Thanks for your response. I would appreciate it if you would, however, take a look at the usage table at the page at Wikipedia that I linked to (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thine) . It precisely says otherwise, as it specifically denotes a difference between the genitive case and the possessive case. The following two pages also denote a clear difference.
Thanks for your response. I would appreciate it if you would, however, take a look at the usage table at the page at Wikipedia that I linked to (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thine) . It precisely says otherwise, as it specifically denotes a difference between the genitive case and the possessive case. The following two pages also denote a clear difference.
jpy15026 said:
jpy15026 said:
Malachi 1:11 in the RSV-CE reads, “incense” instead of “sacrifice,” as found in the Douay-Rheims. “Sacrifice” is also the translation found in the New American Bible, which is shocking because they translate Luke 1:28 “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
Malachi 1:11 in the RSV-CE reads, “incense” instead of “sacrifice,” as found in the Douay-Rheims. “Sacrifice” is also the translation found in the New American Bible, which is shocking because they translate Luke 1:28 “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
Out of curiosity, I looked-up Malachi 1:11 in my copy of “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” which is based on the DR. I found it interesting that it says, “The LXX [Septuagint] translates, probably correctly: ‘In every place incense is offered to my name and a pure oblation’. It is certainly worthy of remark that whenever the Sacrifice of the New Testament is offered with full ritual, the use of incense is an integral part of the sacred function.”
Out of curiosity, I looked-up Malachi 1:11 in my copy of “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” which is based on the DR. I found it interesting that it says, “The LXX [Septuagint] translates, probably correctly: ‘In every place incense is offered to my name and a pure oblation’. It is certainly worthy of remark that whenever the Sacrifice of the New Testament is offered with full ritual, the use of incense is an integral part of the sacred function.”
One other thing I wanted to mention was that I have to agree with your assessment that there is no prefect translation. All of them seem to have traits that are desirable, but no one translation is completely satisfying. I have also heard Fr. Corapi talk about the imperfection of translations. I’ve also heard him say that he prefers the RSV-CE, despite its imperfections.
One other thing I wanted to mention was that I have to agree with your assessment that there is no prefect translation. All of them seem to have traits that are desirable, but no one translation is completely satisfying. I have also heard Fr. Corapi talk about the imperfection of translations. I’ve also heard him say that he prefers the RSV-CE, despite its imperfections.
Thanks for mentioning this. While I had initially mentioned the Malachi verse from reading it elsewhere (albeit cutting and pasting from there and misspelling it as “Malichi”), it was not a function of my knowledge sohwing through. I do not know which is the better translation in this case. I noticed that another poster, Psalm45:9, mentioned it as well. Could it be that this is one of those places where we should rely on the LXX? How does the Masoretic Text translate into English here? Might it be that the traditional DRV fails in this particular case?
Thanks for mentioning this. While I had initially mentioned the Malachi verse from reading it elsewhere (albeit cutting and pasting from there and misspelling it as “Malichi”), it was not a function of my knowledge sohwing through. I do not know which is the better translation in this case. I noticed that another poster, Psalm45:9, mentioned it as well. Could it be that this is one of those places where we should rely on the LXX? How does the Masoretic Text translate into English here? Might it be that the traditional DRV fails in this particular case?
I think the font size/style of the RSV-CE is actually incorporated into its copyright. If you look at the first edition Ignatius Bible and the RSV-CE published by Scepter, the font and layout are exactly the same. Just yesterday I saw a program on EWTN where Fr. Corapi was talking about the Navarre Bible series and how much he liked it since his doctorate is from Navarre. Anyway, he was complaining about the small font size in those Bibles and how it could not be altered by the publisher. If you check out the link to Jimmy Akin’s blog earlier in this thread, somebody from Ignatius mentions the fact that they originally could not place the footnotes to the RSV-CE with the scripture itself, but rather had to leave them at the end of the Old and New Testaments because of restrictions placed on them. I am assuming that Ignatius has struck some sort of deal with the copyright holder of the RSV-CE (the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain) that is permitting them to make these revisions to the text.
I think the font size/style of the RSV-CE is actually incorporated into its copyright. If you look at the first edition Ignatius Bible and the RSV-CE published by Scepter, the font and layout are exactly the same. Just yesterday I saw a program on EWTN where Fr. Corapi was talking about the Navarre Bible series and how much he liked it since his doctorate is from Navarre. Anyway, he was complaining about the small font size in those Bibles and how it could not be altered by the publisher. If you check out the link to Jimmy Akin’s blog earlier in this thread, somebody from Ignatius mentions the fact that they originally could not place the footnotes to the RSV-CE with the scripture itself, but rather had to leave them at the end of the Old and New Testaments because of restrictions placed on them. I am assuming that Ignatius has struck some sort of deal with the copyright holder of the RSV-CE (the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain) that is permitting them to make these revisions to the text.