New American Bible (1970) is it really all that bad for study?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KeepLearning
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KeepLearning

Guest
I got a 1970 copyright NAB (St Joseph edition) for my confirmation. I read it a lot and got used to it. It got worn out. About 10 yrs later, I bought a new one and I didn’t like the inclusive language.

A few years ago, at a local Catholic church’s rummage sale, I got a large print NAB (copyright 1970) I love the large print. It’s very easy on my eyes and the NAB 1970 is the text that I’m used to.

The Douay Bible is supposed to be the most faithful Catholic bible, right? But I find the old English confusing, and the names of many of the books seem to be different. And the numbering of the Psalms confuses me too.

I got an RSV-CE a couple years ago. The language is easier to understand than the Douay, but the print is still small and that frustrates me too. I know it’s recommended by Scott Hahn for his Bible studies and I often hear this version quoted on EWTN. (Though I have noticed some people using the NAB too.)

I cannot find an RSV Catholic version in large print. The only Catholic versions in large print I can find are NAB and Good News Bible (which I use with my children.)

Hmmm. What do the majority of faithful Catholics use? Is the 1970 NAB all that bad for someone who is seriously interested in deeper scripture study? And, if not, can you direct me to a source that has the RSV in large print?
 
The 1970 NAB is not all that bad; you’re lucky you still have a copy. Its NT is a dynamic translation and a little loose but quite readable.
 
KeepLearning said:
I got an RSV-CE a couple years ago. The language is easier to understand than the Douay, but the print is still small and that frustrates me too. I know it’s recommended by Scott Hahn for his Bible studies and I often hear this version quoted on EWTN. (Though I have noticed some people using the NAB too.)

I cannot find an RSV Catholic version in large print. The only Catholic versions in large print I can find are NAB and Good News Bible (which I use with my children.
Click to expand...
I have a new Jerusalem, a few NABs, but read mostly from the RSV-2CE. Email Ignatius press with a request for Lg print, as the compact size of the RSV is about the only problem with it. Jimmy Akin likes the RSV as well, saying that the NAB is a “squishy” translation. Much better than nothing, though…\

Christ’s peace.
 
inhisname.com/product.php?product=28664

The above RSV bible is a Family Bible. There is another one with a different cover. Just go to www.inhisname.com and do a search for “Family Bible.” This one above has large print. I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for.

I like the RSV-Catholic Edition also. It is the english translation used by the Vatican.
 
Thanks everyone! I ordered the ivory-colored one from amazon. Now to find a bible cover that will fit…

Thanks again!
 
KeepLearning said:
Thanks everyone! I ordered the ivory-colored one from amazon. Now to find a bible cover that will fit…

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
If you can’t find one, I have a cousin who made a cover for her own Bible, and got the pattern off the 'Net. So there is a pattern, at least, out there!!
 
While some translations may not be as accurate I never find a reason to discredit any of them. They are still the Bible and therefore not some evil product.
 
I’m not so against the translation as much as I am against the footnotes in it, a lot of which are heretical. I think it’s good if you can’t really understand the “Thee” and “Thou” type wording of the older version, but I would keep away from the footnotes in it.

A good Catholic Bible Commentary is Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary. But, the best Bible translation is the Douay-Rheims Version.
 
Everytime the NAB differs from the Vulgate on matters of doctrine it really is that bad.
 
DylanO said:
I’m not so against the translation as much as I am against the footnotes in it, a lot of which are heretical. I think it’s good if you can’t really understand the “Thee” and “Thou” type wording of the older version, but I would keep away from the footnotes in it.

A good Catholic Bible Commentary is Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary. But, the best Bible translation is the Douay-Rheims Version.
Click to expand...
I agree. An advantage of the present edition of the NAB is that it restores some traditional wordings which the 1970 edition rendered different (this didn’t include ‘full of grace’, alas); however the advantage of the 1970 version is that while there are rather problematic statements in forewords and footnotes, the latter is much less ‘heretical’ and better than the present ones. Thus I think the original NAB is superior to the present edition; however, IMHO the DRV and RSV-CE are better translations. 😉
 
I grew up thinking that the King James Version was the Bible and there was no other version than King James. Have been a Catholic all my life and hearing the New American Bible in church all my life I learned the difference between the 2. I don’t find the New American Bible bad at all. I use it for my CRHP meetings. It is very easy to understand, but most of the time outside of CRHP I use it for reference. I prefer the Douay-Rheims Version and use it on a daily basis. What you get out of a translation is up to you. Some Prefer the NAB over Douay-Rheims or other versions. I have not personal read the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE, but the protestant translation doesn’t seem to get along with me, now knowing that the protestant bibles including the King James have omitted 7 books in which the call the apocrypha and us Catholics call Deutrocanonical. The King James did once include the 7 books in between the old and new testament, but now have been omitted. I think that the King James in very similar to the Douay-Rheims. I would encourage beginners in the catholic religion to start out with the NAB though. It is just what you make of it
 
tobinatorstark said:
I grew up thinking that the King James Version was the Bible and there was no other version than King James. Have been a Catholic all my life and hearing the New American Bible in church all my life I learned the difference between the 2. I don’t find the New American Bible bad at all. I use it for my CRHP meetings. It is very easy to understand, but most of the time outside of CRHP I use it for reference. I prefer the Douay-Rheims Version and use it on a daily basis. What you get out of a translation is up to you. Some Prefer the NAB over Douay-Rheims or other versions. I have not personal read the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE, but the protestant translation doesn’t seem to get along with me, now knowing that the protestant bibles including the King James have omitted 7 books in which the call the apocrypha and us Catholics call Deutrocanonical. The King James did once include the 7 books in between the old and new testament, but now have been omitted. I think that the King James in very similar to the Douay-Rheims. I would encourage beginners in the catholic religion to start out with the NAB though. It is just what you make of it
Click to expand...
Yes, the similarity is due to the fact that the Douay-Rheims New Testament (originally published 1582 in one volume, with appendices; the Old Testament was originally published in 1609-10 in two volumes) influenced the KJV (aka the Authorized Version or AV), being one of the versions consulted by the translators of that work, especially the NT.
 
patrick457 said:
Yes, the similarity is due to the fact that the Douay-Rheims New Testament (originally published 1582 in one volume, with appendices; the Old Testament was originally published in 1609-10 in two volumes) influenced the KJV (aka the Authorized Version or AV), being one of the versions consulted by the translators of that work, especially the NT.
Click to expand...
It is very true that the original Douay-Rheims was a reference for the KJV translators, but it is worth noting that the similarities we see today between the KJV and the Challoner revision of the D-R may owe as much to Bishop Challoner’s referencing the KJV in creating his version. From bibleresearcher.com, here is a comparison of Hebrews 1:1-4 where this full-circle of influence (Douay-Rheims>KJV>Challoner Douay-Rheims) can be seen:

Rheims, 1582
1 Diversely and many ways in times past God speaking to the fathers in the prophets,
2 last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom he made also the worlds.
3 Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and carrying all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty in the high places;
4 being made so much better than angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name above them.

King James, 1611
1 God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Challoner, 1752
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high,
4 being made so much better than the Angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they
 
I just had the idea to add color to this comparison in an effort to make it easier to see the relationships (and to amuse myself 🙂 ).
Cranch said:
Rheims, 1582
1 Diversely and many ways in times past God speaking to the fathers in the prophets,
2 last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom he made also the worlds.
3 Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and carrying all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty in the high places;
4 being made so much better than angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name above them.

King James, 1611
1 God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Challoner, 1752
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high,
4 being made so much better than the Angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they
Click to expand...
 
The KJV is a fairly good rendition of the Bible considering that during it’s original publication Protestant doctrine hadn’t been as perverted as it is today. And therefore the newer KJV’s bare a faithful resemblance to the older versions.

Now with all these new bibles out, I think the protestants themselves are confused. Words like ‘queen’ from the KJV are rendered as ‘bride’ in the NIV.

SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN INTERPRETATION :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top