What online English Bible?

[Banat]

@ Native English speakers (and others as well)

What are they, what is accepted as the classic, and is any translation made "official", for instance as for quoting its verses etc. There seem to be many translations, I'm confused.

[Lenny]

The different denominations and churches choose which version they use, they decide which will be the "official version" for their church. The most popular versions today are the "Revised Standard Version" (now the New Revised Standard Version), and the "New International Version", there are numerous others in use as well but those are the two main ones, the two most widely used ones. They can be found online, just enter "NRSV" or "NIV" into the search engine

The King James Version (1611) is widely viewed as the classic, the "gold standard" of English-language bibles, but it is hardly used anymore as the primary bible because the language is so out-dated. Nevertheless it is not totally neglected, the most famous verses are often still quoted using the KJV wording

[Banat]

Thanks, Lenny.

[ironweed]

For English speaking Catholics in North America, the New American Bible is theoretically the one to use. I'm honestly not sure if it is used outside the USA and Canada, but since it has both an official Imprimatur and a declaration of Nihil Obstat I guess it could be.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/alpha.htm

It is also the Bible that the weekly, and I guess daily, readings in the USA are now taken from at Mass.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/index.htm

But the Catholic site new advent.org only uses the Douay-Rheims Bible, I believe they used to have a links to the NAB, but I don't see them on their main page now.


http://www.newadvent.org/bible/

So I guess that's still considered canonical. However, I'm frankly starting to wonder who exactly is behind that site. They're clearly not "Traditional" a/k/a fake Catholics, but it sure seems like they'd like to toss Vatican II into the garbage. Perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh, since I don't have the time to spend poking around sites like that any more. If anyone has any information about whoever runs that site I'd be most interested in reading it.

[ironweed]

For English speaking Catholics in North America, the New American Bible is theoretically the one to use. I'm honestly not sure if it is used outside the USA and Canada, but since it has both an official Imprimatur and a declaration of Nihil Obstat I guess it could be.


But apparently it is NOT:



http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=33160

Australian Catholics will notice that the text is taken from the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), corrected according to the Latin of the New Vulgate. An International Commission for that work has now been set up, with Melbourne auxiliary Bishop Mark Coleridge playing a prominent role. The NRSV translation (like its predecessor the RSV) is generally superior to that of the Jerusalem Bible being presently used in Masses (with its “happy” preferred to “blessed”). While the NRSV contains some questionable use of inclusive language, this is to be carefully monitored to ensure doctrinal precision.


There's also apparently and new and improved translation of the Mass in English forthcoming. Not sure if that will mean the Bible the readings come from will also change. Probably not, but I'm not sure.

[Milesian]

Traditional Catholics = Fake Catholics? How so?
You realise that there are various spectra of Trad Caths including those like the FSSP who are recognised and part of the Post Vatican II Concilliar Church.

The Douay-Rheims has traditionally been the Catholic Bible for the English speaking world, being an English translation of what is regarded as the most accurate version - The Vulgate of St Jerome.

The KJV is certainly the most eloquent in language style, but the Douay Rheims beats it for sheer accuracy.

[ironweed]

Traditional Catholics = Fake Catholics? How so?
You realise that there are various spectra of Trad Caths including those like the FSSP who are recognised and part of the Post Vatican II Concilliar Church.


Anyone who advocates Sedevacantism is a fake Catholic in my book. You basically have to postulate that Satan crept into the College of Cardinals and somehow got John XXIII elected...and then that Satan hung around long enough to convene Vatican II, get that cold fish Paul VI elected after John croaked, etc., etc. maybe get John Paul I assassinated, since he apparently took a dim view of a lot of what came out of Vatican II and was looking to roll things back. Read the ravings of defrocked Jesuit Malachi Martin for the whole conspiracy that supposedly went on there. Or most anything Lenny says. :p

In sum, they're the Catholic version of Jews for Jesus. :p Well, maybe not quite, but they are Protestants, in the purest sense of the word, since they reject the Church of Rome.

The Douay-Rheims has traditionally been the Catholic Bible for the English speaking world, being an English translation of what is regarded as the most accurate version - The Vulgate of St Jerome.

Who regards the Douay-Rheims Bible as the "most accurate" translation? The US Catholic episcopacy clearly doesn't, since they use the NAB for the readings at Mass.

Besides, isn't the Old Testatment portion a translation into English from Latin of a Latin translation from Greek (the LXX) of a translation from Hebrew? (Or maybe Aramaic with some bits in Daniel, I think. And also ignoring any issues related to the Apochrypha, though I think I vaguely remember reading that bits of Sirach/Ecclasasticus have actually now turned up in the DSS in Hebrew.) I would have to think the possibility of error would be quite high on that basis alone.

I certainly concede that the Douay-Rheims has tradition on its side, but accuracy? And please note that I don't discount tradition. :) I'm an agnostic, but if I ever did return to any faith, it would be the Catholicism of my youth.

The KJV is certainly the most eloquent in language style,

In some parts, in others I find it rather, well, pompous. Didn't the group that prepared the KJV use archaic language deliberately? And by "archaic" I mean that it was archaic in 1602 or whenever they started work. The average Englisman of that time was not in fact sprinkling his speech with "thees" "thous" and "verilys" the way they're used in the KJV. So that use of language works in some places (particularly Revelation) but I think the dialogue they put in Jesus' mouth in their Gospel versions makes him sound like an automaton. I first really noticed this when I did the KJV Gospels on tape a few years ago. Read aloud it sounds almost silly. ("Verily, verily, I say unto thee...")

but the Douay Rheims beats it for sheer accuracy.

See above. I'm basically asking "says who?"

[jasonlfunk]

New American Standard Bible (NASB) is the one that I perfer. It is the most acurate word for word translation from the orginal greek and hebrew into English with minimal interpertation.


New International Version (NIV) is one of the most popular versions in modern Protestantism now a days and it is a fairly acurate translation with a little more interpertation then the NASB.


But almost all poplular versions of the english bible today are pretty good translations. The majority are taken directly from the orginal manuscripts (not from translations and copies of copies... etc) and are a good source.

[Lenny]

As you can see from just 4 people who have replied to this thread already, there have been 6 different bible versions mentioned :cool: (NASB, NIV, NRSV, NAB, Douay-Rheims, KJV)

The main bible I have is called "The Bible in Today's English Version" (known as "Good News Bible"), originally published in 1966. So there's yet another version :D

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/niv.jpg

[Lenny]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/niv.jpgThat cartoon is from KJV-Only'ers, which is an irrational position to take, it is unquestionably a good bible but much of the language is just too out-dated to use it as the only bible.

Using KJV-only is only a few steps above the old Catholic practice of only allowing the Bible to be in Latin which no one could read, and refusing to allow bibles in the English-language, German-language, Dutch-language, etc. (note that the Catholics killed William Tyndale for translating the Bible into English :eek:)

[Banat]

Thanks for the suggestions and the comments. It helped me earn some time I'd spend looking them up on the Web.

[Milesian]

Anyone who advocates Sedevacantism is a fake Catholic in my book.

You are mistakenly equating Traditional Catholic = Sedevacantist when that is not the case. In fact the majority of Trad. Cath's are not Sedevacantists. Most Sedes belong to independent little congregations. However, the FSSP works within the Concilliar Church and was instituted by Pope JPII. Neither the largest traditionalist org, the SSPX, and the Feenyites of St Benedict's Centre are sedevacantists.

You basically have to postulate that Satan crept into the College of Cardinals and somehow got John XXIII elected...and then that Satan hung around long enough to convene Vatican II, get that cold fish Paul VI elected after John croaked, etc., etc. maybe get John Paul I assassinated, since he apparently took a dim view of a lot of what came out of Vatican II and was looking to roll things back. Read the ravings of defrocked Jesuit Malachi Martin for the whole conspiracy that supposedly went on there. Or most anything Lenny says. :p
Most Traditional Catholics believe that the hierarchy was compromised with a variety of apostates, masons and liberals. In fact, Popes at the end of the 19th and turn of the 20th century were bemoaning the fact that the Church's enemies were not only outwith it's walls but within it's own laity and clergy too. Pope St. Pius X even went as far as making it compulsory for all new priests to take the Oath Against Modernism, which he instituted.
Of course, it fell into disuse as part of the "reforms" of Vatican II.

The concept that even a Pope could possibly be a heretic is not problematic for a Catholic, unless it concerns the use of Papal Infallibility. The Pope's personal musings on issues are not covered by Infallibility and neither are Pastoral Councils such as Vatican II. Notice that more than once at the convening of Vatican II that they make it clear that it is pastoral in nature and not ecumenical.
In fact even other Popes have admitted their predecessors had fallen into heresy in the odd occasion. Not to mention that defying what is considered to be a wayward Pope has a history stretching back to St Cyprian, St Athanasius and even St Paul himself.
Of course, there is a world of difference between them and the 16th century "Reformers".
The former group were trying to preserve Church tradition and orthodoxy, while the latter were innovating based on their own opinions.

In sum, they're the Catholic version of Jews for Jesus. :p Well, maybe not quite, but they are Protestants, in the purest sense of the word, since they reject the Church of Rome.
Actually, their position is logically sound and is based more on the debates of Counter-Reformation theologians than mere private judgement. However, it is too much of a gamble for me. They are certainly not heretics, being likely more theologically orthodox than the current hierarchy, but the likelyhood that they have fallen into schism is high. Then again, they might take comfort from the words of St Athanasius :)

Traditional Catholics have a problem with many of the decrees which came out of Vatican II and it's offshoots, particularly concerning the changes in the Mass.
This concern was also shared by high-ranking Church members. Shortly after Vatican II, two cardinals and a group of Church theologians concluded that the changes in the Mass were an "incalculable error"



Who regards the Douay-Rheims Bible as the "most accurate" translation?
The Council of Trent, most of the Catholic world and even some Protestant scholars.

The US Catholic episcopacy clearly doesn't, since they use the NAB for the readings at Mass.
As in many things, the American Church is often out of line with Rome ;)

Besides, isn't the Old Testatment portion a translation into English from Latin of a Latin translation from Greek (the LXX) of a translation from Hebrew? (Or maybe Aramaic with some bits in Daniel, I think. And also ignoring any issues related to the Apochrypha, though I think I vaguely remember reading that bits of Sirach/Ecclasasticus have actually now turned up in the DSS in Hebrew.) I would have to think the possibility of error would be quite high on that basis alone.

In the first place they translated directly, not from the original Hebrew or Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. This had been declared authoritative for Catholics by the Council of Trent; but it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages. Then, also, in the translation, many technical words were retained bodily, such as pasch, parasceve, azymes, etc. In some instances, also where it was found difficult or impossible to find a suitable English equivalent for a Latin word, the latter was retained in an anglicized form. Thus in Phil., ii, 8, we get "He exinanited himself", and in Heb., ix, 28, "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many". It was considered that an ordinary reader, finding the word unintelligible, would pause and inquire its meaning and that this was preferable to satisfying him with an inadequate rendering. In other cases latinisms seem to have crept in unawares, as in Luke, x, 1, "Our Lord designed also other seventy-two" or in Phil., ii, 10, "In the name of Jesus, every knee bow of the celestials, terrestrials and infernals". The proper names are usually (though not always) taken from the Vulgate; but the word Dominus is rendered throughout Our Lord. The general result was a version in cumbersome English, so full of latinisms as to be in places hardly readable, but withal scholarly and accurate. - The Catholic Encyclopedia

I certainly concede that the Douay-Rheims has tradition on its side, but accuracy?
See above



In some parts, in others I find it rather, well, pompous. Didn't the group that prepared the KJV use archaic language deliberately? And by "archaic" I mean that it was archaic in 1602 or whenever they started work. The average Englisman of that time was not in fact sprinkling his speech with "thees" "thous" and "verilys" the way they're used in the KJV. So that use of language works in some places (particularly Revelation) but I think the dialogue they put in Jesus' mouth in their Gospel versions makes him sound like an automaton. I first really noticed this when I did the KJV Gospels on tape a few years ago. Read aloud it sounds almost silly. ("Verily, verily, I say unto thee...")
Valid points, although some people would term that eloquent. At the least, your Our Fathers and Hail Mary's still retain much of that archaic language and no-one complains. But the KJV is still a heretic bible in my opinions anyway :D


See above. I'm basically asking "says who?"
See above