NAB-RE versus RSV-SCE

Didn't see that one when I made this thread, and the reason I am asking about which version people prefer is that the NAB-RE and the RSV-SCE are the two contemporary Bibles approved by the USCCB.
KJV Onlyism is retarded, Contemporary English words don't even have the same meanings in all cases, Jesus didn't speak English


I'm not interested in a translation war. I'm curious as to the specific differences between those two bibles in particular, which people prefer, and why.

Why not the D-R version? Just curious

Attached: 415QlH-ATWL.jpg (304x380, 31.67K)

I haven't given the NAB-RE a try, but the RSV2CE is my go-to Bible now. My only complaints are
Otherwise, it's pretty a pretty solid Catholic translation with good notes. I'd like to pick up the Ignatius Study Bible once that's completed.

Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's inconsistent. But even more than that, why were none of the changes found there before 1881 when the so-called "critical text" was first published? Should I go on to show the major doctrinal changes such as removing the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24? That's objective, there's no translational difference they just removed the words whole stock.

Good thing we can use a Bible written in a better, and well-documented standard than contemporary English then. And postmodern relativism, which is what you're proclaiming in this statement, is made of cancerous lies. Words have definite meaning, there is objective truth.

Seriously, what part of my post warranted this statement? Did I say this? Seriously, did I say this?

Why is it one false attack after another, why do people keep coming on here promoting falsehood when it comes to Bible translations?

You probably mean the doxology which comes right after. "For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Stop assuming I already understand what you're talking about. Establish premises, draw a conclusion, make an argument. I genuinely don't know what you're referring to here, exactly, aside from a general sense of disapproval for contemporary bibles.
Screw you, I am not proclaiming postmodern relativism. It is objectively true that languages change over time. I don't speak Old English and neither do you. Middle English (KJV English) is much closer to modern English but it isn't the same. Hence the need for a bible in modern parlance.
The KJV is a translation and translations are going to have linguistic imperfections, period. You can argue that the KJV is the least flawed English translation but to argue that it is LIDERALY PERFECT BIBEL :DDD is foolish silliness.

I'm afraid not; see pic related.

Attached: 0225190008a.jpg (3264x1836, 2.16M)

Yeah I saw afterward that you were talking about the Luke version, it is an the abbreviated version of the prayer though.

Ok in my first post, I said that people (such as that council) who recommend that you read conflicting Bibles are self-contradictory, because they are implying scripture can go more than one way. Notice I said conflicting Bibles, because it so happens that I can find these major doctrinal differences where entire words and phrases, even sometimes verses are wholly removed in one but not the other. Yet, even then, they pretend like there's no difference. And once again, like clockwork, whether intentionally or not, perpetuate the age-old misconception that they say the same thing. Thus they are leading people astray by putting a stumbling-block in front of them, in the form of a corrupted version of scripture that they recommended you to read. Not only this but they are implying generally that there is a lack of certainty when it comes to language as well, just adding more fuel to the postmodern relativist fire and spreading it even further.

Is that close enough?

It's also objectively true that standard English doesn't have to conform to regional dialects and just plain lazy English. And that's true for any language. The point being you don't even pretend like we are forced into this relativist box where there is no way to know what words mean, because of the fact we aren't forced to use contemporary English if there are better-standardized and defined forms of English available for us to use, as will be the case in the facts I am about to unfold below.

Ok first off, Middle English was gone by the 1400's. The Wycliffe translation would have been in it.

Second, the KJV in 1611 was written in "early" Modern English. In fact, one major reason it's called this is because all English literature that came after it was deeply influenced by it. And buckle yourself because there's more. In 1755 Samuel Johnson came out with his Dictionary of the English Language and guess where he pulled a vast amount of word definitions from? The Authorized version. Which was the only translation in use, and would remain so for even longer. And then Webster's (American) English Dictionary in 1833 pulled all its word definitions from it as well.

So you see, it's not possible for it to be wrong in any of those cases when it comes to word choice, since the English language itself has now defined itself on those terms. It is the lexicon of English. And lastly, the 1769 version of the KJV took these standardized spellings into account, making it the standard of precision for Modern English even until this very day, where it is still preserving cases like ye/you and thee/thou (plural and singular).

The English in common use has never been as precise in conserving word tense and so on as the Bible is, but this is honestly to be expected. That's a lot of work to put into saying things precisely a certain way. Also, the English that is in use today isn't even called Modern English, it's called contemporary English.

Modern parlance is generally inferior because it lacks the precision we would want for a serious stury. But again, the foremost problem with modern versions is actually all the actual deletions of entire words from the critical text that always gets conveniently ignored. You can't even argue they "say the same thing" when the entire thing is deleted in the new version.

How do you define imperfections? If the KJV is wrong on something then you're also saying the dictionary is wrong because that was its source. At that point, how have you not devolved to relativism? where you're saying the dictionaries are wrong?

Ah, that makes sense. I wasn't aware Luke had a different version of it.