www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Which English Translation of the Bible Should I Use? by Metropoli

I had a copy, until I found the meanings changed to include inclusive language. I gave it away, but I should have burned it.

Nick

hmmmmm,what do you mean by "complete"?
Much Love,
Jonn

Versions I use:
1.Haydock two volume Douay-Rheims (Traditional. Best Roman Catholic translation IMO) (Soft Cover)
2.Oxford Annotated RSV w/Deuterocanonicals (Most complete Bible to date. Includes the complete canon of the Orthodox Church, 3&4 Maccabees, etc...) (Leather).
3.Ignatius RSV-SCE (Deuterocanonicals placed in the OT properly, new revision of the RSV-CE, more modern style language used, over original RSV. Best modern Roman Catholic translation IMO) (Hard Cover)
4.NKJV and ESV through Bible Gateway.
(All Non-Inclusive Translations)

Versions I whole heartedly disapprove of. (All Inclusive Translations)
NAB
NRSV
Good News
NJB

Pretty much the same list as Joe Melkite and me.

Here is my Amazon review of the RSV SCE, which I updated recently:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0898708338/sr=8-1/qid=1174417923/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-1536735-6606546?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&qid=1174417923&sr=8-1


I am an ardent lover of the RSV bible. It has been my bible of choice for nearly 30 years. With the second Catholic edition, archaic language has been removed, and thus the RSV SCE is an excellent alternative for Catholics to the NAB and NRSV. I give the RSV SCE 5 stars.

I very much like that the designation, "Only Son," has been replaced by "Only Begotten Son" in John's gospel. This conforms more closely to our Nicene Heritage. I don't like the translation, "Only Son," as most modern versions have, even though that translation has merit.

The RSV SCE offers some welcome concessions to the Catholic understanding of the text. I mention two: 1) The Angel's greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28 is rendered as "hail, full of grace,the Lord is with you" rather than "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" as in the original RSV CE. 2) Isaiah 7:14 uses the word "Virgin" rather than "young women" as in the original RSV. This change is legitimate, even though the Hebrew simply has "young woman." The Bible of the ancient Christian community was the Greek Septuagint, which was considered inspired in its own right. The Septuagint uses the word "virgin (parthenos)" in Isaiah 7:14.

One might hope that eventually, the RSV SCE will replace the New American Bible in all Enlish language Catholic liturgies, both here and abroad. Some Churches are already taking advantage of the RSV SCE. The new RSV SCE Lectionary has been approved for use in the Roman Rite by the Antilles Bishops Conference. The new Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy Service provides New Testament quotes from the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. The RSV SCE is literal, literary, and reliable.

For me, as a Byzantine Catholic, the best bibles to use are the RSV SCE, The Orthodox Study Bible, and the Douay Rheims version.

The fact that the original RSV has spawned three major revisions - the NRSV, the RSV SCE, and the ESV- is a testimony to this great bible. Originally scorned by some conservative Christians (very unjustly, in my mind), it has aged well, and ironically has come into favor with many traditional Catholics and conservative Protestants. And now this new edition of the RSV SCE will help ensure the legacy of the RSV.

I recommend the RSV SCE heartily to all.

That's what I have been told by a very solid source.

Also, the first edition is the best. The second edition has the inclusive langauge.

I used the RSV Catholic 2nd Edition nice leather cover footnotes on the same page which is so much more convenient than the first edition the print is larger and spread out better also. Archaic language updated. Love it duteros in tradtion OT canon.

I also use the Jerusalem Bible the orignal edition it has some great footnotes in the study edition you can get it used. Does not have gender neutral language found in the second edition although even that version is not nearly as bad with that as the NRSV which goes bonkers on the gender neutral edition to bad they messed up two good translations with that trend of modernism.

My understanding is that according to the Latin Church the original text of the Sacred Scriptures is infallible and inerrant in all its words and all its parts, and is divinely inspired.
As to which text? I preffer for reading the Revised Standard Version, for theological discussion of course I would use the official text of the updated Vulgate.
Stephanos I

"My understanding is that according to the Latin Church the original text of the Sacred Scriptures is infallible and inerrant in all its words and all its parts, and is divinely inspired."

These words, by themselves, can be used to justify a private interpretation of scripture that disregards tradition altogether. I am a convert from being Southern Baptist to being a Western Catholic, and I would advise caution when reading the Bible.

Too often people fail to open their ears and hearts to the vast wisdom of scripture. Throughout history it has been a frequent failing of some translators to inject an interpretation within their vernacular version.

The major failing with how I saw the Bible being read among my Protestant friends, was that they would not recognize the various literary genres in the Bible. They would read poetry like they should read a textbook, yet with a key verse as "This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die" (John 6:50), they would claim that it was like poetry and should not be understood literally.

I think that to have a grounding in reading scripture, one must read the texts holistically with knowledge of why they were written, and to whom. The Book of Revelation would not lead to grave error if a reading of it is tempered by an understanding of mystery, that we do not naturally possess the foreknowledge to confidently understand unfulfilled prophecy, and an understanding of its historical setting, the persecution of Christians and how they would have received the text.

Wisdom, perhaps, is the key. History proves that it is very possible to have a full knowledge of scripture without understanding.

I'm sorry if this is a tangent, but my point is that too many bible scholars are not well grounded in wisdom before they contribute to a translation. I would advise anybody to be careful in choosing a translation to study.

Here are some popular versions that I would suggest avoiding:
New International Version
New Living Translation

(especially)
The Message
Good as New (which has the "Gospel of Thomas")

"It is sad when one looks at the introductory sections of the New American Bible that tries to play a cute game of dancing between Wellhausen and the fact that all Scripture is inspired by God."

Amen!

I have a question for you. How did you respond to professors who embraced such error?

Also, if you had to orally defend your Master's thesis, did you encounter professors who were ideologically combative with your views?

Jody ..

Trent ... was a long long time ago.

For Roman Catholics there is the New American Bible Catholic Translation published by the Catholic Bible Press. It has been out for a long long time. I believe the readings of the Mass are done in the Revised Standard Version.

Have you been restricting yourself to the old English of the D-R - only?

Just asking.

-ray

The Reading for the Mass is the New American Bible Translation without the gender neutral renderings which is not the one you can buy from your local bookstore. Meaning the readings in Mass is ironically not available for readers. In addition to that some traditional renderings at mass remain tradition for example "Hail full of grace" in the New American Bible traditional renderings such as these are down away with. Too bad the readings at mass while not perfect are better than what the New American Bible has been putting out nowadays I beleive the 1970 version is the better version of the NAB so if you have to get one that would be the one to get the updated versions have been getting worse in regards to accuracy, gender neutral, and traditional renderings.

I use the Douay-Rheims in English or a proper Orthodox translation (like those done by the various Orthodox synods and patriarchates) in Slavic languages.

Tim

I have just gotten the Ignatius RSV Second Catholic Edition and I was surprised at how good it is. I am going to keep all my other bibles, of course, but I do like the way it reads.

I am a big RSV fan, too. The RSV 2nd edition makes some improvements over the first one 1) eliminates archaic language; this is not a problem for me, as I like the the Thees and Thous, but it should broaden the RSV's appeal; 2) Section headings inb the text, which makes it much easier to find a passage; 3) In Isaiah 7:14 the Septuagint reading is followed, and so a "virgin conceives," rather than a "young woman," as in the original.

I have have been greatly taken with the old Catholic Confraternity Version lately, and have been toting one along with me. It contains traditional readings that are important for our liturgical tradition as Byzantine Catholics, such as the Angel stirring up the water in John chapter 5, which is a key liturgical reading for us in Epiphany season (which is missing in almost all modern bibles).

I have old copies of it, but have also recently purchased a complete Confraternity bible from Sinag-Tala publishers in the Philippines.

The Douay Rheims, Knox and the Orthodox New Testament, from Holy Apostles Convent in Colorado, are all very good, too.

I have the Confraternity version and wouldn't part with it for anything. I have wondered if anyone still publishes it. It has alway surprised me that the Knox new testament is not more popular. It's excellent.