been the definitive version of the D-R since then and uses language that is probably 95% identical to our own. And for my money, it remains very accurate.

 

[TheMese]

Mese,

I’d really be interested in hearing where you got the “8% deviation from the Greek” measure for the RSV.

What makes the KJV-onlyists “nutjobs” isn’t their attachment to the KJV per se; it’s more their rabid anti-Catholicism and narrow-mindedness. (Heck, give them credit for eschewing the NIV!)

It’s hard to know where to start with what’s wrong with “King James Onlyism” movement. Nevertheless, I particularly roll my eyes at their claim that the KJV is perfect and that the original biblical Autographs are embedded in and immortalised in their *ye olde *text, without error, in Elizabethan English no less! I wish for their sakes this was a ‘straw-man’ exaggeration but it really is what they “think”.

As for the NIV, it could be worse. I was comparing my RSVCE Psalm 27 with an evangelical’s NIV rendition and they were almost the same!

The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When evildoers assail me, uttering slanders against me, my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall. Though a host encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war arise against me, yet I will be confident. One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple.
(Psalms 27:1-4 RSV)

The LORD is my light and my salvation— whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life— of whom shall I be afraid? When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall. Though an army besiege me, my heart will not fear; though war break out against me, even then will I be confident. One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple.
(Psalms 27:1-4 NIV)

I’m not going to hunt for my 8% deviation from the Greek claim for the RSV. I read it on Wikipedia which is like the sand dunes in the desert, forever changing with the daily winds. It certainly is a literal translation and we used it at my university biblical studies course ‘in the last century.’

 

[Manfred]

Though your meaning is clear, I just wanted to point out that Old English—also known as Anglo-Saxon—died out in the 12th century. The Douay-Rheims bible (New Testament 1582, Old Testament 1609) was a translation into the Elizabethan English of the 16th century, which is technically early modern English. The Challoner revision of the D-R, made in the mid-18th century, has been the definitive version of the D-R since then and uses language that is probably 95% identical to our own. And for my money, it remains very accurate.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :tiphat:

 

[ERose]

Though your meaning is clear, I just wanted to point out that Old English—also known as Anglo-Saxon—died out in the 12th century. The Douay-Rheims bible (New Testament 1582, Old Testament 1609) was a translation into the Elizabethan English of the 16th century, which is technically early modern English. The Challoner revision of the D-R, made in the mid-18th century, has been the definitive version of the D-R since then and uses language that is probably 95% identical to our own. And for my money, it remains very accurate.

Sorry for the misunderstanding here but I was not attempting to use official terms for to be truthful the historical evolution of English is a subject that I bypassed in college. What I was attempting to say is that becaused of some of the changes in English over the years, it can make reading the DRV more difficult to read in certain passages. It is not an attack on the DRV itself for it is one of the translations I read frequently.