To All Christians: A Question

[The_Truthinator]

What Scriptural translation do you, personally, prefer? Why?

Usually I myself enjoy very much the more recent of the New Living Translations (the older does have a Catholic edition, I might add). Yet though I know in terms of manuscripts used it is inferior, I can’t stop finding myself absorbed in a King James because of the poeticism so evident in it. It tears me to think it adds verses excluded by the originals! I also recently have taken to the New Jerusalem after seeing several quotations from it in The Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning, and have purchased one for myself.

Hmm … Obviously, I hope to arrive at a point where I no longer need the translations, but when the Greek texts are sufficient, but until that time, I must rely on man’s renderings of the holy Word.
I ask, by the way, out of pure curiosity …

Shalom!

 

[Zooey]

The Douay Rheims (Challoner), and the new Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE) are the ones I read from the most.
The Douay is just so beautiful, & so true to the Latin Vulgate. The RSV is a beautiful modern translation , which does not desert the beauty of the older versions (Douay, KJV), yet uses a more modern way of saying things.
But there are so many others…

 

[lak611]

My favourites are RSV-CE, RSV (ecumenical version), NASB, KJV, and Douay-Rheims.

 

[paarsurrey]

What Scriptural translation do you, personally, prefer? Why?
Shalom!

Hi
I personally like KJV whereever it does not contradict OTBible and Quran.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[Publisher]

Oxford Study Bible NRSV w/Apocrypha/Dueterocanical Books.2-nd edition…I also have the 3rd edition, but I like the compact size of the 2nd edition.

I find the notes very helpful and the translation is easy to read and understand.

 

[lak611]

Oxford Study Bible NRSV w/Apocrypha/Dueterocanical Books.2-nd edition…I also have the 3rd edition, but I like the compact size of the 2nd edition.

I find the notes very helpful and the translation is easy to read and understand.

I have two RSV’s. I have the RSV-CE published by Scepter which is this one: scepterpub.org/product-exec/product_id/27/nm/Holy_Bible_RSV_Catholic_Edition.

I also have the ecumenical RSV published by Oxford which is this one: amazon.com/Annotated-Apocrypha-Revised-Standard-Expanded/dp/019528335X/ref=ed_oe_o/105-4003024-2297231?ie=UTF8&qid=1180660385&sr=8-4.

 

[BelFarfalla]

NASB, & Douay-Rheims.

I realy heavily on the NASB because of the explainations and additional infomatiol.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Douay-Rheims because it is the translation of the official Bible that the Church has used for centuries and based it’s (Holy Spirit guided) dogma on. If the New “Catholic” Bibles like the NAB are more accurate, then the Douay-Rheims/Vulgate and the Church dogma based off of it is wrong. Thus, the Church is not who She claims to be.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Douay-Rheims because it is the translation of the official Bible that the Church has used for centuries and based it’s (Holy Spirit guided) dogma on. If the New “Catholic” Bibles like the NAB are more accurate, then the Douay-Rheims/Vulgate and the Church dogma based off of it is wrong.

Good point! However, I am forced to wonder, if it is but a TRANSLATION of the Vulgate, shouldn’t the scale go something like this?

Original Greek Texts (Autographs)

Vulgate

D-R,

Or does the Catholic Church believe that since Trent declared the Latin Vulgate free of doctrinal errors that it is ON PAR with the Autographs? What’s more, is this declaration actually stating that the Vulgate is EQUAL to the original manuscripts, with it being only a translation of them, or is it merely stating that the dogma which can be drawn out of the Vulgate is perfect? I think the latter makes much more sense, but I admit my ignorance.

Shalom.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Good point! However, I am forced to wonder, if it is but a TRANSLATION of the Vulgate, shouldn’t the scale go something like this?

Original Greek Texts (Autographs)

Vulgate

D-R,

Or does the Catholic Church believe that since Trent declared the Latin Vulgate free of doctrinal errors that it is ON PAR with the Autographs? What’s more, is this declaration actually stating that the Vulgate is EQUAL to the original manuscripts, with it being only a translation of them, or is it merely stating that the dogma which can be drawn out of the Vulgate is perfect? I think the latter makes much more sense, but I admit my ignorance.

Shalom.

I believe the latter option above is correct. The vulgate is not inspired, and is consequently not equal to the original manuscripts. But we can draw dogma out of it perfectly.

It makes sense to want to go back to the original manuscripts, but the dilemma is that the manuscripts we have are NOT the originals, and many of them contradict one another, plus we have all sorts of religious viewpoints, and when translations are being made, they are made to reflect that viewpoint. So those who are doubtful of miracles such as the virgin birth will translate “virgin” in Isaiah as “young woman.”

But with the Vulgate, compiled mostly by St. Jerome, we have an ancient author’s compliation of an ancient text, using older manuscripts which we do not have access to today, with a purer knowledge of teachings of Jesus and of the language of the Bible.

Which makes more sense: 1) to trust in modern scholars detached by 2000 years from the New Testament, who do not naturally know the language they were written in, who have their unique ideologies, and are using newer manuscripts, or 2) to trust in an ancient author who was raised in the language of the New Testament, was closer to the time of Christ himself and thus has a purerer knowledge of what He taught, and used older manuscripts closest to the originals?

 

[b_justb]

Right now I am reading the RSVCE but I am very interested in the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB). I don’t think it is finished just yet, but the little tidbits I have seen of it, it has great notes. The CASB, The Apocalypse of St. John is complete and it has come highly recommended. I am thinking I will get it separately just because I am interested in what the Church has and has had to say about the Apocalypse.

 

[lak611]

But with the Vulgate, compiled mostly by St. Jerome, we have an ancient author’s compliation of an ancient text, using older manuscripts which we do not have access to today, with a purer knowledge of teachings of Jesus and of the language of the Bible.

Which makes more sense: 1) to trust in modern scholars detached by 2000 years from the New Testament, who do not naturally know the language they were written in, who have their unique ideologies, and are using newer manuscripts, or 2) to trust in an ancient author who was raised in the language of the New Testament, was closer to the time of Christ himself and thus has a purerer knowledge of what He taught, and used older manuscripts closest to the originals?

Jimmy Akin wrote a good article about the Douay-Rheims. He says:

Jerome did have manuscripts that we don’t have today—but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

 

[The_Truthinator]

The dissent goes on and on and on … Both sides make excellent arguments. The scholarship of Jerome AND modern scholars, we must admit, are both rather impressive, and each brother or sister has full right to side with whichever he/she so chooses, but hopefully we come to realize that it is the Holy Spirit working in these people that we have placed our faith in, not the people themselves, at all. Yes, indeed, both become media through which God communicates his Message to us. Which is closer to the truth? Upon whom should we more fully rely? I couldn’t say.

 

[lak611]

The dissent goes on and on and on … Both sides make excellent arguments. The scholarship of Jerome AND modern scholars, we must admit, are both rather impressive, and each brother or sister has full right to side with whichever he/she so chooses, but hopefully we come to realize that it is the Holy Spirit working in these people that we have placed our faith in, not the people themselves, at all. Yes, indeed, both become media through which God communicates his Message to us. Which is closer to the truth? Upon whom should we more fully rely? I couldn’t say.

Excellent point. I happen to like both the RSV and the Douay-Rheims, but I read and study the RSV more.

 

[Teakafrog]

I personally love having several different versions to go back and forth between. I use the Douay, NAB, RSV-CE, and Jerusalem Bible. Just depends on my mood or which one is closest. For study bibles, however, the Navarre wins hands-down.

 

[happygal]

in our church we are encourage to use NKJV, but there some many pple in church uses NIV as well. For me I don’t understand some of the words in KJ so i have to use a bible word which is more simplifed to read. I have a catholic bible a jerusalam version as well…given free to me when i attended RCIA

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Jimmy Akin:

Jerome did have manuscripts that we don’t have today—but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.

So, the last 200 years is better than the first 1800? While I think that good things have come out of modern critical methods (some methods have been approved by the Church), these methods should only be used to build on our understanding, not replace it. But too often the undesired effect is what actually occurs.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

in our church we are encourage to use NKJV, but there some many pple in church uses NIV as well. For me I don’t understand some of the words in KJ so i have to use a bible word which is more simplifed to read. I have a catholic bible a jerusalam version as well…given free to me when i attended RCIA

Catholics churches should at least use Bibles that contain all the canonical books (unless, of course, it is just the “New Testament” rather than the whole Bible). I don’t know of any “Catholic Edition” of the NIV, but they might be out there. The only KJV bibles I know of with the deuterocanonicals are those by the Oxford Press and other academic publishers, and those used in “High” protestant churches which contain the “apocrypha” between the protestant OT & NT.

 

[lak611]

The only KJV bibles I know of with the deuterocanonicals are those by the Oxford Press and other academic publishers, and those used in “High” protestant churches which contain the “apocrypha” between the protestant OT & NT.

I have one published by Cambridge University Press. It actually says, “This Bible is published by Cambridge University Press, the Queen’s printer.” I think it’s funny that it is the only Bible I own that tells what kind of typeset is used. It says, “Typeset in 8pt Petit Medieval Clarendon 1159.”

I also have a 1611 edition published by Hendrickson.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Howdie truthinator,
I personally prefer the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition available from Ignatius Press, for study. The Douay is also good, but old-style English, for study.

For devotional reading, I like the Jerusalem Bible and the
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (in spite of it’s overuse of inclusive language).

Even the New American Bible isn’t half bad for devotional reading, but I stay away from the footnotes and introductions.

Have a great day.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+