Hello brothers and sisters! I was wondering about Bible translations. I have one called "That Catholic Action Edition," and a "Catholic Youth Bible Revised." I was wondering where these two were translated from. I also am wondering what is the most accurate Bible translation we have? I have heard the King James is the best translation ever? Is that true? Are there King James Catholic Bibles? I have a KJV yet it's a Protestant Bible.

God give you peace:)

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), November 14, 2004

Answers

Hello brothers and sisters! I was wondering about Bible translations. I have one called "That Catholic Action Edition," and a "Catholic Youth Bible Revised." I was wondering where these two were translated from.

{Ill check, sicne I never heard of them before.The youth oen is probabely a reworkign of sn existign translation wiht study notes though.}-Zarove

I also am wondering what is the most accurate Bible translation we have? I have heard the King James is the best translation ever? Is that true?

{On this board, no. In relaity, yes, for english. ( Obviosuly its among the worst in most language as it doesnt make understandign the text easier for a russian...)

Dispite the " Many thousands of errors" claism leveid asisn it by its detractors, the KJV has fewer errors than any existign english translaiton. It suffers form ebign archaic htough, with some words haing lost their origional meaning.

However, it is the best available, mainly because modern schoalrship has gotten choppy. ( Hence why I rely on a 400 year odk translation, rather thna a contemporary.)}-Zarove

Are there King James Catholic Bibles?

{No, their anglican. Fromt he churhc of England, hence why it is called the Authorised Version. However, soem editions do carry the Deutorocannonical works, called in them Apocrypha. I can show toyu osme if interested?}-Zarove

I have a KJV yet it's a Protestant Bible.

{Mist are, most solkd in the USA and Canada have only the 66 books n the protestant Cannon, and even those withthe contested books have them in a seperate section int he middle, btu they are sold withthe ooks in them, again if inerested I can shwo yo where tooptain one wihhte additional books.}-Zarove

God give you peace:)

{Same to you!}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.

Jason, I use the KJV also because I find that it has the best language for *proving* Catholic doctrines to be true. And the Protestants are more likely to listen and respect the KJV than they will a Catholic edition. I too wish there was a Catholic edition of the KJV, with a few of the wordings adjusted to reflect Catholic doctrines. Perhaps Zarove will make one? :)

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 14, 2004.

The version used in the catholic church today is the new american bible or the NAB,Another good one is the Revised Standard version(RSV) And of Course there is the good old Douay Rhiems Bible wich predates the KJV. Also you might check out the EWTN website they have some good info on choosing a bible...http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm Peace be With You.........

-- Andrew .M.Tillcock (drewmeister7@earthlink.net), November 16, 2004.

lets see...

we dont use the KJV in the catholic church because of several translational errors, plus the method by which it was originally translated (when we have other similarly worded translations from the same time that are more accurate)... HOWEVER, i use an online copy of the KJV when debating with protestants.

I also have a copy of the New International Version protestant study bible (called "the journey," i guess the Bible was too boring a title for the publisher) which i keep for referance and debate with protestants so that they can't claim that the scripture is different because it is a catholic bible.

I also have an ignatius catholic bible which, surprisingly, i rarely ever use. MOST of my bible knowledge comes from mass, where the readings cycle through to cover almost all of the bible in a three year time frame.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 17, 2004.

Jason,

There are quite a few KJV fans out there that are over-the-top fanatical in their support for that version, some going so far as to claim it's the only inspired version. Personally, while I find the language beautiful in a lyrical kind of way, it's just far to difficult to translate into modern vernacular to make it worth reading and more importantly, there are many obvious translation errors. I say all of this asa non-Catholic Christian so that you know that many non-Catholics also don't like the KJV.

I recently shopped for a new Bible and considered first, Catholic editions. I own an NAB already, but recalled that whenever I would quote from the NAB here on this forum, I was told it was a liberal version loaded with problematic notes. That came to light in particular with the woman of Revelations being footnoted in the NAB to be Israel (the view I believe in) and not Mary (as some here believe it to be). So I decided to look for the most accurate translational version I could find without interpretive footnotes. I checked Scott Hahn's website (someone who's teaching I respect) for suggestions and found 2, but both had much of the old language and phraseology that I didn't like in the KJV.

In the end, my search for accuracy led me to the New American Standard (NAS updated), which is not a Catholic edition (so please don't think I'm trying to misdirect you), but it's a non- denominational version dedicated to translational accuracy. I used to read the NIV almost exclusively for it's readbility until I understood how much interpretation they introduced rather than sticking with a pure translation.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 17, 2004.

lets see... we dont use the KJV in the catholic church because of several translational errors, plus the method by which it was originally translated (when we have other similarly worded translations from the same time that are more accurate)... HOWEVER, i use an online copy of the KJV when debating with protestants.

{Lets not make the same lame statements as we always do... the KJV " Many thousands of errors" staple is, quiet bluntly, a lie. Yes, there are a few errors, but there are errrors in all translaitons. However, the KJV has fewer than any other translation. I know, ive checke it agaisnt hte origional langages and mae simlar comparrisons ot most Bble versions.

I mean, even you posted a list off the net of the alledged errors of the KJV, yet the same errors are int hr NAB, because they arent relaly errors. The old claim of the earth "Became" void and without form instead of was coems ot mind...

Lets not bash the KJV unjustly wihthte same lies that are used ot defmae it by cliamign it was the worst translaiton ever with many thousands of errors, it rellay sint supported by anyhting.

The KJV was the most accurate trnsslation of the period, wich is why itwas authoirised to rpelace the less than steller Bishops Bible. Suppsoedly, the others of the itme where better, btut his does not relaly stand up to the fact that scholars AGREED that the KJV was better than existign translations, in that time.

The translation meahod of the KJv was formal equivolency, which at he time was the stndard meathod of translation, which sought to, as much as posible, lend a word-for-word transaltion of the scirtures into English form the origional languages. its a meahod still used today, though most Bibles use dynamic Equivlence which paraphrases i to give rought "Thought-for-thogut" meahtod... which issues mroe interprative rsnslation than the KJV ever did.

Lets not lie and say the meahtod was bad and it is filled with errors, unelss you want to acutally demonstrate htis to be the case...with more than a stock list off the internet.

The KJV is the best English trnaslation ever prodiced, which is not to say it is wholly without error, but it is unjust to make dosparagencies agsisnt it wiht no foundation other than bias.}-Zarove

David-

There are quite a few KJV fans out there that are over-the-top fanatical in their support for that version, some going so far as to claim it's the only inspired version. Personally, while I find the language beautiful in a lyrical kind of way, it's just far to difficult to translate into modern vernacular to make it worth reading and more importantly, there are many obvious translation errors.

{I find it east to read, and undertsand the language. As for the errors, see what I said of paul. what obvious translation errors? this is a common charge, but the only translaiton errors ever shown are off the net, the same list, and when compared to all other Bibles htey usually make the same "Mistakes". explain ot me how the "error laden KJV" is different form the muhc superior RSV or NIV when they say the same things?

What obviosu errors?

Lets not go out of our way to make the KJV look bad just because its a trendy thign to xdo, shall we?}-Zarove

I say all of this asa non-Catholic Christian so that you know that many non-Catholics also don't like the KJV.

{Yet soem Catholics do liek it...its even sld in a few Catholic Book sores in Tennessee...}-Zarove

In the end, my search for accuracy led me to the New American Standard (NAS updated), which is not a Catholic edition (so please don't think I'm trying to misdirect you), but it's a non- denominational version dedicated to translational accuracy.

{Yeah thats why it was, like most new versions, in Romans 14:10 it reads " Judgement seat of God" instead of "Judgement seat of crist" as the KJV? well, since we all know the KJV has many thousands of errors, it must be that this is one of them, since most ( though not all) others translate it judgement seat of God and not Judgment seat of christ... just another exampel fo the infiriotity of thr KJV...

By the way, the word in the Nestle-Aland USB Greek text by which the NASV and most Modern Bibles uses the word "Christos" and not " Theos"... theos means God, Christos means christ... not that Christ was God or anyhtign , and will never be our judge... the newer versiosn are far better at conveyign this fac tthan the crappy KJV...

But don take my word for it, look it up in the Greek... even the "Superior" Nestle-Aland USB. Not the old Textus recipitus, nor the Majority readfisns form which it owes its origin... the Nestles, which came about base don two Manuscripts... just those two... and even they agree with the KJV here, but the translators knew better...}-Zarove

I used to read the NIV almost exclusively for it's readbility until I understood how much interpretation they introduced rather than sticking with a pure translation.

{which is why I use KJV... oh thats irght, it has many thousands of errors that are obious ... none of which stand scrutiny...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

Sorry Zarove, I'm not getting baited into this tired argument. Like I said, there are some "over-the-top" KJV supporters, among which you seem to be numbered.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 17, 2004.

Nope. I am not one who said the KJV is divinely inspired, hwoever, David, the other end is the reactionaries who tend to say its the most flawed and that all Modern Bibel translatoions, and in pauls case, the older oens form the KJV period, are vastly superior.

I mean, relaly, the " obviosu errors" in the KJv are nonexistant, its less flawed than most modern paraphrases, yet it has the rputaiton of being the most flawed out there.

Is that relaly fair? or is it fair to charecterise me, when all i say is dont disparage it, as an extremist?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

I am not, as you claim David, suhc an extremist, but the KJV has gotten a bad reputaiton as having many thiusands of errors. Such is not relaly true, and it is the best available english translation, wihthte fewest errors.

This is all I say, not more than this. i also dislike the old claim if how many errors it has, which make it soind infirior, when indeed it is superiror, to most other versions.

Least fo all when such claim are eithe runfudned, or founded on soem website that lists werrors that often arent even errors, and are the same in all Bibles... I shall show, snce Paul H remidned me, the same list used agaisnt hre KJV, and compae it to the NAB, if I have time.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.