What Bible translation is your favorite and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I prefer the RSV, as I find it’s readability to be the best for me.

Some of the phrasing in the NAB I find to be awkward, e.g.:

Gen 25:30 where Esau is speaking to Jacob, “Let me gulp down some of the red stuff; I’m starving.” 😃
 
Newbie2 said:
I prefer the RSV, as I find it’s readability to be the best for me.

Some of the phrasing in the NAB I find to be awkward, e.g.:

Gen 25:30 where Esau is speaking to Jacob, “Let me gulp down some of the red stuff; I’m starving.” 😃
Click to expand...
The NAB Genesis is full of awkward and tin-eared renderings. All in all, the NAB is rather spotty, sometimes really good, sometimes awful-sounding like this one.
 
Cranch said:
Judging by the Psalms, which are the 1991 inclusive language versions, the NAB at the USCCB site does not seem to be the edited-for-Mass version.

I don’t know what base text is used in Christian Prayer. It may be different from the 4-volume LOTH which uses the 1970 NAB and the 1963 Grail Psalter.
Click to expand...
I recently began using Christian Prayer. Wish I’d begun 30 years ago. It uses the same translations as the 4-volume LOTH.
Diana
 
Does anyone know when the Ignatious Study Bible comes out I have seen some post on it but I dont recall no one saying when it was comeing out
 
Thanks for the info on the NJB (and other study versions); I’ll check it out. I would also be interested in the Ignatius Study Bible mentioned. (I’ll see what I can find on the web about it.)
 
ffny said:
Thanks for the info on the NJB (and other study versions); I’ll check it out. I would also be interested in the Ignatius Study Bible mentioned. (I’ll see what I can find on the web about it.)
Click to expand...
The Ignatius Study Bible is based mainly on the RSV-2CE, but is a work-in-progress. While many of the NT books have been completed, the OT, AFAIK, is yet to begin.
 
Read the Confraternity version of the New Testament and you’ll be able to easily see how it is superior to all others.
 
This has been a hard subject for me, because different Bibles have different things to offer.

I really like the NIV because of how on point it is with verses demonstrating the Divinity of Jesus (including the more controversial passages, like Romans 9:5 or John 1:18). But then the NIV blows it on other issues (for example, Evangelicals who use only the NIV sincerely believe Bishops are unbiblical, as the NIV removed any trace of the word - then there is their seemingly deliberate double standard when translating 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Worst of all, for me, the NIV doesn’t have the ‘Deuterocanonicals’.

I like the RSV-CE and NAB, because they have the ‘Deuterocanonicals’, and put them in their rightful places (e.g. the “Greek” portions of Esther (i.e. those absent from the Masoretic Esther) appear in the order they do in the Septuagint, NOT merely relegated to the end as the, otherwise wonderful, Douary Rheims does). But, the RSV-CE trips up on certain verses relevant to the Divinity of Jesus, and the NAB’s footnotes are so shockingly modernist and liberal that I am left troubled (in fact, I have seen footnotes in the NAB which I think might be contradicting Catholic doctrine!).

At present, I’m leaning towards either the RSV-CE or one of the Jerusalem Bibles, but tentatively so. I am anxious to see this Orthodox Bible others have been pushing…
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Read the Confraternity version of the New Testament and you’ll be able to easily see how it is superior to all others.
Click to expand...
Jerry-Jet,

The Confraternity NT (1941) was the first NT with which I became acquainted; this was back in the late 50s, early 60s, since this was the version from which the Gospel at Mass was read in English. It was the NT portion of the Confraternity bible I received for my Confirmation in 1960. (The OT used the Confraternity edition of Genesis-Ruth (Volume I) and Job-Sirach (Vol. II); with some changes, these two volumes became part of the NAB OT in 1970.) I used the Confraternity NT throughout high school in religion class.

When the US Lectionary for Mass based on the NAB was introduced, I was disenchanted, for there was a lot that was admirable about the Conf. NT, to be sure, and it was replaced with this pedestrian, colorless version. This was, and is, unforgiveable, and the NAB’s revised NT still does not cut it, in my view.

I thought the RSV-CE’s NT would be a worthy replacement for the Conf. NT, but, of course, we know that it, too, falls a bit short here and there. In my view, only the D-R’s NT is what I now use as my “reference standard”. It hews very closely to the Greek; VERY closely.

While I really do hate to burst your bubble, there are a small number of places where the Conf. NT disappoints me. One is John 2:4; “Woman, what wouldst thou have me do?” This isn’t even close to the Vulgate’s “Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?”, and the D-R’s “Woman, what is that to me and to thee?”

Another is the use of the vague term “immorality” in Matthew 19:9, where the D-R bluntly rendered it “fornication”.

And then there’s 1 Timothy 6:10, “Covetousness is the root of all evils”, instead of “the desire of money is the root of all evils”.

Subtle? Perhaps, but just enough to disappoint me.
 
Too bad you can’t have the style of the Confraternity and the accuracy of the Douay Rheims.

Will some Catholic scholars out there please give us that?
 
My favorite single Bible is the Douay-Confraternity edition that was only published from 1950-1952, which was had the Douay Old Testament (no Confraternity translations), and the 1941 Confraternity New Testament. I have one copy, and lucked out in obtaining it for only $7 in very good condition. This edition is my preferred edition of the Bible. I would like to get a back up copy some day, but they are rare and usually expensive if in good condition.

The top 3 versions for me are:
  1. Douay-Confraternity Bible
  2. Challoner-Douay-Rheims Bible
  3. The Holy Bible by Ronald Knox.
I think that the Confraternity is still very accurate, and it reads just a little smoother than the Douay Rheims. I am sympathetic to Manfred’s thought about the stricter accuracy of the DR, but I think that generally, the Confraterntiy version measures up.

In my Byzantine Church, our gospel book is based on a very light revision of the Confraternity New Testament, which was done by Bishop Raya. IT is essentially the Confraternity Version with the “thees” and “thous” taken out.

The Knox version is somewhat a freer translation, very literary and stylish, but Knox always dutifully notes literal translations when not employed in his translation, and keeps the reader aware of variants in Latin & Greek texts. It is an excellent study Bible- it is very unfortunate that only the New Testament is availabe new in print. You may pay several hundred dollars on eBay to get a complete version.

What is critical for me is that these version do not leave out key texts that most modern versions do.
  1. John 5.4; the verse about the angel disturbing the water is left out of most modern bibles, including all editions of the RSV. But for us in the Byzantine Church, it is a key part of one of the Gospel readings for Theophany. In Catholic Bibles in print, we only have it in the DR Bible, Conf. Bible, and Knox Bible.
  2. IN the DR Bible, John 3.13 reads thus: “And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” Most modern bibles leave out the phrase, “who is in heaven.”
I use to be a stalwart RSV fan; but even the Catholic RSV & RSV II, though very good versions, leave these key texts out of the Bible.

Therefore, I prefer to use the Douay-Rheims or Douay-Confraternity for my primary Bible reading- for devotional reading, lectio, teaching, and studying.

I enjoy reading the Knox also, but it is secondary, and not as accurate as the other two.

I still admire and reference the RSV, but it has lost a little bit of its stature for me.

But because the DR & Confraternity are harder to obtain (and more expensive), and because most people do not find them as accessible as the RSV II, we purchased Catholic RSV II Bibles for our BIble Study at Church, which I lead. But I would prefer to use the Douay-Confraternity.
 
I started reading the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition because all of my bible study materials use it, but I came to genuinely prefer it as well. I think it strikes a good balance of meaning, readability and correct language. I highly recommend it. I guess next would come Douay Rheims and finally King James. I’m not a big fan, so far, of modernizations, liberties, etc. My goal in life, should I live that long, is to read the Vulgate directly in Latin. I just started learning Latin, so this is a ways off ;-). Then…If I’m still kicking to go further and learn the biblical languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and to seek some copies of the actual documents. Until then, I’m hoping on about 5 years or so to get comfortable with biblical Latin, at which time, I can already imagine that the Vulgate will be my favorite version. Hey, in the end, they’re all the word of God.

Oddly, the version used in Mass, in the U.S. is just about my least favorite so far. I GUESS I can understand to SOME degree not using the DR in Liturgy because of the difficult use of language at times, but come on… The average Joe can at least handle the RSV CE in Mass. Oh well. My 2 cents. I love the Mass above all else, so I’ll live with whatever we use. But I can hope!

Peace,

Steven
 
Odell said:
Does anyone know when the Ignatious Study Bible comes out I have seen some post on it but I dont recall no one saying when it was comeing out
Click to expand...
It’s coming out in sections, as they are completed. So far, most of the New Testament is done. I don’t believe work has begun on the Old Testament, and they still have Revelations and a couple other books to finish in the NT. They’re releasing them in pamphlets at about $9.00 each until they do a whole book, I guessing five or so years down the road. I don’t mind buying them piecemeal because they are VERY VERY good. And then, I still intend to bu the full book someday once it’s available.

You can get the individual books, (the letters and shorter works are grouped), from many sources including the publisher, (Ignatius Press), any number of Catholic web sites, and even Amazon. I recommend them to anyone. It’s my favorite study bible, and it’s not even complete! I wait for each new book like a serial, with anticipation and eagerness.

Peace,

Steven
 
My favorite would have to be the RSV-CE. For no other reason then that it is very comfortable for me to read. I’ve also heard it said that the Catechism is uses it in its scripture quotes.🙂
 
Safe_Eagle said:
My favorite would have to be the RSV-CE. For no other reason then that it is very comfortable for me to read. I’ve also heard it said that the Catechism is uses it in its scripture quotes.🙂
Click to expand...
Close, but no cigar; the CCC uses an “ecumenical” edition of the RSV with the 1971 NT, as well as the NRSV.

And if anyone can actually point me to a “Vatican document” that uses the RSV-CE, I’d love to see it. Obviously, it would be a translation of a “Vatican document”, and which English version is used would have to depend on the translator of the document, no?
 
RoyJr said:
The New American Bible. The revised psalms seem to be in inclusive language :nope:

But other than that, it’s the only version I read because it’s the version used at Mass.
Click to expand...
Roy, read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ article, which appeared in Adoremus last year:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

There is one section that is very telling:
The problems begin with the very first verse of the Bible. In the English tradition, solidly grounded in the Hebrew as well as in Jerome’s Latin translation, Genesis 1 begins with the majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Here is what the NAB offers us: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters”. Compare that with the English tradition, followed almost exactly by Douay-Rheims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”. Apart from the NAB’s deaf ear to poetry and theological suggestiveness, the very first words of the very first verse of the Bible raise a question of no little importance. Note the difference between “In the beginning God created …” and “In the beginning, when God created…”
Click to expand...
“In the beginning God”. Homilies and theological reflections beyond numbering have pondered and probed those four words. It is God and God alone who is in the beginning; He is the source and acting subject of all that follows. If we do not get that right, we will not get right all that follows. Very different is the NAB’s rendering, “In the beginning, when God”. Here there is no invitation to ponder and probe what and who is meant by God. The knowledge is taken for granted; the reader’s attention is immediately turned from the acting subject to His actions. “In the beginning was the Act”. That is not, from the beginning, how Christians have understood the matter. The writer of the fourth Gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The great student of the fourth Gospel, C.K. Barrett, writes, “John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous”. That, says Barrett, is the significance of the tie to Genesis 1, “In the beginning God …”
Click to expand...
From the apostolic and patristic eras up through magisterial and theological writings of the present day, the parallel between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 has been the source of the most profound reflections. God who was in the beginning is now revealed in Jesus the Christ who is God. The great Augustine, writing in the fifth century, insists upon the parallel wording. As in the beginning is God, so in the beginning is the Word who is God. Here he is preaching against the Arian heresy which claimed that the Son is not truly God but was created as an agent for creating the world. No, insists Augustine: As in the beginning God, so in the beginning the Word. That parallel, so crucial to the entire gospel story, is quite thoroughly obscured by the NAB. From the beginning, the NAB introduces unwarranted novelties that not only further erode what remains of a common biblical vocabulary but are often blithely indifferent to the Church’s tradition of theological reflection.
Click to expand...
According to Fr. Neuhaus, the USCCB owns the copyright to the NAB. There are also some serious problems that this tranlsation has where Liturgicam Authenticam is concerned. Just because the USCCB has it doesn’t necessarily make it perfect.

I would recommend the Douay and the RSV (CE). My 93-year old grandmother would read her Douay on a daily basis. When she died, she left it to me. I must say that the language is both beautiful and proper. I can’t say the same for the NAB.
 
benedictgal said:
Roy, read Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ article, which appeared in Adoremus last year:

adoremus.org/0306BibleTranslations.html

According to Fr. Neuhaus, the USCCB owns the copyright to the NAB. There are also some serious problems that this tranlsation has where Liturgicam Authenticam is concerned. Just because the USCCB has it doesn’t necessarily make it perfect. 😛

I would recommend the Douay and the RSV (CE). My 93-year old grandmother would read her Douay on a daily basis. When she died, she left it to me. I must say that the language is both beautiful and proper. I can’t say the same for the NAB.
Click to expand...
You should have signed off with, “Can I get an ‘Amen’?” Because you’re sure going to get one from many of us.

Amen!!
 
Odell said:
I would like to know what bible the majority of our members use. Becaue you all seem very well versed in scripture and im sure you guys could give me advise on the best option for me to use.

I mean if Karl or James Aiken or Scott Hann told me what bible they prefer I more than likely would use the translation they use.

If the translation you use is not on here chose none and tell me what you do use.

also what is the best apologest bible?

anyway thanks It will be enteresting

well I wanted to make this a poll but I messed this up

here are some choices NAB, NAS, NIV, JB, NJB
Click to expand...
I use the NASB (New American Standard Bible). I thoroughly enjoy its layout and it’s very accurate to the Greek and Hebrew.

I don’t know about an “apologist” bible, but there’s a new NASB Scofield Bible III out. Are you familiar with the Scofield notes?

I’m new here so I don’t know what Catholics use.
 
I think the NASB is the least bad Protestant translation but it is flawed, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top