What is your 'primary' Bible translation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CalCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CalCatholic said:
Yeah, but then you would have to go back to school, and after that you would learn that a certain Greek word could have three or more different meanings, :eek: and you would be right back where you started!
Click to expand...
But it would be important to know some of the possibilities. Translations are educated guesses at best, especially in the modern languages. Not to mention having to avoid copyright infringements of other translations.

I say go for the Greek or Hebrew or Latin if you can. At least get a feel for the ancient poetry if nothing else.

Ego sum via et veritas et vita.
 
ProVobis: I know from posts here that you are a proponent of Latin in the Liturgy.

Tell me this: if the Pope Benedict picked out the translators himself and approved every verse in the whole bible and if that bible was as good as possible an accurate translation of the Nova Vulgata into English:

How would that translation stand up against the ones we currently have to choose from?

In other words–how far away from perfect accuracy is the Vulgate as compared to all other translations of the bible?

Would you be willing to make the case that ANY other translation is more accurate than the Nova Vulgata?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I bought a copyright 1949-1951 bible new in the box!

It is the New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate–The OldTestament Douay Version With Newly Edited Annotations of Bishop Challoner and a New Translation of the Book of Psalms from the New Latin Version Approved by Pope Pius XII.

The New Testament Confraternity Edition A Revision of the Challoner Rheims Version Edited by Catholic Scholars under the Patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

The Imprimatur was given by Francis Cardinal Spellman Archbishop of New York September 14. 1948.

It has real Catholic non modernist notes.

The Psalms are better than the Douay Psalms without going off the modern deep end.

It has “A virgin will conceive” in Isaiah 7:14–it also has “Hail Full of grace”, It also has "person instead of “presence” in 2 Corinthians 2:10.

It is superior to the RSV because it has in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things to be hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things that are not seen.”

It is superior to Protestant bibles because in the Deuterocanonical books there aren’t as many omitted verses.

It doesn’t have inclusive language.

The notes in it are superior to NAB notes done from an EXTREME historico-critical viewpoint.

I’m not saying that this bible is perfect–I think this bible does show what is WRONG with modern bibles translated by people who do not view the bible through the lens of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

I think that this bible could be improved upon–I don’t think that it would have to be changed alot, though.

Are there any Catholic scholars in the world in between Vulgate Latin onlyism and modernist inclusive language liberal ridiculousness?

Look–if lay people like me and many others here at this forum can see the OBVIOUS FLAWS with modern bible translations–cant there be somthing done about it?
Click to expand...
+1 👍

Right you are about the Confraternity bible. I divide my time between a 1953 Confraternity (CCD) bible and a 1914® Douay-Rheims. $10 each on eBay. Before that, it was the RSV-2CE (why does the term “apocrypha” appear in a Catholic bible?).

The Confraternity bible has a bit of an “in-between” feel to it, since it was never officially completed before the NAB overtook it in 1969, but is a great daily bible. I had to get a D-R simply because it is the standard in English translations.

My opinion of the whole protestant bible issue is that the Church which presented the bible to the world should not have to rely upon the translations of those who split off from her. Quite the reverse should be true. All protestant bibles - all of them - have anti-Catholic bias in them. It runs from mild (KJV) to offensive (GNT). Since we are limited to sola scriptura in explaining Catholic doctrine to protestants, should not a Catholic bible provide a corroborative translation? 🤷

It must be somewhere in the mind of the Church to produce a retro-mod English translation. The NAB and NABRE simply do not do it for me. Luke 1:28 in them does not even match the “Hail, Mary” prayer, for goodness’ sake!
 
soulofthesea76 said:
I use my Douay–Rheims Bible & my NRSV. My spouse who is a Protestent only uses the KJV . He says all others are corrupted & it gets very old after awhile. Is the something really wrong with my reading what I was raised with which is the Douay-Rheims. :confused: All together I personally have on my book shelves the DR, NRSV, NLT, NASB, NAB, NKJV, KJV, & the NIV. I just think it’s so silly to debate & argue over which version YOU personally find easier to read & understand.
Click to expand...
The 1582 New Testament of the Douay-Rheims even pre-dates the “incorruptible” KJV! So does the 1609 D-R Old Testament, for that matter. Tell him that the KJV began the corruption, and you cannot abide by it. 😃

If hubby does not believe in incorruptible Saints, how can he believe in incorruptible scripture? Rhetorical! 😛
 
po18guy said:
My opinion of the whole protestant bible issue is that the Church which presented the bible to the world should not have to rely upon the translations of those who split off from her. Quite the reverse should be true. All protestant bibles - all of them - have anti-Catholic bias in them. It runs from mild (KJV) to offensive (GNT). Since we are limited to sola scriptura in explaining Catholic doctrine to protestants, should not a Catholic bible provide a corroborative translation?!
Click to expand...
Good point. It hadn’t crossed my mind before. It seems the Catholic Church ought to be able to produce the ultimate Bible translation from the Greek and Hebrew into English (or any other language) which Christians of all stripes would appreciate for its accuracy and trustworthiness (and dignity, I dare say).

Inspiring thought, but depressing when I see what has actually been produced.
 
I use the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), 1985 edition with 2008 pages.
I like the language used, and I like the fact that it is approved for liturgical use in America by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I read the daily mass text from the New American Bible (NAB), which is what most American parishes actually use for mass. When I need to read more in order to understand the daily text, I first read it again in the NJB, then I read the previous and following verses or chapters in the NJB.

Peace be with you.
 
Russ_of_Tokyo said:
Good point. It hadn’t crossed my mind before. It seems the Catholic Church ought to be able to produce the ultimate Bible translation from the Greek and Hebrew into English (or any other language) which Christians of all stripes would appreciate for its accuracy and trustworthiness (and dignity, I dare say).

Inspiring thought, but depressing when I see what has actually been produced.
Click to expand...
I think that’s why we need to keep Pope Benedict XVI in our prayers so that he can continue to get the shepherds and flock back on the straight and narrow. Is Cardinal Dolan still president of the USCCB? If so, he seems to love the Traditions (big and small t) of the Church, and can hopefully give B16 an assist on this.
One holy, Catholic and apostolic Church…with one reliable Bible translation. Now that would be nice!
 
po18guy said:
👍 I had no idea until just recently that it even existed. I think it is a shame that work was not continued on it. Hmm…
Click to expand...
It was really a further revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible, but as you said it could have been continued and I think I’d have been fine with that. They are available.
 
Church_Militant said:
It was really a further revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible, but as you said it could have been continued and I think I’d have been fine with that. They are available.
Click to expand...
Regarding translations, the Vulgate has both its supporters and detractors. The mildly pejorative term “Latinisms” has been applied to descriptions of the Douay-Rheims translation, for example. Yet, not one of these critics derides the Grecian or Hebraic idiosyncrasies inherent in all available surviving copies of scripture. As well, Jerome is not thought to have translated the entirety of the scriptures, but may have collaborated with, or employed the work of others in assembling his Vulgate. This raises the matter of the inspiration of his work. Since he was performing it at the behest of Pope Damasus I (and for the benefit of the world), is it not clear that the Holy Spirit was guiding not only him, but also those others whose work is represented in the Vulgate?

How can any contemporary, non-Catholic and disparate assemblage of individuals hope to achieve this divine level of guidance or inspiration in such a work today? Since they have willingly departed from Church authority, error in their work is guaranteed. It is clear that they assume that the Spirit guides them, yet their work does not agree - much as with those who testified against our Lord before Caiphas. I am not implying guilty intent, only suggesting that the error of ego has crept into all protestant translations (both old and new), as it does with all private interpretation of scripture. For this very reason, Peter prohibited such private interpretation.

In the protestant arena, the standard has been to revert to the original languages, which means to rely upon available copies which, over the many centuries, are likewise many times removed from the originals. Lacking the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium as guide, error is again guaranteed. As we see in these forums, this has lead to the use of a dictionary when attempting to reverse engineer the meaning and intent of the scriptures. Absolutely no assurance of accuracy results, but none is needed when the ego is the guiding authority. The ego always produces that which flatters itself.

It is clearly time for a contemporary Vulgate-based translation. One can only pray.
 
po18guy said:
It is clearly time for a contemporary Vulgate-based translation. One can only pray.
Click to expand...
Never gonna happen, at least, not anymore. Church’s orders (c.f. Divino afflante Spiritu; Liturgiam authenticam).

On the Latin, the Church has specified the Nova Vulgata, and only as the determinant where the Hebrew and Greek could yield one or more equally legitimate translations.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
ProVobis: I know from posts here that you are a proponent of Latin in the Liturgy.

Tell me this: if the Pope Benedict picked out the translators himself and approved every verse in the whole bible and if that bible was as good as possible an accurate translation of the Nova Vulgata into English:

How would that translation stand up against the ones we currently have to choose from?

In other words–how far away from perfect accuracy is the Vulgate as compared to all other translations of the bible?

Would you be willing to make the case that ANY other translation is more accurate than the Nova Vulgata?
Click to expand...
Thanks for asking. There is a lot of supposition here that we both know won’t happen. But that said, since the early days of the days, it seems that just Latin vs Greek nuances, limitations, meanings, etc. have caused major divisions within the Church. I don’t think he would personally want to cause any more divisions, which apparently modern translations have caused. Just my opinion though.

I’m still looking at the some of the differences between the Clementine Bible and the Nova Vulgata myself. Very interesting indeed. How it will come out translated should also be interesting. For all we know, some of the translations of the LV could come out to be the same as with the NV. There is always that possibility.

As stated in one of the linguistics books I read: English is a great language for analysis and commentary but a very poor one for translations.
 
porthos11 said:
Never gonna happen, at least, not anymore. Church’s orders (c.f. Divino afflante Spiritu; Liturgiam authenticam).

On the Latin, the Church has specified the Nova Vulgata, and only as the determinant where the Hebrew and Greek could yield one or more equally legitimate translations.
Click to expand...
None of this proscribes a revised English translation based on the Nova Vulgata. The NV is “a” point of reference in all matters liturgical, but not “the” point.

It is concerning that some “modern scholars” felt that Jerome was insufficiently schooled in language or may have poorly rendered some passages. Such thinking can lead to dangerous revisionism. Not that we’ve actually seen any… :rolleyes:

I am speaking of an American English bible edition that is far superior to the NAB(RE) that we are liturgically saddled with in the states.

The Church may be old, but she still has a few surprises in her.
 
What if you did a translation of the Vulgate as your base and didn’t tell anybody you did that–then use original language texts and change the text when something different than the Vulgate was indeed warranted–get rid of a few latinisms in non doctrinal verses–use English spellings of biblical names and even use the Protestant numbering system for the verses.

Voila!–You’d have a great bible and then put the onus on all the OTHER people out there with agendas PROVE why their varient textual choices are superior.

I don’t think they could.

I guess what I’m really saying is that the Vulgate BASE wouldn’t need alot of changing–I’m saying 90% of it is fine as is.

I’m not against someone tinkering with the other 10% if they can prove that original language text varients in those languages are superior to the Vulgate and if those varient text choices are made by scripture scholars that DO GIVE TWO HOOTS about what the Catholic magisterium has taught about the bible and how the bible has been used in its liturgy in the last 2,000 years!

We don’t have that now–we have all the inclusive language non sense–the modernism–the extreme historico-critical approach which winds up with “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14!

We can’t even get the Hail Mary right–that is an abomination in Catholic bible translating!

And we have notes on the bible that seem like they’re written by people who don’t give two hoots about Catholic doctrine.

You know the crowd–they’re the “Q” worshipers who think that the apostles were too dumb to write anything and that the whole New Testament was pasted together MANY years later by non eye witnesses of ANYTHING!

I don’t want to hear anymore from them!

The USCCB bishops who will be selecting the translators for the final try at revising the NAB should just ask probably 5 or 6 questions to any potential translator and they can weed out THOSE kind of modernist bible scholars in a heartbeat!

I’ll tell you how bad modern Catholic translations have gotten–they’re so bad that you can take Protestant translations and ONLY remove all the Protestant bias in them and those bibles would be far better than modern Catholic translations!

That is a shame!

Pray for the translators of the next translation of the NAB–it may take a long time but if they ever do get approval from Rome and have the NAB perfectly match the liturgy–we will probably have that translation for a LONG TIME!

Pray that it will be a good one!
 
If they remove “American” from New American Bible, it would have a better chance of being accepted outside of America. 🙂
 
FWIW, here’s Wiki’s list of English Bibles:

A Conservative Version, Modern English 2005
A Literal Translation of the Bible, Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)
A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures, Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
American King James Version, Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version
American Standard Version, Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
Amplified Bible, Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version
An American Translation, Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
An American Translation, Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.
ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament), Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text
Berkeley Version, Modern English 1958
Bible in English, Modern English 1949
Bishops’ Bible, Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Catholic Public Domain Version, Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate by Ronald L. Conte Jr., in the public domain
Children’s King James Version, Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version. by Jay P. Green
Christian Community Bible, English version, Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek
Clear Word Bible, Modern English 1994
Complete Jewish Bible, Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).
Concordant Literal Version, Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.
Contemporary English Version, Modern English 1995
Coverdale Bible, Early Modern English 1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud’s Bible) First complete Bible printed in English (Early Modern English)
Darby Bible, Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)
Douay-Rheims Bible, Early Modern English 1582 (New Testament)

1609–1610 (Old Testament)
Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision), Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate
Easy-to-Read Version, Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text
EasyEnglish Bible, Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)
English Jubilee 2000 Bible, Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)
English Standard Version, Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)
Ferrar Fenton Bible, Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text
Geneva Bible, Early Modern English 1557 (New Testament)

1560 (complete Bible)
Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus First English Bible with whole of Old Testament translated direct from Hebrew texts
God’s Word Modern English 1995
Good News Bible, Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text Formerly known as Today’s English Version
Great Bible, Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.
Holman Christian Standard Bible, Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.
International Standard Version, Modern English 2011
James Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta Modern English Syriac Peshitta
Jerusalem Bible Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament), Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text
Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament), Modern English 1963 Masoretic Text
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation, Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
King James 2000 Version, Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.
King James Easy Reading Version, Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text. King’s Word Press. GEM Publishing.[3]
King James II Version, Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.
King James Version, Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.
Knox’s Translation of the Vulgate, Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Lamsa Bible, Modern English 1933 Syriac Peshitta
Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament), Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
Matthew’s Bible, Early Modern English 1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].
Modern King James Version, Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus by Jay P. Green, Sr.
Modern Language Bible, Modern English 1969 Also called “The New Berkeley Version”
Moffatt, New Translation, Modern English 1926
New American Bible, Modern English 1970
New American Standard Bible, Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text
New Century Version, Modern English 1991
New English Bible, Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament
New English Translation (NET Bible), Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament
New International Reader’s Version Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)
New International Version, Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).
New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.
New Jerusalem Bible, Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.
New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text
New King James Version, Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)
New Life Version, Modern English 1986
New Living Translation, Modern English 1996
New Revised Standard Version, Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Modern English 1950 (New Testament)

1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
Quaker Bible Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus
Recovery Version of the Bible, Modern English 1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.
Revised English Bible, Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.
Revised Standard Version, Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.
Revised Version, Modern English 1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Westcott-Hort Greek text
Simplified English Bible, Modern English.
Taverner’s Bible, Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew’s Bible
The Bible in Living English, Modern English 1972
The Inclusive Bible, Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
The Living Bible, Modern English 1971 American Standard Version (paraphrase)
The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament) Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text
The Message, Modern English 2002
The Orthodox Study Bible, Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.
The Scriptures, Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research
The Story Bible, Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck
The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible[4], Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God’s Children (nonprofit corporation)
Third Millennium Bible, Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.
Thomson’s Translation, Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament
Today’s New International Version, Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.
Tyndale Bible Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament)

1530 (Pentateuch)
Masoretic Text, Erasmus’ third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther’s 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale’s other Old Testament work went into the Matthew’s Bible (1537).
Updated King James Version, Modern English 2004
Webster’s Revision, Modern English 1833 Revision of the King James Version.
Westminster Bible, Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew
Wycliffe’s Bible (1380), Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate
Wycliffe’s Bible (1388), Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate
Young’s Literal Translation, Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations
 
Is there a version that was formerly approved, but which is no longer so? I do not think so. The Church is concerned primarily with the liturgy, and a translation which serves it. The rest of us are free to choose from among available approved versions.

Bottom line: Catholic doctrine that is documented in scripture should be easily demonstrable from that scripture. In the cases of the NAB and NABRE, that is not always the case. It was never a problem until the 20th century, when so many other problems crept into the Church.
 
CalCatholic said:
(Please let us keep this positive and not put down or trash anyone else’s favorite translation of the Holy Scriptures) 👍
Click to expand...
+1
It seems like any time there’s a topic about translations on a forum or blog some folks can’t hold back on the griping.

As for me, today I’m thanking God I can read and afford a Bible, live in a country where Mass can be celebrated without worry of physical harm, and that AFAIK my cousin serving our country is still safe in a war no one seems to care about any more.

Right now the NAB is my primary Bible translation. I recently remembered that the calendar from the USCCB with the daily readings was on the computer. :doh2: Wrote 'em on my calendar to use when reading to Mom until September and we can use the booklet the padre gave us. So we’ll at least get something closer to what’s proclaimed in church than the GNT-CE with the lectionary list in the back. Not saying anything bad about the GNT-CE, but Mom can’t make it to Mass and I do what I can to give her something similar to what others who can make it are getting from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top