Paraphrases

[silverwings_88]

Are there ANY good Catholic paraphrases out there? As much as I love the DRB for devotional, and everyday reading with my NAB or NJB (I don’t want to buy more traditional bibles), sometimes I wish to read paraphrases because they let the text flow much freer.

Unfortunately, there were only two which are originally Protestant in bias: the Good News translation [with deuteros] (which I was shocked when I saw an Imprimatur on it!!) and the New Living Translation [also with deuteros].

Someday, I will buy one of those two as a gift, since I can never have enough bibles (of course, after getting a job and becoming secure). It is by the grace of God to be thankful to have faithful translations of the Bible, but I wish there would be Catholic original paraphrases of the Bible for younger Catholics and those who want to read a flowing text.

 

[puzzleannie]

The Illustrated Catholic Bible for Children from St. Joseph may be what you are looking for, it is a book of one-page bible stories from the old and new testament, with traditional pictures, a great introduction to the content of the stories. The children’s lectionary is also good for going over the Mass readings with children, and is available in inexpensive paperbacks for each cycle. Magnifikids, from Magnificat, is just that, daily readings and prayers for kids, excellent.

 

[DreadVandal]

silverwings_88:

Are there ANY good Catholic paraphrases out there? As much as I love the DRB for devotional, and everyday reading with my NAB or NJB (I don’t want to buy more traditional bibles), sometimes I wish to read paraphrases because they let the text flow much freer.

Unfortunately, there were only two which are originally Protestant in bias: the Good News translation [with deuteros] (which I was shocked when I saw an Imprimatur on it!!) and the New Living Translation [also with deuteros].

Someday, I will buy one of those two as a gift, since I can never have enough bibles (of course, after getting a job and becoming secure). It is by the grace of God to be thankful to have faithful translations of the Bible, but I wish there would be Catholic original paraphrases of the Bible for younger Catholics and those who want to read a flowing text.

The Good news translation is not a paraphrase but a translation, albeit a very “free” one. I would recommend using it. Its pretty decent actually. I would stay away from the Message and the Living Bible. In my opinion, they are junk. I must confess that a free translation is okay with me, but I despise paraphrases. I think its presumptuous to present one’s reading of the bible as if it were the bible itself.

 

[Zooey]

The GNT is (IMHO) fine, as long as you are aware of its limitations. I really can’t recommend the NLT to anybody…I agree, as has been said, that it is just too much to have somebody offer up a “pre-digested” Bible…
Of course, I would rather people read that, than not read the Bible at all…
DV is right, ‘The Message’ is awful!! The only time I ever used it was when I was just out of the hospital & too sick to be able to read anything, really…I had a "Message’ NT that I had picked up for 25 or 50 cents at a yard sale that I read for a few weeks, when I felt “human” again…That was the end of that…

 

[silverwings_88]

Zooey:

The GNT is (IMHO) fine, as long as you are aware of its limitations. I really can’t recommend the NLT to anybody…I agree, as has been said, that it is just too much to have somebody offer up a “pre-digested” Bible…
Of course, I would rather people read that, than not read the Bible at all…
DV is right, ‘The Message’ is awful!! The only time I ever used it was when I was just out of the hospital & too sick to be able to read anything, really…I had a "Message’ NT that I had picked up for 25 or 50 cents at a yard sale that I read for a few weeks, when I felt “human” again…That was the end of that…

LOL Actually, I am looking for paraphrases, or translations with simpler English wish include the deuterocanonicals. Compared with the NLT, the Message is not my style of paraphrase, lol. There aren’t any PURE Catholic English bibles like that, and I anticipate that day!

 

[Mystophilus]

silverwings_88:

Unfortunately, there were only two which are originally Protestant in bias: the Good News translation [with deuteros] (which I was shocked when I saw an Imprimatur on it!!) and the New Living Translation [also with deuteros]… I wish there were Catholic original paraphrases of the Bible for younger Catholics and those who want to read a flowing text.

I have to ask what you mean by a “Protestant” bias, or a “Catholic” paraphrase. How does the text change?

 

[buzzcut]

Mystophilus:

I have to ask what you mean by a “Protestant” bias, or a “Catholic” paraphrase. How does the text change?

The NIV is the one that is notorious for changing the translation to fit their beliefs.

Example 1: Matthew 13:32, when comparing the kingdom of heaven with a mustard seed, mentions that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds.” Now there are in fact some orchid seeds that are smaller than a mustard seed. Is this a problem? Well it is if you’re a fundamentalist and you want your Bible to be literally and scientifically accurate. So what the NIV translators do is change “the smallest of all seeds” to read “the smallest of all your seeds.” Problem solved! The Bible has become scientifically accurate, and no one will ever know that we changed the translation!

Example 2: If the New Testament says something bad about tradition (Greek paradosis) they leave the translation as “tradition.” But sometimes the New Testament speaks highly of tradition, e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:2 “maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you” (NRSV). But the NIV folk are protestants and they don’t like traditions! Solution? Let’s change paradosis “tradition” and put “teachings” (NIV) instead!

 

[Pug]

Mystophilus:

I have to ask what you mean by a “Protestant” bias, or a “Catholic” paraphrase. How does the text change?

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,** and** drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

DR 1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

All modern translations I own have fixed the error of the KJV and translate it as OR, which is the more unbiased translation. I think it is no accident that the KJV has chosen the word AND in this Eucharistic context.

 

[Mystophilus]

buzzcut:

The NIV is the one that is notorious for changing the translation to fit their beliefs.

As much as this strengthens my opinion of the NIV, I am still wondering what silverwings meant regarding the GNT and the NLT, and also what a Catholic version has.

 

[silverwings_88]

Mystophilus:

As much as this strengthens my opinion of the NIV, I am still wondering what silverwings meant regarding the GNT and the NLT, and also what a Catholic version has.

What I meant was, that the GNT and the NLT were mainly written for Protestant evangelism, and of course, does not have the deuterocanonicals. The whole example of textual changes such as the NIV with ‘tradition’ and the GNT with the ‘blood of Christ.’

Idealistically, it would be nice to have a translation created by faithful and knowledgeable Catholic scholars with **all **of the beautiful books of the Bible, and reads easily as the NLT and the GNT. No such English translation exists yet.

I hope that clarifies things! I am still weary of how the GNT is with the phrase ‘blood of Christ,’ but many people seem to favour it over the NLT…

 

[Mystophilus]

Pug:

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,** and** drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

DR 1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

“ê” in the Greek, which also shows up in the KJV in Mark 6:11, in a reference to “Sodom and Gomorrah”, taken from the Textus Receptus. The Amplified and the New King James also use the T text for Mark 6:11, with “and”, but use “or” in 1 Co 11:27. Young’s Literal Translation and the Holman Christian Standard Bible use “or” in both locations.

Generally, “ê” is a disjunctive (‘or’) or comparative (‘than’) particle, not at all related to “kai” (‘and’). I have not found any other document in which it could reasonably be claimed to be properly conjunctive (‘and’).

It is quite possible that 1 Corinthians 11:27 was a perverted translation. However, also considering Mark 6:11, I wonder whether it was just poor scholarship, for which the KJV is quite famous.

 

[Mystophilus]

silverwings_88:

I am still weary of how the GNT is with the phrase ‘blood of Christ,’ but many people seem to favour it over the NLT…

I’m sorry, but I missed that one. What did the GNT do with the “blood of Christ”?

As for favouring it, I suppose that many people prefer a free translation over an ultra-free one, i.e., a paraphrase.

 

[silverwings_88]

Mystophilus:

I’m sorry, but I missed that one. What did the GNT do with the “blood of Christ”?

As for favouring it, I suppose that many people prefer a free translation over an ultra-free one, i.e., a paraphrase.

Is NLT really an ultra-free translation? It has always claimed to be not a paraphrase, but rather a translation, but then I could be wrong.

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins:” - Colossians 1:14 DRV

“By whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven.” - Colossians 1:14, GNT

“Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ:” - Hebrews 10:19 DRV

“We have, then, my friends, complete freedom to go into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus.” - Hebrews 10:19 GNT

“But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.” - 1 Peter 1:19 DRV

“It was the costly sacrifice of Christ, who was like a lamb without defect or flaw.” - 1 Peter 1:19 GNT

Many are listed here in this blatantly Evangelical site here: av1611.org/kjv/gnb.html. Sounds like a KJV-onlyist, but despite how many of this Evangelical’s so-called ‘mistranslations,’ can be done away with to me, many Christians did not like the phrasings of the GNT, and phrase ‘blood of Christ’ is really important to me. Maybe it’s the former Pentecostal in me, but I know slim-to-nothing from the original languages to compare.

Especially in earlier editions of the GNB, whenever the phrase ‘blood of Christ’ was there, it was translated into a similar phrase of His death or sacrifice, which is why I worry. (Sorry, I tend to be vague on my posts, assuming that others know contextually what I’m talking about).

 

[Pug]

silverwings_88:

Is NLT really an ultra-free translation? It has always claimed to be not a paraphrase, but rather a translation, but then I could be wrong.

I don’t know about the NLT, really, having never read any of it. It is, however, based in part or in the line of The Living Bible, which was a paraphrase, and advertised itself as such. It was extremely popular awhile back. In 1996 it was replaced with an actual translation, the NLT.

The original was done by one man with no particular scholarship for children and others to read easily. I always marvelled at how popular it was. Most people whom I met who used it did not understand that it was a paraphrase (I think a paraphrase of the American Standard Bible, not sure on that).

 

[Pug]

Mystophilus:

However, also considering Mark 6:11, I wonder whether it was just poor scholarship, for which the KJV is quite famous.

I bet they figured out how to translate the TR for Mark 6:11 by looking at the parallel verse in Mat10:15, which does have the conjunctive. So they probably figured that it was supposed to be a conjunctive in Mark as well, and was perhaps a typo or transcription error and corrected it. Sodom AND Gomorrah makes more sense in general. I don’t think Jesus is pointing out that Sodom OR Gomorrah (I wonder which?) will have it better will have it better than that city on judgement day. I can’t recall any instance in the OT of the proverbial Sodom and Gomorrah being contrasted with an or. The two cities are a comparison thing to eachother, not a contrast thing, in the OT.

This is just a surmise, of course.

 

[Mystophilus]

silverwings_88:

Is NLT really an ultra-free translation? It has always claimed to be not a paraphrase, but rather a translation, but then I could be wrong.

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins:" - Colossians 1:14 DRV

“By whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven.” - Colossians 1:14, GNT

This I can explain. It is because the phrase “through his blood” (“dia tou haimatos autou”) is in the Textus Receptus, but not in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, which will most probably have been the source text for the GNT’s New Testament. Many versions have used the UBS GNT, and tend to relegate to a footnote any passages which are in other manuscripts but not in that one.

Having said that, I am still not enthused with the GNT’s version here.

"Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ:" - Hebrews 10:19 DRV

“We have, then, my friends, complete freedom to go into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus.” - Hebrews 10:19 GNT

“death” is actually a possible translation of “haima” (“haimati”, here), but only in the sense of “bloodletting/bloodshed/murder”, for which I see no particular justification in the context.

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." - 1 Peter 1:19 DRV

“It was the costly sacrifice of Christ, who was like a lamb without defect or flaw.” - 1 Peter 1:19 GNT

“haimati” again, and clear as day. However, I should note that the Contemporary English Version, the successor to the GNT, does have “blood of Christ” here.

Also, I just thought that you might like to see the direct translation for this: But with precious blood as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted of ChristI love the enclosed arrangement here: “blood… of Christ” encapsulates “as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted”, binding the three into a much closer harmony than is visible in the English.

Many are listed here in this blatantly Evangelical site here: av1611.org/kjv/gnb.html. Sounds like a KJV-onlyist…

You are certainly right on the “KJV-onlyist” part. The fact that he is arguing against one translation on the basis that it does not match another translation is a warning sign. Note also that he condemns the GNB for “removing” certain verses, which just happen to be the verses not included in the UBS GNT.

Especially in earlier editions of the GNB, whenever the phrase ‘blood of Christ’ was there, it was translated into a similar phrase of His death or sacrifice, which is why I worry. (Sorry, I tend to be vague on my posts, assuming that others know contextually what I’m talking about).

The CEV only has “blood of Christ” in 1 Peter 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 10:16, and in fact, shows “blood” only 212 times, compared with 395 for the NKJV (429 in the DR, but with the larger collection of texts).

So, we should be calling this the “squeamish” version then, should we?

 

[silverwings_88]

Sqeamish indeed

Thank you for dispelling my hesitation in using the GNT, though I do wonder what else are you not enthused of in the GNT? I do feel a little uncomfortable, since whenever I read the bible, I sometimes read in a literal sense, and whatever I can’t understand, in a metaphorical sense .

If the CEV is much better in illustrating the ‘blood of Christ,’ I wish there was an update so Catholics could use it too… But do be proud you have made a teenage boy a little more intelligent than the last ten minutes The passage you posted in 1 Peter 1:19 in the CEV sounds much better than the two IMO.

 

[Mystophilus]

silverwings_88:

Thank you for dispelling my hesitation in using the GNT. I do feel a little uncomfortable, since whenever I read the bible, I sometimes read in a literal sense, and whatever I can’t understand, in a metaphorical sense .

Everyone does this, which is the reason why there are so many different readings: everyone has a different idea of what could be literally possible.

, though I do wonder what else are you not enthused of in the GNT?
“By whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven.” - Colossians 1:14, GNT

“In whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, Brown & Comfort, trans.)
In the GNT, “the forgiveness of sins” (“ten aphesin ton hamartion”), has been altered from being an appositional noun phrase (e.g., “George W. Bush, the U.S. President, is from Texas”) to being an adverbial clause (e.g., “George W. Bush is from Texas, which may have caused him to care more about Rita”). The adverbial clause is much farther separated from the main clause (“GWB is”), weakening its role in the sentence.

In addition, the English of the GNT is wrong. “By whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven” is grammatically incorrect because it includes too many clauses and too few conjunctions. Either there should be a semicolon ;] after “free”, or it should be emended to read “free, which is to say that our sins…”

As for the GNT, I just do not like free translations (translations which aim to show the ideas behind the words rather than the words themselves), which is why I turn to the Greek, crawling through the interlinear, using a lexicon and a couple of grammars to check everything as I go: slow but sure.

If the CEV is much better in illustrating the ‘blood of Christ,’ I wish there was an update so Catholics could use it too… But do be proud you have made a teenage boy a little more intelligent than the last ten minutes The passage you posted in 1 Peter 1:19 in the CEV sounds much better than the two IMO.

The passage which I posted was not the CEV: it was a literal word-for-word translation of the UBS Greek, i.e., the Brown and Comfort interlinear. Sometimes, English just fails.

 

[silverwings_88]

Mystophilus:

Everyone does this, which is the reason why there are so many different readings: everyone has a different idea of what could be literally possible.

“In whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, Brown & Comfort, trans.)In the GNT, “the forgiveness of sins” (“ten aphesin ton hamartion”), has been altered from being an appositional noun phrase (e.g., “George W. Bush, the U.S. President, is from Texas”) to being an adverbial clause (e.g., “George W. Bush is from Texas, which may have caused him to care more about Rita”). The adverbial clause is much farther separated from the main clause (“GWB is”), weakening its role in the sentence.

In addition, the English of the GNT is wrong. “By whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven” is grammatically incorrect because it includes too many clauses and too few conjunctions. Either there should be a semicolon ;] after “free”, or it should be emended to read “free, which is to say that our sins…”

As for the GNT, I just do not like free translations (translations which aim to show the ideas behind the words rather than the words themselves), which is why I turn to the Greek, crawling through the interlinear, using a lexicon and a couple of grammars to check everything as I go: slow but sure.

The passage which I posted was not the CEV: it was a literal word-for-word translation of the UBS Greek, i.e., the Brown and Comfort interlinear. Sometimes, English just fails.

Really? Not from the CEV? Well that kills the goose… :crying:

 

[bauerice]

I have a CEV that has an Imprimatur Doesn’t that make it an acceptable translation/paraphrase for Catholics?