Why not a new Catholic Bible translation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psalm89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AmandaPS:
What anti-Catholic source are you getting your erronious information from?

If someone is too lazy to pick up their Bible, they will hear the it in it’s entirety in three years if they go to Mass every Sunday, or in one year if they go every day.
Click to expand...
yes they might just hear the bible but they hear a load of other cr*p aswell like about mary and how she died a virgin and how shes without sin… wheres that i the bible?
 
40.png
Psalm89:
I was reading the Bible Translation report on CA, and have to wonder. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church translate the Bible into contemporary English as to make an official version? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I have often wished for just that. The only “official” version of the complete Bible that I am aware of is the Vulgate which is in Latin. All other (Catholic) translations must conform to it but, as others have pointed out, there are differences of opinion in exactly how things get translated into contemporary languages.
 
40.png
kpnuts2k:
yes they might just hear the bible but they hear a load of other cr*p aswell like about mary and how she died a virgin and how shes without sin… wheres that i the bible?
Click to expand...
Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity would be off topic for this thread, but there are several threads pertaining to it. You may want to look up typology also, particularly about Mary being the ark of the covenant. 🙂
 
40.png
kpnuts2k:
yes they might just hear the bible but they hear a load of other cr*p aswell like about mary and how she died a virgin and how shes without sin… wheres that i the bible?
Click to expand...
You need to familiarize yourself with Catholic teaching a bit more. If you took the time to do so you would realize that the Bible doesn’t teach that it’s authority is exclusive. The Bible clearly teaches the authority of the Church along with Scripture so, if you want to be “biblical” you need to accept both sources of authoritative teaching.

Additionally, simply putting an asterisk in place of vowels does not exempt you from the rules of the forum requiring the use of polite language.
 
I could see that a good paraphase Catholic Bible might be of some benefit. The Protestant translation such as New Living Translation, which is a dynamic equivilent Bible, is very easy to read and is worded in a way that you don’t feel like you are reading something dry, as a literal tranlation can make some feel. But the ONLY benefit to something like this is, is that it helps those who would not read the Bible at all, to at the very least make it more attractive to read the Scriptures.
 
40.png
copland:
I could see that a good paraphase Catholic Bible might be of some benefit. The Protestant translation such as New Living Translation, which is a dynamic equivilent Bible, is very easy to read and is worded in a way that you don’t feel like you are reading something dry, as a literal tranlation can make some feel. But the ONLY benefit to something like this is, is that it helps those who would not read the Bible at all, to at the very least make it more attractive to read the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I own the NLT Catholic Reference Bible. It’s great for devotional use and every now and then will come up with a reading that makes you think more about a passage than you ordinarily might. But for an “authorized version” you’d probably need something more literal or formal equivalent.
 
40.png
kpnuts2k:
yes they might just hear the bible but they hear a load of other cr*p aswell like about mary and how she died a virgin and how shes without sin… wheres that i the bible?
Click to expand...
I and others have made a number of posts to a couple of different threads concerning the Mother of Jesus. I would suggest you refer to them. They are filled with scripture and point to the validity of Catholic teaching. If you can’t locate these posts, send me a private message and your email address, and I will submit a couple of well documented[scripture filled] files for your perusal.

There is no need for you to be hostile in word or intent. We are all brothers and sister in Christ Jesus, and we welcome you and we feel blessed to discuss our differences. There are many things that you obviously do not know about Catholic teaching and where we find references in scripture. I would think that if you wish to disagree with Catholic teaching, you should at least be aware of what exactly the Church teaches and why.
 
40.png
Godefridus:
If you’re looking for accuracy and appropriate material for a study Bible, I would heartily recommend the RSV-CE (Catholic Edition), aka the Ignatius Bible.

Since there’s just so many doggon words in the English language, any translation of the Bible into English will take the shape of the intent of the author(s). NAB has a more, eh, ‘populist’ bent (simple language, great for crowds). Douay Rhiems and KJV are excellent literature and devotional Bibles.
Click to expand...
👍 I concur, the RSV-CE is a great translation! And yes, the Douay Rhiems and KJV are excellent. I’d also say very true to original meaning. Except the KJV doesn’t have the deuterocanonical books.
 
40.png
Psalm89:
I recently purchased an ESV and am very impressed. The accuracy is top notch and the readability is superb. It just doesn’t include the apocrypha, and isn’t official Catholic.
Click to expand...
Just a side note: the books that were “omitted” from the Protestant bible, but remain in the Catholic bible - or “added” to the Catholic bible, depending upon your slant - should be referred to as the deuterocanonical (not a fun word to say). Apocrypha is the word given to mean uncanonical or not of the same stature or reliability of sacred scripture.
:tiphat:
 
40.png
Genuflecter:
And yes, the Douay Rhiems and KJV are excellent. I’d also say very true to original meaning. Except the KJV doesn’t have the deuterocanonical books.
Click to expand...
The KJV originally had the Deuterocanonicals, but called them “Apocrypha” and set them in between the testaments. There are still editions of the KJV available with this, but not many.

Calfskin Leather
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521509467/qid=1089861760/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-2102806-4626508

Paperback
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192835254/ref=cm_bg_d_19/102-2102806-4626508?v=glance

“1611 Edition” Reprint Hardcover (but the spellings are all old too)
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631609/qid=1089862319/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-2102806-4626508
 
J_Chrysostomos
I own the NLT Catholic Reference Bible. It’s great for devotional use and every now and then will come up with a reading that makes you think more about a passage than you ordinarily might. But for an “authorized version” you’d probably need something more literal or formal equivalent.
Click to expand...
I bought my wife a NLT a few years ago, she loves it. It has helped her to be motivated to read the Bible. She say’s it is like reading a novel. But she grew up using the KJV, no wonder, huh!

What I found in the NLT to be a very biased translation. Being a dynamic equivalint translation, it gives you what is supposed to be an equivalint meaning to the Greek or Hebrew into English in order to make the meaning the same but without the characteristics and structure of the Greek or Hebrew carried over, but the total structure of the English language dominant. But what I have found is that no matter what, it is always the case that the translators personal doctrinal position does creep into the translation in a dynamic equivalint version or a paraphrase version such as the Living Bible.

I know when I put my Greek NT on one side and the NLT on the other, and I read passages from the NLT and then from my Greek NT, I just can’t help but cringe at times. But I guess that is just being a little too nit-picky.
 
I agree wholeheartedly that the NLT is very interpretive at times. Since it is by a translation committee and not by one person, it isn’t quite so bad as the Living Bible or the Message. I feel it’s good for casual reading and maybe devotions, but on the whole as a study Bible it’s nothing to write home about.
 
I dont really understand your question; why would you find it important for the Catholic Church to have only one official translations when right now they have several that are all approved by the Church?

I can only imagine your reaction to the Church coming out with the one and only “official” translation and at the same time denouncing all the rest. Everywhere the Church is strict people cry for “freedom of choice” and wherever the Church is open she is question why she not more firm.

What is the official Lutheran bible translation?
 
As many have mentioned here, the RSV-CE is tops. I read Greek, and the RSV is a virtual “pony” for the New Testament. It is the translation used in the English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: If it’s good enough for Ratzinger, it’s good enough for me!
 
40.png
J_Chrysostomos:
The KJV originally had the Deuterocanonicals, but called them “Apocrypha” and set them in between the testaments. There are still editions of the KJV available with this, but not many.

Calfskin Leather
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521509467/qid=1089861760/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-2102806-4626508

Paperback
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192835254/ref=cm_bg_d_19/102-2102806-4626508?v=glance

“1611 Edition” Reprint Hardcover (but the spellings are all old too)
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631609/qid=1089862319/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-2102806-4626508
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links to Amazon, that’s very interesting. I may have to get one of those. I have an NRSV translation (not Catholic edition) that says “with the Apocrypha”. I think it’s an Anglican version. It says Oxford on it.
 
I have been through this tread but no one has mentioned the Jerusalem Bible at all.

I have the RSV, Doauy-Rheims and the Jerusalem Bibles. I find the Jerusalem most readable in today’s English, the Doauy-Rheims, the most “cryptic”.

The New Jerusalem Bible is supposedly the most updated version. Check it out.

However, my bible class instructor, a priest, says that the RSV is probably most accurate in translation.

It really depends on wherever one is a biblical student or reader.

I do not recommend bibles like the Good News that has deuterocanoicals because these are just inserted as separate chapters e.g. “Bel and the Dragon” which distorts the Catholic Bible chapterisations.
 
The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are still around…but, why would you want another translation? The Latin Vulgate…is the best that you’re going to get.
 
40.png
agname:
The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are still around…but, why would you want another translation? The Latin Vulgate…is the best that you’re going to get.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it requires that you understand Latin. And the original version, as with the version I have, doesn’t have any punctuation (no periods, no commas, no question marks)… so you have to be more than just reasonably proficient in the language to figure out how to ‘parse’ things.

(And was Jerome or Augustine right about disputed passages that they argued over?)
 
Having found knowledge, inspiration and comfort in my New American Bible for years I am curious why several people seem to feel it is a flawed translation. The comments about it are rather vague. Can anyone give specific details about why other translations seem superior?

-Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top