October 23, 2003 at 12:25 am #579AnonymousInactive
I like the Douay. I als like the Revised standard catholic version and the New American Catholic study Bible.October 23, 2003 at 6:02 am #2198
Well, from what I know the best English versions for the United States are the New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version with Deuterocanonicals. They are somewhat similar, but the NRSV is used more for scholarship purposes for those that cannot read the ancient original languages of the Bible.
I really think the KJV is archaic no matter what some Baptists say. It is very out of date and to me it makes the Bible feel so distant. It’s not written in my language so how am I supposed to connect with it? There is no English version protected by God as some would like to say and if there were I doubt it would be the KJV. Why would God want to send us something so useless? All the thou’s and ye’s are confusing.October 23, 2003 at 9:20 am #2199AnonymousInactive
I do not believe the New revised standard version is considered accaptable. I know the RSV with deuterocanonicals is, but I believe the NRSV has been deemed unacceptable due to “inclusive language”.October 23, 2003 at 1:21 pm #2200
How would inclusive language be unacceptable? And unacceptable according to whom? It is the official translation approved by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops so it is not banned by Rome. It’s just that the U.S. Bishops choose not to use it. In fact, I think most other Engligh speaking countries use it accept for the United States. ” title=”Confused” />
Inclusive language does not harm a translation so long as certain things are kept faithful to its original meaning. When something is changed to be gender inclusive it is usually changing words like “man” or “mankind” that refer to all people to words such as “human being” or “people” or “humankind.” With those words, as far as the New Testament is concerned, turning them into the latter three is an accepted translation/interpretation and does no harm to the text.
Now if somewhere it said “man” as a pronoun and it was changed to “person” that would just be stupid, but that is not what gender inclusivity is.January 10, 2004 at 4:26 am #2288AnonymousInactive
The issue that has arisen with “inclusive language” and the NRSV is that some do not believe it is true to the original languages (ie. Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) and their meanings. The footnotes in the NRSV show what the original translation of the word was, but one must always remember in what context the Gospels, Epistles, etc., were written; women were not important members of society, even though Paul (contrary to popular belief) regarded women as important members of the Church.January 25, 2004 at 4:53 am #2350
Right. I think in most repectable translations of the Bible there has been much care to keep in tact the actual he’s and she’s that refer to specific people instead of the he’s that refer to a mixture of the sexes.
Of course, a more cynical way of looking at the whole issue is that modern day translations are just trying to be politically correct.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.