Which bible? RSV Second Catholic Edition or Third Millenium Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vexatious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vexatious

Guest
Hello my Brother’s and Sister’s. I hope you can bear with me on this topic as I’m at a little struggle with this.

Also I had no idea where else to start this topic, and if perhaps this is the wrong place I hope that a moderator can correct my mistake by putting it in the proper forum topic.

So I’ve been reading my Douay-Rheims Bible (which is this one but smaller page ribbons) amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Douay-Rheims-Version/dp/1930278241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279251471&sr=8-1 since about 3 years ago or so (I actually didn’t start reading till about a year ago).

One thing that bothers me a little bit about this one is there seems to be either miss translations on certain areas, (or at least it appears to be) or something else which I don’t quite understand why…

For example in Genesis Chapter 6:4 it goes : “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.” now the reading is great and I love the way it’s written…

But then when you compare the King James Version : “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The King James Version clearly says Giants (I prefer Nephilim) were in the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTER THAT. There’s like a whole new dimension to that sentence that isn’t in the Douay-Rheims bible. Douay version sounds so vague like it doesn’t care or something… 🤷

Every other translation including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) Second Catholic Edition (SCE) also states “There were blah in the earth in those days; AND ALSO AFTER THAT” bible.cc/genesis/6-4.htm

It practically adds a whole new meaning when you let the reader know that there were Nephilim on the earth in those days and also after that… What is so different about latin being translated to english (Douay-Rheims) that it has to sound as if something was totally left out? I mean how many other parts are there in Douay-Rheims that have this obvious issue which hopefully isn’t such a big issue after all…

I’m very interested in the RSV SCE bible amazon.com/Ignatius-Bible-Revised-Standard-Catholic/dp/0898708338/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279252115&sr=1-2 however I also heard goodness about the Third Millenium Bible tmbible.com/
It just seems what I hope to be a fine literal translation into English (it uses nephilim instead of giants for example)

It seems the Third Millenium Bible has apocrypha which isn’t even in the Catholic Bibles including the books that are always in the Catholic Bibles but omitted in typical King James non-Catholic Bibles though correct me if I’m wrong.

I also can’t stand the miss information everywhere about how the Latin Vulgate text was corrupt and how the masoretic text was corrupt. Other sources say otherwise that they weren’t corrupt and overall it just seems like a constant struggle. Some sources will swear that no matter what the King James 1611 Bible is the definitive version whereas others will totally say how it’s perverted in some parts. Likewise for Douay-Rheims.

Pretty much every King James Bible is protestant. As an example they are missing “Bel and the Dragon” story in the book of Daniel in chapter 14. This is however where the Third Millenium Bible stands out as it supposedly contains the King James 1611 translation in it’s entirety without missing text and then some.

Overall I really don’t know what to think other than that perhaps the english language is doomed to never fully render the Word of God properly… I mean am I gonna have to learn Hebrew so I can read the Word of God or is there still the possibility of reading God’s Word properly in english?

All I can do for now is have faith in our one and only Lord Jesus Christ that no matter what as long as I try to do what’s right based on my understanding that I and others will prevail over evil and have nothing else to worry about all this.

Is there any faithful Bible in english that correctly renders the original Word of God into proper english? For example In Hebrew the word m’opheph “Fiery Flying Serpent” is usually rendered into english as cockatrice which doesn’t quite match up. This is what I’m hoping the RSV SCE corrects on in many aspects. I also hear the New Jerusalem Bible is great in this regard.

So what Bible do you guys recommend?

I hope the Nephilim are kept at a minimum around here lol 😛
 
I would recommend the RSV Second Catholic Edition. I think the Third Millennium Bible is a Protestant Bible but I am not sure.
 
Vexatious said:
So I’ve been reading my Douay-Rheims Bible (which is this one but smaller page ribbons) amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Douay-Rheims-Version/dp/1930278241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279251471&sr=8-1 since about 3 years ago or so (I actually didn’t start reading till about a year ago).

One thing that bothers me a little bit about this one is there seems to be either miss translations on certain areas, (or at least it appears to be) or something else which I don’t quite understand why…

For example in Genesis Chapter 6:4 it goes : “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.” now the reading is great and I love the way it’s written…

But then when you compare the King James Version : “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The King James Version clearly says Giants (I prefer Nephilim) were in the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTER THAT. There’s like a whole new dimension to that sentence that isn’t in the Douay-Rheims bible. Douay version sounds so vague like it doesn’t care or something… 🤷
Click to expand...
I may be wrong here but I believe that the many Protestant Bibles were translated from Hebrew, while our Catholic Bible was translated from the Greek Septuagint. The Septuagint was widely used by the Jewish people during the time of Christ (and long before). This may account for the differences in texts between Protestant and Catholic Bibles.
Vexatious said:
I’m very interested in the RSV SCE bible amazon.com/Ignatius-Bible-Revised-Standard-Catholic/dp/0898708338/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279252115&sr=1-2 however I also heard goodness about the Third Millenium Bible tmbible.com/
It just seems what I hope to be a fine literal translation into English (it uses nephilim instead of giants for example).
Click to expand...
Nephilim is a Hebrew word, and being so, I would expect that you would have an easier time finding it in Protestant Bibles.
Vexatious said:
It seems the Third Millenium Bible has apocrypha which isn’t even in the Catholic Bibles including the books that are always in the Catholic Bibles but omitted in typical King James non-Catholic Bibles though correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
My RSV-CE 2nd Ed. (Ignatius Bible) has all the books of the Bible. I’ve not heard of the Third Millenium Bible so I can’t really comment on it.
Vexatious said:
I also can’t stand the miss information everywhere about how the Latin Vulgate text was corrupt and how the masoretic text was corrupt. Other sources say otherwise that they weren’t corrupt and overall it just seems like a constant struggle. Some sources will swear that no matter what the King James 1611 Bible is the definitive version whereas others will totally say how it’s perverted in some parts. Likewise for Douay-Rheims.
Click to expand...
My advice… Always go Catholic. Leave King James for the Protestants. 😃
Vexatious said:
… I mean am I gonna have to learn Hebrew so I can read the Word of God or is there still the possibility of reading God’s Word properly in english?
Click to expand...
Well you can always trust that the Church is providing you a valid translation; so with that, choose one from among the Catholic Bibles and be at ease. Or, learn Greek, re-translate the Septuagint, and get the Church to declare it valid. Me… I think it’s better to just trust in the Church.
 
Vexatious said:
Hello my Brother’s and Sister’s. I hope you can bear with me on this topic as I’m at a little struggle with this.

Also I had no idea where else to start this topic, and if perhaps this is the wrong place I hope that a moderator can correct my mistake by putting it in the proper forum topic.

So I’ve been reading my Douay-Rheims Bible (which is this one but smaller page ribbons) amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Douay-Rheims-Version/dp/1930278241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279251471&sr=8-1 since about 3 years ago or so (I actually didn’t start reading till about a year ago).

One thing that bothers me a little bit about this one is there seems to be either miss translations on certain areas, (or at least it appears to be) or something else which I don’t quite understand why…

For example in Genesis Chapter 6:4 it goes : “Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.” now the reading is great and I love the way it’s written…

But then when you compare the King James Version : “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The King James Version clearly says Giants (I prefer Nephilim) were in the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTER THAT. There’s like a whole new dimension to that sentence that isn’t in the Douay-Rheims bible. Douay version sounds so vague like it doesn’t care or something… 🤷

Every other translation including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) Second Catholic Edition (SCE) also states “There were blah in the earth in those days; AND ALSO AFTER THAT” bible.cc/genesis/6-4.htm

It practically adds a whole new meaning when you let the reader know that there were Nephilim on the earth in those days and also after that… What is so different about latin being translated to english (Douay-Rheims) that it has to sound as if something was totally left out? I mean how many other parts are there in Douay-Rheims that have this obvious issue which hopefully isn’t such a big issue after all…

I’m very interested in the RSV SCE bible amazon.com/Ignatius-Bible-Revised-Standard-Catholic/dp/0898708338/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279252115&sr=1-2 however I also heard goodness about the Third Millenium Bible tmbible.com/
It just seems what I hope to be a fine literal translation into English (it uses nephilim instead of giants for example)

It seems the Third Millenium Bible has apocrypha which isn’t even in the Catholic Bibles including the books that are always in the Catholic Bibles but omitted in typical King James non-Catholic Bibles though correct me if I’m wrong.

I also can’t stand the miss information everywhere about how the Latin Vulgate text was corrupt and how the masoretic text was corrupt. Other sources say otherwise that they weren’t corrupt and overall it just seems like a constant struggle. Some sources will swear that no matter what the King James 1611 Bible is the definitive version whereas others will totally say how it’s perverted in some parts. Likewise for Douay-Rheims.

Pretty much every King James Bible is protestant. As an example they are missing “Bel and the Dragon” story in the book of Daniel in chapter 14. This is however where the Third Millenium Bible stands out as it supposedly contains the King James 1611 translation in it’s entirety without missing text and then some.

Overall I really don’t know what to think other than that perhaps the english language is doomed to never fully render the Word of God properly… I mean am I gonna have to learn Hebrew so I can read the Word of God or is there still the possibility of reading God’s Word properly in english?

All I can do for now is have faith in our one and only Lord Jesus Christ that no matter what as long as I try to do what’s right based on my understanding that I and others will prevail over evil and have nothing else to worry about all this.

Is there any faithful Bible in english that correctly renders the original Word of God into proper english? For example In Hebrew the word m’opheph “Fiery Flying Serpent” is usually rendered into english as cockatrice which doesn’t quite match up. This is what I’m hoping the RSV SCE corrects on in many aspects. I also hear the New Jerusalem Bible is great in this regard.

So what Bible do you guys recommend?

I hope the Nephilim are kept at a minimum around here lol 😛
Click to expand...
My personal preference in [personal preference order]: Douay-Rheims bible and Jerusalem bible. All other catholic bibles can be placed in any order you want after these two.
 
I wouldn’t wan’t to bother with a Bible that’s missing “Bel and the Dragon” in chapter 14 of the book of Daniel… That usually means it’s not Catholic. So yeah I stay away from King James Bibles. Though that Third Millenium Bible is just tempting…

Hebrew is the original text before anything else which is why I’d rather a Bible translated straight from Hebrew into english. Or am I wrong in thinking this…

This is also why I’m looking at the RSV SCE Bible as it seems more literal towards Hebrew rather than any other language which had to be translated from Hebrew in the first place. It’s Catholic, it seems more literal and the English is a bit more easier-fluent for the most part. I’m gonna have to go with this one for now and hopefully it’ll be what I expect or better. I’m also interested in the New Jerusalem Catholic Bible.

Why doesn’t the Catholic Church translate straight from the original Hebrew into English or whatever other language is gonna be used? Is there just nobody around who cares about that? Are people just lazy in that they’d rather translate from Greek or Latin into english since it’s easier? Why do they not translate from the original source and rely on these secondary sources? Did I miss something?

I’m probably gonna have to learn Hebrew myself and read the Bible the way it was meant to be read. Or maybe Greek? lol
 
Vexatious said:
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church translate straight from the original Hebrew into English or whatever other language is gonna be used? Is there just nobody around who cares about that? Are people just lazy in that they’d rather translate from Greek or Latin into english since it’s easier? Why do they not translate from the original source and rely on these secondary sources? Did I miss something?

I’m probably gonna have to learn Hebrew myself and read the Bible the way it was meant to be read. Or maybe Greek? lol
Click to expand...
(1) The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

(2) The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

(3) The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

(4) At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia
 
The RSV-2CE is a nice Bible; I own one, but I rarely use it. I prefer more dynamic translations, such as the New Jerusalem Bible. Other than the NJB, I use Oxford’s NRSV with Apocrypha and the Complete Jewish Bible as my main ones. I think it’s important to own at least one Bible that features all the apocryphal writings, which would include books that are canonically listed by the Orthodox, since we can learn more about the culture and customs of first-century Palestine and Judaism from these additional writings. Similarly, it’s equally important to approach the Bible from different perspectives so that you’re not continually approaching the text in a neutered, sterile manner. No single translation is the best way to translate the text, and given that it is the living Word of God, so we should seek out all its interpretations.
 
Vexatious,

I hope you realize that the Douay-Rheims bible you are probably reading is NOT the one originally translated in Duoay and Rheims in the late 1500s/early1600s. At least three major “modifications” occurred with respect to the original DR: Bishop Challoner, Haydock, Msgr. Knox.

We had an entire thread on this exact subject (with over 6000 views), so I won’t repeat what was said in that thread, other than to suggest three Bibles that I regularly consult for accuracy when studying (in addition to about 15 other bibles of various translations):
  1. realdouayrheims.com/ - the person who produced this version, Dr. William von Peters, spent eleven years prepared the Douay Rheims for modern readers by retyping the entire bible in its entirety, with all thenotes and annotations, into modern English text foreasy reading. He changed nothing nothing in the text, other than to transliterate old english words into modern english. I assure you, even though you would eventually get the hang out of deciphering how the English spelled words 500 years ago, it is VERY tedious to read a bible written in “old english”.
  2. stores.lulu.com/maximusscriptorius - this site is the “real deal”. You can purchase either hardbound copies, a CD, or download. I opted for the download version and it works perfectly with my Adobe reader on my computer. The text is described as follows:
“This is a download of a digital facsimilie of the complete original Douay Rheims Bible. The New Testament was first printed in 1582 AD and the Old Testament in 1609 AD. The Old Testament edition of this download was printed in 1635 AD. This is not the “Challoner Revision” of the Douay Rheims. This edition contains over 2800 pages of biblical text, notes, and annotations. This pdf is fully readable using Adobe Reader (available free on the internet). The text quality is pretty good, considering the scans were created from a “copy of a copy”. There are a few scattered places where the text is very difficult to read, but the majority of the text is very readable especially the biblical text itself, which is in a larger font than the notes and annotations. One bonus of this download is that it is fully bookmarked. Every chapter of every book is instantly accessible from Adobe’s bookmark system.”

As mentioned above for No. 1, unless you are adept at reading old english, you will tire VERY quickly in trying to get through the text. But, you will be reading the Duoay-Rheims as it was actually printed, without any Challoner, Haydock, Knox revisions, and without even the transliteration into modern English that Dr. von Peters produced for No. 1 above. This is as close to owning an original Duoay-Rheims Bible from the 1500s/1600s as you can get.
  1. apostolicbible.com/index.htm - I purchased this one because it not only is the best leather bound bible I have ever owned, but the translator actually used the oldest Greek manuscripts available to produce the Septuagint version of the OT, which is what Christ himself and his Apostles quoted approximately 90% of the time while they taught Christian doctrine and tried to convert Jews and Gentiles into Christians. What is amazing about this bible is that the translator did not produce the usual “page parallel page” translation you often find in most polyglot bibles. The translator translated EVERY WORD OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE from the original Greek spoken at the time of Christ and put english wording directly underneath (or above - I have forgotten) each Greek word. In other words, if a verse has 5 Greek words, you will get as close to 5 direct english translation words directly underneath each translated Greek word (some Greek words do not have one word equivalents). It is truly a work of art and scholarship.
With these three bibles, you will be reading the bible as close to how St. Jerome originally translated the “old latin transcripts” to produce the Latin Vulgate.

As I also mentioned in the previous, lengthy post, although I do not believe marketers of “new” DR bibles are intentionally trying to mislead purchasers, the phrase that usually appears at the beginning (which states something like “original manuscripts were consulted to produce the most accurate bible translation today”, or words to that effect) is simply not true.

Unless someone out in the world is sitting on the Holy Grail of biblical archaeology (that is, has a copy of an original St. Jerome Latin Vulgate Bible, along with manuscripts he actually used to produce his Vulgate), NO bible in existence today was produced referring to “the most ancient manuscripts in the original tongues” for one simple reason: they don’t exist.

All we have today are translations of translations of translations of translations, etc. And with each translation, the possibility of error creeps into the mix.

I hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top