Which bible translation should i use to begin memorizing bible verses?

[Saul_to_Paul_1]

Ok, so it looks like either:

“Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

or

“New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

is the way to go.

For some reason, the few quick verses i have looked at look nicer in the “revised edition” rather than the “new revised edition”.

P.S. Is there any translation that is accepted by both the protestant and catholic church?. Some Protestants i know might not like being quoted to from a “catholic edition” bible.

Some Protestants use the RSV or NRSV. That’s probably your best bet. Good luck with the verse memorization. I get started on it then stop for one reason or another. I’m going to start up again. One good resource is the book 150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know by Patrick Madrid.

 

[Vico]

Ok, so it looks like either:

“Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

or

“New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

is the way to go.

For some reason, the few quick verses i have looked at look nicer in the “revised edition” rather than the “new revised edition”.

P.S. Is there any translation that is accepted by both the protestant and catholic church?. Some Protestants i know might not like being quoted to from a “catholic edition” bible.

Many have preferred the RSVCE (from 1965-1966) to the NRSVCE (from 1989). The RSVCE retains thee and thou, but then some prefer the inclusive language. The NRSV is the basis of the Canadian lectionary. The NABRE will be the basis of the new US lectionary which will likely receive approval by 2020.

Isaiah 9:2-3
RSVCE (1965-66):
The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.
Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

NAB (1970):
The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; Upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone.
You have brought them abundant joy and great rejoicing, As they rejoice before you as at the harvest, as men make merry when dividing spoils.

NRSV (1989, 1993):
The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness on them light has shined.
You have multiplied the nation, you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as people exult when dividing plunder.

NABRE (2011):
The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; Upon those who lived in a land of gloom a light has shone.
You have brought them abundant joy and great rejoicing; They rejoice before you as people rejoice at harvest, as they exult when dividing the spoils.

Luke 2:27-33
RSVCE (1965-66):
And inspired by the Spirit he came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel.” And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him;

NAB (1970):
He came to the temple now, inspired by the Spirit, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform for him the customary ritual of the law, he took him into his arms and blessed God, in these words: “Now, Master, you can dismiss your servant in peace, you have fulfilled your word. For my eyes have witnessed your salving deed displayed for all the people to see: A revealing light to the Gentiles, the glory of your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother were marveling at what was being said about him.

NRSV (1989, 1993):
Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying, “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him.

NABRE (2011):
He came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform the custom of the law in regard to him, he took him into his arms and blessed God, saying: “Now, Master, you may let your servant go in peace, according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you prepared in sight of all the peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and glory for your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him;

 

[ProVobis]

Good point. Thank you for the correction!

Here is a listing of the source documents:

Jerome’s independent translation from the Hebrew: the books of the Hebrew Bible, usually not including his translation of the Psalms. This was completed in 405.

Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon. The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, the other two additions Jerome moved to the end of the book.

Translation from the Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the book of Esther.

Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms. Jerome’s Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive.

Free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version: Tobias and Judith.

Revision by Jerome of the Old Latin, corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available: the Gospels.

Old Latin, more or less revised by a person or persons unknown: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Esdras, Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse.

Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Good information. Thanks.

 

[Brendan_64]

The RSVCE is good. It is apparently quite close to the KJV and does not use inclusive language as the NRSV does. Why would a Bible need to use inclusive language? To me that is quite suspect (in my opinion).

I like the RSVCE.

 

[porthos11]

Ok, so it looks like either:

“Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

or

“New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

is the way to go.

For some reason, the few quick verses i have looked at look nicer in the “revised edition” rather than the “new revised edition”.

P.S. Is there any translation that is accepted by both the protestant and catholic church?. Some Protestants i know might not like being quoted to from a “catholic edition” bible.

The RSV and NRSV are in both Catholic and Protestant use, but I (and others) strongly dislike the NRSV despite its excellent scholarship because of its overuse of inclusive language.

Neither version is especially popular with the Evangelical crowd, though, who tend towards the NIV, ESV, NASB and KJV. But the RSV is sufficiently close to the ESV and KJV that you can probably get away with it.

 

[Vico]

The RSVCE is good. It is apparently quite close to the KJV and does not use inclusive language as the NRSV does. Why would a Bible need to use inclusive language? To me that is quite suspect (in my opinion).

I like the RSVCE.

Mainly gender inclusive language is intended for lectionary use, See this from NCCB, 1990:

1. Five historical developments have converged to present the Church in the United States today with an important and challenging pastoral concern.

• First, the introduction of the vernacular into the Church’s worship has necessitated English translations of the liturgical books and of sacred scripture for use in the liturgy. * Second, some segments of American culture have become increasingly sensitive to “exclusive language,” i.e., language which seems to exclude the equality and dignity of each person regardless of race, gender, creed, age or ability. 1
• Third, there has been a noticeable loss of the sense of grammatical gender in American usage of the English language.
• Fourth, English vocabulary itself has changed so that words which once referred to all human beings are increasingly taken as gender-specific and, consequently, exclusive. * Fifth, impromptu efforts at inclusive language, while pleasing to some, have often offended others who expect a degree of theological precision and linguistic or aesthetic refinement in the public discourse of the liturgy. Some impromptu efforts may also have unwittingly undermined essentials of Catholic doctrine.

…

1. When a biblical translation is meant for liturgical proclamation, it must also take into account those principles which apply to the public communication of the biblical meaning. Inclusive language is one of those principles, since the text is proclaimed in the Christian assembly to women and men who possess equal baptismal dignity and reflects the universal scope of the Church’s call to evangelize.

bible-researcher.com/nccb.criteria.html

 

[Brendan_64]

Inclusive language is one of those principles, since the text is proclaimed in the Christian assembly to women and men who possess equal baptismal dignity and reflects the universal scope of the Church’s call to evangelize.

Which seems to imply that previous versions of the Bible used language that excluded people and did not properly respect their dignity.

That seems to be very much a case of the Church conforming itself to secular values based on a false understanding of ‘equality’.

 

[HelenRose]

My new years resolution this year is to learn some of the key bible verses.

Which translation is the best for this?

I’d like a Catholic approved translation that is as close as possible to the King James bible as i want to be able to converse with protestants using my bible verses.

Would it be ok to just use the King James bible altogether? And just learn my verses from that?

I am hard pressed to even consider memorizing “The Lord is my Shepherd” in any other translation other than the King James Version. This is the language of my youth. And although I recognize the new translations as being more accurate - still the beauty of King James Version wins hands down.

So, my advice is to memorize the verses that are important to you in with the translation that speaks most to your heart. You know the expression, “Memorize by heart.” That is what you should do.

 

[Harry123]

The RSVCE it is!

I dont like the idea of the overly inclusive language of the NRSVCE. I would have considered the RSV-2CE (ignatius) but that translation is not available on biblegateway.com. The RSVCE is.

Thanks everybody!

 

[porthos11]

I am hard pressed to even consider memorizing “The Lord is my Shepherd” in any other translation other than the King James Version. This is the language of my youth. And although I recognize the new translations as being more accurate - still the beauty of King James Version wins hands down.

So, my advice is to memorize the verses that are important to you in with the translation that speaks most to your heart. You know the expression, “Memorize by heart.” That is what you should do.

This comes to mind, and the RSV has retained it.

I can’t stand the way it’s rendered in the DR, for example: The Lord ruleth me.

You bring up THE prime example. When it comes to Psalm 23, the King James has this pretty much nailed as far as the quality of the English goes.

 

[Vico]

Which seems to imply that previous versions of the Bible used language that excluded people and did not properly respect their dignity.

That seems to be very much a case of the Church conforming itself to secular values based on a false understanding of ‘equality’.

They were explicit in identifying the sources of change. Because there is cultural change, what was dignified at one time, may not appear dignified later.

 

[Brendan_64]

They were explicit in identifying the sources of change. Because there is cultural change, what was dignified at one time, may not appear dignified later.

And there was me thinking that the Church was counter-culture.

 

[Vico]

And there was me thinking that the Church was counter-culture.

Patricia Zapor wrote in 2011 (CNA), about NABRE

In other places in the NABRE, even casual readers may catch the differences.

She and Benedictine Father Joseph Jensen, executive secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association and one of the scholars who worked on the translation, both gave two examples of the type of changes everyday readers might notice: the disappearance of the words “cereal” and “booty.”

The goal when possible was “to make the language more contemporary,” said Father Jensen. In today’s culture the phrase “cereal offering” conjures up images of Wheaties and Cheerios, not the bushels of wheat type of offering that the term is intended to mean, he said.

The word “booty” also has taken on the slang meanings of “buttocks” or sometimes, “sexual intercourse,” instead of its primary meaning of “plunder,” such as a marauding army might acquire.

Sperry said another change made for contemporary readers was the elimination of the word “holocaust” in favor of “burnt offerings.” Since millions of Jews were killed in German death camps before and during World War II, the word Holocaust has gradually come to specifically refer only to that period of history, she explained.

revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/word-holocaust-to-be-removed-from.html

 

[Brendan_64]

Patricia Zapor wrote in 2011 (CNA), about NABRE

In other places in the NABRE, even casual readers may catch the differences.

She and Benedictine Father Joseph Jensen, executive secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association and one of the scholars who worked on the translation, both gave two examples of the type of changes everyday readers might notice: the disappearance of the words “cereal” and “booty.”

The goal when possible was “to make the language more contemporary,” said Father Jensen. In today’s culture the phrase “cereal offering” conjures up images of Wheaties and Cheerios, not the bushels of wheat type of offering that the term is intended to mean, he said.

The word “booty” also has taken on the slang meanings of “buttocks” or sometimes, “sexual intercourse,” instead of its primary meaning of “plunder,” such as a marauding army might acquire.

Sperry said another change made for contemporary readers was the elimination of the word “holocaust” in favor of “burnt offerings.” Since millions of Jews were killed in German death camps before and during World War II, the word Holocaust has gradually come to specifically refer only to that period of history, she explained.

revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/word-holocaust-to-be-removed-from.html

If the word ‘booty’ is removed because of what it means in street slang, then why not go the whole hog and throw in some street slang? That would make the language more contemporary.

Changing language to represent absolute changes in the literal meanings of words would be one thing (and this is very rare and does not apply in the case of words such as cereal and booty which still retain their proper meanings) but to change the language to take account of prevailing cultural norms, or to avoid offending people is to conform scripture to the culture around us.

But then again one of the key commandments of today’s culture is, “Thou must not cause offence through what you do, say or write, even if to cause offence is not your intention”.

 

[Vico]

If the word ‘booty’ is removed because of what it means in street slang, then why not go the whole hog and throw in some street slang? That would make the language more contemporary.

Changing language to represent absolute changes in the literal meanings of words would be one thing (and this is very rare and does not apply in the case of words such as cereal and booty which still retain their proper meanings) but to change the language to take account of prevailing cultural norms, or to avoid offending people is to conform scripture to the culture around us.

But then again one of the key commandments of today’s culture is, “Thou must not cause offence through what you do, say or write, even if to cause offence is not your intention”.

Yes, to conform scripture to the culture around us is what they intentionally did per their guidelines: “Second, some segments of American culture have become increasingly sensitive to “exclusive language,” i.e., language which seems to exclude the equality and dignity of each person regardless of race, gender, creed, age or ability. 1”

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes, to conform scripture to the culture around us is what they intentionally did per their guidelines:

I wonder how that squares with St Paul telling us not to conform ourselves to to this world?

I’m not meaning to knock these versions of the Bible, and they have clearly been approved, but it does raise questions. Each to his own I suppose.

 

[Vico]

I wonder how that squares with St Paul telling us not to conform ourselves to to this world?

I’m not meaning to knock these versions of the Bible, and they have clearly been approved, but it does raise questions. Each to his own I suppose.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.

 

[Brendan_64]

Romans 12:2 Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.

Words that ought to be paid close attention to by all in the Church today.