C
- Status
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I have mixed feelings about the NRSV: It is the Bible my church uses, and in third grade I was given one with my name inscribed in shiny gold letters. 
Aesthetically I far prefer the King James Version’s splendid phrasing to the NRSV’s clunky gender-neutral shufflings, but at least half of my Bible-reading is still with the NRSV. And its prologue to John’s Gospel is, in my opinion, by far the best-sounding of any translation.
*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. *
Aesthetically I far prefer the King James Version’s splendid phrasing to the NRSV’s clunky gender-neutral shufflings, but at least half of my Bible-reading is still with the NRSV. And its prologue to John’s Gospel is, in my opinion, by far the best-sounding of any translation.
*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. *
J
JTJohnson
Guest
I always found the New King James Version lighter than the Douay-Rheims, RSV, NRSV and NAB.
J
JTJohnson
Guest
This passage from John gives me the mental image of John standing before a light talking to the light:
He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light
Where as:
This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
Since the light is Jesus this version makes more since. John is to preach about Jesus the light not to Jesus the light.
Just my opinion.
And I’m pretty sure this isn’t a Catholic Bible.
He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light
Where as:
This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
Since the light is Jesus this version makes more since. John is to preach about Jesus the light not to Jesus the light.
Just my opinion.
And I’m pretty sure this isn’t a Catholic Bible.
J
JTJohnson
Guest
In my opinion none of these versions give Mary the honor she is due.
Luke 1:28
King James Bible:
And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you
The New Jerusalem Bible:
He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’ blessed are you among women!
NRSV:
And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one!
NAB:
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
Favored one does not take the place of full of grace.
If it does then you have to change the Hail Mary prayer to Hail Mary favored one instead of Hail Mary full of grace.
There is a difference, a big difference.
Douay-Rheims
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
Luke 1:28
King James Bible:
And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you
The New Jerusalem Bible:
He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’ blessed are you among women!
NRSV:
And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one!
NAB:
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
Favored one does not take the place of full of grace.
If it does then you have to change the Hail Mary prayer to Hail Mary favored one instead of Hail Mary full of grace.
There is a difference, a big difference.
Douay-Rheims
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
From reading the articles you gave it seems that the Canadian Churches had already been approved new lectionaries using the NRSV translation since 1992. And that the order to disprove the translation came in 1995. How could they be in ‘sinful disobedience’ if they had originally had approval? It’s more likely they were in negotiations rather than ‘sinful disobedience’. To switch to another translation after having made everything in the NRSV would of course take time and money. I don’t think you are presenting a balanced view of things. But you are entitled to your own opinion.
E
excubitor
Guest
I only trust the KJV and the DR. Everything else is a twisted product of the corrupted Westcott and Hort greek text which has been only marginally improved by Nestle Aland.
Pius XII in that kind of hopeful optimism so typical of the Popes which were to follow him in DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU encouraged the scholarship of the “original” greek. He imagined and hoped that the scholars (most of whom are not catholic I might add) would better appreciated and understand the original languages (whatever they might be) than did the medieval scholars like Erasmus and even better than Jerome.
In reality this hopeful optism has not been shown to have been fruitful. Westcott & Hort assembled a cacophony of manuscripts under the unproven “Older is better” rule. They then had such a wide choice of conflicting readings that they then invented more rules to decide which reading they would choose in which case. The final result was a Greek manuscript that was unlike any other manuscript before it.
What happened to sacred tradition? Surely the traditional text handed down through all the vast ages is better than some dusty old manuscript which may or may not have been trustworthy way back then 1000 years ago.
Erasmus, when compiling his manuscript used an entirely different approach to Westcott & Hort. He used the traditional reading which was common to the vast majority of extant texts and gave a greater weight to the manuscripts of the highest reputation among Christians.
From this masterful scholarship the KJV was translated. The NKJV also is translated from the Erasmus Greek, but sadly it is heavily influenced by other modern translations which use inadmissable techniques like dynamic equivalence of translation and paraphrasing to make the scripture more readable. These techniques vastly open the scriptures to the personal bias of the translator which is just flat out wrong. The KJV and the DR however are strict literal word for word (as much as is possible) translations. If the text was obscure in the original, then the obscure sense is presented in the translation.
The KJV has the additional value of being reconciled to the Latin and the other ancient languages such as the Aramaic. The KJV is without peer in the English language. Everything else is a poor shadow in comparison.
I would like to see some of the KJV corrected slightly to fix up archaic language but so far all such attempts have been monumental failures. The NKJV is the best attempt so far but still no where near up to scratch.
Pius XII in that kind of hopeful optimism so typical of the Popes which were to follow him in DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU encouraged the scholarship of the “original” greek. He imagined and hoped that the scholars (most of whom are not catholic I might add) would better appreciated and understand the original languages (whatever they might be) than did the medieval scholars like Erasmus and even better than Jerome.
In reality this hopeful optism has not been shown to have been fruitful. Westcott & Hort assembled a cacophony of manuscripts under the unproven “Older is better” rule. They then had such a wide choice of conflicting readings that they then invented more rules to decide which reading they would choose in which case. The final result was a Greek manuscript that was unlike any other manuscript before it.
What happened to sacred tradition? Surely the traditional text handed down through all the vast ages is better than some dusty old manuscript which may or may not have been trustworthy way back then 1000 years ago.
Erasmus, when compiling his manuscript used an entirely different approach to Westcott & Hort. He used the traditional reading which was common to the vast majority of extant texts and gave a greater weight to the manuscripts of the highest reputation among Christians.
From this masterful scholarship the KJV was translated. The NKJV also is translated from the Erasmus Greek, but sadly it is heavily influenced by other modern translations which use inadmissable techniques like dynamic equivalence of translation and paraphrasing to make the scripture more readable. These techniques vastly open the scriptures to the personal bias of the translator which is just flat out wrong. The KJV and the DR however are strict literal word for word (as much as is possible) translations. If the text was obscure in the original, then the obscure sense is presented in the translation.
The KJV has the additional value of being reconciled to the Latin and the other ancient languages such as the Aramaic. The KJV is without peer in the English language. Everything else is a poor shadow in comparison.
I would like to see some of the KJV corrected slightly to fix up archaic language but so far all such attempts have been monumental failures. The NKJV is the best attempt so far but still no where near up to scratch.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Actually it was like this.
The original Scripture writer had put in a long session on a boring topic of clean and unclean foods, so he nipped out to put the kettle on. While he was out, one of his kids came in, saw the locust dad was using for an example, and pulled off the two front legs, and then disappeared before he got caught.
Meanwhile dad came back in, put the cuppa next to the papyrus, and sat down to write. He picked up his stylus and then looked at the locust. “Strange” he thought to himself, “I could have sworn locusts have six legs.” He scratched out six, and changed it to four.
Scripture being Scripture, it’s stayed that way ever since.
C
crazzeto
Guest
lol… Oddly other (older scriptures) seem to disagree with the “insects” translation. Makes me wish I was as good with Hebrew as Ft. Mitch is, ah well. I like your story better, I think I’ll stick with that
C
CalCatholic
Guest
That’s because it is missing 7 books.
C
centurionguard
Guest
I believe your mistaken. The NRSV translation received Ecclesiastical Approval in 1992 by the CCCB (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops). However this approval by the Bishops was was NEVER sanctioned by the Vatican’s Prefect to the Sacred Congregation of Divine Liturgy, which at the time would have been Cardinal Ratzinger.
In 1992 the new Lectionary and Sacramentary were changed from the former Jerusalem translation. In fact it wasn’t until eighteen years later after 1992 that the Vatican officially sanctioned approval of the NRSV in 2007 for Canada.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/canadian_lectionarys_inclusive_language_receives_vatican_approval/
So were the CCCB in disobedience between 1992-2007 for using the Inclusive Language form integrated into the Lectionary and Sacramentary all those years after the Vatican sent several letters telling the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to stop use of the forbidden Inclusive Language?
Isn’t it odd that the New RSV Canadian Lectionary has most inclusive language terms in the Lectionary removed?
Well at least I’m thankful for that.
- Status