Maccabeus Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 In the recent couple weeks I feel in love with the Douay Rheimes bible translation, before it I use to study the KJV than the RSVCE and one thing that troubles me is that in the the DR just like the KJV at the end of [b]Luke 1:28[/b] it says "Blessed art thou amongst women" and in the RSVCE it omits that ending. Shouldn't both the Douay R, & the RSVCE be the same since their Catholic?
Vincent Vega Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Maccabeus' timestamp='1314462243' post='2295824']Shouldn't both the Douay R, & the RSVCE be the same since their Catholic? [/quote] Just because it has an imprimatur does not mean that it isn't a garbage translation (cf. GNT). Edited August 27, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS
Lil Red Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1314462459' post='2295826'] Just because it has an imprimatur does not mean that it isn't a garbage translation (cf. GNT). [/quote] RSV-CE isn't 'garbage'.
faithcecelia Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Quickly flicking to my Comparative Text Bible (4 in 1) both King James and Amplified do have the phrase, whereas NAS and NIV don't. There is a note to say that some early texts don't have it, so I guess that its been debatable from the beginning. It is things such as this that make me use at least 2 and often as many as 6 or more translations if I am doing actual study rather than just one, all translations are lacking in one way or another.
faithcecelia Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Scanning a bit further on, I do wonder if this was a later addition to verse 28 to mirror Elizabeth's greeting in verse42.
Vincent Vega Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1314463172' post='2295834'] RSV-CE isn't 'garbage'. [/quote] I didn't say it was. I just said that having an imprimatur doesn't automatically certify that it isn't garbage.
Lil Red Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1314463514' post='2295839'] I didn't say it was. I just said that having an imprimatur doesn't automatically certify that it isn't garbage. [/quote] kay
ardillacid Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Whew! That was a close call [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1314463514' post='2295839'] I didn't say it was. I just said that having an imprimatur doesn't automatically certify that it isn't garbage.[/quote]
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 There are thousands (hundreds of thousands according to Ehrman) of textual variants in the extant New Testament manuscripts and fragments. This one is perhaps easily explained as a copyist error--text duplicated from the identical phrase a few verses later.
Maccabeus Posted August 27, 2011 Author Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1314463329' post='2295838'] Scanning a bit further on, I do wonder if this was a later addition to verse 28 to mirror Elizabeth's greeting in verse42. [/quote] Interesting point of few, Since it is written in Verse42, than Verse 28 isn't necessarily wrong.
faithcecelia Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='Maccabeus' timestamp='1314469953' post='2295905'] Interesting point of few, Since it is written in Verse42, than Verse 28 isn't necessarily wrong. [/quote] I don't say it is wrong, merely speculate that as all (as far as I have available) translations have it in v42 and only half seem to have it in v28, it is possibly a mistake.
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='Maccabeus' timestamp='1314469953' post='2295905'] Interesting point of few, Since it is written in Verse42, than Verse 28 isn't necessarily wrong. [/quote] FWIW, biblical inerrancy, as I understand it, does not assert that copies and translations are free of error.
faithcecelia Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314470546' post='2295909'] FWIW, biblical inerrancy, as I understand it, does not assert that copies and translations are free of error. [/quote] Indeed, its is commonly known that there have always been errors, such as the Vulgate stating that Moses had horns [img]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k216/ruthbale/michelangelo_moses1.jpg[/img]
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1314470735' post='2295912'] Indeed, its is commonly known that there have always been errors, such as the Vulgate stating that Moses had horns [/quote] Haha. That's epic.
Byzantine Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1314470735' post='2295912'] Indeed, its is commonly known that there have always been errors, such as the Vulgate stating that Moses had horns [img]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k216/ruthbale/michelangelo_moses1.jpg[/img] [/quote] [size=8][font=comic sans ms,cursive]HUH?[/font][/size]
Maccabeus Posted August 27, 2011 Author Posted August 27, 2011 which verse does it speak about Moses this way?
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='Maccabeus' timestamp='1314472378' post='2295927'] which verse does it speak about Moses this way? [/quote] Cumque descenderet Moses de monte Sinai tenebat duas tabulas testimonii et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Dei...qui videbant faciem egredientis Mosi esse cornutam sed operiebat rursus ille faciem suam si quando loquebatur ad eos. "And when Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord...And they saw that the face of Moses when he came out was horned, but he covered his face again, if at any time he spoke to them." Exodus 34:29,35 sources: [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2034:29-34:35&version=VULGATE"][1][/url][url="http://drbo.org/cgi-...h=34&l=30&f=s#x"][2][/url]
faithcecelia Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Its the verse that speaks of Moses being so radient that he needed to veil his face, it apparantly more literally translates as 'his face shone forth beams of light' which was mistakenly translated as 'his face showed horns'.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314472744' post='2295931'] Cumque descenderet Moses de monte Sinai tenebat duas tabulas testimonii et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Dei...qui videbant faciem egredientis Mosi esse cornutam sed operiebat rursus ille faciem suam si quando loquebatur ad eos. "And when Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord...And they saw that the face of Moses when he came out was horned, but he covered his face again, if at any time he spoke to them." Exodus 34:29,35 sources: [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2034:29-34:35&version=VULGATE"][1][/url][url="http://drbo.org/cgi-...h=34&l=30&f=s#x"][2][/url] [/quote] Beat me to it, and far better said too!
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1314472839' post='2295932'] Its the verse that speaks of Moses being so radient that he needed to veil his face, it apparantly more literally translates as 'his face shone forth beams of light' which was mistakenly translated as 'his face showed horns'. Beat me to it, and far better said too! [/quote] I gave the verse, you gave the commentary. Win.
Byzantine Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Okay, so verse from L_D, commentary from faithcecilia, tacos, so very tasty and good for you, from ?
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now