RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[MTD]

SFH:

If you’re up for a challenge, why not learn Latin and read the Nova Vulgata? It is the official translation of the Latin Rite, after all. With a good high school text like Jenney’s Latin First Year (available on Amazon for a couple of bucks), you can learn enough Latin to read the Nova Vulgata comfortably within one year (what a great New Year’s resolution!!!).

As someone who has been studying Latin for several years now, I believe I have the background to make a few comments on this approach to reading the Bible.

First of all, if you’re intending to read the Vulgate in order to understand Scripture better, you might as well read the Douay-Rheims translation. Working around the archaic language and Latinisms of the D-R is no more difficult than reading Latin and you’ll probably understand more anyway. In my opinion, if you’re going to spend your effort in learning an ancient language in order to really understand the Word of God, it would probably be more worth your effort to learn Greek and Hebrew. Why spend all your effort learning Latin to read the Vulgate when you most likely won’t get to the point that reading Latin is easier than reading the D-R?

These comments only apply if you’re learning Latin solely to read the Vulgate. If you’re also learning Latin in order to understand the Mass/Divine Office in Latin, I agree that your efforts would be well spent.

Maria

 

[rocketrob]

One note of warning: earlier on this thread (or maybe on some other thread) someone said that the type and layout in old the Scepter edition is the same as that of the Ignatius first edition. This makes sense since Ignatius said that the copyright owners initially would not allow them to change anything in the first edition, not even the type.

Maria

I just purchased a new version of the Scepter leather bible (full size) the other day. It is in fact pretty much the same exact type and layout as the original Ignatius bible. However, the way it is bound makes it much easier to read near the inner margins. The bible opens up more, and it seems that there is a little more gutter space along the inner margins.

This is one place where I could see that Oxford could offer something significant…with regard to quality binding. If they could produce an original version, complete with the cross references, in their new layout, that would be very nice. But perhaps there is a copyright protection against this?? If so, that’s too bad.

 

[mike0219116]

mike0219116,

I don’t know how far down the list you got before you stopped (I know you at least got down half way through, e.g. 1 Corinthians 4.6) however, if you find the interest to go the rest of the way through and find anymore that don’t match the text underlined, let me know, because I am going to send a message to Don Kraus informing him of the ones they “missed” once we know them all.

so far, we’ve got: 1 Corinthians 4.6 “learn by us to live according to scripture” …not to go beyond what is written

and

Luke 1.34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” …shall

**Matthew
**6.2 “I say to you, they have their reward”
6.5 “I say to you, they have their reward”
6.16 “I say to you, they have their reward”
10.8 “You received without pay”
12.1 “they began to pluck ears of grain”
13.33 “leaven … in three measures of meal”
14.23 “he went up into the hills by himself”
15.27 “crumbs … from their master’s table”
15.29 “he went up into the hills”
17.20 “Move hence to yonder place” (“place” is missing in the reader’s edition)
18.8 “cut it off and throw it from you”
18.9 “pluck it out and throw it from you”
18.12 “does he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills”
19.5 “the two shall become one”
19.6 “So they are no longer two but one”
19.6 “let no man put asunder”
19.11 “Not all men can receive this precept”
24.8 “the beginning of the sufferings”
26.7 “a woman … with an alabaster jar”
26.18 “Go into the city to such a one”
27.11 "Jesus said to him, "You have said so
27.32 “As they were marching out”
**Mark
**1.36 “those who were with him followed him”
2.23 “disciples began to pluck ears of grain”
3.13 “And he went up into the hills”
3.21 "And when his friends heard it … for they said, "
4.36 “they took him with them, just as he was, in the boat” …
5.42 “the girl got up and walked; for she was twelve years old”
5.42 “And immediately they were overcome”
6.34 “As he landed he saw a great throng”
6.46 “he went into the hills to pray”
6.48 “they were distressed in rowing, for the wind was against them”
9.1 “before they see the kingdom of God come with power”
10:8 “‘and the two shall become one.’ So they are no longer two but one”
11:24 “believe that you receive it and you will”
13.8 “but the beginning of the sufferings”
14.3 “she broke the jar and poured”
14.20 “dipping bread in the same dish with me”
14.44 “seize him and lead him away safely”
14.62 “Son of man sitting at the right hand”
15.6 “one prisoner whom they asked”
16.4 “was rolled back; for it was very large”
**Luke
**1.34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” …shall
6.1 “his disciples … ate some ears of grain”
6.29 “from him who takes away your cloak do not withhold your coat as well”
7.25 “A man clothed in soft raiment?”
7.36 “he went…, and sat at table”
7.37 “she learned that he was sitting at table”
9.32 “were heavy with sleep but kept awake, and they saw his glory”
11.17 “and house falls upon house”
12.3 “Whatever you have said in the dark”
12.39 “he would have been awake”
12.40 “coming at an hour you do not expect”
12.44 “I tell you, he will set him over all”
13.21 “like leaven … in three measures of meal”
14.5 “Which of you, having an ***”
16.8 "The master commended the dishonest steward for his prudence; for the sons of this world are wiser in their own generation "
17.29 “fire and brimstone rained from heaven”
17.34 “there will be two men in one bed”
19.12 “to receive kingly power”
19.15 “having received the kingly power” (“the” missing from the reader’s edition)
22.4 “with the chief priests and captains”
22.29 “as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you”
22.52 “Jesus said to the …captains of the temple”
23.42 “when you come in your kingly power”
**John
**2.3 “When the wine failed”
5.18 “he … also called God his Father”
6.3 “Jesus went up into the hills”
6.15 “Jesus withdrew again to the hills”
6.64 “Who it was that should betray him”
6.67 “Will you also go away?”
10.33 “We stone you for no good work”
13.10 “you are clean, but not all of you”
16.8 “he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment”
16.9 “of sin, because they do not believe”
16.10 “of righteousness, because I go”
16.11 “of judgment, because the ruler… is judged”
19.4 “Behold, I am bringing him out”
19.5 “Pilate said… “Here is the man!””
19.14 “He said to the Jews, “Here is your King!””

 

[mike0219116]

mike0219116,

I don’t know how far down the list you got before you stopped (I know you at least got down half way through, e.g. 1 Corinthians 4.6) however, if you find the interest to go the rest of the way through and find anymore that don’t match the text underlined, let me know, because I am going to send a message to Don Kraus informing him of the ones they “missed” once we know them all.

so far, we’ve got: 1 Corinthians 4.6 “learn by us to live according to scripture” …not to go beyond what is written

and

Luke 1.34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” …shall

Acts
8.3 “But Saul laid waste the church”
8.27 “a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians”
9.36 “Tabitha, which means Dorcas or Gazelle.”
9.39 “weeping, and showing coats and garments”
13.1 “Barnabas, Symeon who was called *****”
15:14 “Symeon has related”
15.25 “seemed good to us in assembly”
20.25 “among whom I have gone about preaching”
20.28 “the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood”
23.17 “Bring this young man to the tribune”
Romans
5.6 “While we were yet helpless”
8.9 “if the Spirit of God really dwells in you”
10.16 “they have not all heeded the gospel”
11.9 “Let their feast become a snare”
14.16 “do not let what is good to you be spoken of as evil”
14.17 “the kingdom of God does not mean food”
1 Corinthians
2.4 “in demonstration of the Spirit and power”
3.9 “we are fellow workers for God” …God’s fellow workers
3.10 “the commission of God given to me”
3.12 “precious stones, wood, hay, stubble”
4.6 “learn by us to live according to scripture” …not to go beyond what is written
6.9 “nor adulterers, nor homosexuals”
6.16 “The two shall become one”
7.26 “in view of the impending distress”
10.18 “Consider the practice of Israel”
12.24 “But God has so adjusted the body”
2 Corinthians
2.3 “I might not be pained by those”
3.5 “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves …; our sufficiency is from God”
3.6 “Who has qualified us to be ministers”
5.19 “that is, God was in Christ reconciling”
12.11 “For I am not at all inferior”
Galatians
4.27 “O barren one that dost not bear”
4.27 “thou who art not in travail”
4.27 “the desolate hath more children than she who hath a husband”
5.8 “not from him who called you”
5.19 “immorality, impurity, licentiousness”
Ephesians
4.12 “for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry”
5.3 “But immorality and all impurity”
5.5 “that no immoral or impure man”
5.31 “the two shall become one”
5.32 “This is a great mystery”
6.16 “above all taking the shield of faith”
Colossians
3.5 “immorality, impurity, passion”
3.16 “richly, as you teach …and as you sing psalms”
1 Thessalonians
4.3 “that you abstain from immorality”
5.14 “brethren, admonish the idle”
1 Timothy
4.14 “when the elders laid their hands upon you”
2 Timothy
1.8 “but take your share of suffering for the gospel”
2.3 “Take your share of suffering”
2.10 “may obtain the salvation which in Christ Jesus goes with eternal glory”
4.17 “strength to proclaim the word fully”
Hebrews
4.15 “tempted as we are, yet without sinning”
6.1 “let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ”
13.13 “outside the camp, bearing abuse for him”
James
2.7 “who blaspheme that honorable name by which you are called”
2.20 “Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren?”
1 Peter
3.3 “decoration of gold, and wearing of robes”
2 Peter
1.1 “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle”
1 John
3.14 “He who does not love remains in death”
Revelations
8.5 “peals of thunder, loud noises, flashes”
11.19 “flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals”
14.10 “tormented with fire and brimstone”
16.17 “and a great voice came out of the temple”
16.18 “lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder”
17.9 “seven heads are seven hills”
19.1 “the mighty voice of a great multitude”
19.20 “lake of fire that burns with brimstone”
20.10 “the lake of fire and brimstone”
21.3 “I heard a great voice from the throne”
21.6 “I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life”
21.8 “the lake that bums with fire and brimstone”

 

[mmortal03]

I would have been furious to find out later on this forum that I had been deceived (no matter how Catholic the text was).

I find this illogical, and I think you are allowing the imprimatur to place undue stress on yourself. Just as you can interpret Canon Law 825 to imply that we aren’t to read scriptures without the Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat (which it doesn’t actually say, see below) I can interpret the Church’s wishes to obviously not apply in a case like this where no actual harm against faith and morals can possibly occur with the relative lightness of the revisions. It all depends on how legalistic you want to be, how relativistic you want to be within the constraints of Church Law, or where you draw the line with what you will blindly follow based on what you interpret to be true without questioning it. That is up to you, though.

It was harmful in the sense that they no longer can trust the claim of an imprimatur. A few months ago I almost bought the compact. I would have been furious to find out later on this forum that I had been deceived (no matter how Catholic the text was).

If the Church didn’t discourage using non-approved Bibles, she wouldn’t have established canon 825.

That’s right. Lots of good Catholic books don’t have imprimaturs, and they’re perfectly fine to read. But they aren’t Bibles; canon 825 doesn’t apply to them.

Please read here about a similar scenario: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/greek/index.html

 

[mmortal03]

Thanks a lot mike!

From what I have surmised from your post, these are the only differences that you found in the text from what it otherwise, effectively, is → the Ignatius First Edition:

1 Corinthians 4.6 “learn by us to live according to scripture” …not to go beyond what is written
Luke 1.34 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” …shall
Matthew 17.20 “Move hence to yonder place” (“place” is missing in the reader’s edition)
Luke 19.15 “having received the kingly power” (“the” missing from the reader’s edition)

The next thing would be for us to check all the footnotes, but since we don’t have an exhaustive list for that, I say we don’t fool with it.

Edit: Oh, I also forgot that we will need to eventually check to see if they got all the Catholic verses right, however, I doubt that they didn’t, since they have the list IN THE BACK OF THE BIBLE!

 

[MTD]

mmortal03:

I find this illogical, and I think you are allowing the imprimatur to place undue stress on yourself.

Perhaps. But I’d rather be safe than sorry.

mmortal03:

Please read here about a similar scenario: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/greek/index.html

I felt like laughing when I clicked on that link. Guess what? I’m the one who sent that question to Jimmy!

However, I wanted to get a second opinion, so I also sent a similar question to the canon law forum at EWTN. The answer I got there differed from Jimmy’s. I decided to follow Fr. Gantley, since he’s a JCL whereas Jimmy is not. Besides, although Jimmy may be correct technically (‘legalistically’ ), Fr. Gantley is pointing out that the spirit of canon 825 is that we read only approved Bibles.

Maria

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So now are we hoping for an Ignatius 3d Edition?

 

[mmortal03]

So now are we hoping for an Ignatius 3d Edition?

Yep, that, with the 1971 revisions, and some actual Liturgiam Authenticam revisions throughout. I am very interested in what happens with the non-inclusive LA revision of the NRSV in the UK, but that is going to be a while.

Some of the “revisons” in the Ignatius Second Edition I could do without though, but my guess is that they will be too stubborn to take any criticism on it.

 

[djrakowski]

Now don’t get me wrong, it is a theoretical problem that needs to be dealt with, but the end result isn’t going to harm anybody who reads the compacts, because NOTHING there is harmful.

Fair enough.

Further, there is no official Catholic English Bible, and the Church doesn’t officially recommend any particular translations. The only place where they have historically been safe about things was for the Lectionary (and logically so). Bibles that DON’T have an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat are not discouraged from being used by the Church, they just haven’t been marked one way or the other.

I’m a relatively new Catholic, so maybe I’m lacking some sort of context, but this doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the Church be more concerned about the Lectionary translations than in the Bibles we have in our homes for study and/or devotional use? It seems pretty clear to me that they’re of equal importance.

Additionally, how would your first sentence apply to such translations as the NLT Catholic Reference Bible? I don’t believe there’s any sort of Church approval, nor do I believe there’s been any condemnation. It appears, however, that the lack of imprimatur/nihil obstat has doomed this translation from the outset, since lots of people use that, rather than the words “Catholic Bible,” to select and appropriate Bible for personal use.

(as an aside, publishers of the various editions of the RSV-CE could learn a thing or two from Tyndale, publishers of that NLT-Catholic Reference Bible, and include a nice concordance and cross-reference system. They’re an essential part of BIble study, and RSV-CE have only sparse cross-references and no concordances, unless they’ve been included in the Oxford editions).

 

[rocketrob]

(as an aside, publishers of the various editions of the RSV-CE could learn a thing or two from Tyndale, publishers of that NLT-Catholic Reference Bible, and include a nice concordance and cross-reference system. They’re an essential part of BIble study, and RSV-CE have only sparse cross-references and no concordances, unless they’ve been included in the Oxford editions).

I grew to love my NIV Utrathin Large Print Reference Bible, with full center-column cross references, an abridged (but very useful) concordance, maps of the Holy Land, and a glossary of Biblical terminology…

…Why is it that Catholic Bibles often have very few of these helpful features?

As a convert myself, I have also been frustrated tying to find a good, solid Catholic study bible with the features you’ve been discussing. They are present in New American Bible editions, but its widely accepted that this may not be the best translation or scholarship.

A priest of mine once recommended one of the Oxford Annotated bibles in the RSV (not NRSV) version. But you would have to remember that the scholarship is at best ecumenical in nature, and deal with the “apocrypha” being located separately.

Also, there are the multi-volume study bibles in process, such as the Navarre or Ignatius Study bibles. Or, perhaps you would want to get a commentary of some sort (also difficult to find for solid Catholic theology).

Here are some other possible solutions that I’ve considered as a convert:

1.) Get some supplementary books, such as those recommended by Catholic Answers: catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

2.) Use the Catechism to augment your studies. A cross-referenced listing of all referenced scripture appears in the appendix of the “big green Catechism,” along with glossaries and indices related to the Catholic faith.

3.) Don’t forget the Catholic-based end notes present in separate appendices in the original version of the RSV-CE. (I’ve encountered a few fellow bible study participants who didn’t even realize they were there!)

4.) I’ve very recently learned that there are Douay-Rheims bible versions with maps, concordances and commentary sections that are based on traditional Catholic theology. I’m currently trying to identify which editions might be the best in this regard (and would appreciate any information on this topic).

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[mmortal03]

I’m a relatively new Catholic, so maybe I’m lacking some sort of context, but this doesn’t make sense to me. Why would the Church be more concerned about the Lectionary translations than in the Bibles we have in our homes for study and/or devotional use? It seems pretty clear to me that they’re of equal importance.

I am not the authority on this, but I will try to explian it as best as I understand it:

It is because the Church is the authority on teaching and interpreting the Bible, and what is read at the Mass is where the laity receives the most frequent instruction about the contents of the text, by way of the homily. The Mass is the center of Catholic worship AND distribution of its teaching (although I would argue that not enough was I exposed to there regarding the latter, with growing up going to Mass, to be confident in being a knowledgeable Catholic, but that is another issue).

You also have to look at the issue historically, with most of the laity not being able to read, etc. That part doesn’t apply so much today, however, the source of ultimate interpretation is the Magisterium, hence the greatest importance is being placed on that which they use when they directly interact with the laity. The personal Bible doesn’t hold this same importance, even today when reading the Bible is not discouraged.

The basic issue here is that individual interpretation is not absolute, so not AS important.

Additionally, how would your first sentence apply to such translations as the NLT Catholic Reference Bible?

I don’t follow what you are asking here, can you re-word it?

 

[djrakowski]

As a convert myself, I have also been frustrated tying to find a good, solid Catholic study bible with the features you’ve been discussing. They are present in New American Bible editions, but its widely accepted that this may not be the best translation or scholarship.

You’re right, my Oxford NAB has many of these features, but the translation is not the best, and the footnotes are even worse.

I’ve followed your other suggestions, especially the one regarding the use of the Catechism as a supplement. In fact, it is one of the best Bible study aides we have available.

Thanks for the suggestions,
Dan

 

[djrakowski]

It is because the Church is the authority on teaching and interpreting the Bible, and what is read at the Mass is where the laity receives the most frequent instruction about the contents of the text, by way of the homily. The Mass is the center of Catholic worship AND distribution of its teaching (although I would argue that not enough was I exposed to there regarding the latter, with growing up going to Mass, to be confident in being a knowledgeable Catholic, but that is another issue).

I understand that, but isn’t it frustrating to you that we can’t even get our hands on a Bible that contains the same text as what we hear in Mass? It is to me, anyways.

I’m not interested in departing from the Church into my own personal interpretations. In fact, I converted to Catholicism because I was able to prove it Biblically, with very little help from the Church itself. I wasn’t attending Mass, and only read a few books, and engaged in a few discussions with folks on these forums. When Catholics were able to prove it to me from the Bible - my Protestant Bible, that is - I was converted.

You also have to look at the issue historically, with most of the laity not being able to read, etc. That part doesn’t apply so much today, however, the source of ultimate interpretation is the Magisterium, hence the greatest importance is being placed on that which they use when they directly interact with the laity. The personal Bible doesn’t hold this same importance, even today when reading the Bible is not discouraged.

No, not only is reading the Bible not discouraged, it has indulgences attached to it. Therefore, I think Catholics should have access to more resources, especially text and reference Bibles, that make reading the Bible more pleasant and accessible. I’ve seen at least one NAB oriented toward apologetics - The New Catholic Answer Bible - but, as has been discussed here too often, that translation is less than adequate for a variety of reasons.

The basic issue here is that individual interpretation is not absolute, so not AS important.

True, but if the Church wants us to read the Bible, it should consider it important to ensure that we have quality, reliable ones from which to read. Perhaps Ignatius could be persuaded to produce a single-volume RSV-CE Reference Bible with some of the features I mentioned above, like cross references, book introductions, highlights of important verses in Catholic theology, and a concordance. That way, the danger of individual interpretation that differs from official Catholic teaching is somewhat mitigated.

I don’t follow what you are asking here, can you re-word it?

My apologies. Let me see if I can restate the dilemma. Tyndale publishes a Catholic Reference Bible in the New Living Translation, which is primarily an evangelical translation. Their Catholic edition includes the deuterocanonicals, and I believe it also contains the material from Daniel, Esther and others that most Protestant Bibles do not. However, it never received an imprimatur (and I don’t even think they sought one), and at least one review I’ve read suggested that the USCCB recommended against reading it (though I’ve not been able to find anything directly from the USCCB on this translation). It has all the features I’d like, and since I’ve studied my way into the Church, I know how to filter any verses that may have been translated with an anti-Catholic (or specifically pro-Protestant) bias. Even though it isn’t Catholic, and I can find no Catholic resources that either recommend for or against it, I’ve ordered it anyways, knowing that I loved reading that translation for devotional purposes when I was an evangelical.

Should I avoid such a translation? How is one to distinguish, without the level of scholarship you and others on this thread have displayed, which Bible to use, considering all that have the word “Catholic” stamped on the spine aren’t equal, and can in fact be quite damaging to one’s Catholic faith?

 

[mmortal03]

I understand that, but isn’t it frustrating to you that we can’t even get our hands on a Bible that contains the same text as what we hear in Mass?

Very.

True, but if the Church wants us to read the Bible, it should consider it important to ensure that we have quality, reliable ones from which to read.

I think that is the spirit of Liturgiam Authenticam and the Ratio translationis for the English language, though it may take a while.

My apologies. Let me see if I can restate the dilemma. Tyndale publishes a Catholic Reference Bible in the New Living Translation, which is primarily an evangelical translation. Their Catholic edition includes the deuterocanonicals, and I believe it also contains the material from Daniel, Esther and others that most Protestant Bibles do not. However, it never received an imprimatur (and I don’t even think they sought one), and at least one review I’ve read suggested that the USCCB recommended against reading it (though I’ve not been able to find anything directly from the USCCB on this translation). It has all the features I’d like, and since I’ve studied my way into the Church, I know how to filter any verses that may have been translated with an anti-Catholic (or specifically pro-Protestant) bias. Even though it isn’t Catholic, and I can find no Catholic resources that either recommend for or against it, I’ve ordered it anyways, knowing that I loved reading that translation for devotional purposes when I was an evangelical.

Should I avoid such a translation?

May I ask why you want to use that particular translation above all others? Is it the features of it besides the translation itself? Maybe someone here should suggest to you a good study bible or commentary that uses one of the more popular translations here. Search around the threads on this site and see what you can find.

How is one to distinguish, without the level of scholarship you and others on this thread have displayed, which Bible to use, considering all that have the word “Catholic” stamped on the spine aren’t equal, and can in fact be quite damaging to one’s Catholic faith?

I have learned a lot myself just by reading the threads on this board and searching for what I am interested in. This board is a good source for determining whether a particular translation is worthwhile or not, in my opinion.

 

[djrakowski]

May I ask why you want to use that particular translation above all others? Is it the features of it besides the translation itself? Maybe someone here should suggest to you a good study bible or commentary that uses one of the more popular translations here. Search around the threads on this site and see what you can find.

Before I converted, I used the NLT quite heavily for devotional reading. It is a dynamic equivalence translation, perhaps a bit looser than the NIV, but not so much that the intent of the passage is lost in the translator’s interpretations. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, this particular edition of the NLT has features I consider essential, which is important because I have limited time in which to read the Bible, and I prefer to make it productive without having to consult other books.

Our old church used the NIV, and that’s what I was required to use when I taught Sunday school. I will only use the NIV for scriptural apologetics with non-Catholics, because there’s a rather strong and persistent bias against Catholicism (and really, all liturgically- and historically-oriented churches).

If I ever get the time to do a formal Bible study, I’ll use the translation recommended by the instructor (which, in our parish, is usually the NAB). And when I do apologetics, I tend to use Protestant translations (primarily the NIV, NKJV and NASB), knowing that I never would’ve accepted a Catholic Bible when I was on the other side of the issue. So, for devotional use, I tend toward translations I want to read, knowing that I can filter any bias because of my knowledge of doctrine, and also knowing that I have the NAB and both editions of the Ignatius RSV-CE for comparison if something seems to miss the mark. Any time I’ve needed to study a particular issue, I’ve consulted my RSV-2CE.

I want to make sure I understand some things about the way the Church regards Bible translations. Earlier, you wrote that “the Church doesn’t officially recommend any particular translations.” If that’s the case, and I’m very secure in my faith, then using the NLT for private devotions shouldn’t be much of an issue.

I have learned a lot myself just by reading the threads on this board and searching for what I am interested in. This board is a good source for determining whether a particular translation is worthwhile or not, in my opinion.

So have I, and that’s why I like the RSV-2CE, but it just isn’t what I want to read for devotions. I use it for reference and study, but that’s about it.

 

[mmortal03]

I want to make sure I understand some things about the way the Church regards Bible translations. Earlier, you wrote that “the Church doesn’t officially recommend any particular translations.” If that’s the case, and I’m very secure in my faith, then using the NLT for private devotions shouldn’t be much of an issue.

Don’t get me wrong, my personal interest isn’t necessarily to read a Catholic bible translation, but just an accurate one. I often find Catholic bibles to be less biased or edited with a liberal Christian agenda.

My words above were more directed toward people wanting to use Catholic bibles without them having an imprimatur, however, you are right that if I thought a particular translation was more accurate, I wouldn’t disallow myself from using it, either. For example, I would have no problem looking at the NASB for certain purposes.

However, in this case, I question why you would want to allow yourself to still use a Protestant translation for purposes other than you really thinking it to be more accurate. This touchy-feely devotional idea, where one has developed an attachment to a less accurate or biased translation, is quite foreign to my way of thinking. Do you see what I mean?

 

[djrakowski]

Don’t get me wrong, my personal interest isn’t necessarily to read a Catholic bible translation, but just an accurate one. I often find Catholic bibles to be less biased or edited with a liberal Christian agenda.

Except for the NAB, which seems to have been translated with an agenda in quite a few places, not to mention the content of the footnotes, which is abominable.

My words above were more directed toward people wanting to use Catholic bibles without them having an imprimatur, however, you are right that if I thought a particular translation was more accurate, I wouldn’t disallow myself from using it, either. For example, I would have no problem looking at the NASB for certain purposes.

My research and past reading of the NLT have led me to believe that there are no glaring problems with accurary in the translation. Far from liberal, it was translated with conservative evangelicals in mind.

Consider that there are a few translations that are accepted (or have an imprimatur, etc.) by the Church that started as either Protestant or ecumenical, including the Good News Bible (Today’s English Version), and I think the RSV and NRSV started that way, as well. In fact, I know that the NRSV is used in at least the Episcopal Church, and is the Bible used in the Catholic lectionary in Canada. Wasn’t there an approved Catholic Living Bible, as well?

In other words, those translations are just as open to the charge of inaccuracy and bias as the NLT, so I see no reason why I shouldn’t use it for casual purposes, considering that all the books are there.

However, in this case, I question why you would want to allow yourself to still use a Protestant translation for purposes other than you really thinking it to be more accurate. This touchy-feely devotional idea, where one has developed an attachment to a less accurate or biased translation, is quite foreign to my way of thinking. Do you see what I mean?

You have the wrong idea of what I mean by devotional. I simply mean a reading of the Bible without a study guide during my personal prayer time, as I don’t really have time to do in-depth studies (full-time career, 4 children, etc. are getting in the way right now). This is the style of Bible reading that initially led me to a study of the Catholic Church, and my translations were NLT and NIV at the time. If they led me into the Catholic Church, they’re not going to lead me out of it.

Perhaps it is quite foreign to your thinking, but I’d bet that many of the former Protestants who post here know exactly what I mean. Perhaps they wouldn’t choose as I have, but that doesn’t mean I’ve chosen something harmful. When Catholic Bible publishers get on the ball and produce a thoroughly usable product, I’ll go that route. But until then, I’m happy with the choice I’ve made, and fully confident that my faith is not in any danger whatsoever.

 

[mmortal03]

I remember the NLT being discussed here before, and looking into it, I found that they had updated it in 2004 “which resolved some of the awkward wording of the original, as well as reworking some of the poetic verses into more acceptable poetic form.” However, they haven’t updated the Catholic edition of it. I wonder if they will, or how important the changes were.

They describe it on their website as being equal to the New Jerusalem Bible on a scale of word-for-word to paraphrase. Does the NLT use inclusive language?

Perhaps it is quite foreign to your thinking, but I’d bet that many of the former Protestants who post here know exactly what I mean. Perhaps they wouldn’t choose as I have, but that doesn’t mean I’ve chosen something harmful. When Catholic Bible publishers get on the ball and produce a thoroughly usable product, I’ll go that route. But until then, I’m happy with the choice I’ve made, and fully confident that my faith is not in any danger whatsoever.

I don’t think you have chosen something harmful, either. I doubt there is anything there that will hurt your faith. Its more about how we interpret the text, anyway. I just wonder why a less literal translation brings people to some higher state of understanding, or something like that. To me, a more literal, but still readable translation should serve that purpose even more, but then, I’m not the typical in terms of “emotion” and “spirituality”, I guess. (Please don’t interpret that as patronization.)

 

[MTD]

Well, we all know the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to apply only to the original text of the inspired writers. However, I would think that the more literal the translation, the more likely it will be the true Word of God. Dynamic translations are really only man’s interpretation of the Word of God. At least that’s the way I see it.

Your aim is to read the Word of God, right? Then why settle for something less, be it for study or devotion?

Maria