/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>672933

I think there's already a thread for this, newfriend.

*Finger guns*

It's…"okay" IMO. Some Catholics aren't fans it's critical footnotes, but I don't mind them so much. Forcefully used in liturgy in the United States and Philippines (probably other places too), but it's English alternative for other countries would be the more dynamically translated CTS/Jerusalem Bible.

It's supposed to be ecumenical but I think it only included a few outside-of-Catholic scholars in it's translation committee. A smoother read than most other literal translations. There's the NAB and then there's the RNAB (which you hear during mass), and then the more recent NABRE with updated OT and Psalms.

I'd suggest it to beginning Catholic (or bible reader) for its required footnotes and it's readability. For quoting scripture and outreach, separated brethren may not care to discuss theology using a "Catholic" Bible, so just have an RSV (or any other Tyndale-line translation) handy.

>>672950

Thanks!

>>672933

this one is MT or LXX?

I like it. One of the better ones.

>>672958

DRVOnly1582 strikes again

>>672933

The NAB attacks the deity of Christ. Micah 5:2 reads as follows:

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

However, in the NAB this verse is moved to Micah 5:1 and it reads:

"But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah

least among the clans of Judah,

From you shall come forth for me

one who is to be ruler in Israel;

Whose origin is from of old,

from ancient times."

This is an attack on the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is from everlasting, not merely from ancient times, and the Son has not an origin in a certain time, he is eternally pre-existent.

I like that it's basically the only modern English bible that is not genealogically related to the KJV; it's a Catholic bible through and through. That said, as far as Catholic Bibles go, I the old Confraternity Bible over the NAB. Also, I prefer the NAB over the NABRE, even though it's objectively worse–probably because I grew up with it.

Heresy. KJV ONLY

>>672975

I've watched that documentary in its entirety at least 3 times. It might seem compelling to KJVOnlyists, but to everyone one else, it is absolutely unconvincing.

What I'm trying to say is, on the extremely small chance someone on this board will spend two hours watching it, there is an even smaller chance they'll convert to KJVOnlyism. Basically, posting that video in every thread is a waste of time.

>>673003

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Psalm 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

John 10:35-36

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

1 Peter 1:25

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>>673024

Wow you really showed me.

>>673024

<posts them in English

>>672933

It's the best bible by far. The notes and introductions are excellent. The language is extremely accurate and easy to read. It's a bible for intellectuals.

>>673024

>Psalm 12:6-7

People are suggesting what we use manuscripts that haven't been widely used before for modern translation. These manuscripts have existed and their not being popular somewhere in Europe doesn't invalidate them any more than the KJV not being popular somewhere in Russia

>Proverbs 30:5

ok

>Matthew 24:35

ok

>Psalm 119:160

ok

>John 10:35-36

As long as this verse is still true even though JWs have their own translation I don't know how Baptists having their own translation makes it untrue

>1 Peter 1:25

ok

>>672975

>worshiping the bible instead of Christ our Lord

>>673190

I suppose he's a true Andersonite then.

HERETICAL NOTES

READ DOUAY VERSION or some other shit approved by the church except that shit.

>>672968

It's not a Catholic bible. I'm surprised how some modernist bishop gave it the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Read >>672965

>>673242

>It's not a Catholic bible.

It absolutely is. The majority of the translators were Catholics, with the approval of the church authority. It is genealogically related to the DR through the CCD. Unlike, say the RSV2CE, which is related to the KJV. Besides the NAB, the only other truly Catholic modern English bible is the Jerusalem Bible.

>Read Micah 5

First, why would you use the KJV to determine what is and is not a Catholic Bible??

Second, the KJV is not accurate there either. "From days of eternity" is a more literal translation, which coincidentally is how the DR translates it.

Third, I never said it was a good translation.In fact, I said there are objectively better translations.

>>673240

I even stripped the modernist notes from my plain text Rheims. Fortunately, I have another version with the original notes.

>>673306

Original as in premodernist

>>673305

Anon I know its a Catholic one. Doesn't mean the ones who worked on it were good catholics.

The vulgate says the same thing as the DR Bible so NAB is a very poor translation.

What is wrong with the notes? I know there are translation issues but the notes always clarify. I'm using the revised version if that helps.