Latin Vulgate More Accurate Than Modern Translatn?

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

I was reading a fun little booklet the other night about how DRV is the most accurate version of Holy Scriptures in English because it was translated from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate as compared to other modern translations that use only the 'unreliable' and 'often contradicting' greek and hebrew texts we have today to use. It was an interesting book and accused modern translations of teaching people a lie by twisting and distorting scripture... The examples were quite blatent and showed a real difference in several modern Catholic and Protestant translations showing the differences. It was an 'eye-opening' read I think and put forth an extremely strong argument.

I just wanted to gather some thought on this... What do you all think about this?

[photosynthesis]

what's the booklet called?

[Era Might]

The Douay Rheims was actually criticized in its time for being too Protestant.

Although St. Jerome did possess some manuscripts that no longer exist, we possess some manuscripts that had not been discovered then either.

The Vulgate has its place in Biblical scholarship. But Pope Pius XII praised the return to the original sources, and his predecessors have followed his lead:

[quote]Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.

--Divino Afflante Spiritu[/quote]

[DAF]

I enjoy reading the Latin Vulgate, and when I compare it to alot of Bibles, I've found that alot of the modern translations are pretty far off the mark, not necessarily theologically (though some are a stretch there too) but the wording is so convoluted, the original meaning to be conveyed is often distorted.

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Nov 29 2005, 07:16 PM']what's the booklet called?
[right][snapback]804545[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's published by TAN (know to be very traditional) called [i]What Bible Should You Read?[/i] It is written by the guy who runs/owns TAN (Thomas A. Nelson) so he has a bit of his opinion thrown in along with quotes from the Council of Trent with some 'problem' passages...

It also went into the 3 main mistakes made in modern translations: Which Authoratative 'Original' to Use, Incirrect Choice of Words, and Interpreting rather than Translating

It was quite interesting...

[qfnol31]

I'm taking Hebrew right now and wonder what is really a good translation.

It's actually pretty difficult, but I know the New Jerusalem is supposed to be pretty good.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I downloaded that booklet in pdf format when it first came out and I have to say I thought a lot of it was mistaken.

I wish it was true, believe me, I just think the tract represented too narrow a view.