Try comparing the ENGLISH JB to the NJB. The comparison would not be in favor of the JB.
Swampboy,
Yes, but it was referring to usage IN THE LITURGY!
Thanks Jerry
True. But if you can’t use His Name at the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, personally I woudn’t use it outside of the Mass either. Just my op.
Manfred,Swampboy,
In this, thou hast answered rightly.
The(N)JB is probably the best single-volume Catholic study bible. And any edition of the RSV-xCE hurts my eyes with its stinginess of white space.
Makes you wonder why there is not more emphasis on publishing a first-rate CATHOLIC study bible.
Although I can not read the original languages, the RSV-CE which is used by many of the scholars for its accuracy, translates that verse the same as the N/JB — “in the presence of Christ”—and that is the English translation adopted by the Church for use in the Catechism and other Church documents that relate to doctrinal matters. As to why it was allowed to be translated that way…I do not know.
When did this happen?
…yeah! It is very frustrating since I am not a linguist and I do not have access to those “ancient texts” and an excellent translator program–it irks me so because I’ve noticed that so many translations seem to be seeking people’s approval rather than to be true to the original text…
We intimately recieve Christ who is God in the Eucharist - and consecrated by a valid priest - can anyone beat such closeness to God.
I fully concur with your ending paragraph… my philosophy is that knowledge can be an intoxicant to frail egos.Hi All-
I been part of this thread for several days. A few years ago I got tired of going from one Bible translation to another in the English language. My job has me fluent in several languages so I took some extra bucks and bought three Bibles in different tongues. Same result- frustration with translations.
Then I ran into a site that gave a free (and a very thorough course) in Aramaic and Koine Greek- both Biblical languges, the former language being the tongue Christ Himself spoke. I found sites that had Bibles in these tongues- free of charge. That’s where I learned that no present day translation of the Scriptures is going to satisfy everyone, if for no other reason than the bulk of these translations are the products of disagreements and compromises over what a certain word or symbol meant.
So- for me- the ultimate answer was to brush up on my Koine Greek, learn Aramaic (it’s not that difficult) and decide for myself whether I desired eloquence or accuracy in my native English tongue. I still have not made a definite choice between the two, but at least actively using these ancient tongues allows ME to decide what a given word or passage is saying.
Besides- as my professor of scripture in the seminary said- “If you took all the Bible scholars and put them in a straight line, they’d still all point in different directions!” Lesson being no translation is perfect and some are the products of some pretty nasty conflicts!
Pax tecum,
Rob
Since you are speaking of St. Paul, I imagine that his language of use would be Hebrew/Greek… does the original text (Hebrew or Greek) contain the phrase that is translated as you say: “in the person of Christ” or are we making a doctrinal jump into an event that may have taken at least several decades to mature into the doctrinal phrase “in the person of Christ?”
I cuncur… “let’s make it palatable… after all, God is love!” :whacky:
I understand your position–my query is: since there are other JB versions, other than the English, which seem to have done a better job, why didn’t the translators of the English version take advantage of the already existing French/Spanish translations? Why must everyone seek to recreate the wheel? Why must the advant-garde scholars/theologians attempt to reinvent the wheel as square/rhombus?
Thank you for the links; I’ve downloaded them to my computer.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread about the NJB being referred to as heretical by Mother Angelica. Inclusive language is very biased toward gender and includes a wide variety of things in a specific range. Inclusive language tends to use 1st person pronouns instead of traditional usage of 2nd I believe??? Don’t quote me on thatI also saw the rebroadcast of the show with Mother Angelica when she said the “new one” is heretical. It was just on last week on “Mother Angelica Classics.” That original program was broadcast sometime in the 1990’s.
My question though - what exactly do you mean when you say “inclusive” lanaguage?