Version Of The Bible

[rkwright]

What version of the Bible do you recommend? Why?

Is textual accuracy to the original manuscripts extremely important to you?

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

As of now I prefer the New American Bible for the Old Testament and the Douay-Rheims for the New Testament....King James isnt Bad.

Textual accuracy is very important to me and should be to anyone who reads the Bible. And I think good commentary and references are very important aswell.

(I have been hearing nothing but good comments on the Navarre Bible... and is supposed to have the best commentary(church fathers, documents ect.) Was done by Opus Dei.)

[rkwright]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='14 September 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1252959871' post='1966406']
As of now I prefer the New American Bible for the Old Testament and the Douay-Rheims for the New Testament....King James isnt Bad.

Textual accuracy is very important to me and should be to anyone who reads the Bible. And I think good commentary and references are very important aswell.

(I have been hearing nothing but good comments on the Navarre Bible... and is supposed to have the best commentary(church fathers, documents ect.) Was done by Opus Dei.)
[/quote]

Why do you recommend those?

[Selah]

Douay Rheims

[Gregorius]

Wasn't there already a thread on this topic?

[Resurrexi]

I would recommend the Haydock Bible and the Navarre Bible. The former uses the text of the Douay-Rheims; the latter, the text of the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Both have extensive commentaries largely from the writings of the Fathers.

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Because the douay rheims NT was translated from the latin vulgate.So its a lil more on the safe side then relying on their own interpretations straight from the Greek if their not Catholic.
But its OT is a translation of a translation of a translation.

The new american OT is a translation straight from the Greek. and even here you gotta be careful, becuase theve changed some things to not sound sexist but in so doing they changed the word of God.

[Apotheoun]

I like the RSV.

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

how was the RSV translated Apo?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='14 September 2009 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1252965800' post='1966473']
But its OT is a translation of a translation of a translation.
[/quote]

Actually, it is largely only a translation of a translation. St. Jerome mainly translated from the Hebrew texts rather than from the LXX.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[rkwright]

The other point I kinda want to learn about is the textual accuracy of all these translations.

To a lessor extent, do any of the differences in versions really matter - are the variations minimal?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='rkwright' date='14 September 2009 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1252967219' post='1966496']
The other point I kinda want to learn about is the textual accuracy of all these translations.

To a lessor extent, do any of the differences in versions really matter - are the variations minimal?
[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by textual accuracy, but it should be known that the Church teaches that the woman taken in adultery and the ending of St. Mark's Gospel are canonical Scripture.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[CatherineM]

We use RSV at our seminary. I find the NRSV to be too PC/inclusive languaged. The NAB is kind of like wearing an old comfortable sweater, just ignore the footnotes.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 September 2009 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1252968347' post='1966518']
I don't know what you mean by textual accuracy, but it should be known that the Church teaches that the woman taken in adultery and the ending of St. Mark's Gospel are canonical Scripture.
[/quote]

Well I guess 2 questions...

1) How good/accurate of a translation is it into English

2) How reliable is the original manuscripts it uses. I'm just getting into this a little bit, but as I understand it there are many manuscripts that different Bibles rely on for their translation. Say for example, I have a New American Bible, but as I understand it, it did not pull the NT from Jerome's translation. Is St. Jerome's translations as we have them in the Vulgate today one of the better translations?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='14 September 2009 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1252968543' post='1966521']
The NAB is kind of like wearing an old comfortable sweater, just ignore the footnotes.
[/quote]

We use the NAB for my New Testament class. I think that its wording is incredibly awkward and unpoetical.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='rkwright' date='14 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252968683' post='1966523']
Well I guess 2 questions...

1) How good/accurate of a translation is it into English[/quote]

I'm no expert in biblical translations, but I have heard that the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is among the most accurate English translations. It also reads well, at least in my opinion.

[quote name='rkwright' date='14 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252968683' post='1966523']
2) How reliable is the original manuscripts it uses. I'm just getting into this a little bit, but as I understand it there are many manuscripts that different Bibles rely on for their translation. Say for example, I have a New American Bible, but as I understand it, it did not pull the NT from Jerome's translation. Is St. Jerome's translations as we have them in the Vulgate today one of the better translations?
[/quote]

I would say that St. Jerome had many manuscripts that we don't, but that we also have many manuscripts that he didn't.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 September 2009 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1252968730' post='1966525']
We use the NAB for my New Testament class. I think that its wording is incredibly awkward and unpoetical.
[/quote]
Yeah, but it's what I was raised on, so it feels comfortable. Kind of like watching old Underdog cartoons.

[txdinghysailor]

I think that the Douay Rheims is the most accurate, but it sure isn't the easiest one to read or understand. I think the RSV is probably the most readable and easy to understand version out there that's still mostly accurate.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='14 September 2009 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1252965878' post='1966475']
how was the RSV translated Apo?
[/quote]
The RSV has a couple of advantages over more recent translations: (1) although not a perfect translation, it does tend to give a more literal rendering of the Biblical text in English, because it follows the translation method that is often called "formal equivalence"; and (2) it was translated prior to the rise of the "inclusive language" movement in English speaking countries, which means that it uses a standard form of English.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 September 2009 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1252969038' post='1966527']
I'm no expert in biblical translations, but I have heard that the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is among the most accurate English translations. It also reads well, at least in my opinion.
[/quote]
Yes, that's what I'd heard.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 September 2009 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1252998207' post='1966709']
The RSV has a couple of advantages over more recent translations: (1) although not a perfect translation, it does tend to give a more literal rendering of the Biblical text in English, because it follows the translation method that is often called "formal equivalence"; and (2) it was translated prior to the rise of the "inclusive language" movement in English speaking countries, which means that it uses a standard form of English.
[/quote]
Thanks, Apo - that's what I'd thought. I like the RSV. I also like the Jerusalem Bible, just because of how it sounds.