What is the Most accurate Bible Translation

[Voco_proTatiano]

John 3:16–For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
2Corinthians 2:10–Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed what I have forgiven—if I have forgiven anything—I have done for your sakes, in the person of Christ,

Dear Cranch,
I know I am taking you right out of context, but this first verse you quote is both the most important, and the most troubling of verses.
I have struggled with ‘Only begotten Son’, and rejected the idea that this refers in any way to physical procreation. In this aspect, I support the Muslim position that G_d did not have sexual intercourse with the BVM. The Muslims find this idea objectionable, and blasphemous, and so do I.
I thought perhaps the alternative meaning of the Latin ‘unigenitum’, reflected in the German ‘eingeboren’, indicating innate, natural, true, was the original meaning.
I reasoned True Son of G_d, begotten of G_d by G_d. Reflecting the statement in the Crede.
Now I am unsure: I saw in a passage Im quoted elsewhere, that Jews used, and still use this concept, not to refer to physical procreation, but to the acknowledgement of fatherhood, commonly at Circumcission. This is a public acknowledgement, and the word used is translated into Latin as the same verb from which ‘genitum’ is derived.
Now though Our Lord promised us that all who accept him, and follow His teaching will be acknowleged as the sons of G_d, this will be at the Last Day. Our Lord, though was publicly acknowledged by G_d as HIS Son on at least two occasions,
1/ At the baptism of John, and
2/ At the tranfiguration.
Now I can accept this meaning, as it is compliant with Jewish tradition, and is supported in Gospels other than John’s, though only John uses the word translated as ‘unigenitum’.
I understand I am skating on very thin ice.
I am in need of guidance.
I am not trying to teach heresy, but trying to understand a mystery.

 

[Dr_M]

DRB, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE the last two can be flipped as far as preference, those in my opinion are the best.

Rule of thumb. If your Lk 1:28 doesn’t say "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Throw it out, don’t use it

I fortunately, Only read the Bible in Spanish now, (The joys of being Biliterate), so I haven’t found a problem with the full of grace part anymore.

 

[porthos11]

The RSV II does away with archaic language, no thees or thous. Some may regret this, but the RSV II is much more likely to be approved for any liturgical use and to gain a broader following for English speaking Catholics with the updated language.

Actually, it already is. The Antilles Bishops’ Conference approved the RSV-2CE lectionary for use at Mass, unamended. This means that they are the only Episcopal Conference in the world whose approved Lectionary matches a published Bible word-for-word, unlike the unfortunate situation with the RNAB (the Canadian NRSV lectionary is an anomaly and is not approved, except for interim use).

The guys in the Antilles are really fortunate, lectionary-wise.

 

[Rocky8311]

Dave is there a specific reason you don’t spell out God’s name? Is it like how the name JHWH is not fully spelled out by the Jews out of reverence?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Cranch: Those verses are important for me because the Confraternity Bible Gets It Right on both Salvation and Paul absolving sins in the Person of Christ.

I think I’m going to get a Confaternity Bible. What are the cons of that translation? I know that the Old testament is the same as the NAB but at least Genesis wasn’t retranslated as it was in the NAB and some books remained in the Douay version.

Is the Old Testament of the Confraternity bible OK?

 

[Cranch]

Cranch: Those verses are important for me because the Confraternity Bible Gets It Right on both Salvation and Paul absolving sins in the Person of Christ.

I think I’m going to get a Confaternity Bible. What are the cons of that translation? I know that the Old testament is the same as the NAB but at least Genesis wasn’t retranslated as it was in the NAB and some books remained in the Douay version.

Is the Old Testament of the Confraternity bible OK?

The translators of the Confraternity New Testament (1941) declared the work to be not a new version but a revision of the work of Bishop Challoner. Thus it has a strong link to the Vulgate. The Confraternity Genesis is I think superior to the NAB. As the Confraternity Old Testament translations were published in stages, the older the copy you pick up, the fewer OT books will be in the Confraternity translation and the more books in the Douay translation. Mine (1957) has 15 OT books in the Confraternity translation. I think the oldest versions have only the revised NT and Psalms, the rest being the Douay. One drawback for me is the loss of the precision of the archaic 2nd-person singular (no thees and thous). Another difference is a return to a paragraph format, even in the Douay portions, instead of the separate verses format of the Challoner. Apparently the original D-R had paragraphs.

The Confraternity is a hybrid bible and not that useful to me since I prefer the D-R.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dave is there a specific reason you don’t spell out God’s name? Is it like how the name JHWH is not fully spelled out by the Jews out of reverence?

Hi, you might say so. It is not though as I see it. Thinking of the trigrammaton as a name, or a noun, reduces G_d to a thing. Even using a pronoun is a reduction. The Muslims say:
La illahu: illa Allah.
Roughly translated:
There are no gods, yet G_d is.
G_d is far more than a god.
Far more than the highest of gods.
Far more than the god of the gods.
G_d is the origin of everything visible and invisible in this universe.
Words cannot describe G_d.
Hence I do not use a word, noun or proper noun.

 

[lak611]

Hi, you might say so. It is not though as I see it. Thinking of the trigrammaton as a name, or a noun, reduces G_d to a thing. Even using a pronoun is a reduction. The Muslims say:
La illahu: illa Allah.
Roughly translated:
There are no gods, yet G_d is.
G_d is far more than a god.
Far more than the highest of gods.
Far more than the god of the gods.
G_d is the origin of everything visible and invisible in this universe.
Words cannot describe G_d.
Hence I do not use a word, noun or proper noun.

I am confused by this, since you do not say you are Muslim or Jewish in your profile.

 

[porthos11]

Hi, you might say so. It is not though as I see it. Thinking of the trigrammaton as a name, or a noun, reduces G_d to a thing. Even using a pronoun is a reduction. The Muslims say:
La illahu: illa Allah.
Roughly translated:
There are no gods, yet G_d is.
G_d is far more than a god.
Far more than the highest of gods.
Far more than the god of the gods.
G_d is the origin of everything visible and invisible in this universe.
Words cannot describe G_d.
Hence I do not use a word, noun or proper noun.

All words and names by default reduce God somewhat and that is expected. Our expression is human, and therefore finite. Thing is, God understands that at least we try. But for as long as we’re still alive, God will always be reduced by our own understandings.

But thing is, God has given us through his Spirit the privilege of calling him Father. He is not just Almighty God, he is God our Father. We are able to approach him and relate to him as sons.

So quit it with the G_d. It is not the Christian way.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I am confused by this, since you do not say you are Muslim or Jewish in your profile.

Do I need to be Jewish or Muslim to respect views I consider to be correct?
Is not the OT part of the Canon?
If I choose to follow some of the advice therein, may I not, provided that it does not contradict the principle of Love?
So, I am a heretic, I so freely confess.
However, I do not demand, or expect you to follow me into heresy, only to explain that in some things, my perception may differ from yours, and also from Mother Church.
I do not claim that yours is wrong, only different.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

All words and names by default reduce God somewhat and that is expected. Our expression is human, and therefore finite. Thing is, God understands that at least we try. But for as long as we’re still alive, God will always be reduced by our own understandings.

But thing is, God has given us through his Spirit the privilege of calling him Father. He is not just Almighty God, he is God our Father. We are able to approach him and relate to him as sons.

So quit it with the G_d. It is not the Christian way.

If you do not like what you see, look the other way.
(Japanese proverb).

 

[Holly3278]

I personally like the RSV-CE.

 

[porthos11]

If you do not like what you see, look the other way.
(Japanese proverb).

Just like that, huh.

Oh well.

 

[lak611]

All words and names by default reduce God somewhat and that is expected. Our expression is human, and therefore finite. Thing is, God understands that at least we try. But for as long as we’re still alive, God will always be reduced by our own understandings.

But thing is, God has given us through his Spirit the privilege of calling him Father. He is not just Almighty God, he is God our Father. We are able to approach him and relate to him as sons.

So quit it with the G_d. It is not the Christian way.

Do I need to be Jewish or Muslim to respect views I consider to be correct?
Is not the OT part of the Canon?
If I choose to follow some of the advice therein, may I not, provided that it does not contradict the principle of Love?
So, I am a heretic, I so freely confess.
However, I do not demand, or expect you to follow me into heresy, only to explain that in some things, my perception may differ from yours, and also from Mother Church.
I do not claim that yours is wrong, only different.

As porthos11 says, we Christians are not disrespecting God by spelling His name. Jesus told us that we have the right to call Him our Father.

 

[porthos11]

As porthos11 says, we Christians are not disrespecting God by spelling His name. Jesus told us that we have the right to call Him our Father.

Well, he revels in his perception of himself as a “heretic”. While no one who truly believes he’s right would call himself a heretic, this guy seems to enjoy the label.

So I think other than that one post addressing him to knock it off with the “G_d” gimmick, I think he has other issues to deal with and so I’ll just leave him to them.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thus we can be assured that what we read in the New Testament, no matter what translation, is what God and the human authors intended to be read!

Hi
That would be only an opinion unless GodAllahYHWH reveals His Word on some ProphetMessenger, ChosenOne or a PerfectMan in this connection. The research should continue. May GodAllahYHWH bless those doing research work for benefit of everybody.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[paarsurrey]

I’m sure others will give you their recommendations but I wanted to respond to part of your request - the original

copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.
None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

Hi
Very fine post.May GodAllahYHWH bless you for your research work.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I just wish someone would update the Douay Rheims today. I wish Catholics would update it. Since it’s in the public domain I don’t see why that can’t happen.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I just wish someone would update the Douay Rheims today. I wish Catholics would update it. Since it’s in the public domain I don’t see why that can’t happen.

Ron Conte, a good Catholic, has already done this.
Look at:
sacredbible.org/
I am saddened though that Ron has chosen to follow the modern English fraternity in dropping the 2nd person singular from the language. This will cause some ambiguities, is will be a loss.
FYI, the second person singular is still used in a large area of England, including Yorkshire and Lancashire, and is DEFINITELY not extinct dispite the efforts of reductionists.

 

[MH84]

Ron Conte, a good Catholic, has already done this.
Look at:
sacredbible.org/
I am saddened though that Ron has chosen to follow the modern English fraternity in dropping the 2nd person singular from the language. This will cause some ambiguities, is will be a loss.
FYI, the second person singular is still used in a large area of England, including Yorkshire and Lancashire, and is DEFINITELY not extinct dispite the efforts of reductionists.

Thanks for the website. Is the “Challoner Douay Rheims” the updated translation of the Douay Rhiems. All respects, but why would you read Ron Conte’s version instead of that version. Is there a specific reason?