T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Does anyone else not think highly of this Bible or is it just me
- Status
P
Pax
Guest
I like it…what’s the prob?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The reason I am not happy with not only the RSV-CE but others is the fact that the words “Blessed are thou among women” are missing at the end of Luke 1:28. I know that it is also in there in Luke 1:42. To me it diminishes the Immaculate Conception. Can any explain(in a reasonable manner) to me why it wouldn’t diminish the Immaculate Conception by omitting the “Blessed are thou among women”? It is clearly stated in the following Bibles(both Catholic and Non-Catholic) Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, Geneva, Bishops, Tyndale NT, Wycliffe and Coverdale. I don’t know about the Confraternity.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
This is the Bible required by my college for theology classes. I did read somewhere that the Catholic version translated a key verse concerning the virgin birth as “young woman” instead of “virgin”, while the regular RSV had “virgin”…but I have absolutely no idea if that is accurate or not.
Since I don’t have my copy handy, I can’t look to see if “blessed art thou amongst women” is missing from the NT. If that’s the case, that is extremely odd…
Since I don’t have my copy handy, I can’t look to see if “blessed art thou amongst women” is missing from the NT. If that’s the case, that is extremely odd…
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
This also true. It is found in Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV-CE
N
nate12387
Guest
In the RSV - 2nd catholic edition, Ignatius Press, Isaiah 7:14 is translated as virgin not young woman
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
At least one serious mistake was corrected in the 2nd version
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Anyone dislike this translation?? Maybe I am an odd duck.
R
Roman_1
Guest
respectfully, no its not. The original protestant rsv had young woman instead of virgin in isaiah 7:14, and it was left as such for the rsv-ce until the second edition. This is tyhe reason that most kjv only types and protestant fundamentalists burned it in droves when it first came out. The douay and other early bibles always had virgin from following the septuagint. The hebrew word “almah” is a separate word that can certainly denote a virgin, but is not always or even most of the time used to denote such. More can certainly follow from this digression, so let me get back on point. The RSv-CE does seem to be the best modern catholic translation, and incidentally, the only modern tranlatiuon faithful to the vulgate. I would think this would lead tobin to like it better than he does, though I can understand his reasoning for doing so. Certainly, as an ex protestant come home, I can now admit and see that protestant bibles often do leave out certain word or translate words differently so as to take the literal sense (which supports catholic teaching). They do not do this out of blind spite for the word of God, they are merely mistaken in believing they will save the reader from an incorrect (read:catholic) interpretation. The most important thing to remember in this is that Blessed art though among women is seen as a gloss that worked its way into the copies of the vulgate, and may not have even been there when Jerome translated it. Porbably, if this was the case, the copyist(s) memory of the hail mary led him to include it while hurriedly copying in the dark while a lector read of the passages for a room full of monks to copy. Such was the way it was done. we see a similar objection from protestants when they complain about the removal of the doxology at the end of the Lord’s prayer in the “original” KJV. Of course, catholics are blamed for this, as they are always trying to pervert the scriptures to make way for the new world order, so jesuit armies can take over america, as they already have all protestants names in the giant supercomputer at the Vatican… No kidding, this is a widespread belief among american protestants today. And thats only scratching the surface. Any way, I hope this helps. Tobin, while I would recommend the RSV-CE to you as the closest modern translation to the vulgate, and the only modern translation in accordance with Dei Verbum, I would also encourage you to stick by your douay. I actually prefer it to the greek critical texts, for reasons I have delved into in other threads… God Bless you.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Yes, the 2nd Edition of the RSV-CE was revised, by Catholics, to bring it in line with Liturgicam Authenticam.
It says so right on the title page!
Ruthie
It says so right on the title page!
Ruthie
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
It is a matter of some dispute as to whether or not the RSV2 is in line with LA. The editors of many translations often make claims about their translation that are not accurate. For example, many loose translations claim to be literal when they are not, or claim to be accurate (a rather subjective claim).
The RSV2 is a good version, but it has its strengths and weaknesses. It was translated mainly by Protestants, and is based on the ASV and KJV. Even though Catholic editors made the 2nd edition, the base translation is still the RSV.
M
mccorm45
Guest
I would like to point out that the RSV and NRSV are different from the KJV. As pointed out in other posts, the NRSV and RSV are translated from various Greek/Hebrew text. Typically it is called an eclectic text. The KJV (and NKJV) is translated from the Textus Receptus, which is not as reliable or old as the ones that modern Bible translations use. Oftentimes you will see that the RSV/NRSV are placed in the tradition of the KJV. This is mostly due to their reliance on some popular phrases and style that was used in the English translation of the KJV. Whatever you think about the KJV, there is no question that it is an important piece of english literature.
As for the RSV/NRSV today, Catholic scholars, along with Protestant and Orthodox, are still involved in the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee which is a continuing body. Whatever you have to say about the good and bad points of the RSV/NRSV translation, it is certainly a wonderful thing that such a committee exists in the world today.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The KJV (and NKJV) is translated from the Textus Receptus, which is not as reliable or old as the ones that modern Bible translations use.
Why would you make such a claim.that it the Textus Receptus isnn’t as reliable as the ones modern Bible translations use??? I guess for some reason the newer, the better. I guess I better throw away all the Bible versions and use Exclusively the most modern versions. You really ought to take some notes from Ron Conte. He does have an idea or two on scripture
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The RSV2 is a good version, but it has its strengths and weaknesses. It was translated mainly by Protestants, and is based on the ASV and KJV. Even though Catholic editors made the 2nd edition, the base translation is still the RSV.
Good point Ron
Good point Ron
M
mccorm45
Guest
- Why would I make the claim that the textus receptus is not as reliable as ones used in modern translations? Well, that is because we have older manuscripts than the textus receptus. It seems logical that we might want to translate from manuscripts that are closer to the Apostle’s actual hand.
- What does Ron Conte have to do with what we are talking about? I don’t remember disagreeing with what he said in the post I was quoting from…I was just adding some extra info. Perhaps you might want to take some notes from some others as well, perhaps we might know a thing or two.
[/quote]
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
M
mccorm45
Guest
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
I personally like the RSV-CE bible myself. The edition that I have the is the Ignatius edition and that solves many of the translation problems between the first edition of the RSV-CE. IE. there is no “young woman” but “virgin” in my translation.
I understand your concerns because they are valid ones.
I just prefer to think of it as God making good out of evil. Take a very anti-catholic bible such as the KJV and then get a mediocre catholic edition of it. Then go ahead and change it and make it even more Catholic. A true edition. I don’t think that any other bible translation would be as good at apologetics with protestants. Even though the Douay Rheims might be more “correct” or the Confraternity might be more acceptable to our sensibilities than the original RSV-CE, I don’t think the use of those would have accomplished nearly as much with Protestants. I think in that context the RSV-CE is a great bible.
~RSF
I understand your concerns because they are valid ones.
I just prefer to think of it as God making good out of evil. Take a very anti-catholic bible such as the KJV and then get a mediocre catholic edition of it. Then go ahead and change it and make it even more Catholic. A true edition. I don’t think that any other bible translation would be as good at apologetics with protestants. Even though the Douay Rheims might be more “correct” or the Confraternity might be more acceptable to our sensibilities than the original RSV-CE, I don’t think the use of those would have accomplished nearly as much with Protestants. I think in that context the RSV-CE is a great bible.
~RSF
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Thank for understanding my concerns. I see the Douay-Rheims as good version, but can’t recommend it for everyone. My concerns prevent me from recommending the RSV-CE, but that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t read it. That I give is my personal thoughts only and I do applaud you for reading the Bible itself. If you feel so confident about the RSV-CE like I do about the Douay-Rheims, you should surely express it.
P.S. Go Sox. Even though I am an Indians fan, but the Indians aren’t doing well. I don’t know if the the Red Sox play the Yankees again, but if they do, go Sox. Yankees are my least favorite team
P.S. Go Sox. Even though I am an Indians fan, but the Indians aren’t doing well. I don’t know if the the Red Sox play the Yankees again, but if they do, go Sox. Yankees are my least favorite team
W
wmscott
Guest
Just a question, what is your understanding of what the Immaculate Conception is?
- Status