B
Broobarker
Guest
With a few alterations?
- Status
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
basically that is how I looked at it at first.
B
Broobarker
Guest
What about right now?
M
mccorm45
Guest
I personally do not have a problem with who was involved in a translation, as long as it has the proper ecclesiastical approval.
The RSV-CE was translated by protestants, via the National Council of Churches. In the mid-60’s British Catholic scholars were allowed, by the NCC, to make some adjustments to the RSV. They decided only to make these changes in the New Testament. After these slight modifications were made, it received an imprimatur.
The RSV-2CE is basically the same as the RSV-CE, but with some more minor changes, most prominantly being the elimination of archaic language. Some of the most notable changes are “virgin” for Is 7:14, “exodus” in Luke 9, and substitution “chalice” for “cup” in the institution narratives. However, unlike the original RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE doesn’t indicate where alterations to the original translation were made.
The NRSV, however, is an ecumenical translation, which has both Catholic and Protestant translators on the committee.
All three translations have the proper ecclesiastical approval.
The RSV-CE was translated by protestants, via the National Council of Churches. In the mid-60’s British Catholic scholars were allowed, by the NCC, to make some adjustments to the RSV. They decided only to make these changes in the New Testament. After these slight modifications were made, it received an imprimatur.
The RSV-2CE is basically the same as the RSV-CE, but with some more minor changes, most prominantly being the elimination of archaic language. Some of the most notable changes are “virgin” for Is 7:14, “exodus” in Luke 9, and substitution “chalice” for “cup” in the institution narratives. However, unlike the original RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE doesn’t indicate where alterations to the original translation were made.
The NRSV, however, is an ecumenical translation, which has both Catholic and Protestant translators on the committee.
All three translations have the proper ecclesiastical approval.
M
Manfred
Guest
Unfortunately, the two links to which I would like to have referred you are no longer accessible. These links described the differences between the two editions of the RSV-CE and the “generic” RSV, as well as the Douay-Rheims.
You might try PM’ing mmortal03 who did these analyses and see if he can make them available once again.
N
nate12387
Guest
I use the RSV - 2CE all the time. I do not have a problem with it. Just because it has protestant origins doesn’t mean it’s a bad translation. The early church fathers took pagan things and christianized them. Does this mean that we should though those things out because of there pagan origins? Of course not. In the same way, the RSV is not a bad translation because of its protestant origins.
Nathan
Nathan
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
2 Corinthains 2:10 in any edition of the RSV is wrong–Protestant–and doctrinally in error.
St. Paul didn’t forgive the incestuous Corinthian “In the presence of Christ” as the RSV translates but “In the person of Christ” as the Vulgate attests.
IN PERSONNA CHRISTI!
And for all you Greek language lovers out there that think it is superior to Latin then please tell me how the Greek word “Prosopon” which any Greek would know means “Mask”–like the mask used when Greek actors would use in plays–would equate that with being in “Christ’s presence” and not in “Christ’s person”?
Just like an actor acting a role and becoming the role he plays–Catholic priests Forgive and Grant absolution in the role of Christ–they become IN PERSONNA CHRISTI in the sacraments!
Now you or me or any other Protestant in the world can forgive anyone in the “presence of Christ” because Christ as God is everywhere.
If we aren’t priests though we can’t act IN PERSONNA CHRISTI–we can’t act “In Christ’s person”–we don’t have the authority to forgive or retain another’s sins like that–we don’t have the power to grant absolution.
Now anyone who believes that the translators of the RSV didn’t know of that distinction when they CHOSE to translate the verse as “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ” are deluding themselves!
The Vulgate is free from error in all doctrinal matters.
Don’t tell me that there isn’t a doctrinal question regarding this verse!
The Clementine Vulgate gets the verse right–the Nova Vulgata gets the verse right–the Douay Rheims Challoner gets the verse right. The Confraternity version of the New Testament gets the verse right and Knox gets the verse right in his translation…
The Protestant translations get it wrong and they get it wrong due their biases against what the Catholic Church has taught for the centuries.
They aren’t only wrong about it because of questions concerning Latin–they are wrong about it because of questions regarding the Greek.
And don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by saying that it doesn’t matter–it does! 2 Corinthains 2:10 in the RSV is just simply a LIE!
It is a Protestant Lie–no one believed “In Christ’s presence” was the best translation for that verse until the Protestants came along.
We don’t believe “IN PERSONNA CHRISTI” merely because the magisterium teaches us that–we believe it because the Holy scriptures state that!
Catholic doctrine is not built only on the literal woreds of scripture but let’s get real–Catholic doctrine as taught by the magisterium of the Catholic Church flows FROM THE SCRIPTURE!
It doesn’t flow from “In Christ’s Presence”. It does flow from “In Chris’t person”.
If the mistranlstion of this scripture doesn’t mean anything to you then you’ll be content with a wide range of translations that engage in doctrinal falsehoods.
If you don’t believe me about what is doctrinal error or not at least believe the Ecumenical
Council of Trent that stated that the “Vulgate could be use in ALL disputations”!
If an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church is not enough authority for you to believe in the doctrinal accuracy of the Vulgate versus other translations that differ on points of doctrine–what would?
I’m not saying to not read the RSV in any of its editions–I am saying that it is doctrinally in error and the Vulgate isn’t.
Be intellectually honest enough with yourself to believe that!
St. Paul didn’t forgive the incestuous Corinthian “In the presence of Christ” as the RSV translates but “In the person of Christ” as the Vulgate attests.
IN PERSONNA CHRISTI!
And for all you Greek language lovers out there that think it is superior to Latin then please tell me how the Greek word “Prosopon” which any Greek would know means “Mask”–like the mask used when Greek actors would use in plays–would equate that with being in “Christ’s presence” and not in “Christ’s person”?
Just like an actor acting a role and becoming the role he plays–Catholic priests Forgive and Grant absolution in the role of Christ–they become IN PERSONNA CHRISTI in the sacraments!
Now you or me or any other Protestant in the world can forgive anyone in the “presence of Christ” because Christ as God is everywhere.
If we aren’t priests though we can’t act IN PERSONNA CHRISTI–we can’t act “In Christ’s person”–we don’t have the authority to forgive or retain another’s sins like that–we don’t have the power to grant absolution.
Now anyone who believes that the translators of the RSV didn’t know of that distinction when they CHOSE to translate the verse as “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ” are deluding themselves!
The Vulgate is free from error in all doctrinal matters.
Don’t tell me that there isn’t a doctrinal question regarding this verse!
The Clementine Vulgate gets the verse right–the Nova Vulgata gets the verse right–the Douay Rheims Challoner gets the verse right. The Confraternity version of the New Testament gets the verse right and Knox gets the verse right in his translation…
The Protestant translations get it wrong and they get it wrong due their biases against what the Catholic Church has taught for the centuries.
They aren’t only wrong about it because of questions concerning Latin–they are wrong about it because of questions regarding the Greek.
And don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by saying that it doesn’t matter–it does! 2 Corinthains 2:10 in the RSV is just simply a LIE!
It is a Protestant Lie–no one believed “In Christ’s presence” was the best translation for that verse until the Protestants came along.
We don’t believe “IN PERSONNA CHRISTI” merely because the magisterium teaches us that–we believe it because the Holy scriptures state that!
Catholic doctrine is not built only on the literal woreds of scripture but let’s get real–Catholic doctrine as taught by the magisterium of the Catholic Church flows FROM THE SCRIPTURE!
It doesn’t flow from “In Christ’s Presence”. It does flow from “In Chris’t person”.
If the mistranlstion of this scripture doesn’t mean anything to you then you’ll be content with a wide range of translations that engage in doctrinal falsehoods.
If you don’t believe me about what is doctrinal error or not at least believe the Ecumenical
Council of Trent that stated that the “Vulgate could be use in ALL disputations”!
If an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church is not enough authority for you to believe in the doctrinal accuracy of the Vulgate versus other translations that differ on points of doctrine–what would?
I’m not saying to not read the RSV in any of its editions–I am saying that it is doctrinally in error and the Vulgate isn’t.
Be intellectually honest enough with yourself to believe that!
M
Manfred
Guest
“Proper ecclesiastical approval”? What is that?
I lifted a really great quote from a post in the thread on the “Catholic Public Domain Version” (CPDV); to wit,
“Those who are concerned by the lack of an Imprimatur (for the CPDV) ought to bear in mind that these days, the value of ecclesiastical approval is only as great as the orthodoxy of the bishop granting it, and given the widespread heterodoxy in the modern episcopate (the USCCB is notorious in this regard), such approval is often no guarantee of freedom from error in faith and morals. I would not be surprised if certain bishops refused to approve “reactionary” works.”
The above is not a quote from Ron Conte, BTW, so don’t go off pouncing on him.
I guess I am incensed that Rome caved in to the USCCB and the Canadian Council of Bishops for granting permission, albeit with conditions on the former but, regrettably, not on the latter, for the use of the RNAB and the NRSV, respectively.
B
bkovacs
Guest
The RSV is highly regarded by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. The NAB and NRSV on the other hand is a whole different story. Both have inclusive language, which makes them unacceptable. The American Catholic Church had to remove the inclusive language from the NAB to make it proper for liturgical use by a directive from Rome. Same goes for the NRSV in Canada. So far both the RSV CE, and Douay Rheims, are the only English translations acceptable to use in a liturgy in English speaking countries. The Douay Rheims is used in the TLM for the Missals, and readings in English. 
I also forgot the CTS Bible for England. A revision of the Jerusalem Bible (Non-Inclusive). Not the New Jerusalem Bible (Inclusive).
I also forgot the CTS Bible for England. A revision of the Jerusalem Bible (Non-Inclusive). Not the New Jerusalem Bible (Inclusive).
M
mccorm45
Guest
If Ron wants to make his own translation of a text, I have no problem with it. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to see a translation from the Latin into English using modern, non archaic language. I am thinking of the type of changes that were done when they revised the KJV to the NKJV in the early 80’s. That would be a wonderful edition to have and use.“Proper ecclesiastical approval”? What is that?
I lifted a really great quote from a post in the thread on the “Catholic Public Domain Version” (CPDV); to wit,
“Those who are concerned by the lack of an Imprimatur (for the CPDV) ought to bear in mind that these days, the value of ecclesiastical approval is only as great as the orthodoxy of the bishop granting it, and given the widespread heterodoxy in the modern episcopate (the USCCB is notorious in this regard), such approval is often no guarantee of freedom from error in faith and morals. I would not be surprised if certain bishops refused to approve “reactionary” works.”
The above is not a quote from Ron Conte, BTW, so don’t go off pouncing on him.
I guess I am incensed that Rome caved in to the USCCB and the Canadian Council of Bishops for granting permission, albeit with conditions on the former but, regrettably, not on the latter, for the use of the RNAB and the NRSV, respectively.
But, I respectively disagree with you on pretty much everything else you have to say. I am not going to be one who goes around questioning the overall orthodoxy of the American episcopate just because there are a few bishops out there that might not be as orthodox as we would like. Are there some less-than bishops out there? Yes, absolutely. I know who they are, and I am sure that you have made a list of them. But, the vast majority of them, however, are God-fearing men who are doing the best they can. I totally reject you refering to the “widespread heterodoxy in the modern episcopate (USCCB)”. I for one trust that the Lord will provide for us shepherds to govern the flock. And if we are given a particularly bad shepherd in our area, then we need to look at ourselves first. Just take a look at the history of Israel.
And in regards to Rome “caving”. How so? You have no idea as to what changes they asked for in regards to the translation. Is this not the same Vatican that has cleared the way for a much better translation of the Mass into English that will be implimented in the English speaking churches in the next few years? Caving? How about the Motu Proprio? Caving? I think the Holy Father knows exactly what he is doing, which may or may not be exactly what you want. The Holy Father could easily just require that all future Bible translations be done straight from the Latin. But he hasn’t, nor has any of the Pontiff’s for the past fifty plus years.
Like I have mentioned in previous posts, if you love the Douay-Rheims, Knox, Confraternity, or any other translation from the Latin then good for you. I own multiple copies of each and have used them with great benefit. But lets not start making wild assertions that since all newly approved Bible translations for the past 50 years have come from translating the Greek/Hebrew, as opposed to the Latin, that there is widespread heterodoxy out there and we cannot trust the approval process of our bishops.
M
mccorm45
Guest
Actually, a revised NAB, in the US, and some form of the NRSV, in Canada, are the official translations approved for the liturgy. The NAB, which was approved by the Vatican, still has some inclusive language in it. The Vatican is clearly against vertical inclusive language, and rightly so. But this only occurs in the terrible '91 NAB Psalms which was not approved and is not on the Vatican website. However, the NAB OT, minus the Psalms, and NT is the english translation found on the Vatican website: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM It seems pretty clear that the Vatican is ok with some amounts of horizontal inclusive language.The RSV is highly regarded by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. The NAB and NRSV on the other hand is a whole different story. Both have inclusive language, which makes them unacceptable. The American Catholic Church had to remove the inclusive language from the NAB to make it proper for liturgical use by a directive from Rome. Same goes for the NRSV in Canada. So far both the RSV CE, and Douay Rheims, are the only English translations acceptable to use in a liturgy in English speaking countries. The Douay Rheims is used in the TLM for the Missals, and readings in English.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Wait - aren’t you saying that you reject the authority of the Church to grant approval to the text, that despite the RSV-CE bearing imprimatur and nihil obstat, you know better and you personally can declare the text is contrary to doctrine?
How is that not an intrinsically schismatic approach?
If I didn’t believe that I could go back to being a Baptist. They have better coffee and better music.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I’m not saying that I can declare that the RSV-CE is contrary to doctrine–I may know that it is–that doesn’t mean that I have the authority to magisterially declare that it is.
Take “In the presence of Christ” for an example. That translation is not “contrary” to the doctrine of priests acting IN PERSONNA CHRISTI.
It is not supportive either.
The fact that it is not “contrary” does not mean that it is accurate–it may be true without necessarily conveying the “Fullness of Truth”.
Which would mean that it could pass muster regarding the Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat without being more accurate than “In the person of Christ” or containing the Fullness of Truth that the translation “In the person of Christ” would convey.
The devil knows that the best way to tell a lie is to tell only part of the truth!
Part of the truth is not necessarily a lie and is good enough for ecclesiastical approval while still being able to further the devil’s aims.
What do you think a poll of the USCCB would show if each bishop was asked whether “In the presence of Christ” or “In the person of Christ” were the best translation?
I have no doubt that the vast majority of US Catholic bishops would say “In the person of Christ”.
The least common denominator might not be opposed to the truth and bishops would not necessarily be doing wrong in approving such a translation–that does not equate to the translation being more accurate or more doctrinally accurate!
The Vulgate DOES equate to being doctrinally accurate because the Ecumenical Council of Trent guided by the Holy Spirit has TAUGHT us so!
So what am I saying: I’m saying that reading translations such as the RSV-CE which has some level of ecclesiastical approval is not a bad thing if one is knowledgeable of other translations and knows the truth of the Catholic faith and what it has taught.
If those things are not true the uninformed are not served as well by the RSV-CE as they are by translations that do not depart from the Vulgate which does not err in terms of doctrine.
By giving eccleasiastical bodies instead of individual bishops the power of approval means that there has been a stifling of Catholic biblical translations.
I’m sure that was not its intent but practically speaking that has been the effect.
What do you think the chances are of getting approval for a new Catholic bible translation other than the NAB or other translation previously approved nowadays when the USCCB is so intimately wedded to the NAB?
That does not mean that more Catholic translations aren’t needed or that the ones approved so far are an endorsement of accuracy in all particular passages by the USCCB.
Course you won’t hear that from proponents of the translations we now have.
By relegating the Douay Rheims Challoner to the trash bin of archaic language obsolescence and acting as if the Confraternity Version never existed the proponents of the currently approved translations are able to further their agendas of the translations that have been approved.
I don’t buy the proposition that because the liturgy comes from the translations that are currently approved that that means those translations are more accurate than translations that derive from the Vulgate–especially in regards to doctrinal matters.
I in no way say that the USCCB doesn’t have the authority to approve bible translations
I in every way say that any prior “approvals” are not tatamount to accuracy endorsement in all scriptural instances.
To buy that proposition or try to sell that proposition would not be to love the Lord with all my mind.
My mind says that the RSV-CE even with its changes still reflects Protestant bias.
And I believe that as a good Catholic I should let people know of that bias at forums such as these.
Having said all of that there are many great things about the RSV-CE–doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church in the Fullness of Truth is less than that taught by the Vulgate!
Take “In the presence of Christ” for an example. That translation is not “contrary” to the doctrine of priests acting IN PERSONNA CHRISTI.
It is not supportive either.
The fact that it is not “contrary” does not mean that it is accurate–it may be true without necessarily conveying the “Fullness of Truth”.
Which would mean that it could pass muster regarding the Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat without being more accurate than “In the person of Christ” or containing the Fullness of Truth that the translation “In the person of Christ” would convey.
The devil knows that the best way to tell a lie is to tell only part of the truth!
Part of the truth is not necessarily a lie and is good enough for ecclesiastical approval while still being able to further the devil’s aims.
What do you think a poll of the USCCB would show if each bishop was asked whether “In the presence of Christ” or “In the person of Christ” were the best translation?
I have no doubt that the vast majority of US Catholic bishops would say “In the person of Christ”.
The least common denominator might not be opposed to the truth and bishops would not necessarily be doing wrong in approving such a translation–that does not equate to the translation being more accurate or more doctrinally accurate!
The Vulgate DOES equate to being doctrinally accurate because the Ecumenical Council of Trent guided by the Holy Spirit has TAUGHT us so!
So what am I saying: I’m saying that reading translations such as the RSV-CE which has some level of ecclesiastical approval is not a bad thing if one is knowledgeable of other translations and knows the truth of the Catholic faith and what it has taught.
If those things are not true the uninformed are not served as well by the RSV-CE as they are by translations that do not depart from the Vulgate which does not err in terms of doctrine.
By giving eccleasiastical bodies instead of individual bishops the power of approval means that there has been a stifling of Catholic biblical translations.
I’m sure that was not its intent but practically speaking that has been the effect.
What do you think the chances are of getting approval for a new Catholic bible translation other than the NAB or other translation previously approved nowadays when the USCCB is so intimately wedded to the NAB?
That does not mean that more Catholic translations aren’t needed or that the ones approved so far are an endorsement of accuracy in all particular passages by the USCCB.
Course you won’t hear that from proponents of the translations we now have.
By relegating the Douay Rheims Challoner to the trash bin of archaic language obsolescence and acting as if the Confraternity Version never existed the proponents of the currently approved translations are able to further their agendas of the translations that have been approved.
I don’t buy the proposition that because the liturgy comes from the translations that are currently approved that that means those translations are more accurate than translations that derive from the Vulgate–especially in regards to doctrinal matters.
I in no way say that the USCCB doesn’t have the authority to approve bible translations
I in every way say that any prior “approvals” are not tatamount to accuracy endorsement in all scriptural instances.
To buy that proposition or try to sell that proposition would not be to love the Lord with all my mind.
My mind says that the RSV-CE even with its changes still reflects Protestant bias.
And I believe that as a good Catholic I should let people know of that bias at forums such as these.
Having said all of that there are many great things about the RSV-CE–doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church in the Fullness of Truth is less than that taught by the Vulgate!
G
garysibio
Guest
I really wish someone would explain to me how the religious affiliation of the translators matters more than the job they did translating. Being Catholic is no guarantee that they will do a good job. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the NAB. On the other hand, the RSV-CE was translated by Protestants for the most part and the Vatican uses it in the English versions of its documents. I also find the ESV to be very accurate although translated entirely by Protestants.
Gary
Gary
S
Shin
Guest
Scripture should be translated only be people of great sanctity who pay attention to the meanings of the scriptures in the context of the Faith, that is Catholicism.
In these times it has become the province of secular and Protestants to translate scriptures according only to the historical-critical method of translation, and their secular and Protestant biases, which have filtered into Catholic thought, sadly.
When a saint translates the scriptures, he is with God – When a secular or Protestant translates the scriptures, he is with the devil in error and sin, and while God still oversees all through His Providence – much of what can go wrong, -will- go wrong.
This has given us translations of scriptures which while technically correct some of the time, lack essential meanings within the translation, and so are detrimental to the Faith. While one may look to these scriptures as technically accurate to a degree, and sufficient to understand *some *of the meanings of the texts, they still have these failings which can be harmful to understanding some aspects of the Faith.
People might not actually have a problem using them some of the time as alternatives, as the express some of the meanings — but they are not completely reliable or useful, and certainly not to be preferred to those texts translated by the saints and men of great sanctity.
ICEL among other offices has shown us that we can receive poor translations as official texts. Sufficient perhaps, but still poor.
In these times it has become the province of secular and Protestants to translate scriptures according only to the historical-critical method of translation, and their secular and Protestant biases, which have filtered into Catholic thought, sadly.
When a saint translates the scriptures, he is with God – When a secular or Protestant translates the scriptures, he is with the devil in error and sin, and while God still oversees all through His Providence – much of what can go wrong, -will- go wrong.
This has given us translations of scriptures which while technically correct some of the time, lack essential meanings within the translation, and so are detrimental to the Faith. While one may look to these scriptures as technically accurate to a degree, and sufficient to understand *some *of the meanings of the texts, they still have these failings which can be harmful to understanding some aspects of the Faith.
People might not actually have a problem using them some of the time as alternatives, as the express some of the meanings — but they are not completely reliable or useful, and certainly not to be preferred to those texts translated by the saints and men of great sanctity.
ICEL among other offices has shown us that we can receive poor translations as official texts. Sufficient perhaps, but still poor.
A
Axion
Guest
Many protestant bibles (in particular the Good News and NIV) have subtle changes to the translation to emphasise protestant interpretations of certain passages. This started when Luther added the word “alone” to Faith in the New Testament. The KJV decided to mistranslate “Full of Grace” as “favoured”, and was followed by other versions. The NIV translated the same Greek word as “traditions” when the implication was bad, and as “teachings” when the implication on the word was good. There are many other subtle distinctions in many bibles. Its always best to have more than one version for serious study.
However Liberal scholars have made many modern Catholic translations less than perfect for the following reasons:
However Liberal scholars have made many modern Catholic translations less than perfect for the following reasons:
- They follow a school of thought that was Liberal Protestant in origin, and which is subversive of Catholicism. However they have had a big (name removed by moderator)ut into both the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible.
- They tend to work on the assumption that the Bible texts handed down to us are not generally the work of the Traditional Authors (Moses, John, Peter etc), but have been cobbled together at later dates by groups of shadowy editors and redactors.
- They present their theories on these matters as proven facts in the notes to their translations. This attacks the belief of readers, by giving the (false) impression that the texts are unreliable and the result of dishonesty.
- They tend to favour the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament texts over the much older and more reliable Vulgate and Septuagint Greek texts, which are the historic texts of the Church. This creates a difference between OT and NT translations of the same passage, and again chucks out Christian continuity by supposing (against the evidence) that the texts maintained by the Jews are somehow “better” than the Christian ones.
- And most importantly. The notes do not consistently support Catholic teaching. Instead of Catholic teaching we get Liberal theories about “manuscript q” or the “Yahwist” and “Elohist” manuscript traditions. Where the notes should bring out the spirituality of the verses and linking them solidly with Catholic doctrine, instead there is Liberal theory, and sometimes teaching at variance with doctrine.
- Passages and verses are sometimes mangled or removed to fit in with Liberal theory - which likes to go for the most difficult variant reading. So “peace on Earth and Goodwill to men.” gets mangled into something with virtually no meaning. Verses get deleted without warning, and the story of the woman taken in adultery is given a “health warning”. In addition, the translation is twisted so that the Virgin is called “highly favoured” to fit in with the Protestant tradition, rather than “Full of Grace” - which is the more accurate translation.
B
bkovacs
Guest
But at least the NIV, NKJV, and to some extent the NASB and ESV use “non-inclusive” language, which is what the Holy See calls for. Unlike the NAB, NRSV, and NJB. If it wasn’t for the Deutercanonicals, than I would use the NIV any day over the NAB, NJB, or NRSV.
G
garysibio
Guest
The Bible should make the translators Catholic, not the translators make the Bible Catholic. As long as the translators have integrity and a good knowledge of the languages involved, that is all we need.
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
The latest version of the NIV uses inclusive language. That particular translation also happens to be an anti-Catholic hack job. I would never consider using it and I have no problem with Protestant translations in general.
The NJB uses very limited inclusive language. (Like using ‘humanity’ for ‘mankind.’) I dislike the inclusive stuff but it is probably the most readable Catholic translation available today. It is certainly nowhere near as bad as the NAB or NRSV.
Gary
S
Shin
Guest
This totally ignores the spiritual reality of grace and its influence on the actions of mankind. The stark template you have provided here is not actually real.
- Status