Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

NRSV bible translation


Maccabeus

Recommended Posts

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 27 2005, 09:23 PM']personally, i would burn every inclusive-language translation i could get my hands on....................but that's just me
[right][snapback]625748[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sometimes I have similar thoughts, the only difference is that I think of it as being corrupt. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't use the NRSV in good conscience, knowing the Church doesn't allow it for liturgy and it contains inclusive language. I will stick to the Ignatius Bible, along with Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, etc. hehe :) I love using the same Bible as such giants in the Faith! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

photosynthesis

I like the RSV... the language is understandable, but it's not so modern that they say things like "covenant box" instead of Tabernacle. I like the thee's and the thou's, but I can do without the spakeths and the whosoevers, so RSV is good for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jun 28 2005, 10:27 AM']I like the RSV...  the language is understandable, but it's not so modern that they say things like "covenant box" instead of Tabernacle.  I like the thee's and the thou's, but I can do without the spakeths and the whosoevers, so RSV is good for me.
[right][snapback]626246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree it is a very readable version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

is their one on the lnternet?

i like the DRV the best

i hate the NRSV for my first communion my cousins got me the "catholic" NRSV... It was a protestant translation if their every was one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[quote]In their translation, the Douay-Rheims translators took great pains to translate exactly. Contrary to the procedure of the modern Bible translators, when a passage seemed strange and unintelligible they left it alone, even if obscure, and "let the chips fall as they may." The modern Bible translators, on the other hand, will often look at an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate into words that bring out that meaning. The result is that the English is usually (not always!) easier to understand, but it is not necessarily what the Bible says; rather, it is their interpretation and understanding of what the Bible says. Moreover, the Holy Ghost may have hidden several additional meanings in the passage. Those meanings may well be completely translated out![/quote]

from the preface to the DRV 1989

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 27 2005, 09:23 PM']personally, i would burn every inclusive-language translation i could get my hands on....................but that's just me
[right][snapback]625748[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Phat......I totally agree with you.....it is a God awful translation that is a proponent horizontal theology and not very scholarly. Why not very scholarly? Because it doesn't keep vertical theology in mind. That is directly contrary to Catholic theology.

That version of the Bible, as in the KJV and NIV is in Bad form.

I read the RSVCE from Scepter Publishers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:22 AM']from the preface to the DRV 1989
[right][snapback]627171[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My understanding of how Scripture translation is supposed to happen:

1. Start with original Greek and Hebrew.
2. Translate.
3. Keep in mind that when you translate, you should translate hard-to-translate passages in the way that the Novo Vulgata does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...