Translation ?

[peace2u2]

Why when I look up Scripture in the NIV and then look it up in the NAB, the numbering of the verse is different?

For example, the NIV text for Isaiah 64:7 reads “Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.”

but the NAB text for Isaiah 64:7 reads “Do not be so very angry, LORD, do not remember our crimes forever; look upon us, who are all your people.”

The verse quoted in the NIV 64:7 comes up in the NAB as being 64:8 in Isaiah.

I find this annoying because I was given this little daily devotional that I do like reading, but at the end of the daily reflection it gives 1 or 2 Scripture verses to look up and when I look it up in my NAB, it doesn’t quite make sense when applied to the reflection. So, I Google the verse and it comes up NIV and the verse follows.

Just wondering why it wouldn’t be the same?

 

[Telstar]

Why when I look up Scripture in the NIV and then look it up in the NAB, the numbering of the verse is different?

For example, the NIV text for Isaiah 64:7 reads “Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.”

but the NAB text for Isaiah 64:7 reads “Do not be so very angry, LORD, do not remember our crimes forever; look upon us, who are all your people.”

The verse quoted in the NIV 64:7 comes up in the NAB as being 64:8 in Isaiah.

I find this annoying because I was given this little daily devotional that I do like reading, but at the end of the daily reflection it gives 1 or 2 Scripture verses to look up and when I look it up in my NAB, it doesn’t quite make sense when applied to the reflection. So, I Google the verse and it comes up NIV and the verse follows.

Just wondering why it wouldn’t be the same?

I think one of the more obvious reasons is that one is a Catholic version and the other is Protestant. So, you’ll probably have many more problems between the two concerning the names of the books, the numbering of the Psalms, and, even the number of books in the Old Testament. Those are the obvious differences, but then you have the subtle differences in the translations of the verses, themselves. Some of them are subjected to the theological view of the translators, as a litmus test for what they think they should say, which might not always be what they actually do say.

This is why I prefer the Douay-Rheims, which is an old standard Catholic version that’s been in use for centuries. Sure, the language is old fashioned and a bit of a challenge to read (I kinda like that), but I like the fact that no one has messed with it too much over the years. Some of the newer translations are really atrocious, especially when they start trying to translate to make it sound more ‘politically correct’ or ‘gender neutral’. IMHO, no one should be trying to correct the Word of God as if there was something wrong with what it says. It should not be made subject to any man’s (or woman’s) sensibilities about the terminology used. It is what it is.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t know that Protestant vs. Catholic is the issue here. The verse numbering differs between the NAB and RSV, too. Actually, the Douay-Rhemis numbering matches the NIV in this case, not the NAB. The NAB is the odd one out.

The discrepancy arises with Isaiah 64:1. The NAB takes 64:1 and tacks it on as the second half of 63:19. This makes all the numbering one verse off for chapter 64 in the NAB (which then only has eleven verses as opposed to twelve in most other translations).

Why is this the case in this particular chapter? I’m not sure. I’d have to look into it more. Since all numbering in Scripture is a later addition (i.e. none of it was in the original texts), there is bound to be areas of discrepancy.

 

[Joe_5859]

If you look at it, the NAB division is really kind of awkward. They split not only the verse but the chapter in the middle of a sentence at the start of Isaiah 64. I’m sure there is some reason behind it, but I can’t think of what it would be.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sorry for the triple post.

The little footnote in my RSV 2nd edition by Isaiah 64:2 says “Ch 64:1 in Heb”. That implies to me that the NAB is going off the numbering of the Hebrew text. Perhaps the others are going by the Greek? That seems plausible to me.

 

[peace2u2]

I think one of the more obvious reasons is that one is a Catholic version and the other is Protestant. So, you’ll probably have many more problems between the two concerning the names of the books, the numbering of the Psalms, and, even the number of books in the Old Testament. Those are the obvious differences, but then you have the subtle differences in the translations of the verses, themselves. Some of them are subjected to the theological view of the translators, as a litmus test for what they think they should say, which might not always be what they actually do say.

This is why I prefer the Douay-Rheims, which is an old standard Catholic version that’s been in use for centuries. Sure, the language is old fashioned and a bit of a challenge to read (I kinda like that), but I like the fact that no one has messed with it too much over the years. Some of the newer translations are really atrocious, especially when they start trying to translate to make it sound more ‘politically correct’ or ‘gender neutral’. IMHO, no one should be trying to correct the Word of God as if there was something wrong with what it says. It should not be made subject to any man’s (or woman’s) sensibilities about the terminology used. It is what it is.

Yes and the devotional is by a non-Catholic Christian probably why they are using the NIV translation. I personally like the RSV CE translation, but its just the NT.

Would you happen to know of any good devotionals written by Catholic Christians?

 

[peace2u2]

Sorry for the triple post.

The little footnote in my RSV 2nd edition by Isaiah 64:2 says “Ch 64:1 in Heb”. That implies to me that the NAB is going off the numbering of the Hebrew text. Perhaps the others are going by the Greek? That seems plausible to me.

Thank you for your post. I am just learning about all the different translations so this is all new to me.

I asked this question because I recently had a friend who is Catholic and who does Bible Study say to me that it really doesn’t matter which translation we read and I kind of had to disagree which caused a bit of an argument.

I basically said that if you are reading the Bible just to read the Bible and to listen to God speak to you then the translation doesn’t matter, but if you are studying the Bible or looking up Scripture because you are studying Doctrines than a Catholic Bible should be used because you will have a different commentary in a non-Catholic Bible that may not support say the doctrine on the Eucharist.

Besides I told her that when a non-Catholic Christian does Bible Study, they probably are not using a Catholic Bible and also the Catholic Bible has 6 books that theirs does not have so I would rather use a Bible that has all the Books of the Bible.

 

[BartholomewB]

Why when I look up Scripture in the NIV and then look it up in the NAB, the numbering of the verse is different? …
… Just wondering why it wouldn’t be the same?

Remember that the books of the Bible were originally written as continuous text, without any division into chapters and verses. That didn’t come until around the year 1200 or even later. The chapters and verses are not really an integral part of the Bible: they’re just a convenience, intended to make it easier for us to find our way around. They don’t work perfectly, but leaving them out would make things even worse!

I think there are basically two factors at work: in the original manuscripts, the word order can vary from one manuscript to another, and scholars will disagree about which of the two is more authentic. And then the translators often have to change the word order, because the natural word order in English is often not the same as in Hebrew or Greek, and then they will find that a word that was in, say, verse 7 has now been shifted so that it comes before another word that was in verse 6.

You mentioned Isaiah. Isaiah’s geographical references about Galilee of the Gentiles and the Way of the Sea sometimes appear in the last verse of Chapter 8 and sometimes in the first verse of Chapter 9. These little things are an inconvenience, but we just have to live with that. There is no magic solution.

 

[Manfred]

Sorry for the triple post.

The little footnote in my RSV 2nd edition by Isaiah 64:2 says “Ch 64:1 in Heb”. That implies to me that the NAB is going off the numbering of the Hebrew text. Perhaps the others are going by the Greek? That seems plausible to me.

Joe, your three posts are excellent and spot on.

 

[Telstar]

Yes and the devotional is by a non-Catholic Christian probably why they are using the NIV translation. I personally like the RSV CE translation, but its just the NT.

Would you happen to know of any good devotionals written by Catholic Christians?

Sorry, no, I really don’t. At least, not that I’ve ever read, personally. You might want to ask a Priest or religious if they can recommend one to you, though. They’re more likely to have something they can easily carry around with them for personal devotion.

I have heard a lot of folks on EWTN highly recommend, “A Year with the Bible” by Patrick Madrid. Not sure if it’s what you’re looking for, but it’s worth a shot. It’s available in hard cover and paperback on Amazon.

 

[ajcstr]

Besides I told her that when a non-Catholic Christian does Bible Study, they probably are not using a Catholic Bible and also the Catholic Bible has 6 books that theirs does not have so I would rather use a Bible that has all the Books of the Bible.

Actually 7 - Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch (as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

 

[BartholomewB]

Actually 7 - Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch (as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

A few years ago I bought from Amazon.com the Thomas Nelson edition of the NIV translation, under the title Good News Bible for Catholics with Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha. I was disappointed to find that Tobit and the others were not placed in their proper order in the OT but were segregated into a second-class compartment squeezed in between Malachi and Matthew. Not really an edition “for Catholics” at all.

 

[Manfred]

A few years ago I bought from Amazon.com the Thomas Nelson edition of the NIV translation, under the title Good News Bible for Catholics with Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha. I was disappointed to find that Tobit and the others were not placed in their proper order in the OT but were segregated into a second-class compartment squeezed in between Malachi and Matthew. Not really an edition “for Catholics” at all.

Bart,

Your first mistake: you bought the Non-Inspired Version, an unabashedly evangelical translation. As I recall reading in a review of the NIV years ago: compared to the RSV, the NIV tuned its “literary lyre” too low.

Sorry for the negative comments but I bought an NIV years ago and GAVE it away; my New Jerusalem Bible was more trustworthy and readable.

 

[BartholomewB]

Bart,

Your first mistake: you bought the Non-Inspired Version, an unabashedly evangelical translation. As I recall reading in a review of the NIV years ago: compared to the RSV, the NIV tuned its “literary lyre” too low.

Sorry for the negative comments but I bought an NIV years ago and GAVE it away; my New Jerusalem Bible was more trustworthy and readable.

Manfred, thank you for your comment and yes, I agree about the “literary lyre,” though I hadn’t seen that expression before!

Nevertheless, I knew what I was buying in terms of the translation guidelines and use of language. I thought it would be a useful addition to my shelf and I was right, it has been. What I hadn’t been expecting was the segregation of the deuterocanonicals. After all, Thomas Nelson is marketing it as a Bible “for Catholics” and I think the publisher acted deceitfully in placing the books out of what Catholic readers consider to be the correct order.

 

[ajcstr]

Bart,

Your first mistake: you bought the Non-Inspired Version, an unabashedly evangelical translation. As I recall reading in a review of the NIV years ago: compared to the RSV, the NIV tuned its “literary lyre” too low.

Sorry for the negative comments but I bought an NIV years ago and GAVE it away; my New Jerusalem Bible was more trustworthy and readable.

Actually I think the good news bible is based on the TEV (Today’s English Version) not the NIV

BTW - The NJB is one of my favorites to read

 

[michaelhager]

I would suggest that you get a copy of the NABRE. Mine has copious footnotes, is the version authorized, approved and recommended by the USCCB and has references to the Catechism. I bought it at a National Youth Ministers Conference some years ago and it has never failed me.

As far as the numbering of verses go, most posters above have hit upon most of the reasons for the discrepancies. I psalms for instance, the original Hebrew and Greek translations include a headnote to the effect of:

“For the leader; with stringed instruments, “upon the eighth”. A psalm of David.”
or
“A plaintive song of David, which he sang to the LORD concerning Cush, the Benjaminite.”

These are generally not even reprinted in many versions, but the NABRE numbers them as verse 1 followed by verse 2 which in most translations is counted as 1 so most of the psalms are out of synch by one verse.

As mentioned above, David and Esther are shorted by a few verses that Luther didn’t like, as well as the Deuterocanonical books that he specifically removed because they did not agree with his personal interpretation of theology.

 

[BartholomewB]

Actually I think the good news bible is based on the TEV (Today’s English Version) not the NIV

BTW - The NJB is one of my favorites to read

Yes! Thank you for the correction. I got the abbreviations muddled up. But my quarrel is not with the translation, it’s with the publisher’s failure to comply with the standard sequence of the books in the OT while splashing “For Catholics” on the cover.

 

[BartholomewB]

As mentioned above, David and Esther are shorted by a few verses that Luther didn’t like, as well as the Deuterocanonical books that he specifically removed because they did not agree with his personal interpretation of theology.

In fairness to Luther (not that he deserves it) it goes a bit deeper than that. These books are not included in the Jewish scriptures either, for the reason – I believe – that no Hebrew text has survived. In some cases, for instance 2 Maccabees, the books were originally written in Greek, but in other cases the original Hebrew manuscripts were simply lost.

I’m no specialist and this explanation may not be 100 percent watertight – if anyone cares to improve upon it, I’ll be grateful to them.

 

[michaelhager]

In fairness to Luther (not that he deserves it) it goes a bit deeper than that. These books are not included in the Jewish scriptures either, for the reason – I believe – that no Hebrew text has survived. In some cases, for instance 2 Maccabees, the books were originally written in Greek, but in other cases the original Hebrew manuscripts were simply lost.

I’m no specialist and this explanation may not be 100 percent watertight – if anyone cares to improve upon it, I’ll be grateful to them.

Yes, it is a bit deeper than that, but for a fact, all of the books now found in the Catholic Bible have been there since the canon was first approved in the late 300’s. Plus, there are multiple references to the books in question in the New Testament.

Here is a link to a very thorough discussion on the subject; 5 Myths About 7 Books by Mark Shea at catholiceducation.org

 

[Vico]

Why when I look up Scripture in the NIV and then look it up in the NAB, the numbering of the verse is different?

For example, the NIV text for Isaiah 64:7 reads “Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.”

but the NAB text for Isaiah 64:7 reads “Do not be so very angry, LORD, do not remember our crimes forever; look upon us, who are all your people.”

The verse quoted in the NIV 64:7 comes up in the NAB as being 64:8 in Isaiah.

I find this annoying because I was given this little daily devotional that I do like reading, but at the end of the daily reflection it gives 1 or 2 Scripture verses to look up and when I look it up in my NAB, it doesn’t quite make sense when applied to the reflection. So, I Google the verse and it comes up NIV and the verse follows.

Just wondering why it wouldn’t be the same?

The NIV has an additional verse, Isaiah 64:1, just like the Douay-Rheims (Catholic).

Douay Rheims ChallonerThat thou wouldst rend the heavens, and wouldst come down:
the mountains would melt away at thy presence.
The footnote is:The translation here omits some words repeated in the Hebrew from 63:19 (“would that you would come down, with the mountains trembling before you”).
NIV Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,
that the mountains would tremble before you!
The footnote is:Isaiah 64:1 In Hebrew texts 64:1 is numbered 63:19b, and 64:2-12 is numbered 64:1-11.