So, the RSV-CE is a Protestant Bible?

[David_Zampino]

The navarre is good, but the series is expensive. I stick to my Douay-Rheims. It is the most accurate

With respect, based on what?

The Douay-Rheims suffers from some of the same difficulties as does the KJV (without, of course, the inherent Protestant bias!)

As I see it, there are two key issues:

1. The language is, in many respects, archaic. The English Language has evolved significantly over the last 400 years, and words have changed in meaning. I think of that wonderful line from “The Princess Bride” – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!”
2. The Douay-Rheims does not (and cannot) take into account the discoveries of manuscripts over the last 400 years. This is a major issue.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Only in the opinion of those who think the Vulgate is more accurate than the Greek. [ducking but not running]

Actually, don’t laugh! On other forums, I’ve run into Protestant “King James Onlyites” who insist that the King James Bible – ACTUALLY CORRECTS THE ORIGINAL HEBREW AND GREEK!!! I’m not kidding you here!

Blessings,

 

[tobinatorstark]

Only in the opinion of those who think the Vulgate is more accurate than the Greek. [ducking but not running]

We have no proof that the Greek Manuscripts and such were actually older and more accurate than those used to translate the Vulgate. Besides the Vulgate is err free in moral and doctrinal matters, so it natural that the word for word in English be almost as equal. Besides Latin translations are more accurate than English.

 

[tobinatorstark]

With respect, based on what?

The Douay-Rheims suffers from some of the same difficulties as does the KJV (without, of course, the inherent Protestant bias!)

As I see it, there are two key issues:

1. The language is, in many respects, archaic. The English Language has evolved significantly over the last 400 years, and words have changed in meaning. I think of that wonderful line from “The Princess Bride” – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!”
2. The Douay-Rheims does not (and cannot) take into account the discoveries of manuscripts over the last 400 years. This is a major issue.

Blessings,

excuse me. The Douay-Rheims is not Protestant biased and is the word for word of the only err free translation, the Vulgate. I’ve seen it a billion times. The language is not archaic. You can look up the meanings of those words from that time frame anywhere on the Internet. As mentioned before we can’t determine that they are older than those used by St. Jerome. The ones that St. Jerome used have withered away. Just because some scientist can make a hypothesis on its age doesn’t mean it is actually the age of those manuscripts. No thanks to the modern translations I will stick to the Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Edition and the Ronald Knox.

 

[David_Zampino]

excuse me. The Douay-Rheims is not Protestant biased and is the word for word of the only err free translation, the Vulgate. I’ve seen it a billion times. The language is not archaic. You can look up the meanings of those words from that time frame anywhere on the Internet. As mentioned before we can’t determine that they are older than those used by St. Jerome. The ones that St. Jerome used have withered away. Just because some scientist can make a hypothesis on its age doesn’t mean it is actually the age of those manuscripts. No thanks to the modern translations I will stick to the Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Edition and the Ronald Knox.

You misunderstand me here. I was referring to the inherent Protestant bias IN THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION!!! NOT the Douay-Rheims! I am NOT questioning the Catholicity of the Douay-Rheims AT ALL!

However – the fact that one can look up archaic words on the internet does not mean the words and their meanings are not archaic!

I own a Confraternity Edition and like it very much indeed.

With regard to ancient manuscripts – St. Jerome, unlike many biblical scholars of his day, was a scholar, not only in Greek, but in Hebrew as well. And there is little doubt that he, first by virtue of his position as secretary to Pope St. Damasus I, and later by virtue of his many years of living in the Holy Land, had access to many manuscripts that, perhaps, other scholars of his day did not have. By the same token, St. Jerome was living in a time and place without either rapid communication or transportation. As such, not every manuscript in the ancient world was not available to every scholar. And St. Jerome was not the only biblical scholar of his age.

As to scientific hypotheses concerning the dating of texts – I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest here. Manuscripts can be dated in a number of ways, depending on the materials with which they were constructed, where they were found, the was language was used, etc.

There are many, many complex issues here which preclude absolutist solutions.

 

[David_Zampino]

We have no proof that the Greek Manuscripts and such were actually older and more accurate than those used to translate the Vulgate. Besides the Vulgate is err free in moral and doctrinal matters, so it natural that the word for word in English be almost as equal. Besides Latin translations are more accurate than English.

Actually, we do! There are 3rd/4th century manuscripts and manuscript fragments that do pre-date St. Jerome. That doesn’t mean, of course, that St. Jerome didn’t have access to those manuscripts (or at least, some of them).

Also – a word about translations. There is no such thing – ever – as a “word for word” translation. Anyone who is reasonably fluent in more than one language (ancient or modern) can tell you this. With Latin and English, this distinction is extremely clear – for example, Latin nouns have declensions – English nouns do not. Not all verbs in all languages use the same tenses. So your thesis that the Douay-Rheims is in infallibility “almost as equal” as the Vulgate becomes problematic at best.

 

[Mattjolley]

excuse me. The Douay-Rheims is not Protestant biased and is the word for word of the only err free translation, the Vulgate. I’ve seen it a billion times. The language is not archaic. You can look up the meanings of those words from that time frame anywhere on the Internet. As mentioned before we can’t determine that they are older than those used by St. Jerome. The ones that St. Jerome used have withered away. Just because some scientist can make a hypothesis on its age doesn’t mean it is actually the age of those manuscripts. No thanks to the modern translations I will stick to the Douay-Rheims, Confraternity Edition and the Ronald Knox.

Might I ask where you got your copy of the Knox Translation?

I only have a New Testament I found on eBay, and am greatly anticipating the Baronius edition, which is taking AGES! There’s one leather copy on eBay going for a fortune, its ridiculous somebody puts that price on the word of God.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Might I ask where you got your copy of the Knox Translation?

I only have a New Testament I found on eBay, and am greatly anticipating the Baronius edition, which is taking AGES! There’s one leather copy on eBay going for a fortune, its ridiculous somebody puts that price on the word of God.

The only copy that I have read is a NT and the link is

cormacburke.or.ke/book/knox_bible

I too anticipating the Baronius Press edition. I am very uncomfortable with the way modern Bibles word some phrases and even omit some verses such as Matthew 18:11. This can be found in the RSV-CE, NAB, JB, NJB. Relegated to a footnote doesn’t settle well with me. Also the translation in Luke 1:28 is wrong in modern Bibles like the NAB, JB and the RSV-CE. I know people get tired of me mentioning it “Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women”, not "Hail, highly favored, or “Rejoice favored daughter” or “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee” These are some of the reasons why I stick to my Douay-Rheims and not the modern translations. The Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate give me what the modern translations does not. Spirituality. I sincerely feel the Ronald Knox Translation is the best recent translation out there. Sad to say there isn’t a better translation that was released after it.

 

[Mattjolley]

I still love the Jerusalem Bible

 

[tobinatorstark]

I still love the Jerusalem Bible

Good for you. Don’t let anyone discourage you from reading it. for the most part. The JB is alright. Not my 1st preference, but I would rather quote from the JB than the NAB, for those who are beginners to reading the Bible.

 

[Shin]

Might I ask where you got your copy of the Knox Translation?

I only have a New Testament I found on eBay, and am greatly anticipating the Baronius edition, which is taking AGES! There’s one leather copy on eBay going for a fortune, its ridiculous somebody puts that price on the word of God.

I have it in PDF, it’s quite a fine read when one is desiring something that is unusual and gives one a new perspective on some passages. I wouldn’t use it as a standard version (except that it is preferable to a number of others) but it is a fine thing for looking at when one wants a new perspective and often clarifies passages one otherwise would have gotten less of the gist of with a more word-for-word version. So it helps you appreciate the latter better after reading.

The Knox for smooth understanding, the Douay for literal and depth, and sometimes the Jerusalem (without the footnotes) or the old Confraternity are great.

 

[melinda_s]

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!

thanks for posting this jerry my husband and i will now be getting a douay rheims i’ve got a computer program of the dr and i noticed it said penance where the rsv said penance what do you think of that