New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

[Cary.Melvin]

Do any of you use the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition?

Is it much different than the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition that many Catholic apologists prefer?

How does this version compare to the New American Bible?

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Malachi383]

the RSV-CE is that which is used in the CCC. The NRSV is temporarily approved for liturgical use in Canada only because they printed all of their books before getting Vatican approval, but they are also under obligation to change them out ASAP.

The NRSV is gender neutral in many places. It seeks a more "politically correct" bible. This sadly draws much away. Translationally the RSV is your best route. It was actually originally done by Protestants, who later added the apocrypha for Catholics. Today, Catholics are the only ones who still print it. Kind of odd....

God bless
Matt

 

[MorphRC]

the RSV-CE is that which is used in the CCC. The NRSV is temporarily approved for liturgical use in Canada only because they printed all of their books before getting Vatican approval, but they are also under obligation to change them out ASAP.

The NRSV is gender neutral in many places. It seeks a more "politically correct" bible. This sadly draws much away. Translationally the RSV is your best route. It was actually originally done by Protestants, who later added the apocrypha for Catholics. Today, Catholics are the only ones who still print it. Kind of odd....

God bless
Matt

Personally i wouldnt use any bible translated by protestants..id only use ones done by the Vatican..such as the DRV Love that translation..the best eva

 

[geocajun]

Morpheus, the New Jerusalem Bible is the best ever

have you checked it out?

 

[ps139]

Personally i wouldnt use any bible translated by protestants..

Why not? I assume that it is because Protestant bias may find its way in there. I am asking this because for the last few years I've been using the NIV, it has all sorts of notes in it that I do not want to lose if I switch versions. Basically...what should I be looking out for?? (Not including the "Tools for Bible Study" inserts) Thanks

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Morpheus, the New Jerusalem Bible is the best ever

have you checked it out?

Is this the version used primarily outside the United States and Canada?

Do you ever wonder why we have more than one english catholic bible? It seems to me a duplication of work on the part of the catholic church. Why not just have one authorised translation and leave it at that? I'm not sure why the United States needs to have their own special bible.

Any comments?

 

[MorphRC]

Morpheus, the New Jerusalem Bible is the best ever

have you checked it out?

No never read it..does it have for Luke 1:28 Hail mary Full of Grace etc??

 

[MorphRC]

Why not? I assume that it is because Protestant bias may find its way in there. I am asking this because for the last few years I've been using the NIV, it has all sorts of notes in it that I do not want to lose if I switch versions. Basically...what should I be looking out for?? (Not including the "Tools for Bible Study" inserts) Thanks

Yes i dont use a protestant bible or a bible translation that was helped by the Protestants for many reasons including these: One they are biased and hate the Church, so there hatred would appear in their translation.

Also they have added to the bible and changed things around.

Again..they do not have the promise of guidence and safety which Christ promised the RCC in matters of faith.

And the simple matter that they are prots.

 

[Malachi383]

And yet the RSV-CE is the one used in the CCC, and only the RSV-CE. It is endorsed by the Church. This to me shows that while it may not have been translated by Catholics, they have throroughly combed over it.

As to the NIV, keep in mind the type of translation it is. The same goes for the NJB. They are more dynamic, especially the NIV, meaning that they translate ideas rather than literal words. This is helpful in that age old catch phrases and such are put into modern terms. Yet sometimes the wording can get very pathetic and out of original wording to the point where it reads more like a book than the word of God. The language can be toned down greatly at times. Something else to be wary of is sidenotes and such. They wont be nearly as Catholic of course, pointing out such things. Also, certain ways some words are translated is generally different in Protestant vs Catholic bibles, such as the words tradition, works, works of the law, etc - ones that can be very key to Catholic doctrine and theology.

Just because the protestants change their bibles and such doesnt mean you can't trust a bible that they either translated or helped translate.

 

[BAChristian]

Again..they do not have the promise of guidence and safety which Christ promised the RCC in matters of faith.

Wow...

And the simple matter that they are prots.

 

[geocajun]

No never read it..does it have for Luke 1:28 Hail mary Full of Grace etc??

Luke 1:28 "He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! the Lord is with you.' "

footnotes: "Rejoice rather than simply 'hail'. It is an invitiation to the joy of the Messian. an echo of the greetings to the Daughter of Zion, and similarly motivated by the coming of God to his people ; 'who enjoy God's favour'. lit. 'you who have been and remain filled with the divine favour'. Add. 'of all women you are most blessed' under the influence of 1:42.

 

[MorphRC]

Luke 1:28 "He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! the Lord is with you.' "

footnotes: "Rejoice rather than simply 'hail'. It is an invitiation to the joy of the Messian. an echo of the greetings to the Daughter of Zion, and similarly motivated by the coming of God to his people ; 'who enjoy God's favour'. lit. 'you who have been and remain filled with the divine favour'. Add. 'of all women you are most blessed' under the influence of 1:42.

Hmm i dont like that..that sounds protestantize..i like the DRV better it supports the Hail Mary

 

[geocajun]

As to the NIV, keep in mind the type of translation it is. The same goes for the NJB. They are more dynamic, especially the NIV, meaning that they translate ideas rather than literal words.

It is worth noting that the NJB was translated by Catholic scholars and is considered by most (including me) to be a very accurate study bible - even though it is a dynamic translation.
Also, I highly recommend reading the reviews on it at Amazon - click here -

 

[geocajun]

Hmm i dont like that..that sounds protestantize..i like the DRV better it supports the Hail Mary

DRV (revised challoner even) is a novelty much like the KJV.
NJB is far more accurate - but as they say "The best bible is the one you read."

It is a bit odd to hear anyone refer to the NJB as anything near "protestant". .

 

[geocajun]

Yes i dont use a protestant bible or a bible translation that was helped by the Protestants for many reasons including these: One they are biased and hate the Church, so there hatred would appear in their translation.

Also they have added to the bible and changed things around.

Again..they do not have the promise of guidence and safety which Christ promised the RCC in matters of faith.

And the simple matter that they are prots.

It is more correct to point out that we know who is protected by the Holy Spirit, rather than state that we know who is NOT protected as that would be impossible.

 

[MorphRC]

DRV (revised challoner even) is a novelty much like the KJV.
NJB is far more accurate - but as they say "The best bible is the one you read."

It is a bit odd to hear anyone refer to the NJB as anything near "protestant". .

I disagree the DRV was written YEARS before the KJV..the KJV is a copy and not a very good one with over 2500 errors. The DRV has always been used by the Church for english purposes.

 

[geocajun]

I disagree the DRV was written YEARS before the KJV..the KJV is a copy and not a very good one with over 2500 errors. The DRV has always been used by the Church for english purposes.

While it is a fact that the DRV is older, it does not change the fact that its nearly 500 years old and we have had many exegetical advancements which the DRV is behind on. Neither the DRV or the KJV are worth more than novelty in light of modern scholarship.
That is unless your a KJV or DRV "Only-ist" (Zealot).
(note the DRV is not used by the Church today)

 

[BAChristian]

...and sometimes the only Bible that people will ever get to read is yourself...

 

[Brian Daniel]

I disagree the DRV was written YEARS before the KJV..the KJV is a copy and not a very good one with over 2500 errors. The DRV has always been used by the Church for english purposes.

I go to a non-denominational Christian church, but was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church and affirm the ecumenical councils. The DRV is not quite as perfect as some make it out to be. I prefer the Latin Vulgate over the DRV. Please notice right here how the New American Bible is superior to the DRV when compared to the Latin Vulgate on this verse:
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, 12 you will die in your sins." John 8:24 NAB

(24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. John 8:24 DRV

(24) dixi ergo vobis quia moriemini in peccatis vestris si enim non credideritis quia ego sum moriemini in peccato vestro John 8:24 Latin Vulgate

I can assure you the the Vulgate reads I am rather than I am he. If the DRV is a word-for-word translation from the Vulgate as it is touted to be, why do they downplay Jesus' use of God's name for himself in this verse by adding the word "he" which was not in the Vulgate or the Greek?

------------------------------------
Here are some gratuitous DRV verses:
Romans 3:23(23) For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.

Romans 6:23(23) For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 3:16(16) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
Ephesians 2:8(8) For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.

James 2:19(19) Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

John 14:6(6) Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Luke 6:46(46) And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

Acts 17:30(30) And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should every where do penance.

Romans 10:9(9) For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Revelation 3:20(20) Behold, I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear my voice and open to me the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him: and he with me.

1 John 5:11-13(11) And this is the testimony that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son.(12) He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.(13) These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

 

[Brian Daniel]

Do any of you use the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition?

Is it much different than the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition that many Catholic apologists prefer?

How does this version compare to the New American Bible?

Thank you for your comments.

To answer the original post, I never liked the NRSV. I like the RSV, except for a few verses that I think were corrected in the Catholic edition. I prefer the English Standard Version, which is a non-Catholic revision of the RSV. The NRSV turned me off because of the inclusive language. There is a revision of the NRSV New Testament called "An Inclusive Version" which says to "baptize in the name of the father-mother, the child and the spirit." "Son of man" is rendered as "the human-one." Gender neutral language is a slippery slope. It starts with the NRSV gender neutral and goes into the heresy of the inclusive version's idea of God the "Father-Mother."