RSV/NRSV or NAB or JB/NJB or other and why?

[gtsecc]

Are you using one of these?

Why?

 

[Paul S]

I use the Douay-Rheims, because it's a translation of the Vulgate, the Bible I hear at Mass and pray in the Office. I like the older language, and I like that I don't have to worry about modernism creeping in.

 

[AMDG]

I use several Bible translations--the Jerusalem Bible (JB) and the New American Bible (NAB) among them. I also have a RSV (Revised Standard Version).

The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was translated from the original languages and has excellent footnotes. And I like it far better than the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) since it does not have inclusive language. It contains the Deuterocanonical books.

I enjoy the New American for the fact that the readings of the liturgy in the USA is from the NAB. The footnotes are good. The language is understandable, but IMO just a tad more poetic than the Jerusalem. (It's more of a word-for-word translation while the Jerusalem is more of a meaning-for-meaning, but thankfully, for my purposes neither one is a "paraphrase".) The NAB is not guilty of inclusive language and of course it contains the Deuterocanonical books.

My Revised Standard Version is a Protestant Version. It too has very good footnotes, but since mine is the Protestant Version, it is not complete--it is missing the seven Deuterocanonical books. There is a Catholic RSV that DOES have them though--it is the Ignatius Bible. I have heard that it is very close to the old Douay-Rheimes Bible in that Luke 1:28 is actually translated "full of grace" instead of "highly favored". Of course, neither the Protestant RSV or the Catholic one suffers from having inclusive language.

 

[Skripper]

I use the RSV Catholic edition, the JB, the NAB, the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV and several others (I have about 9-10 different translations). I use these because I like to compare translations and also because, when discussing Scripture with fellow Christians, I try to use the same translation they are using, or at least have it handy.

 

[Cat59]

I use the Jerusalem bible (1966) and have a version of the Psalms (produced by the Grail organisation, translated by some of the Jersualem Bible scholars), which I prefer to the Jerusalem bible itself. (1963)
I guess I use it as it's the bible I'm familiar with as I used it from my late teens onwards.

 

[anawim]

Mostly, I use either the D-R, or the RSV-CE. I grew up with the D-R, so it's something that "sounds right". I use the RSV-CE (particularly the Navarre Bible) because it is literal, yet has updated English.

 

[anawim]

The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was translated from the original languages and has excellent footnotes.

Too bad the current JB doesn't have as many footnotes. I'd love to find a used copy.

 

[Alexis OCA]

I use the Douay-Rheims, because it's a translation of the Vulgate, the Bible I hear at Mass and pray in the Office. I like the older language, and I like that I don't have to worry about modernism creeping in.

Mega ditto.

 

[CeeBee]

I have a NAB and a Protestant NIV from before I was Catholic.

 

[Canadian75]

I own many different English translations (NRSV, RSV-CE, NAB, GNB, KJV, NASB, NIV, and the Louis Segond French translation), but I generally use the NRSV because that is the one used in our liturgy. But I have a warm spot for the KJV because I grew up reading it.

 

[nyj]

Are you using one of these?

Why?

I have the RSV, NRSV, NAB and JB. I also own the NASB, KJV, NIV, and a couple of other non-Catholic versions as well. If I do use one of my non-Catholic versions however, I typically only use the NASB.

I primarily use the NAB because it is the translation currently used in the Liturgy of the Word for the Pauline Mass in the US Catholic Church. Yah, try saying that five times real quick.

 

[Alexis OCA]

Wasn't the Jerusalem Bible translated from the original languages into French and then into English?

I never liked it.

 

[anawim]

Wasn't the Jerusalem Bible translated from the original languages into French and then into English?

I never liked it.

Yes.

 

[DJ B.K.]

I have a NAB and a Protestant NIV from before I was Catholic.

Ha! That's what I have too!

 

[geocajun]

I use the NJB as my primary bible - I find the style of translation to be very easy to read, and from my experience, 99% of the time it keeps the original meanings in tact. I most commonly refer to the DRV when I need to compare a verse, noting however that while good, the DRV is not perfect either as no translation is.
I read the NAB at times as well, however when I do, I am alays reminded why I love my NJB
I own about 10 translations, however I only refer to a select few, and the others are mostly collecting dust.

 

[geocajun]

Wasn't the Jerusalem Bible translated from the original languages into French and then into English?

yep, it was translated into English, using the French translation. It should be noted that the New Jerusalem Bible however was translation direct from the greek and hebrew, however wherever there was descrepency, it deffered to the old JB's choice of words to settle the matter.

 

[D'Ann]

I use several Bible translations--the Jerusalem Bible (JB) and the New American Bible (NAB) among them. I also have a RSV (Revised Standard Version).

The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was translated from the original languages and has excellent footnotes. And I like it far better than the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) since it does not have inclusive language. It contains the Deuterocanonical books.

I enjoy the New American for the fact that the readings of the liturgy in the USA is from the NAB. The footnotes are good. The language is understandable, but IMO just a tad more poetic than the Jerusalem. (It's more of a word-for-word translation while the Jerusalem is more of a meaning-for-meaning, but thankfully, for my purposes neither one is a "paraphrase".) The NAB is not guilty of inclusive language and of course it contains the Deuterocanonical books.

My Revised Standard Version is a Protestant Version. It too has very good footnotes, but since mine is the Protestant Version, it is not complete--it is missing the seven Deuterocanonical books. There is a Catholic RSV that DOES have them though--it is the Ignatius Bible. I have heard that it is very close to the old Douay-Rheimes Bible in that Luke 1:28 is actually translated "full of grace" instead of "highly favored". Of course, neither the Protestant RSV or the Catholic one suffers from having inclusive language.

I mostly use the RSV. I grew up using the KJV. I want to get a 1966 Jerusalem Bible... I had never heard of this Bible until you recommended it... Go figure. Why wasn't I a cradle Catholic? I wasted so much of my time memorizing the KJV and here I could of been memorizing so much more... Oh well, for whatever reason, it is, what it is...

God's Peace,

D'Ann

 

[RedTulipMom]

I like the Good news bible, the NAB and the NIV