Nab Vs. Kjv

[ironmonk]

Thesis: The New American Bible is a better translation of the Scriptures than the King James Version.

When we think of Christianity we can’t help but think of the Scriptures and the impact that they have had on our world. In the Scriptures we have the guidelines for a model of a healthy society. Many non-Christians do not realize the great controversy that has entailed the Scriptures over the years. That is that many Christians often wonder what the best translation of the bible is. With the writings of the Old Testaments going back over 3000 years, and writings of the New Testament going back over 1900 years, it is easy to understand how erroneous translations can be so widely used. The most widely used translation that is erroneous is the King James Version.

Many people do not realize where the Scriptures came from. We must first look at how we got the Scriptures to understand which translation is the most accurate. The Old Testament came from the Jewish faith. The Jewish faith had leaders that were guided by God in teaching the Jewish people what to believe. These same men where guided by God to determine which books were to be considered “Scripture”. Those men had God given authority. Likewise, with the coming of Jesus Christ, as prophesied in the Old Testament, Jesus took away the authority of the Jews and gave that authority to His new Church. The first leaders in the New Church were the Apostles with Peter the Apostle as their leader after Christ was crucified. This New Church was and is the Catholic Church that we have today. By the fourth century AD, there were hundreds of writings to teach the Christian faith. Many of the writings were being considered as Scripture when some of them were not really Scripture. The Church saw a need to define what the New Scriptures would be. The canon of the Scriptures (Inspired books of the New Testament), was determined in Council of the African Church held at Hippo (393 AD), and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). Out of over 200 books and letters, 27 where chosen as Scripture. The 27 books canonized in 397 AD are the same 27 found in every version of the New Testament today. The 27 books of the New Testament were compiled and known as the Latin Vulgate. The original books of the New Testament were written in various languages, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. A quote from the father of Protestantism speaks volumes for who knows the Scriptures best; “"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John.

The King James Version of the bible was finished in 1611 AD. The King James Version gets it’s name from James I of England, who was the first Stuart King of England. King James appointed 54 Scholars to translate the Scriptures. James I believed that he was guided by God and had authority given to him by God. The Old Testament used in the King James Version is known as the Massorah. The Massorah was finished in 90 AD and was a Hebrew translation of the Septuagint with some books taken out of it. The Septuagint was the Scriptures of the Jews which dated back to 285 BC. The King James Version New Testament is an Old English translation of the Latin Vulgate. Also, the King James Version has various translation errors in the text itself.

Some are under the misunderstanding that the Catholic Church added to the Scriptures. When in all reality it was the King James Version which took away from the Scriptures. Here are a few quotes from the first Christian writings that reference the books as Scripture that the Massorah took out.

• "You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

• "Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

• "By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80] Clement of Rome).

• "Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].

. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135] Polycarp of Smyrna).

• "Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

• "Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here - Irenaeus).

The New American Bible was finished in 1970 AD. The New American Bible was translated by Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is made up of Catholic Priests for the purpose of giving religious instruction. The Old Testament translation is a complete translation from the Septuagint directly into modern English. The Septuagint was what Jesus and the Apostles considered to be Scripture. Also, anytime Scripture is written about in the New Testament, the context is in reference to the Septuagint. All Christians used the Septuagint as their Old Testament until 1611 AD. The New Testament translation was directly from the original languages, with critical use of all the ancient sources, directly into modern English. Anytime there might be a question of what a meaning might be, the New American Bible gives references and explanations in the footnotes of the possibility of other meanings.

In conclusion I believe the King James Version of the Scriptures is a poor translation to read, even for people who wish to compare different translations. Old English can be hard to understand. Many things can be lost with the multiple translations that were needed to get the Old English version. For the Old Testament in the King James Version, the translation path went from Greek to Hebrew to Old English, also it was abridged. For the New Testament Translations in the King James Version it went from Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew to Latin to Old English. The New American Bible is one of the best translations, if not the best translation, of the Scriptures. It provides adequate footnotes and gives the reader the facts to decide for themselves what the implication of the given verse could be. Also, with the New American Bible, it came from the same group of men who gave us the Canon of the New Testament in 397 AD. I believe that the men who gave us the Canon will know the true meaning of the Scriptures better than a group that came more than 1500 years after the time they were written.

Sources:

1. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. The New American Bible 1970. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 9 Dec 2002 <http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm>

2. The Unbound Bible. King James Version. Bioloa University <http://unbound.biola.edu/>

3. "Septuagint." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

07 Sep, 2003 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=68531

4. "James I." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

07 Sep, 2003 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=44270

5. "King James Version." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

08 Sep, 2003 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=46582>.

6. "Biblical Translation." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

08 Sep, 2003 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=2765>.

7. "Christianity." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

08 Sep, 2003 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108294>.

8. "Roman Catholicism, History of." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.

08 Sep, 2003 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117864>.

9. Akin, James. “Bad Translations in the King James Version”

22 September 1996. <http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/kjverrors.htm>

10. Early Church Fathers. CD-ROM.

Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems Inc., 1997

Edited September 8, 2003 by ironmonk

[Dave]

Great work as always, Max! :D

[Brother Adam]

I prefer the ESV myself, although the NIV is pretty good too.

[Anna]

So much helpful info there, IronMonk. Thanks for all your research!

Pax Christi. <><

[VanHooty]

Many thanks Ironmonk.

I was always a fan of the RSV: Catholic Edition put out by Ignatius Press myself though.

[ironmonk]

I prefer the ESV myself, although the NIV is pretty good too.

I'm not familar w/the ESV... but the NIV is abridged... just like the kjv.

Those who have protected the Scriptures and were given authority by God to teach them, for the last 2000 years know it best.

If a bible is not given a thumbs up by the Catholic Church, then that bible is not worth reading.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Norseman82]

Just an interesting note: while doing some web searching for NAB references, I ran across a website that said that the NAB is considered the most accurate translation available today. The website is run not by Catholics, but, I believe, Seventh-Day Adventists!

[ReformationNow]

You should also add that one of the KJV translators was well known for being drunk on the job.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe revised Standard Version - CAtholic Edition is more accurate than the NAB version, which suffers from inclusive language.

If you buy a Navarre Bible you can read the English right next to the Latin New Vulgate translation, which is the offical translation of the Church.

[ironmonk]

You should also add that one of the KJV translators was well known for being drunk on the job.

I didn't know that...

THe revised Standard Version - CAtholic Edition is more accurate than the NAB version, which suffers from inclusive language.

Please provide some examples of what you mean. The NAB is an excellent translation from the original languages to modern English. I do not think seems inclusive at all. Anytime there is a discrepency with translations; it's normally covered in the footnotes. It is the bible used on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.... It was translated by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which was founded in 1582 for the purpose of teaching the faith.

If the NSRV was better than the NAB, then why do the Bishops use the NAB on their website?

If you buy a Navarre Bible you can read the English right next to the Latin New Vulgate translation, which is the offical translation of the Church.

Any bible translated from the Vulgate has been translated twice... The New American Bible was translated from the original languages, hence less is lost in translation.

The NAB is an official translation of the Church for people who read English.

It has to Pope's blessing...

It's good to have multiple transaltions, as long as they are authorized by the Church... but really, we don't have to get that picky with Scripture because we have the Church teaching us the meaning.... The best way to study Scripture is the read the Catechism and look up the references to Scripture.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Norseman82]

Clarification: the NAB 1987 translation has inclusive language, the 1970 edition does not. The NCCB website has a link to the 1987 edition. I have an outstanding question as to if there is a link to the 1970 translation.

Also, the CCC does use the RSV Catholic edition, FYI....

[Norseman82]

One other question:

What is everyone's opinion of the Douay-Rheims?

[cmotherofpirl]

I didn't know that...

Please provide some examples of what you mean. The NAB is an excellent translation from the original languages to modern English. I do not think seems inclusive at all. Anytime there is a discrepency with translations; it's normally covered in the footnotes. It is the bible used on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.... It was translated by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which was founded in 1582 for the purpose of teaching the faith.

If the NSRV was better than the NAB, then why do the Bishops use the NAB on their website?

Any bible translated from the Vulgate has been translated twice... The New American Bible was translated from the original languages, hence less is lost in translation.

The NAB is an official translation of the Church for people who read English.

It has to Pope's blessing...

It's good to have multiple transaltions, as long as they are authorized by the Church... but really, we don't have to get that picky with Scripture because we have the Church teaching us the meaning.... The best way to study Scripture is the read the Catechism and look up the references to Scripture.

God Bless,

ironmonk

NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1995

[in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued "secret norms" to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had rejected two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised New American Bible) for use in the Liturgy, owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. These norms remained "secret," even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops' conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. Having been approved by the entire Conference it will now be sent to Rome for final confirmation.]

1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.

2. The first principle with respect to biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. "Dei Verbum" III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.

3. The translation of Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression without "correction" or "improvement" in service of modern sensitivities.

a) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

B) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l. The natural gender of "personae" in the Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church's tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be no systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

5. Grammatical number and person of the original texts ordinarily should be maintained.

6/1. Translation should strive to preserve the connotations as well as the denotations of words or expressions in the original and thus not preclude possible layers of meaning.

6/2. For example, where the New Testament or the Church's tradition have interpreted certain texts of the Old Testament in a Christological fashion, special care should be observed in the translation of these texts so that a Christological meaning is not precluded.

6/3. Thus, the word "man" in English should as a rule translate 'adam and anthropos (ανθρωποσ), since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology.

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]

Copyright © 1997 EWTN

All Rights Reserved

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

http://www.ewtn.com

HOME - NEWS - FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO - LIBRARY - GALLERY -GENERAL

[cmotherofpirl]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/CONFSCRI.TXT

Here is the important part:

Where we stand now:

Neither the NRSV nor the RNAB are permitted for liturgical use in the churches of the

United States.

The liturgical use of the NRSV is permitted only in Canada where books had been

prematurely published.

The ICEL Psalter may not be used in the liturgy.

At present, with the sole exception of the RSV Catholic Edition re-published in 1994 as

the <Ignatius Bible>, there are <no complete Catholic bibles currently in print> that

have not already been "gender neutered. Obviously, then, no new lectionaries can be

produced using any other translation until this anomalous situation can be resolved.

Evidently, most American bishops seem to want to introduce "gender-neutral"

language if this does not compromise doctrine and obscure meaning of Scripture and

liturgical texts. However, experience shows that this objective cannot be achieved. Even

changes on the so-called "horizontal" level create substantial problems affecting

doctrine and meaning.

"Man," when used in its generic or inclusive sense, with its multiple layers of meaning,

cannot be eliminated without destroying some of those layers--as was seen, for

example, in the controversy over "and became man" in the Creed.

Moreover, use of "inclusive language" actually <excludes> all those who believe that

"inclusivism" does not proceed from a natural change in the language, but rather is an

innovation rooted in the ideology of feminism.

NCCB Statement on the Status of the NRSV and RNAB Texts

<In the interest of clarification of the status of the NRSV and RNAB texts, Cardinal

Keeler's statement of November 1, 1994, is re-printed here exactly as it appeared in

Origins.>

"Last week in Rome, Archbishop Geraldo Agnelo, secretary of the Congregation for

Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, confirmed that a letter addressed

to me on July 27, 1994, constituted the congregation's communication to us of the

withdrawal of the permission to use the New Revised Standard Version for liturgical

purposes.

"An official of the congregation had informed Msgr. Robert N. Lynch, NCCB/USCC

general secretary, at a private meeting on Oct. 5, 1994, that the July letter was the

official response on the matter. Subsequent press coverage, however, seemed to

indicate to the conference's staff in Washington that perhaps a new letter had been

prepared and mailed.

"Because the July 27 letter did not bear the characteristics of a formal decree, my

presumption was that it was a continuation of correspondence that had begun earlier

last summer. Also, at the time of this correspondence, the preparation of the Revised

New American Bible (NAB) Lectionary was the more immediate concern for us in the

United States. Following receipt of correspondence from the Congregation for Divine

Worship, those working with the Revised NAB Lectionary in this country began

preparing a response to the observations received from the Holy See. These were

completed recently but have not been forwarded to the congregation.

"Last week in Rome, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the

Doctrine of the Faith, kindly met with me and, following the review of the situation,

agreed that it would be very helpful if members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

residing in Rome could meet with some of our bishops and scholars who are working

on the Revised NAB Lectionary to discuss and clarify principles for translation. It is in

the context of the review of the Revised NAB Lectionary that the confirmation of the

permission for liturgical use of the NAB Psalter has been withdrawn, as was also

indicated in the July 27 letter. Because of the foreseeable modifications in the Psalter,

permission was withdrawn so that two versions of the same psalter not be in use.

"The use of either the NRSV or the revised NAB for reading or Bible study is not at

issue. Both translations are properly approved for these purposes.

"What is at issue is liturgical use, the public proclamation of the Word of God in the

living tradition of the Catholic Church. One of the points which I believe the scholars

would want to discuss is the application of the apostolic constitution <scripturarum

Thesaurus> of April 25, 1969, and the decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship

and for the Discipline of the Sacraments issued on Jan. 21, 1981, as guides, especially

for liturgical translations.

"The continued collaboration between the congregations of the Holy See and the

committees of our conference should help us soon to have a Lectionary which will be

both faithful to the tradition of the Church and serve the urgent needs of our people for

a lectionary in the English currently used in our country."

CHRONOLOGY OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

1966: Revised Standard Version—Catholic Edition completed and published.

1970: New American Bible completed and published.

1975: ICEL is "committed to inclusive language", only two years after completion of

ICEL liturgical texts.

1986: Revised New Testament of the New American Bible completed and approved by

bishops; published 1987.

1989: New Revised Standard Version is completed; published 1990.

1990: November: American bishops approve "Criteria for the Evaluation of Inclusive

Language Translations of Scriptural Texts Proposed for Liturgical Use."

1991: Revised NAB Psalter is completed and approved by bishops; published 1992.

NRSV—Catholic [Edition is completed and approved by bishops in both the U.S. and

Canada; published 1992.

November: American bishops approve NRSV and RNAB Psalter for liturgical use and

submit it to the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.

1992: April: Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship sends letter to American bishops

approving the text of NRSV (No lectionary was submitted) and RNAB Psalter.

June, November: The American bishops approve a lectionary incorporating the RNAB

New Testament and Psalms and submit to Vatican for approval.

1993; June: "Interim Guidelines" for ad lib. "inclusivizing" some texts used in the liturgy

proposed for June NCCB meeting by Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy. They are not

approved.

November: Revised Grail Psalter incorporating feminist language is rejected by the

bishops at the NCCB meeting.

1994: June: English translation of the <Catechism of the Catholic Church> appears, after

delay of nearly two years because of "inclusive" problems. Vatican translation uses RSV

for Scripture passages (also a few NRSV citations unaffected by inclusivism).

June: Bishops appoint a committee to plan a forum on translations at NCCB meeting.

June: Ignatius Bible (RSV—Catholic edition) re-published.

July 27: Congregation for Divine Worship rescinds approval of both NRSV and RNAB

by letter to bishops" conferences.

October 11: FDLC resolution at national meeting urges acceptance of NRSV, says

rejection by Vatican would set "dangerous precedent".

October 25: Vatican's withdrawal of approval from NRSV is revealed by Catholic News

Service; U.S. and Canadian conference officials at first deny receiving notice from the

Vatican.

November 1: Cardinal-designate Keeler, president of NCCB, issues statement on

Vatican decision.

1995: January: Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds consultation on

translations of Scripture and liturgical texts.

July: ICEL'S THE Psalter and Psalms for Morning and Evening Prayer published by

Archdiocese of Chicago, Liturgical Training Publications, with Cardinal Keeler's

approval. Never voted on by NCCB; not approved for liturgical use.

August: Vatican (CDF) issues "secret norms" for translation.

September 5: Bishop Trautman of the BCL calls The New Testament and Psalms— An

Inclusive Version, published by Oxford University Press and based on the NRSV an

"irresponsible translation that offends the doctrine of the Church and revealed truth..."

November: Report at NCCB meeting on progress with planning bishops' translation

"forum."

******************************

Mrs. Hitchcock is director of Women for Faith & Family and editor of <Adoremus

Bulletin>.

[PedroX]

Thanks Cmom, I knew that I had heard this somewhere, but didn't want to say anything without proof. I'm so glad the Bishops are working on the disgrace of inclusive language.

peace...