C
Church_Militant
Guest
Of those choices I guess the NASB would be the best of the lot. I have it…never use it.
- Status
C
crazzeto
Guest
As far as physical bibles I own, currently I only have the NAB in my posession. I think it’s a solid bible in so far as being in expensive, widly available and helpful in terms of being the traslation used in mass here in the US.
I’ve been reading more of the Douay-Rheims online, and I’m really enjoying it despite the fact that I can’t find, for instance Sirach… I’m really enjoying that translation online in fact, and can’t wait to get my copy in from England. What I really like about the online version is that it has built in google, excellent for those moments when you “know the bible says such and such in the new testmanets” or perhaps “in one of Pauls Epissles” or whatever, but you just don’t know where.
I’ve been reading more of the Douay-Rheims online, and I’m really enjoying it despite the fact that I can’t find, for instance Sirach… I’m really enjoying that translation online in fact, and can’t wait to get my copy in from England. What I really like about the online version is that it has built in google, excellent for those moments when you “know the bible says such and such in the new testmanets” or perhaps “in one of Pauls Epissles” or whatever, but you just don’t know where.
G
garysibio
Guest
I’ve found no Protestant bias in the ESV. I haven’t seen the newer NASB so I don’t know about it but, since the publisher reacted to my suggestion of a Catholic version like I had suggested he drown his grandmother, I would be more trusting of the ESV.
J
jamison
Guest
Please, please elaborate. Love to hear the reason.
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
This is a fascinating line of thought. I never really considered the whole panoply of translations as most or least Catholic, or Lutheran, or anything else. I like the KJV-1611 as the most Catholic. One of the reasons for its existence was the Geneva Bible, which was definitely written to counter Catholic teachings. King James also thought the footnotes were anti-monarchal, and in the rules of translations, insisted on leaving the ecclesiastical language as in the Vulgate, if at all possible.
I personally prefer the ESV to the NRSV, as I have found too many places where the inclusive language alters the social and historical perspective of the Bible.
As an interesting side-note, when we studied the Deuterocanonicals, the rest of the class was using the NRSV and I was using the DRB. St. Jerome used the shorter versions that were in his documents, and part of the documents available to the translators of both the KJV and the DRB. The NRSV versions are based on the Codex Siniaticus and the books are much more fleshed out.
I personally prefer the ESV to the NRSV, as I have found too many places where the inclusive language alters the social and historical perspective of the Bible.
As an interesting side-note, when we studied the Deuterocanonicals, the rest of the class was using the NRSV and I was using the DRB. St. Jerome used the shorter versions that were in his documents, and part of the documents available to the translators of both the KJV and the DRB. The NRSV versions are based on the Codex Siniaticus and the books are much more fleshed out.
J
jamison
Guest
Im glad someone else finds the idea interesting as well. So in summary you find the kjv 1611 as the closest to Catholic, with the ESV ranked next followed by the NASB I assume?
G
garysibio
Guest
Boy, talk about damning with faint praise.
You’d pretty much have to go to the New World Translation or the Cottonpatch Bible to find a worse translation than the NRSV.
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
Since the text of most of the major translations is in something like 99% agreement, we then have to judge the "writers’ " prejudices in some other manner. Some things are subtle: I was looking in a Gideon Bible in a motel and saw in Isaiah that the word “son” was capitalized. As many scholars think that Isaiah was speaking of someone who would be born within his lifetime, to capitalize it is to put a Christian spin on a Jewish passage.
7:14 Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his nameImmanuel. (ESV)
14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (NKJV)
Just a simple thing, but there is the bias. A larger one is the translation of “alma” in Hebrew, as “parthenos” in the Greek of the Septuagint. The former is most accurately translated as “young woman” and the latter “virgin”. It is up to you to decide how big the difference is, but it is there.
Isaiah 7:14 (New Century Version)
14 The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin[a] will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.**
Footnotes:
7:14 Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his nameImmanuel. (ESV)
14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (NKJV)
Just a simple thing, but there is the bias. A larger one is the translation of “alma” in Hebrew, as “parthenos” in the Greek of the Septuagint. The former is most accurately translated as “young woman” and the latter “virgin”. It is up to you to decide how big the difference is, but it is there.
Isaiah 7:14 (New Century Version)
14 The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin[a] will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.**
Footnotes:
- Isaiah 7:14 virgin The Hebrew word means “a young woman.” Often this meant a girl who was not married and had not yet had sexual relations with anyone.
- Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel This name means “God is with us.”
My point then is this: to see where the biases lie, you need to look into the associated footnotes, end notes, bibliography, articles, and commentaries that accompany the text. I don’t think God is Lutheran, or Catholic, or anything other than God, so His word if for His children, regardless of where they find themselves.
B
bauerice
Guest
From what I have heard, being a convert (Anglican) he have a great love for the KJV.So he continued to read it (personal reading) after his conversion.
J
jamison
Guest
There’s really not a common answer so far. Some say esv, others say kjv and yet others nasb.
I figured that since the esv is a revision of the rsv and is 94% the same, that this version would be most cathic than any other mentioned.
I figured that since the esv is a revision of the rsv and is 94% the same, that this version would be most cathic than any other mentioned.
I
Izdaari
Guest
I’m sure I’m not qualified to say which Protestant bible is most Catholic, and I don’t know that I’m terribly interested in that question. What matters to me is faithfulness to the original Greek and Hebrew, and comprehensibility in English. Whether that favors Protestant or Catholic, I care not, let the chips fall where they may. I have always found the NASB to be very faithful to the Greek, so much so that students of Greek have been known to use it to check their work. But the NASB is a little too literal, and frequently seems “wooden”. My normal preference is the ESV, which while mostly literal, is just free enough to read well in English. The ESV is very widely accepted among Protestants, and among Orthodox too. And it comes in at least one edition with the Deuterocanonical books.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jamison et alia,
Just as a general principle, Bibles that are translated reasonably strictly tend to have less overt doctrinal bias overall. The Authorised (King James) Version (A.V.) and the English Standard Version E.S.B.) are examples of those which are “formal equivalence” strict translations yet readable. They both have the deuterocanonical writings in some edition(s) and the verses that veer in a Protestant direction are really quite infrequent; the Eastern Orthodox long have trusted the A.V., despite its Anglican Protestant origin.
Furthermore, those versions based on Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiastically sanctioned texts, or those very near them, avoid “stacking the cards” with regard to doctrine by flitting about from one text to another in the manuscript tradition, to bias the text in favour (or not) of doctrinal support in the manuscript evidence for any particular verse. The A.V. and New King James Version (N.K.J.V.), for their New Testament renditions, keep to the Majority Greek Text in its Textus Receptus variant, which is nearly identical with the Catholic Church’s officially sanctioned Complutensian Polygot. Of course, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version keeps close to the Clementine Latin Vulgate, which it translates faithfully and beautifully, so it too does not stray doctrinally off course.
It is in the versions that are paraphrases where the worst abuses tend to occur among Protestant or sectarian versions. The latitude that their confectors give themselves allows a lot of Protestant or sectarian bias to make its way into these versions. The Good News Bible (Today’s English Version, T.E.V.) is not the worst of them, although it is awfully rank and loose! Even the T.E.V.'s Catholic editions are not worth much for Bible study. Other paraphrases of a like kind tend to be even worse or outright ridiculous (like Peterson’s The Message) and, unlike the T.E.V., they have no Catholic editions with “Apocrypha” (deuterocanonical O.T. writings).
I won’t go on here about version after version or paraphrase after paraphrase, in order to keep the main point clear. Happy Bible study!
Pax, Jerry Parker
Just as a general principle, Bibles that are translated reasonably strictly tend to have less overt doctrinal bias overall. The Authorised (King James) Version (A.V.) and the English Standard Version E.S.B.) are examples of those which are “formal equivalence” strict translations yet readable. They both have the deuterocanonical writings in some edition(s) and the verses that veer in a Protestant direction are really quite infrequent; the Eastern Orthodox long have trusted the A.V., despite its Anglican Protestant origin.
Furthermore, those versions based on Orthodox and Catholic ecclesiastically sanctioned texts, or those very near them, avoid “stacking the cards” with regard to doctrine by flitting about from one text to another in the manuscript tradition, to bias the text in favour (or not) of doctrinal support in the manuscript evidence for any particular verse. The A.V. and New King James Version (N.K.J.V.), for their New Testament renditions, keep to the Majority Greek Text in its Textus Receptus variant, which is nearly identical with the Catholic Church’s officially sanctioned Complutensian Polygot. Of course, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version keeps close to the Clementine Latin Vulgate, which it translates faithfully and beautifully, so it too does not stray doctrinally off course.
It is in the versions that are paraphrases where the worst abuses tend to occur among Protestant or sectarian versions. The latitude that their confectors give themselves allows a lot of Protestant or sectarian bias to make its way into these versions. The Good News Bible (Today’s English Version, T.E.V.) is not the worst of them, although it is awfully rank and loose! Even the T.E.V.'s Catholic editions are not worth much for Bible study. Other paraphrases of a like kind tend to be even worse or outright ridiculous (like Peterson’s The Message) and, unlike the T.E.V., they have no Catholic editions with “Apocrypha” (deuterocanonical O.T. writings).
I won’t go on here about version after version or paraphrase after paraphrase, in order to keep the main point clear. Happy Bible study!
Pax, Jerry Parker
J
Jotobo
Guest
I am just now beginning to join the Catholic Church after 4 years as a Protestant.
My favorite was/is the NASB. I own 2 NIV’s and I use them here and there. Ive been reading my KJV more lately (oddly enough it causes me to focus more on what Im reading). I have an RSV that was my dads when he was young but I rarely read it. I also have a NKJV but I rarely read that one either.
I would say most Protestants use the NIV. Its easy to read. The NIV Study Bible has a ton of helpful notes.
I have a NAB too, that Im reading more.
I dont know that its bad to have a few different translations to read out of. If anything, you have plenty to spare should you run into someone who doesnt own one.
Just my two cents.
My favorite was/is the NASB. I own 2 NIV’s and I use them here and there. Ive been reading my KJV more lately (oddly enough it causes me to focus more on what Im reading). I have an RSV that was my dads when he was young but I rarely read it. I also have a NKJV but I rarely read that one either.
I would say most Protestants use the NIV. Its easy to read. The NIV Study Bible has a ton of helpful notes.
I have a NAB too, that Im reading more.
I dont know that its bad to have a few different translations to read out of. If anything, you have plenty to spare should you run into someone who doesnt own one.
Just my two cents.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jotobo,
What is important in choosing an English translation of the Bible is that it be faithful, rather than that it be easy to read. There are versions that are both faithful and easy to read, e.g. the E.S.V. or the A.V. And yes, the Authorised (King James) Version does draw the reader into the Bible, as you noted, by its sheer beauty and concentration of expression. Fortunately, the A.V. includes the “Apocrypha” (deuterocanonical O.T. writings), too, and the U.S. Catholic bishops have authorised its use by Catholics.
The N.A.S.V. which you like improved greatly on its readability in the updated text that came out some years back, without sacrificing literalness of translation. Unfortunately, its New Testament is based on a rather appallingly poor Greek “critical” text. It also lacks the deuterocanonical writings. At least it is far better than many other versions, including the N.I.V. translation, which is close to being as much paraphrase as translation, and, of course, the N.I.V. lacks the full Old Testament, with the deuterocanonical writings included, in any edition of it soever.
Pax, Jerry Parker
What is important in choosing an English translation of the Bible is that it be faithful, rather than that it be easy to read. There are versions that are both faithful and easy to read, e.g. the E.S.V. or the A.V. And yes, the Authorised (King James) Version does draw the reader into the Bible, as you noted, by its sheer beauty and concentration of expression. Fortunately, the A.V. includes the “Apocrypha” (deuterocanonical O.T. writings), too, and the U.S. Catholic bishops have authorised its use by Catholics.
The N.A.S.V. which you like improved greatly on its readability in the updated text that came out some years back, without sacrificing literalness of translation. Unfortunately, its New Testament is based on a rather appallingly poor Greek “critical” text. It also lacks the deuterocanonical writings. At least it is far better than many other versions, including the N.I.V. translation, which is close to being as much paraphrase as translation, and, of course, the N.I.V. lacks the full Old Testament, with the deuterocanonical writings included, in any edition of it soever.
Pax, Jerry Parker
B
Bookcat
Guest
I have the ESV New Testament…it is largely the RSV with some changes…
RSV though is my favorite.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Bookcat (Gotta love that name!),
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** I have the ESV New Testament. It is largely the RSV with some changes. RSV, though, is my favorite.
Well I can understand that preference, at least if the R.S.V. to which you refer is the Second Catholic Edition of it! However, the E.S.V. (Old Testament, “Apocrypha”, and New Testament) also retains the best of the R.S.V. and improves upon its readings and adds noticeably to the R.S.V.'s clarity and elegance. The E.S.V. and the R.S.V.-2nd C.E., happily both better focus the Revised Standard Version’s wording and add to its faithfulness.Pax, Jerry Parker
J
Jotobo
Guest
I ended up ordering a Ignatius RSV today from Ignatius Press today. I cant wait for it to come!!!
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jotobo,
I hope, for your sake, that you ordered and will receive the R.S.V. 2nd Catholic Edition from Ignatius, which published the First Catholic Edition, too. Both are good, but the C.E.-2 is just that much better (indeed, excellent), especially for the Old Testament.
I ordered two copies of the C.E.-1, one to keep by my computer, another to keep near where I do a lot of reading. It is the best Catholic Bible since the fine Confraternity Version (O.T. no later than 1969, N.T. of 1941).
Pax, Jerry Parker
I hope, for your sake, that you ordered and will receive the R.S.V. 2nd Catholic Edition from Ignatius, which published the First Catholic Edition, too. Both are good, but the C.E.-2 is just that much better (indeed, excellent), especially for the Old Testament.
I ordered two copies of the C.E.-1, one to keep by my computer, another to keep near where I do a lot of reading. It is the best Catholic Bible since the fine Confraternity Version (O.T. no later than 1969, N.T. of 1941).
Pax, Jerry Parker
- Status