NAB vs NIV

  • Thread starter Thread starter peace2u2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

peace2u2

Guest
What is the difference between these 2 Bibles? I know that the NAB has both the Old & New Testament. Does the NIV have the Old Testament as well? As a Catholic, which Bible is best to use to study Scripture? Thanks.

:bible1:
 
peace2u2 said:
What is the difference between these 2 Bibles? I know that the NAB has both the Old & New Testament. Does the NIV have the Old Testament as well? As a Catholic, which Bible is best to use to study Scripture? Thanks.

:bible1:
Click to expand...
CA-RSV > NABRE > NAB > NIV for Catholics in USA.

All are dynamic translations. NIV misses deutercanonical books (NIV is protestant).

Regards,
James
 
As far as translations go,
both are very nicely translated, for the most part.
As one poster replied, The NIV is a protestant (although with Catholic
and Jewish scholars as well) translation, while the NAB
is primarily a Roman Catholic translation (although protestant and Jewish scholars also
helped out in the translation of the NAB !!).

Most NIV “Study Bibles” have study notes, explanations, introductions, and footnotes
which reflect a nonCatholic doctrinal slant (symbolic-only Eucharist, often “once saved, always saved,” especially in the Harper Study Bible, a chiliastic viewpoint in some study bibles, non-priestly “elders” only, no hierarchy, no other sacraments, etc.

The NAB, on the other hand, has many study notes that I find detrimental to
the orthodox Roman Catholic faith. That’s the ORIGINAL NAB. I have to confess
that I have not read the study notes in the new and REVISED N.A.B. that came out
just a while back, so I cannot speak about that with any knowledge.

But the translations of the biblical text, in both versions, is pretty darned good.
The NIV has one drawback: It is missing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books found
in ALL Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible versions and in ALL Bibles prior to the
16th century, when Luther and later Calvin,** jettisoned them **based on their own, personal, purely-self-appointed authority which was really their own private and
**non-authoritative views **as to their “worthiness” of being included in the canon.
 
The NAB revised edition (NABRE) is a Catholic translation and the NIV is a protestant translation. But the most important thing is that the NABRE includes all the books of the bible in the Catholic canon, the NIV is published without 7 of those books! 😦
 
Both the NAB (now the NABRE) and the NIV were revised in 2011. The NIV tries to fit a balance between being literal/formal and dynamic/functional. The NABRE tends to be more formal than the NIV, somewhat closer to the RSV, although not as formal as it. The NABRE Old Testament and Psalms are a vast improvement over the previous edition.

You can read some additional information about the NABRE here: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search?q=NABRE
 
Thanks for all your replies. I use the NAB translation, but the print is so small. I like using the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament. The print is big and there are great commentaries, but it does not include the Old Testament and there doesn’t seem to be one in print.
 
Oxford publishes an NABRE Bible that comes in large print (font size 12). The giant print editions of the NABRE are not yet released (Catholic Book Publishing and Fireside), unless you want a large sized Family Bible.
 
One thing about the NIV is that it is very eclectic when it comes to textual criticism, meaning that it does not rely on one manuscript source, but it has a large blend of many versions and manuscript traditions, that are determined by the translation team.
 
Both the NAB & NIV removed (Acts 8:37) from the King James Bible:

“8:47 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Don’t qoute me on this, but I read somwhere that the new modern versions have removed the word, “JESUS” 27 times from the KJV. Some versions went as far as adding a line or two to get around using the word, “JESUS”.

Just a couple if reasons why we can’t help but love the Protestants. 🙂
 
One other thing about the NIV is that it puts a Protestant spin on the texts.

For example, the Greek word παραδοσιν\paradosin, is translated as ‘tradition’ when used in a negative context, but translated as ‘teachings’ when used in a positive context.
Mat 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

1Co 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2Th 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.
Click to expand...
 
The NIV spins so much so often that Catholics would be better off with the King James Bible hands down.
 
Brendan said:
One other thing about the NIV is that it puts a Protestant spin on the texts.

For example, the Greek word παραδοσιν\paradosin, is translated as ‘tradition’ when used in a negative context, but translated as ‘teachings’ when used in a positive context.
Click to expand...
kkollwitz said:
The NIV spins so much so often that Catholics would be better off with the King James Bible hands down.
Click to expand...
The NIV and NASB, as well as virtually all protestant translations have the taint of agenda which ranges from ever-so-slight to obvious. The KJV, being much earlier, does not exhibit nearly so much of this, IMO. A KJV with the Deuterocanon is still a good bible, although it is still not a true Catholic bible. I find the NIV to be horribly dumbed down in its linguistics. The NAB offends by trying ever so had not to offend. Jesus never said, for example, “Who do people say that I am?” (Mark 8:27).

The NAB notes can be almost toxic.
 
kkollwitz said:
“the taint of agenda”

I like that.
Click to expand...
Example? Let’s look at how John 2:4 has morphed as the split has widened.

John 2:4
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (circa 1582)
And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

John 2:4
King James Version (circa 1611)
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

John 2:4
New International Version (1978ish)
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

John 2:4
Good News Translation (1966)
You must not tell me what to do, Jesus replied. My time has not yet come.

Thus, scripture has morphed from our Lord asking Mary an almost rhetorical question, all the way to Him rebuking her.

Like I said: The taint of agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top