J
jpy15026
Guest
It’s about time…
My sentiments exactly!
- Status
My sentiments exactly!
J
jpy15026
Guest
It’s about time…
My sentiments exactly!
D
Danw
Guest
I am disappointed in the Second Edition. I would have liked the print to be darker, and the paper white. That being said,it is an improvement over the original edition. Due to previous posters, I cancelled my order for the Leather edition (gold flaking) and purchased the paperback for now.
You would think they would “people test” before going to press.
You would think they would “people test” before going to press.
D
Danw
Guest
I am disappointed in the Second Edition. I would have liked the print to be darker, and the paper white. That being said,it is an improvement over the original edition. Due to previous posters, I cancelled my order for the Leather edition (gold flaking) and purchased the paperback for now.
You would think they would “people test” before going to press.
You would think they would “people test” before going to press.
J
jpy15026
Guest
“Due to previous posters, I cancelled my order for the Leather edition (gold flaking) and purchased the paperback for now.”
If you can wait ,I think this is the one to get,( my previous post # 53) the "Ignatius “Second edition” is no big deal,text wise.
us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/?sf=featured&ss=title.asc&sd=asc&pf=10&view=usa&pr=10&bookCovers=yes&ci=0195288653
If you can wait ,I think this is the one to get,( my previous post # 53) the "Ignatius “Second edition” is no big deal,text wise.
us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/?sf=featured&ss=title.asc&sd=asc&pf=10&view=usa&pr=10&bookCovers=yes&ci=0195288653
J
jpy15026
Guest
“Due to previous posters, I cancelled my order for the Leather edition (gold flaking) and purchased the paperback for now.”
If you can wait ,I think this is the one to get,( my previous post # 53) the "Ignatius “Second edition” is no big deal,text wise.
us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/?sf=featured&ss=title.asc&sd=asc&pf=10&view=usa&pr=10&bookCovers=yes&ci=0195288653
If you can wait ,I think this is the one to get,( my previous post # 53) the "Ignatius “Second edition” is no big deal,text wise.
us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/?sf=featured&ss=title.asc&sd=asc&pf=10&view=usa&pr=10&bookCovers=yes&ci=0195288653
M
mmortal03
Guest
jpy15026 said:
Were the recent Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bibles before this one that is to be released soon just a reissue of the original RSVCE? Shouldn’t these new ones just be the same as the First Edition Ignatius Bibles and the Scepter Publishers version?
If this is not the case, and this one contains revisions, did the Compact Editions that were just released a year ago by Oxford also have these revisons and then this new one is just a full size text of those? Does the Oxford Press version have archaic language? Does anyone have more info?
M
mmortal03
Guest
jpy15026 said:
Were the recent Oxford Press RSV Catholic Bibles before this one that is to be released soon just a reissue of the original RSVCE? Shouldn’t these new ones just be the same as the First Edition Ignatius Bibles and the Scepter Publishers version?
If this is not the case, and this one contains revisions, did the Compact Editions that were just released a year ago by Oxford also have these revisons and then this new one is just a full size text of those? Does the Oxford Press version have archaic language? Does anyone have more info?
M
Manfred
Guest
Sorry you guys don’t get it, but it’s like this:
The Church teaches that Mary, unlike Zachary earlier in Luke chap. 1, did not doubt the angel’s words; hence, from what I’ve been led to understand, the Greek renders it “How shall (or will, if you eschew the “archaic”) this be…?” and not “How can this be…?” the latter implying doubt.
And, of course, the Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity not only got this right, but rendered the rest of the question in a literal manner: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
THAT’S the “big deal”.
Thomas A. Nelson’s “Which Bible Should You Read?” (from TAN Books) expounds on this and a lot of other passages; check it out!
M
Manfred
Guest
Sorry you guys don’t get it, but it’s like this:
The Church teaches that Mary, unlike Zachary earlier in Luke chap. 1, did not doubt the angel’s words; hence, from what I’ve been led to understand, the Greek renders it “How shall (or will, if you eschew the “archaic”) this be…?” and not “How can this be…?” the latter implying doubt.
And, of course, the Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity not only got this right, but rendered the rest of the question in a literal manner: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
THAT’S the “big deal”.
Thomas A. Nelson’s “Which Bible Should You Read?” (from TAN Books) expounds on this and a lot of other passages; check it out!
M
mmortal03
Guest
Does the Oxford Press (the original) RSV-CE have archaic language? If so, is it throughout, or just in certain cases?
M
mmortal03
Guest
Does the Oxford Press (the original) RSV-CE have archaic language? If so, is it throughout, or just in certain cases?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It doesn’t matter what the Church says - what matters, is that the text being translated should be translated as well as possible, given whatever constraints the translators may be working under.
Words have specific meanings - they mean certain things, and not others. If the text being translated does not match the meaning what people might like it to match, they will have to find other passages to support their doctrines. If a word means “elephant”, and not “cheese pastie”, no translator is going to render it as “cheese pastie” - and the same is true for the Biblical words and texts.Church doctrines have their place - but that place is not as a substitute for what the texts mean.
The Bible is not Denzinger, it’s not the Creed, it’s not an account of Catholic doctrine. It has to be translated faithfully, as what it is, the Bible: or it may as well not be translated at all. If we inject our theologies or doctrines into it, that is all we shall get out of it. Ignoring what it does say in favour of what we think it ought to say, is not faithful translation. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It doesn’t matter what the Church says - what matters, is that the text being translated should be translated as well as possible, given whatever constraints the translators may be working under.
Words have specific meanings - they mean certain things, and not others. If the text being translated does not match the meaning what people might like it to match, they will have to find other passages to support their doctrines. If a word means “elephant”, and not “cheese pastie”, no translator is going to render it as “cheese pastie” - and the same is true for the Biblical words and texts.Church doctrines have their place - but that place is not as a substitute for what the texts mean.
The Bible is not Denzinger, it’s not the Creed, it’s not an account of Catholic doctrine. It has to be translated faithfully, as what it is, the Bible: or it may as well not be translated at all. If we inject our theologies or doctrines into it, that is all we shall get out of it. Ignoring what it does say in favour of what we think it ought to say, is not faithful translation. ##
TAN books huh. Explains a lot.
How can, how shall: To my untrained mind, it goes like this: Mary was sure she was to be a virgin, and simply wanted to angel how it was going to be so. The RSV’s “How can this be” puts it across as clearly as “How shall…” or “how will”. I see no doubt on our Lady’s part here, just an inquiry. Without the TAN book, I would not have read doubt into Mary’s question at all. I think nobody else does either. That’s why I usually take TAN with a grain of salt. Their books sometimes see things that aren’t there.
Zechariah on the other hand, asked, “How shall I know this?” asking for proof. Way, way different from “How can this be?”
TAN books huh. Explains a lot.
How can, how shall: To my untrained mind, it goes like this: Mary was sure she was to be a virgin, and simply wanted to angel how it was going to be so. The RSV’s “How can this be” puts it across as clearly as “How shall…” or “how will”. I see no doubt on our Lady’s part here, just an inquiry. Without the TAN book, I would not have read doubt into Mary’s question at all. I think nobody else does either. That’s why I usually take TAN with a grain of salt. Their books sometimes see things that aren’t there.
Zechariah on the other hand, asked, “How shall I know this?” asking for proof. Way, way different from “How can this be?”
- Status