RSV-CE Needs Corrections

[mccorm45]

most def. YES!!! Classics aren’t destroyed overnight

Then, according to you, the official Bible of the Catholic Church is in error. You sure you want to say that? I guess I simply trust the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Perhaps if you want to discuss this topic some more, you should start another thread titled: “The Official Bible of the Catholic Church has Errors”.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Then, according to you, the official Bible of the Catholic Church is in error. You sure you want to say that? I guess I simply trust the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Perhaps if you want to discuss this topic some more, you should start another thread titled: “The Official Bible of the Catholic Church has Errors”.

What I am saying is that something that was completely accurate for 1579 years (Vulgate Jerome through Clementine) and English Bibles for nearly 580 years follow the same thing and to come out over 1400 years after the original is produced and to say that it isn’t completely accurate, but still free of doctrinal error is hogwash. Omitting words or bits or whole phrases is unacceptable and not accurate

 

[mccorm45]

What I am saying is that something that was completely accurate for 1579 years (Vulgate Jerome through Clementine) and English Bibles for nearly 580 years follow the same thing and to come out over 1400 years after the original is produced and to say that it isn’t completely accurate, but still free of doctrinal error is hogwash. Omitting words or bits or whole phrases is unacceptable and not accurate

Then according to you, the Church is wrong on this issue and you are right. Ok.

 

[tobinatorstark]

ok. lets put it this way. If all your life you believed 2+2=4 then suddenly you are 70 years old and they found proof that 2+2=5, would you believe that???

 

[mccorm45]

ok. lets put it this way. If all your life you believed 2+2=4 then suddenly you are 70 years old and they found proof that 2+2=5, would you believe that???

Look, I understand your love for the Douay-Rheims. Like I said, I have a number of different editions of it, including the Haydock commentaries. And you are not going to hear me tell you not to read it or that it is old fashion or whatever. But, it is clear that the Church thinks that we have the ability to produce more accurate translations now from the orginal Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I agree with them.

Also, I don’t think your analogy works. Because you assume that the Vulgate is the most accurate, according to text not doctrine, from the beginning. Clearly the Church wants us to go back to the original languages, bypassing the Latin as the base text. Again, the issue is on finding out exactly, to the best ability we can, what the original writers wrote.

 

[tobinatorstark]

by omitting word, bits or whole phrases makes it more doctrinally correct as well as textual???

 

[mccorm45]

by omitting word, bits or whole phrases makes it more doctrinally correct as well as textual???

Those who ommit words or text do so because they believe, and according to the Nova Vulaga too, that those texts were never in the originals. Plus you are basing the correct textual base on a translation. (I know…I know…St. Jerome…) But back then when copies were being made by hand, there occasionally was a scribal error. This error was then copied in future editions and thus it was included in the text. There is no malice here by the scribe, but it does happen. That is one of the things that people who work on ancient texts look for…and the Vatican has embraced this! Do you not want the most accurate text? Do you not want to know exactly what St. Paul wrote in his epistles? There is nothing to be affraid of. The Church isn’t affraid, so neither should you!

 

[tobinatorstark]

Those who ommit words or text do so because they believe, and according to the Nova Vulaga too, that those texts were never in the originals. Plus you are basing the correct textual base on a translation. (I know…I know…St. Jerome…) But back then when copies were being made by hand, there occasionally was a scribal error. This error was then copied in future editions and thus it was included in the text. There is no malice here by the scribe, but it does happen. That is one of the things that people who work on ancient texts look for…and the Vatican has embraced this! Do you not want the most accurate text? Do you not want to know exactly what St. Paul wrote in his epistles? There is nothing to be affraid of. The Church isn’t affraid, so neither should you!

Then how does one these set of manuscripts affect Rev. 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, but somehow subject to 2 Timothy 3:16-17?? Doesn’t one fall into heresy, why or why not???

 

[mccorm45]

Then how does one these set of manuscripts affect Rev. 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, but somehow subject to 2 Timothy 3:16-17?? Doesn’t one fall into heresy, why or why not???

Tobinator,

Look, this has been answered in the previous thread: Best catholic Bible version to read?

If you cannot accept the answers given there, then i am not going to go over this again and again. Like I said in an earlier post, why don’t you just start a thread about this topic if you feel you are smarter than the Church on this issue.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Tobinator,

Look, this has been answered in the previous thread: Best catholic Bible version to read?

If you cannot accept the answers given there, then i am not going to go over this again and again. Like I said in an earlier post, why don’t you just start a thread about this topic if you feel you are smarter than the Church on this issue.

I have never stated that I was smarter than the Church. Still both set of texts can’t be considered accurate without one going into heresy of some sort for violating one of the scripture passages mentioned above. Admit it, no one can give me an answer to my question on these manuscripts, unless I contact a priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope.

 

[mccorm45]

I have never stated that I was smarter than the Church. Still both set of texts can’t be considered accurate without one going into heresy of some sort for violating one of the scripture passages mentioned above. Admit it, no one can give me an answer to my question on these manuscripts, unless I contact a priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope.

1. The answer is that just because a phrase or word wasn’t in the original, doesn’t mean that the translation that used those texts is all of a sudden heretical. You are way off on this. It isn’t like any text that is missing denies any tenet of the faith.
2. Go ahead and find yourself a priest, bishop, or even the Pope to talk to you on this. They are all going to tell you the same thing you have read from me and others on this forum.
3. The only thing I am going to admit is that I am on the side of the Church and you are not. You can spend the next 50 years asking the same questions without having the willingness to consider some of our asnwers. That is your call. I have Church documents, the Nova Vulgata, and biblical scholarship on my side…you don’t.

Again, if you want to talk about this topic specifically, why not begin a thread on this forum with citations supporting your point of view? Don’t just ask question after question after question, but make a statement and support it. But please, don’t just pop into any thread that talks about the RSV or any other translation and just say that “it has no business being in the Catholic Church whatsoever.”

 

[tobinatorstark]

I have never stated that I was smarter than the Church. Still both set of texts can’t be considered accurate without one going into heresy of some sort for violating one of the scripture passages mentioned above. Admit it, no one can give me an answer to my question on these manuscripts, unless I contact a priest, bishop, cardinal or Pope.

Well I have finally found my answer about the manuscripts on if either one would fall into heresy. Neither sets fall into heresy. I was finally explained why it doesn’t. I am finally cracking the answer to the questions that I have been wondering since all this talk started

 

[Manfred]

Well I have finally found my answer about the manuscripts on if either one would fall into heresy. Neither sets fall into heresy. I was finally explained why it doesn’t. I am finally cracking the answer to the questions that I have been wondering since all this talk started

Well? aren’t you going to share your new-found wisdom with the rest of us?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Even though the one set of manuscripts differs from the other it doesn’t mess with any doctrine of God, not just the church. Even though one doesn’t fall into heresy for differences, this still doesn’t mean that ONE set of manuscripts is more accurate than the other. It doesn’t mean that there subject to Rev 22:18-19, Duet 4:2 and II Timothy 3:16-17 on false grounds, but rather can’t prove than one is more accurate than other as both are accurate in the sense, but neither may be or may be not accurate as what they should be.

 

[Manfred]

Even though the one set of manuscripts differs from the other it doesn’t mess with any doctrine of God, not just the church. Even though one doesn’t fall into heresy for differences, this still doesn’t mean that ONE set of manuscripts is more accurate than the other. It doesn’t mean that there subject to Rev 22:18-19, Duet 4:2 and II Timothy 3:16-17 on false grounds, but rather can’t prove than one is more accurate than other as both are accurate in the sense, but neither may be or may be not accurate as what they should be.

You’re thinking faster than you can type and your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Come to think of it, your first two sentences are quite vague as well.

 

[tobinatorstark]

You’re thinking faster than you can type and your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Come to think of it, your first two sentences are quite vague as well.

whatever

 

[Jack_245814]

Sorry if this has been said before (I don’t have time to read this whole thread), but I found a somewhat serious problem with one of the comments. I might be totally wrong about this though; take it with a grain of salt, I’m new to the study of the scripture and theology in general.

Matthew 1:24-25 – “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

Comment – "This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward.

Isn’t this an indirect challenge of the Church teaching that Mary is ever-virgin? Compare to the same passage and comment in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner:

Matthew 1:24-25 – “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

Comment – "Till she brought forth her firstborn son. From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ: but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be? Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned.

God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God: Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, &c. Ex. 13. 2."

BIG difference between those two comments; the RSV, while not challenging the ever-virginity of Mary, asserts that this verse does not prove it. The Douay-Rheims takes the opportunity to defend with well-reasoned arguments an essential tenet of the One True Church.

I’m not a Douay-Rheims-onlyist by any means, but I do take issue with this part of the RSV. Otherwise I rather like the translation: it is both readable and, if I am to trust the words of my intellectual superiors, quite accurate to the oldest extant manuscripts.

 

[rocketrob]

Matthew 1:24-25 – “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

Comment – "This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward.

Isn’t this an indirect challenge of the Church teaching that Mary is ever-virgin? Compare to the same passage and comment in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner…

BIG difference between those two comments; the RSV, while not challenging the ever-virginity of Mary, asserts that this verse does not prove it. The Douay-Rheims takes the opportunity to defend with well-reasoned arguments an essential tenet of the One True Church.

I’m not a Douay-Rheims-onlyist by any means, but I do take issue with this part of the RSV. Otherwise I rather like the translation: it is both readable and, if I am to trust the words of my intellectual superiors, quite accurate to the oldest extant manuscripts.

Jack,
You probably know this already, but it appears to me that the RSV note was from the original (protestant) translation committee. I’m basing this deduction on the fact that no changes are listed for this verse or footnote in my RSV-CE (Catholic edition). So, this was probably somewhat of a compromise or allowance toward the Catholic position by the original committee. The ecumenically minded group that made the later Catholic changes must have felt that it did not warrant a change.

(On the other hand, if the RSV-CE explanatory notes were the original product of the later Catholic committee, then I have no good explanation.)

Interestingly enough, the New American Bible only does slightly better by saying:

“Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.”

I’m not a Douay Rheims ‘onlyist’ either, but this is a classic example of why I also do my scripture study using both an RSV-CE and Douay Rheims. Hopefully soon there will be a study bible that combines a more modern translation with solid notes in a single volume.

rocketrob

 

[tobinatorstark]

Sorry if this has been said before (I don’t have time to read this whole thread), but I found a somewhat serious problem with one of the comments. I might be totally wrong about this though; take it with a grain of salt, I’m new to the study of the scripture and theology in general.

Matthew 1:24-25 – “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

Comment – "This means only that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It implies nothing as to what happened afterward.

Isn’t this an indirect challenge of the Church teaching that Mary is ever-virgin? Compare to the same passage and comment in the Douay-Rheims-Challoner:

Matthew 1:24-25 – “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

Comment – "Till she brought forth her firstborn son. From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ: but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be? Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned.

God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God: Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, &c. Ex. 13. 2."

BIG difference between those two comments; the RSV, while not challenging the ever-virginity of Mary, asserts that this verse does not prove it. The Douay-Rheims takes the opportunity to defend with well-reasoned arguments an essential tenet of the One True Church.

I’m not a Douay-Rheims-onlyist by any means, but I do take issue with this part of the RSV. Otherwise I rather like the translation: it is both readable and, if I am to trust the words of my intellectual superiors, quite accurate to the oldest extant manuscripts.

interesting perspective

 

[John_M_Michael]

Hi, everybody!
:angel1:
This is an excellent forum. Congratulations!:angel1::angel1::angel1:

1). May I recommend changing the “heavens” in the very first verse of GN 1;1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” to the singular “heaven” as in 1 In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram" in Latin Vulgate, or “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth” as in Douahy-Reims?

2). I interpret “heaven” as the “supernatural world” as opposed to “earth” as the “physical world.” God did NOT need to create Heaven for Him to exist. He always “IS.” He created Heaven as the dwelling place for angels, saints and our souls to well until we regain our “perfect” body as the one Jesus has.

I am so delighted to have you proclaim that “rsv-ce” is the preferred “English” translation of Catholic Apologetists. It certainly is mine!

God bless you for your excellent work.

John Mary Michael (aka Michael S. Inoue)