S
Sanctus
Guest
Thanks!
- Status
D
Domine_Deus
Guest
TheDouay Rheims is my favourite, I find it must easier to understand and now I pick it up the bible more often to read. After all it’s translated from the Latin Vulgate which Pope John Paul ll and our new holy father Pope Benedict XVI have always used. I purchased it brand new online at Ebay (if anyone is interested) for forty dollars. It’s published by Loretto Publishing. I used to use New American Bible but I enjoy this one much more.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I would respectfully disagree with you, but maybe not for the reason you would expect. I’m sure you already know that the other Greek manuscripts are older than the Textus Receptus, and that through textual criticism scholars are able to use these as the basis for creating a very accurate translation, but what I want to talk about is not the Greek, as I could agree with arguements from either side, but the KJV.
Insofar as translations are concerned, even from the Textus Receptus, the KJV is really bad. It has a myriad of problems. Not only is the English used in it so different from today’s English that a great deal of the words in it don’t even mean the same thing anymore, but in a great many places it actually is translated poorly from the Textus Receptus, the Greek manuscripts which you have come to trust. It is even unfaithful to them in many ways. I’ve also done a lot of study on this.
If you want specific examples of what I am talking about, search the internet for some anti-KJV only sites. Even James White has some good info on it over at www.aomin.org. (lol just don’t read any of his anti-Catholic stuff, and if you do, come back here for the truth. [Also, I do realize that I sound hypocritical in saying James White’s arguements on one topic are valid but his arguements on another are not, but there is really nothing wrong with this statement. A person can be right in one belief but wrong in another.])
M
MaryLiz410
Guest
My favorite is: THE NAVARRE BIBLE Texts and Commentaries.I am blessed to be leading a bible study of 12 senior ladies and this year we are going to study JOHN. The commentaires are wonderful and lead to many good questions.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
One of my priest-friends speaks highly of the Navarre bible.
If I had the time, I would study Hebrew. And then Greek.
I wonder about some translations… a few years ago, I got interested in Thomas Aquinas. There was a college library that had 200+ books by or on Aquinas. And I was browsing through and found a set with both Latin and English. It was a 1968 translation. Anyway, one passage seemed “strangely worded” to me, so I looked at the Latin and puzzled it out and it seemed to be to be translated in a “politically correct” sort of way.
For one thing, they used Sirach instead of Ecclesiasticus, which really stood out. The structure of complex sentences in other languages almost defies translation attemps.
I had to do a “book report” on St. John of the Cross one time and at the “request” of the professor I had to do it over. Anyway, I compared six translations of “Dark Night of the Soul” and they were all radically different.
If I had the time, I would study Hebrew. And then Greek.
I wonder about some translations… a few years ago, I got interested in Thomas Aquinas. There was a college library that had 200+ books by or on Aquinas. And I was browsing through and found a set with both Latin and English. It was a 1968 translation. Anyway, one passage seemed “strangely worded” to me, so I looked at the Latin and puzzled it out and it seemed to be to be translated in a “politically correct” sort of way.
For one thing, they used Sirach instead of Ecclesiasticus, which really stood out. The structure of complex sentences in other languages almost defies translation attemps.
I had to do a “book report” on St. John of the Cross one time and at the “request” of the professor I had to do it over. Anyway, I compared six translations of “Dark Night of the Soul” and they were all radically different.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I greatly prefer the NAB. St. Joseph edition, both for readability and because it is the one the liturgy readings seem to come from. It makes it easy for me to prepare for Sundays when I’m reading at Mass.
I also like the RSV although I don’t find it as readable.
Peace,
John
I also like the RSV although I don’t find it as readable.
Peace,
John
R
RC_Traditional
Guest
Dear Catholics beyond name,
Please read this from the Encyclical of Pope VIII IN 1829- Traditi Humilitati-CONCERNING THE BIBLE:
“We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church’s laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.”
Lets obey the Pope.
RC
Please read this from the Encyclical of Pope VIII IN 1829- Traditi Humilitati-CONCERNING THE BIBLE:
“We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church’s laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.”
Lets obey the Pope.
RC
L
Larry_B
Guest
I am not sure if this was stated previously but the Navarre and the Ignatius Study bibles utilize the RSV CE with commentaries. I find benefit from both of these as well as my Haydock Study Bible - Douay with its voluminous notes. My next purchase will be either the Confraternity or the Jerusalem Bible. I like the various translations and like to compare on occasion the different translations.
Larry
Larry
K
Karmelitanum
Guest
I have come full circle to my first love, the Doauy-Rheims (Chanoller Revision). The Haydock is a fantastic literal translation and the footnotes exceed anything I have seen, including the Navarre.
T
Thomas_More_1
Guest
When the Catechism says that epiousios “occurs nowhere else in the New Testament”, that only means outside of the Lord’s Prayer.I like the Douay Rheims despite it’s archaic language (and the fact that Hebrew names are given Greek renderings) because it hasn’t suffered from liberal influence like modern some modern translations, plus the notes by Bishop Challoner (who revised the DRV in the 18th century) are unabashedly Catholic. An interesting thing about it’s translation of Matt 6:11: The Douay reads “Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.” I thought this was a weird translation, since not only is it the only English Bible to use this word (I’ve since discovered that it comes directly from the Vulgate ‘supersubstantialum’) but the Douay renders Luke 11:3 as ‘daily bread’ just like the other English Bibles. However, it made perfect sense when I read paragraph 2837 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
*“Daily” *(*epiousios) *occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day”, to confirm in us trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing necessary for subsistence. Taken literally (*epi-osios: *"super-essential") it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life in us. Finally in this connection, it’s heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.
Hmmm…I wonder if the translators of the Douay-Rheims (and for that matter, St Jerome, author of the Vulgate Bible that it was based on) were more on the money than we realized…:clapping:
Epiousios is actually used in two places: the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:11 and the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:3. (I checked a “Greek New Testament” on my pc, and also my Nestle-Aland, to confirm this).
Epiousisos can be translated “supersubstantial” or “daily” both correctly, but why does the DR choose the former in Matthew and the latter in Luke? It follows the Vulgate of course, so I should ask, why does the Vulgate use “supersubstantialem” in Matthew and “cotidianum” in Luke?
Not incorrect, but inconsistent.
B
Bishopite
Guest
The NIV is for the most part a good translation, I have heard from Greek and Hebrew scholars, however there are a number of problems with its translation it use the word “tradition” or paradosis in Greek.
There are thirteen instances of the term tradition in the New Testament, usually in the plural Greek form. Of those thirteen times, ten of them use the word paradosis or traditions in a negative way, and three in a positive. Human tradition or traditions of men are simply man made traditions not from God Himself.
Yet in the other three instances that Scripture uses the word Tradition in a positive light, which are Apostolic Traditions NOT from men but from God, the NIV uses the word “teachings” even though the Greek word is the word Traditions, the same word, paradosis. The Greek word for “teachings” is didaskalia, yet in 2 Thes 2:15,3:6 and 1 Cor 11:2 the NIV (or those who translated it) translates it “teachings” even though the Greek word is paradosis. It sounds as though they are trying to covey the idea that ALL Tradition is bad.
This isn’t so as Scripture attests; there are traditions of men and Oral Apostolic Traditions which come from God. Verses like Mt 23:2-3, Heb 11:36, Acts 20:35 are a few among many that mention oral Traditions in the Bible yet are no where found in Scripture. Romans 5:1 is also a problem which reformed Protestants use to justify their position on justification (that we can’t loose our salvation) yet I don’t have time to comment on that.
There are thirteen instances of the term tradition in the New Testament, usually in the plural Greek form. Of those thirteen times, ten of them use the word paradosis or traditions in a negative way, and three in a positive. Human tradition or traditions of men are simply man made traditions not from God Himself.
Yet in the other three instances that Scripture uses the word Tradition in a positive light, which are Apostolic Traditions NOT from men but from God, the NIV uses the word “teachings” even though the Greek word is the word Traditions, the same word, paradosis. The Greek word for “teachings” is didaskalia, yet in 2 Thes 2:15,3:6 and 1 Cor 11:2 the NIV (or those who translated it) translates it “teachings” even though the Greek word is paradosis. It sounds as though they are trying to covey the idea that ALL Tradition is bad.
This isn’t so as Scripture attests; there are traditions of men and Oral Apostolic Traditions which come from God. Verses like Mt 23:2-3, Heb 11:36, Acts 20:35 are a few among many that mention oral Traditions in the Bible yet are no where found in Scripture. Romans 5:1 is also a problem which reformed Protestants use to justify their position on justification (that we can’t loose our salvation) yet I don’t have time to comment on that.
C
Covenant_man
Guest
I love the ESV of the Bible. It is one of the most literal translation out there along with the NASB.
S
saenzmg
Guest
I’m no expert, but I voted Other. Am I the only one here who speaks something besides the same 'ol English, Greek, and Hebrew?
The first Bible I bought was **NASV ** from Nelson. I bought it because a friend recommended it for literal accuracy, I think it’s readable, and I think the notes and cross-references are useful. It’s also cool for discussing with non-Catholics because it gives an air of credibility at times. There are notes that conflict with Catholic teaching, but not as many as some Bibles.
*NIV * was intended to be more readable. I think some parts are, and some parts aren’t. Plus, the NIVs I’ve seen have plenty of notes that conflict with Catholic teaching. (The NASV had fewer - go figure.)
The **NAB St. Joseph edition ** matches the US Lectionary. So it will sound very familiar if you attend mass frequently. But the NASV notes and references seemed more useful to me . I also read a few NAB notes that didn’t seem to match my understanding of what the Church teaches. (Go figure some more.)]
Also, I recently bought the Ignatius RSVCE NT on CD. I like the reader’s performance - expressive, but calming and friendly. Good job! My 5 month old son likes to listen to it in the car. But I did notice a couple of spots where I had to think about whether the translation matched my previous understanding of what the Church teaches. (OK that’s 4 Bibles with notes or translation that don’t seem to match - is it me?)
My favorite is actually the Biblia Latinoamericana, which is in Latin-American Spanish. It has good notes and cross-references. We used it for Bible study, and people liked it. It matches the US Spanish Lectionary well, and it matches Church teaching as far as I can tell. (OK - go become fluent in Spanish, and then I can recommend a Bible to you.)
[The **Biblia Jerusalen in Latin-American Spanish just wasn’t the right style for me. I’d classify it as the NAB of Bibles in Spanish.]
The **Reina-Valera ** is the KJV of Bibles in Spanish. The title sounds like it’s related to Mary (Worthy Queen). This seems ironic for a non-Catholic Bible, and can be confusing to a Catholic who is buying a Bible.
The Santa Biblia is in Spanish that is spoken in Spain (Castellano). This is the gold-edged fancy leather one covered with a layer of dust on coffee tables in Spanish-speaking homes. I like it because it’s a beautifully poetic Catholic translation, but many younger people in Latin-America wouldn’t relate to it as well. As with any exercise program, consult your doctor before lifting it from the coffee table to read.
I hear there are a couple of Catholic Bibles in Latin-American Spanish that do not have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat on purpose. They wanted them to be more marketable to non-Catholics. (What happens when newbies show up at Bible Study with books that the rest of the group hasn’t ever read? How far do they read before they realize it?)
Someone asked me for a recommendation for a Bible in Portuguese, but I don’t own any. Let me know if you do. What about French? German? And where’d the Dutch guy go?
The first Bible I bought was **NASV ** from Nelson. I bought it because a friend recommended it for literal accuracy, I think it’s readable, and I think the notes and cross-references are useful. It’s also cool for discussing with non-Catholics because it gives an air of credibility at times. There are notes that conflict with Catholic teaching, but not as many as some Bibles.
*NIV * was intended to be more readable. I think some parts are, and some parts aren’t. Plus, the NIVs I’ve seen have plenty of notes that conflict with Catholic teaching. (The NASV had fewer - go figure.)
The **NAB St. Joseph edition ** matches the US Lectionary. So it will sound very familiar if you attend mass frequently. But the NASV notes and references seemed more useful to me . I also read a few NAB notes that didn’t seem to match my understanding of what the Church teaches. (Go figure some more.)]
Also, I recently bought the Ignatius RSVCE NT on CD. I like the reader’s performance - expressive, but calming and friendly. Good job! My 5 month old son likes to listen to it in the car. But I did notice a couple of spots where I had to think about whether the translation matched my previous understanding of what the Church teaches. (OK that’s 4 Bibles with notes or translation that don’t seem to match - is it me?)
My favorite is actually the Biblia Latinoamericana, which is in Latin-American Spanish. It has good notes and cross-references. We used it for Bible study, and people liked it. It matches the US Spanish Lectionary well, and it matches Church teaching as far as I can tell. (OK - go become fluent in Spanish, and then I can recommend a Bible to you.)
[The **Biblia Jerusalen in Latin-American Spanish just wasn’t the right style for me. I’d classify it as the NAB of Bibles in Spanish.]
The **Reina-Valera ** is the KJV of Bibles in Spanish. The title sounds like it’s related to Mary (Worthy Queen). This seems ironic for a non-Catholic Bible, and can be confusing to a Catholic who is buying a Bible.
The Santa Biblia is in Spanish that is spoken in Spain (Castellano). This is the gold-edged fancy leather one covered with a layer of dust on coffee tables in Spanish-speaking homes. I like it because it’s a beautifully poetic Catholic translation, but many younger people in Latin-America wouldn’t relate to it as well. As with any exercise program, consult your doctor before lifting it from the coffee table to read.
I hear there are a couple of Catholic Bibles in Latin-American Spanish that do not have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat on purpose. They wanted them to be more marketable to non-Catholics. (What happens when newbies show up at Bible Study with books that the rest of the group hasn’t ever read? How far do they read before they realize it?)
Someone asked me for a recommendation for a Bible in Portuguese, but I don’t own any. Let me know if you do. What about French? German? And where’d the Dutch guy go?
- Status