On the NASB & NAB

/ Re: New American Standard Version "is this Catholic Bible?" / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 24 March 1999 /
.
> Sylvia inquires: I've always noticed that in the Catholic section of the bibles, that the New American
> Standard version is the bible translation favored. Is this a catholic bible translation of sorts? I've
> heard of "The Way", as a teenager favored bible, but was wondering about the NASV. I currently
> have the KJV (too difficult to understand) and the NIV. Does anyone have any insight as to the
> NASV? Thank you for your time. God bless. warm hugs,  -- Sylvia
.
 textman say: Dear Sylvia, please allow me to address this matter. As providence wouldst have it, I was but lately considering along similar lines ... Ain't synchronicity grand? Anyway, I think that the best way to approach this situation is to just compare two copies of the Bible, and see what pops up ...
.
 The two bibles I have selected are the New American Bible [St.Joseph personal size edition, Catholic Book Publishing Co, New York, 1987] and the New American Standard Bible [Updated Text edition, Foundation Publications Inc, Anaheim, 1997]. These two books are lightweight paperback editions built for being held and read and prayed with. The NAB is just under 6.5" tall, 4.5" wide, and about 1.3" deep. The NASB is almost 8" tall, just over 5" wide, and a mere 3/4" deep. I guess it's just a matter of taste which size-format one prefers; but I like those that resemble the pocketbook format (ie. a traveling book), and in that area the NAB scores higher. However, the taller dimensions of the NASB allow it to use a larger font. This can go a long way with serious Readers, because few things are as important as the font style and size. There are many other significant differences between these two copies of the Word of God; and we shall have to examine many of them if we wish to make an informed use of them.
.
 As to the matter of translation: Both are good and generally reliable English renderings of the original language texts. Neither is finished nor flawless nor un-awkward at spots, but the NASB is the better text for serious study and scholarship. Indeed the NASB is about as close to the original Hebrew and Greek as you can get; without otherwise wisely abandoning the English language altogether (in favor of Koine) ...  :)
.
 As to the NASB being favored by Catholics and book stores, this is quite understandable. Although the NASB is not an official Catholic bible like the NAB (which carries the Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur) and The Jerusalem Bible versions, it is about as close to being an "ecumenical" or "universal" (ie. 'catholic' in the original sense) text as one can get. Indeed, the most conspicuous difference between these two copies is not so much the biblical text itself, but rather in the surrounding apparatus. The NAB has footnotes, cross-references, 38 maps, the complete text of the Constitution on Divine Revelation, an essay on the Bible and Catholic life, chronological charts, various introductions, etc etc etc! By comparison, the NASB seems to have no apparatus at all. It has a semi-useful concordance in the back, and a few maps, and that's about it. Thus the NASB is simply the bare text of the 66 canonical sacred books. [Which, of course, there are many more sacred Christian books than that!]
.
 Now this is a deliberate quality built into the text (as it were) according to the fourth stated aim of the makers: "4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized." It is important to properly appreciate what this last phrase means. It means that they will not edit the text in any way beyond the absolutely necessary. Thus the NASB has the usual chapter and verse numbering system inserted upon the bare text [a semi-modern invention, btw, and rather poorly done at that], along with a light sprinkling of very unobtrusive footnotes and sub-headings. But their devotion to the bare text has led them to this weakness: they have made the text subservient to the apparatus! What I mean by this is that in the NASB each verse is a paragraph unto itself; which means that there are no real paragraphs or pericopes or discrete literary units anywhere in the NASB. I consider this to be a very very *MAJOR* weakness in the text; one that does NOT help the Reader to ease of reading; nor does it facilitate and encourage understanding (aim #3).
.
 By contrast, the NAB groups verses into paragraphs, paragraphs into pericopes, etc. It has many headings and sub-headings and footnotes and so forth, all of which are indispensable aids to the Reader trying to navigate this vast largely uncharted universe within these two-columned pages. One might even say that the NAB is a *very* 'personalized' bible, in that it has a heavy Catholic apparatus surrounding the text at all points. Indeed, for all intents and purposes it is a Catholic "study-bible". Now making the text 'Catholic' is what Catholic bible-makers do best. The various Jerusalem bibles take this process to the next level by way of copious notes and essays, and by more freedom in translating the text into French & English (ie. more dynamic paraphrasing). Thus the NAB can be considered as a kind of hybrid version, combining the strengths and best features of the Protestant "bare-text" bible and the uniquely Catholic "Catholic-bible". The result is a high-quality translation presented in a very Catholic package. Outside of the various big and bulky hardcover study-bibles, the Protestants, Anglicans, & Orthodox have nothing that can compare to this edition, which is not just another good bible, but the Catholic Faith (nutshell) in the palm of your hand!
.
 So we can easily see why some Catholics might be attracted to the NASB. For all those Christians who wish to drink of the Word free from all priestly additions and impurities and pieties, the NASB is the logical choice. It's interesting to consider how the RC Church has profited from the protestant love of the holy books. In Canada, the official liturgical text is the New Revised Standard Version. So then all of these 'catholic' bibles share the same ancestry: NASB -> NRSV -> RSV -> AV -> KJV -> Tyndale's bible -> Luther's revolutionary German bible.
.
 On the other hand, non-catholic bible-makers seem unable and/or unwilling to move much beyond the 'bare-text of 66'. It's not that they lack the resources to create a book of the quality and style of the St. Joe NAB. Rather, it's the apparent lack of doctrinal unity, of shared traditions and values and affections, that disallows the possibility of creating a bible that presents the bare-text with a scholarly and yet Christian apparatus of considerable substance, based on sound evangelical doctrine and theology, a zealous respect for the Word, and an awareness of the Reader's needs being always a top-priority. It is this last item, I think, that suffers the most in all modern bibles; including both the NAB and NASB (although in different ways, of course).
.
 So now, let us onward to examine the concrete results of all this history-of-bibles stuff. Please now take a good long look at these 3 versions of Jude 24&25, and compare the differences & similarities:
.
1. To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and exultant, in the presence of his glory, to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen. [New American Bible / concluding section entitled 'Doxology']
.
2. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. [New American Standard Bible / Updated Edition / no subheadings]
.
3. Now to the one who is able to guard you without stumbling, and sets before you the glory of Him-blameless-with-exultation, and the only God, our Savior (through Jesus Christ our Lord), let that one be given
glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the Age; now and unto all the ages to come. Amen! [Prophet Version; under heading 'Final Warnings & Admonitions' (v.20-25)]
.
 Now as to #1 above, it ought rightly to be subtitled 'Incomprehensible Doxology'. The use of commas does little to help us make sense of this strange prayer-like statement. It seems to be a blessing, conferring and recognizing the eternal authority of Christ.
.
 #2 is a little clearer in meaning. Note the clever use of commas and capitalized words. Here it seems to be God who is blessed with eternal dominion and authority.
.
 #3 suggests that the subject of the blessing is the Christian leader or teacher who sets a right understanding of Jesus and the Father before the churches, and guards them (through sound doctrine and faithful teachings) from stumbling into heresy. It is this good teacher who should receive authority in his generation, and those that follow. I suspect that the prophet Jude is here alluding to his own teacher, the prophet James (whom Jude explicitly refers to in verse one, even calling him 'brother').
.
 So then, you see how even just one sentence can be translated so as to provide three or more different and distinct meanings. For the Catholic, there is no choice among these options. The faithful are required to accept and respect the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church. In this case, that means the NAB; despite the fact that it is the least clear and coherent of the above versions! Oh the joys of being a Cat!

/ Topic > Re: On the NASB & NAB / Date > 27 April 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman wrote: As to the NASB being favored by Catholics and book stores, this is quite
>> understandable. Although the NASB is not an official Catholic bible like the NAB (which carries
>> the Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur) and The Jerusalem Bible versions, it is about as close to being
>> an "ecumenical" or "universal" (ie.'catholic' in the original sense) text as one can get.
.
> Anonymous replies: False on both counts. Neither is it favored by Catholics nor is it about
> as "close to being ... 'catholic'... as one can get".
.
 textman answers: Dear Anonymous, I did not say that the NASB is 'about as close to being Catholic as one can get', but rather is 'as close to being ecumenical as one can get'. As to your first comment: I didn't mean to imply that it was favored by all (or even by many) Catholics, but only by some few Cats (ie. those that take the Word of God seriously, and render unto it all due respect and devotion, etc). After all, not all Catholics can be so confused that they are unable to distinguish between these two supremely *unalike* versions!
.
> The main reason the NASB is purchased by some Catholics is that they confuse it with the NAB.
> Ask any Catholic bookseller.
.
 Well, Anon, I haven't actually asked any Cat bookseller about it yet, but it seems to me that there's a simple solution to this problem. To dispel all confusion, all that the Cat booksellers need do is to remove the NASB from their shelves, and thus there will be no occasion for ignorant Catholics to mistake it for the NAB ...   :)
.
>> <snip> By contrast, the NAB groups verses into paragraphs, paragraphs into pericopes, etc. It has
>> many headings and sub-headings and footnotes and so forth, all of which are indispensable aids to
>> the Reader trying to navigate this vast largely uncharted universe within these two-columned pages.
>> One might even say that the NAB is a *very* 'personalized' bible, in that it has a heavy Catholic
>> apparatus surrounding the text at all points. Indeed, for all intents and purposes it is a Catholic
>> "study-bible". Now making the text 'Catholic' is what Catholic bible-makers do best.
.
> Huh? If you mean to say that 'Catholic' versions of the Bible are inaccurate, then you are
> seriously mistaken.
.
 That is not what I meant. However, if you wish to assert that this is one of the implications of this observation, I will not argue the point. ... Unless you want to press it, of course ...   :)
.
> On the contrary, it was Protestants who first published inaccurate translations of the Bible (like
> the KJV) which corrupted certain passages to support the cause of Protestantism. The Catholic
> Church only approves translations that do not do such things.
.
 LOL ... Dear Anon, you are a very amusing person. Indeed, you have all the makings of a fine Cat theologian. Get thee hence to thy nearest seminary! ... Anyway, in centuries past there were plenty of inaccuracies, errors, and corruptions to go around. No one church or denomination had a monopoly on this. Nor was any one of them free of such mistakes. But you are right that the RCC does not approve of translations that support the cause of Protestantism. She only approves those translations that support the cause of Catholicism! ...
.
 But, in any case, it is not the translated text so much that causes such offense, but rather the surrounding apparatus that supports it. In the time of the Reformation especially, it was the accompanying notes and commentaries (often with a distinctly anti-Cat flavor) that gave grave offense, and led to these translations being declared forbidden.  ... Imagine being subject to the death penalty simply for possessing a copy of one of these outlawed Bibles. Yes, people were brutally executed for this privilege which you take for granted.
.
>> The various Jerusalem bibles take this process to the next level by way of copious notes and essays,
>> and by more freedom in translating the text into French & English (ie. more dynamic paraphrasing).
>> Thus the NAB can be considered as a kind of hybrid version, combining the strengths and best features
>> of the Protestant "bare-text" bible and the uniquely Catholic "Catholic-bible". The result is a high-quality
>> translation presented in a very Catholic package.   <snip>
.
> Agreed.
.
>> So we can easily see why some Catholics might be attracted to the New American Standard Bible.
.
> No, from this we can easily see why Catholics prefer the NAB.
.
 Actually, I think that most hard-core Cats tend to prefer one or another of the Jerusalem Bible versions (or per-versions, if you want to get technical about it), even over the NAB.
.
>> For all those Christians who wish to drink of the Word free from all priestly additions
>> and impurities and pieties, the NASB is the logical choice.
.
> There are no additions, impurities, etc. in the NAB.
.
 On the contrary, there are many irregularities in the translation that slant the text so as to favor the priestly perspective on all things. One need only carefully compare the NAB text of the epistle of Jude with the best Greek text of same to see how the translation is made to serve and support the Catholic cause. I gave an example of this in my previous article (see below); and such illustrations can easily be multiplied indefinitely ... although I doubt that any such list could ever convince you of the truth of these matters. No indeed, for Cats *much* rather prefer their own cherished lies, fantasies, and illusions over anything even remotely resembling the truth of things.
.
> The NASB, however, *lacks* the deutercanonical books of the OT.
> Thus it is not the complete canon of Scriptures.
.
 Yes, Protestants seem to be hopelessly bewitched by their 66 books, no more, no less. On the other hand, neither do the Catholic Bibles contain *all* the holy books. For there are books that were widely recognized by Christians as holy once, which never made it into the Emperor Constantine's canon. And yet the Holy Spirit has never ceased to inspire Christian writers of every generation. There are certain works by Tolstoy, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, etc, that would be right at home alongside of the canonical books. So just as prophecy remains with us even unto this very day, so has the Word of God never ceased from making known the truth of things in new and unfamiliar ways. ... If post-modern Christians weren't so horribly ignorant of their own Christian literary heritage, all this would be plain to see, and surely no cause for scandal.
.
>> It's interesting to consider how the RC Church has profited from the protestant love of the holy
>> books. In Canada, the official liturgical text is the New Revised Standard Version. So then all of
>> these 'catholic' bibles share the same ancestry: NASB -> NRSV -> RSV -> AV -> KJV -> Tyndale's
>> bible -> Luther's revolutionary German bible.   <snip>
.
> The NAB made critical use of ancient texts undiscovered after the KJV and other Protestant
> translations were made. Thus, the NAB presents an accurate rendering of the most ancient sources.
.
 The NAB is indeed a new translation of the (then) best available source texts. But neither this fact, nor the use of critical methods, can (in and of themselves) insure accuracy of translation. A good start, even with the best intentions, does not always lead to a good finished product. Especially when you start out with a whole truckload of Catholic assumptions, presumptions, misconceptions and preconceptions about this, that, and the other thing; and also many and various pre-judgments as to what the text *ought* to say.
.
> In addition, the NAB is far more 'ecumenical' in that although it is a Catholic translation, it was
> accomplished with the collaboration of scholars from other Christian churches, including their
> participation on the editorial board.
.
 Collaborative ecumenical committees are hardly unique to the NAB. Indeed, it is the preferred approach of most modern translations (including the NIV).
.
> The aim of the revised edition of the NT in the NAB was to "produce a version as accuarate and faithful
> to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation". They didn't simply update the
> language, retranslating an older English translation (which can lead to errors being introduced).
.
 Well, Anon, how accurate and faithful a text is is a matter for textual criticism to decide. It is not a thing to be judged by popes and bishops according to some preconceived notion of what the Faith is, or what Scripture should say. Thus from a purely objective and scientific point of view, the NASB and the NIV are both better translations (in general) than the NAB. You are, of course, free to think otherwise; but this does not change the fact that you are objectively wrong to do so.
.
>> So now, let us onward to examine the concrete results of all this history-of-bibles stuff. Please now
>> take a good long look at these 3 versions of Jude 24&25, and compare the differences & similarities:
.
>> 1. To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and exultant,
>> in the presence of his glory, to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty,
>> power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen.
>> [New American Bible / concluding section entitled 'Doxology']
.
>> 2. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of
>> His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be
>> glory, majesty, dominion  and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
>> [New American Standard Bible / Updated Edition / no subheadings]
.
>> 3. Now to the one who is able to guard you without stumbling, and sets before you the glory of
>> Him-blameless-with-exultation, and the only God, our Savior (through Jesus Christ our Lord), let
>> that one be given glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the Age; now and unto all
>> the ages to come. Amen!
>> [Prophet Version; under the heading 'Final Warnings & Admonitions' (v.20-25)]
.
>> Now as to #1 above, it ought rightly to be subtitled 'Incomprehensible Doxology'. The use of
>> commas does little to help us make sense of this strange prayer-like statement. It seems to
>> be a blessing, conferring and recognizing the eternal authority of Christ. <snip>
.
> #1 doesn't sound incomprehensible to me. In fact, #2 is more problematic. For example "to make
> you stand in the presence" sounds like an action of force while "to present you" more clearly
> indicates a loving action.
.
 "a loving action", you say? So then your basis for deciding what constitutes an accurate and faithful translation is not what the original Greek text states, but rather whether or not it conforms to your Catholic sentiments regarding what is or is not 'a loving action' ... ?
.
 For those few of you with a modicum of respect for the Word of God, here is an accurate and faithful rendering of the Greek text: "Now to the one being able to guard you without stumbling and to set [you] before the glory of him blameless, with exultation, to [the] only God [the] savior of us through Jesus Christ the Lord of us [be] glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the age and now and into all the ages, amen." [Jude 24, 25 / New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament] Now if you compare this bare literal version with the above three renderings, you ought to be able to discover which of them is the better overall translation (hint: it's not the NAB).
.
>> So then, you see how even just one sentence can be translated
>> so as to provide three or more different and distinct meanings.
.
> Yes, although I arrived at the opposite conclusion as to which was better.
.
 No, you began with the conviction that the NAB is better, prior to examining the evidence (which you dismiss for no other reason than that the facts do not support your preconceived biases).
.
>> For the Catholic, there is no choice among these options. The faithful are required to
>> accept and respect the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church. <snip>
.
> "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men
> who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no
> advantage to you." (Hebrews 13:17 RSV)
.
 Well, Anon, your leaders and teachers are corrupt and perverse liars and hypocrites; double-minded whores who gladly and joyfully sell out the Faith so as to favor the dissolute wealthy, and their perverted sons and daughters. Therefore, since they care nothing for the souls of men (but rather support and approve the 'freedom and liberation' of religious lesbians), it would be an act of supreme stupidity and irresponsibility to submit to these faithless Pharisees (to whom you foolishly entrust your eternal destiny)!
.
>> the1who laughs at the priestly perspective on all things: textman ;>
.
> "be subject to the presbyters" (1 Peter 5:5) Michael --- John 6:66  Anti-Eucharist = Anti-Christ
.
 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven" (Mt 23:9/NAB). Oh, and btw, Michael, here's another brief Bible-Byte that you would do well to reflect upon: "For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the Gospel of God?" (1Peter 4:17 / NAB) Rather poorly, I expect. But the twisted and perverted Woman Catholic Church of Canada only judges men unfit for the Kingdom, and rewards those (liturgical lesbians) who deliberately disobey the Lord. ...
.
 How rightly this church of hidden depravity and secret iniquity is called the Mother of Whores! And woe unto all those who comfort Her, and give support to Her, out of ignorance as to Her true nature, or out of some grossly misguided sense of loyalty.

P.S.  "Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly" (John 7:24 / NAB).

ON THE NASB, NAB & NRSV
- part one -

/ Subject >  Re: On the NASB & NAB / Date > 7 May 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
      The way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble. [Prv 4:19]
.
] textman wrote: As to the NASB being favored by Catholics and book stores, this is quite understandable.
] Although the NASB is not an official Catholic bible like the NAB (which carries the Nihil Obstat &
] Imprimatur) and The Jerusalem Bible versions, it is about as close to being an "ecumenical" or
] "universal" (ie.'catholic' in the original sense) text as one can get.
.
>>> Anonymous replied: False on both counts. Neither is it favored by Catholics nor is
>>> it about as "close to being ... 'catholic' ... as one can get".
.
>> textman answered: Dear Anonymous, I did not say that the NASB is 'about as close to being
>> Catholic as one can get', but rather is 'as close to being ecumenical as one can get'. As to your
>> first comment: I didn't mean to imply that it was favored by all (or even by many) Catholics, but
>> only by some few Cats (ie. those that take the Word of God seriously, and render unto it all
>> due respect and devotion ...
.
> On 29Apr99 prolific ng-author Anonymous sayeth: I take the Word of God very seriously,
.
 textman answers: Oh really? Did you perhaps somehow overlook these relevant passages? ...
.
 The wise of heart will heed commandments, but a prating fool will come to ruin. [Prv 10:8]
.
 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent. [Prv 10:19]
.
 The lips of the righteous feed many, but fools die for lack of sense. [Prv 10:21]
.
 He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit. [Prv 12:17]
.
 He who guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin. [Prv 13:3]
.
 A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies. [Prv 14:5]
.
 In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to want. [Prv 14:23]
.
 The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. [Prv 15:2]
.
 The mind of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. [Prv 15:28]
.
 A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself. [Prv 18:7]
.
 Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him. [Prv 29:20]
.
> and for that reason I prefer to use texts that are reviewed for accuracy by the Catholic Church and
> which contain all 72 books of the OT.
.
 The seven deuterocanonical books are important, but they are not the only sacred texts not found in the canon. There is a lot of apocryphal materials that are well worthy of the believer's attention. Not least of these is the book of Enoch; which, coincidentally, the prophet Jude identifies as scripture.
.
> A: As to your comment about the NASB being more "ecumenical", I would guess it's not as ecumenical
> as the NAB. The NAB was translated by experts from both Catholic and non-Catholic denominations.
.
 This detail is not nearly as relevant as you seem to think it is. The point I am trying to emphasize is that the NAB *as a whole* is a very Catholic bible from one cover to the other. The matter of which translation is the more ecumenical is also not entirely relevant, since the Catholic nature of the book hardly commends itself to general use. In the same way, it would be impossible to suppose that the translation itself was deliberately keep free of the same Cat spirit that everywhere surrounds the text. With that in mind, you are free to compare the NAB text with other versions. The Catholic "slant on things" is subtle but visible; if you examine enough key passages. In any case, the NASB remains the best over-all English text simply by virtue of the fact that it is a well-done version, being as close to a genuinely "literal" translation as one can get and still be readable.
.
>>> A: The main reason the NASB is purchased by some Catholics is that they confuse
>>> it with the NAB. Ask any Catholic bookseller.
.
>> tx: Well, Anon, I haven't actually asked any Cat bookseller about it yet, but it seems to me that
>> there's a simple solution to this problem. To dispel all confusion, all that the Cat booksellers need
>> do is to remove the NASB from their shelves, and thus there will be no occasion for ignorant
>> Catholics to mistake it for the NAB ... :)
.
> A: I'd be happy to see so-called Bible stores selling more Catholic versions.
> A number of them in my area don't even carry the NAB!
.
 LOL ... Perhaps their local bishop should pay them a visit?
.
>>> A: On the contrary, it was Protestants who first published inaccurate translations of the Bible
>>> (like the KJV) which corrupted certain passages to support the cause of Protestantism. The
>>> Catholic Church only approves translations that do not do such things.
.
>> tx: LOL ... Dear Anon, you are a very amusing person. Indeed, you have all the makings of a fine
>> Cat theologian. Get thee hence to thy nearest seminary! ... Anyway, in centuries past there were
>> plenty of inaccuracies, errors, and corruptions to go around. No one church or denomination had
>> a monopoly on this. Nor was any one of them free of such mistakes.
.
> A: LOL!! Give me one example of a corruption in an approved Catholic Bible.
.
 We are dealing with one example already; namely, the epistle of Jude. More specifically verses 24&25. But if you would like another, I'll be happy to oblige. Here's an easy one: "For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, godless persons ..." (Jude 1:4/NAB). Yes, 'godless persons' indeed! Not unlike today's lukewarm pagan nominal-Christians, I expect. The question is: Who are these 'godless persons' that the prophet is trying to warn us of? He makes every effort to identify them specifically and precisely. And if we do not know who he is talking about, it is not because the prophet failed to speak clearly, but rather that we do not want to hear him! Now compare the above words with a literal translation from the Greek: "For came in stealthily certain men, the ones of old having been written about for this judgment, ungodly [ones] ..." (NGEI). Now you may brand me a perfectionist if you wish, but it seems to me that the prophet's Greek words are far more expressive and revealing of his intentions and thoughts than the anemic Catholic words that are offered as a supposedly equivalent rendition. Or is it not clear to you that the NGEI's version offers us more and better information than the NAB?
.
>> tx: But you are right that the RCC does not approve of translations that support the cause of
>> Protestantism. She only approves those translations that support the cause of Catholicism! ...
.
> A: Not quite. The RCC only approves translations that are true to the source text(s). The RCC does not
> approve *any* translation which adds to or deletes from them. Non-approved versions have missing books
> and/or parts of books, added words which purposefully change the meaning of the verse(s), etc. Using
> Church-approved versions means the translation was reviewed for accuracy by a group outside of the
> original translator staff. I can therefore have a greater sense of assurance that the translation is more
> trustworthy than, say, the JW's Bible.
.
 I tend to agree. However, you seem to be forgetting the Jerusalem bibles; which add and change words with great abundance and gusto. The JB and NJB are both very approved translations. Hereby we know that your contention that the Romish Church has a great and abiding concern for "accuracy" is more hogwash than anything else.
.
>> tx: But, in any case, it is not the translated text so much that causes such offense, but rather
>> the surrounding apparatus that supports it. In the time of the Reformation especially, it was the
>> accompanying notes and commentaries (often with a distinctly anti-Cat flavor) that gave grave
>> offense, and led to these translations being declared forbidden.
.
> A: It is true that some translations were forbidden for primarily this reason. However, others corrupted
> the text itself. For example, Luther added the word "alone" to "we are saved by faith" in his Bible
> despite there being no translational reason for it. That is Rev 22:19 type corruption, plain and simple.
.
 You would dismiss Luther's achievement because his German Bible contains errors? That is hardly fair, since every translation - without exception! - is imperfect and rife with (mostly minor) errors and corruptions. I personally am not much thrilled by the way Luther treated the Book of James, but this does not prevent me from recognizing the enormous impact of Luther's version on the hearts and minds of the people of his age, or its importance to the history of the transmission and translation of the biblical texts.
.
>> ... Imagine being subject to the death penalty simply for possessing a copy of one of these
>> outlawed Bibles. Yes, people were brutally executed for this privilege which you take for granted.
.
> A: We know! That very thing happened to Catholics in England by the so-called "Reformers". They
> executed Catholics for going to Catholic Churches, owning Catholic Bibles, having Mass in their own
> homes, even for simply wearing green on St. Patricks Day!!!
.
 I must admit that I've never before heard of anyone being executed for wearing green. That detail nowhere appears in any of the church history books I've read. Not to doubt you overmuch, but I would like to see some relevant supporting documentation. ... If that's at all possible? ... I assume that you yourself were not there to see these things with your own eyes ...
.
> A: When talking about the Anabaptists, Martin Luther even stated: "Also when it is a case of only
> upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation,
> then ... we conclude that ... the stubborn sectaries must be put to death."
.
 The Anabaptists were hated by everyone, and the Catholics were no less eager to kill them than anyone else. The Anabaptists (and their descendants) have received a bad reputation largely because of a few thoughtless extremists. This can be observed even in their name; which was branded upon them by their enemies. The Anabaptists are not "re-baptizers" (as was commonly supposed) because they did not consider sprinkling babies in the Romish bath to be a true baptism. In this I agree with them wholeheartedly; as against the priestly contention that the sacrament of infant baptism remains valid because the parents have faith "for" (ie. on behalf of) the baby! How ridiculous! If I could but teach people only one thing, it would be that no one person or church can have faith "for" you. Either you can generate faith from out of your very own heart and soul and will, or you are no better than any faithless pagan (no matter how many sacraments you receive).
.
] tx: The various Jerusalem bibles take this process to the next level by way of copious notes and essays,
] and by more freedom in translating the text into French & English (ie. more dynamic paraphrasing). Thus
] the NAB can be considered as a kind of hybrid version, combining the strengths and best features of the
] Protestant "bare-text" bible and the uniquely Catholic "Catholic-bible". The result is a high-quality
] translation presented in a very Catholic package.
.
>>> A: Agreed.
.
] <snip> So we can easily see why some Catholics might be attracted to the New American Standard Bible.
.
>>> No, from this we can easily see why Catholics prefer the NAB.
.
>> tx: Actually, I think that most hard-core Cats tend to prefer one or another of the Jerusalem
>> Bible versions (or per-versions, if you want to get technical about it), even over the NAB.
.
> A: The NAB was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts which are of earlier date than those
> used for the Jerusalem Bible (which was translated from the Vulgate if I remember correctly).
.
 In part. But, in any case, the New Jerusalem Bible does not share these shortcomings. It is not the source texts that are the main problem, but rather what is done with them. An excessively literal translation leaves much to be desired, no doubt, but excessive dynamic-paraphrasing is fraught with many dangers of its own.
.
] tx: For all those Christians who wish to drink of the Word free from all priestly additions
] and impurities and pieties, the NASB is the logical choice.
.
>>> Anon: There are no additions, impurities, etc. in the NAB.
.
>> tx: On the contrary, there are many irregularities in the translation that slant the text so as to favor
>> the priestly perspective on all things. One need only carefully compare the NAB text of the epistle of
>> Jude with the best Greek text of same to see how the translation is made to serve and support the
>> Catholic cause. I gave an example of this in my previous article (see below); and such illustrations
>> can easily be multiplied indefinitely
.
> Anon: Your example did not indicate anything remotely close to a "priestly perspective", nor
> did it even illustrate a weakness in the NAB translation (for example, we could argue about
> what "best Greek text" means). Do you have a better example?
.
 See above discussion regarding Jude 1:4 ...
.
>> ... although I doubt that any such list could ever convince you of the truth of these matters.
>> No indeed, for Cats *much* rather prefer their own cherished lies, fantasies, and illusions
>> over anything even remotely resembling the truth of things.
.
> A: Oh, please! I'll take the Catechism of the Catholic Church over Jack Chick tracts any day!
.
 The Catechism I know. Jack Chick tracts I don't know ...  :)
.
>>> Anon: The NASB, however, *lacks* the deutercanonical books of the OT.
>>> Thus it is not the complete canon of Scriptures.
.
>> tx: Yes, Protestants seem to be hopelessly bewitched by their 66 books, no more, no less. On the
>> other hand, neither do the Catholic Bibles contain *all* the holy books. For there are books that
>> were widely recognized by Christians as holy once, which never made it into the Emperor
>> Constantine's canon. And yet the Holy Spirit has never ceased to inspire Christian writers of every
>> generation. There are certain works by Tolstoy, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, etc, that would be right
>> at home alongside of the canonical books. So just as prophecy remains with us even unto this very
>> day, so has the Word of God never ceased from making known the truth of things in new and
>> unfamiliar ways. ... If post-modern Christians weren't so horribly ignorant of their own Christian
>> literary heritage, all this would be plain to see, and surely no cause for scandal.
.
> Anon: I'm well versed in the history of the Canon of Scriptures. For this reason, I can only say
> what St. Augustine said: "For myself I would not believe Scripture if it were not for the Authority
> of the Catholic Church."
.
 Augustine was obviously talking through his hat. It was not the authority of the RCC that influenced him on the day of his conversion. It was the Spirit that led him to the epistle of the Apostle to the Gentiles; and it was the authority of the Truth as revealed in the Word of God that convinced him of the errors of his previous wayward ways.

ON THE NASB,NAB&NRSV / 2

] tx: It's interesting to consider how the RC Church has profited from the protestant love of the holy
] books. In Canada, the official liturgical text is the New Revised Standard Version. So then all of
] these 'catholic' bibles share the same ancestry: NASB -> NRSV -> RSV -> AV -> KJV -> Tyndale's
] bible -> Luther's revolutionary German bible.   <snip>
.
>>> Anon: The NAB made critical use of ancient texts undiscovered after the KJV and other Protestant
>>> translations were made. Thus, the NAB presents an accurate rendering of the most ancient sources.
.
>> tx: The NAB is indeed a new translation of the (then) best available source texts. But neither this
>> fact, nor the use of critical methods, can (in and of themselves) insure accuracy of translation.
>> A good start, even with the best intentions, does not always lead to a good finished product.
>> Especially when you start out with a whole truck-load of Catholic assumptions, presumptions,
>> misconceptions and preconceptions about this, that, and the other thing, and also many and
>> various pre-judgments as to what the text *ought* to say.
.
> Anon: First of all, the NAB was not merely a Catholic translation. Many non-Catholics were
> involved in the translating and editing. You also have not provided any real evidence of bias.
.
 The evidence is there in the texts themselves. If you are capable of comparing important passages from the NAB with the NASB, then you ought to be able to discover for yourself the catholic bias that I make mention of. A good place to start is with the epistle of Jude.
.
> Secondly, I don't necessarily think the NAB is the best *possible* English version. It (as do other
> translations) has strengths and weaknesses. It's not the only version I own, but it's the one I use
> the most for everyday reading (where it clearly excels).
.
 It's a good text for casual reading, as you say. I tend to use it myself because the St Joseph's personal edition is very handy, and easily lends itself to regular use. But I would never rely on it for serious study of any particular book or passage. Scholarly enterprises are much better served with an interlinear version; or, failing that, with the NASB or RSV, or (better still) all three of these. Judging from your numerous postings to many, and many weird, ngz, I'm rather surprised that you can find even a few odd seconds now and then to peruse the Word of God. ... Are you sure this is right? You read the Good Book *everyday*?
.
>>> Anon: In addition, the NAB is far more 'ecumenical' in that although it is a Catholic translation,
>>> it was accomplished with the collaboration of scholars from other Christian churches, including
>>> their participation on the editorial board.
.
>> tx: Collaborative ecumenical committees are hardly unique to the NAB. Indeed, it is
>> the preferred approach of most modern translations (including the NIV).
.
> You were promoting the NASB over the NAB as being more "ecumenical".
> I showed you the opposite was true.
.
 You did no such thing. You simply told us that this is the case. On the other hand, I showed our readers that the NASB is closer to the Greek text, and therefore more reliable ... in general!
.
> What does the NIV have to do with this?
.
 It is a good example of a translation conducted by a multi-faith committee. My point was simply that ecumenical versions are by no means a Catholic invention.
.
>>> A: The aim of the revised edition of the NT in the NAB was to "produce a version as accuarate
>>> and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation". They didn't
>>> simply update the language, retranslating an older English translation (which can lead to
>>> errors being introduced).
.
>> tx: Well, Anon, how accurate and faithful a text is is a matter for textual criticism to decide. It is
>> not a thing to be judged by popes and bishops according to some preconceived notion of what
>> the Faith is, or what Scripture *should* say.
.
> Anon: That's not what happens.
.
 No? Well then I guess that you must have somehow overlooked the relevant decrees of the Council of Trent. I must say that rather surprises me; coming as it does from someone who speaks so authoritatively about Martin Luther.
.
>> tx: Thus from a purely objective and scientific point of view, the NASB and the NIV are both better
>> translations (in general) than the NAB. You are, of course, free to think otherwise; but this does
>> not change the fact that you are objectively wrong to do so.
.
> A: You haven't objectively shown why anyone should believe this. Actually, all you have shown is that you
> don't know much about the NAB, nor about how translations are reviewed and approved by the Catholic
> Church. Your inaccurate statements about how the Church does this shows that your objective and
> scientific point of view" is based on fallacious information. Thus, it may be you who is "objectively wrong".
.
 My "inaccurate statements", you say? Oh that really hurts! The one thing I most strive for in *all* my statements is accuracy, accuracy, accuracy ... Why, I'll even sacrifice conciseness for the sake of accuracy (something that no other translator is willing to do, apparently); and this applies even to my translations. It is one of the things that makes the Prophet Version a better version. Check it out.
.
] tx: So now, let us onward to examine the concrete results of all this history-of-bibles stuff.
] Please now take a good long look at these three versions of Jude 24 & 25, and compare
] the differences and similarities:
.
] 1. To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and
] exultant, in the presence of his glory, to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord
] be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen.
] [New American Bible / concluding section entitled 'Doxology']
.
] 2. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of
] His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be
] glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
] [New American Standard Bible / Updated Edition / no subheadings]
.
] 3. Now to the one who is able to guard you without stumbling, and sets before you the glory of
] Him-blameless-with-exultation, and the only God, our Savior (through Jesus Christ our Lord), let that
] one be given glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the Age; now and unto all the ages
] to come. Amen! [Prophet Version; under the heading 'Final Warnings & Admonitions' (v.20-25)]
.
] Now as to #1 above, it ought rightly to be subtitled 'Incomprehensible Doxology'. The use of commas
] does little to help us make sense of this strange prayer-like statement. It seems to be a blessing,
] conferring and recognizing the eternal authority of Christ. <snip>
.
>>> Anon: #1 doesn't sound incomprehensible to me. In fact, #2 is more problematic. For example "to
>>> make you stand in the presence" sounds like an action of force while "to present you" more clearly
>>> indicates a loving action.
.
>> tx: "a loving action", you say? So then your basis for deciding what constitutes an accurate and
>> faithful translation is not what the original Greek text states, but rather whether or not it conforms
>> to your Catholic sentiments regarding what is or is not 'a loving action'.
.
>> For those few of you with a modicum of respect for the Word of God, here is an accurate and faithful
>> rendering of the Greek text: "Now to the one being able to guard you without stumbling and to set
>> [you] before the glory of him blameless, with exultation, to [the] only God [the] savior of us through
>> Jesus Christ the Lord of us [be] glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the age and now
>> and into all the ages, amen." [Jude 24, 25 / New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament] Now if
>> you compare this bare literal version with the above three renderings, you ought to be able to
>> discover which of the three is the best overall translation (hint: it's not the NAB).
.
> A: On the contrary! Let's examine this: 1. Clearly, the NAB's "to present you" is closer in meaning
> to "to set you" than the NASB's "to make you stand". a. "To set you" is not a forceful act, which "to
> present you" accurately retains while "to make you stand" sounds like an act which will happen
> regardless of your will.
.
 This distinction of yours strikes me as contrived and trivial. Both translations appear to me to be acceptable because they both indicate the same condition "to set you". I could not say that either rendition is superior to the other; but obviously the best translation remains the original "to set you".
.
> b. "To set" does not have anything to do with "standing". c. "To make you stand" does not
> imply moving a person to a location, as "to set you" and "to present you" does.
.
 Perhaps you are right. However, this is a minor detail that ought not to distract us from the point of the verses in question.
.
> 2. The NAB begins with "to the one", exactly like the Greek "to the one". The NASB, less true to the
> Greek, reads "to Him". 3. The NAB retains the use of the word "ages", whereas the NASB converts
> this word into "time".  Age is defined as "a period of existance", whereas time does not imply
> existance at all. Thus, they cannot be used interchangeably. The NASB is therefore inferior. To show
> otherwise, you will have to rebut each of these objections and provide evidence to show the NASB
> is more true to the Greek.  (hint: you cannot)
.
  Well, Anon, you've convinced me that on these points the NASB is indeed inferior in that it departs from the original Greek words more than does the NAB; but it remains that both the NASB and the NAB are inferior to the PV in the matter of correctly presenting what the prophet Jude intends to say in these two verses. The crucial point here is: Who is "the one" who keeps you from stumbling, and sets you before God? On this point both the NASB and NAB are agreed that it is Christ who is the one in question. This is incorrect. For Jude it is the Christian prophet (faithful to Christ) who guards believers (from false views and practices), and by teaching the truth is able to set them before God. The PV brings this point out clearly, thereby accurately reflecting the prophet's intention; and so is the better translation.
.
] tx: So then, you see how even just one sentence can be translated
] so as to provide three or more different and distinct meanings.
.
>>> A: Yes, although I arrived at the opposite conclusion as to which was better.
.
>> tx: No, you began with the conviction that the NAB is better, prior to examining the evidence (which
>> you dismiss for no other reason than that the facts do not support your preconceived biases).
.
> Anon: No, I studied the pros and cons of different translations years ago.
.
 And you *then* decided that Cat bibles are the best ... Right?
.
] tx: For the Catholic, there is no choice among these options. The faithful are required to
] accept and respect the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church. <snip>
.
>>> A: "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who
>>> will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage
>>> to you." (Hebrews 13:17 RSV)
.
>> tx: Well, Anon, your leaders and teachers are corrupt and perverse liars and hypocrites; double-minded
>> whores who gladly and joyfully sell out the Faith so as to favor the dissolute wealthy, and their perverted
>> sons and daughters. Therefore, since they care nothing for the souls of men (but rather support and
>> approve the 'freedom and liberation' of religious lesbians), it would be an act of supreme stupidity and
>> irresponsibility to submit to these faithless Pharisees (to whom you foolishly entrust your eternal destiny)!
.
> If you believe that, you have obviously been misled by false prophets, liars, con-men, others who invent
> and propogate myths about Catholicism.
.
 No, Anon. I believe that because I have seen all these things with my own eyes. Unlike most Cats who shut up their eyes to the truth of things, I accept reality as it is, and do not overlook the sins and iniquity of the churches' leaders and teachers. As to Catholicism, it is the very essence and nature of that religion to tend to perversion and the promotion of perversion. [4X: At the Heart of the Diocese seminarians are deliberately trained to respect and adore their twisted sisters; and to protect and encourage them (in their madness) as well.] Here in Canada the RCC and other popular churches, having been largely abandoned by men, have transformed themselves into the ecumenical and pluralistic and interdenominational Woman-Church which exalts hatred of men, and encourages perversion among women (under the banner of freedom, liberation, and "mutual-love"). The RCC is foremost among these apostate harlots, and for that reason is correctly identified as the Mother of Whores which the prophet John warns us of. Thus those who remain loyal to this Beast have no excuse; their ignorance of the true state of things will NOT save them.
.
>>> A: "be subject to the presbyters" (1 Peter 5:5) Michael ---- John 6:66  Anti-Eucharist = Anti-Christ
.
>> tx: "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven" (Mt 23:9/NAB).
.
> Anon: Jesus is telling this only to his disciples,
.
 Meaning what? That His command is binding only on these particular twelve, and on no one else forevermore amen? And why is that? Because this small group of men is unique and exalted and utterly unlike everyone else in the history of the world? No, Anon. The Twelve are distinguished by the fact that they are the friends of Joshua ben Joseph. It is *that* which qualifies them to teach and shepherd the People of God. They were not made apostles because they were somehow invested with magical powers that made them the most superior of all human beings. That is a Romish fantasy that has well served the priestly corruption of the Faith.
.
> and this is before Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter.
.
 Who's propagating myths now, Anon? ... That episode in Matthew does not record an actual historical event, as you (and all papists) suppose. If such a thing did actually happen, why did not Peter and Mark make mention of it in their gospel? It seems to me that if anyone should know the truth about this handing over of the keys thing, it would be Peter. And yet he is silent about such things! I tell you truly, I have more respect for Peter (the co-author of the Gospel of Mark) than a thousand Romish Pharisees who are constantly bleating "The Keys! The Keys! Where's those wonderful and amazing keys?"
.
> Besides, you, too, have a father (unless you were the product of a virgin birth).
.
 No comment ...  :)
.
>> tx: Oh, and btw, Michael, here's another brief Bible-Byte that you would do well to reflect upon: "For it
>> is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those
>> who fail to obey the Gospel of God?" (1Peter 4:17/NAB). Rather poorly, I expect. But the twisted and
>> perverted Woman-Catholic Church of Canada only judges men unfit for the Kingdom, and rewards those
>> (liturgical lesbians) who deliberately disobey the Lord. ...
.
> They are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. Michael ---- John 6:66  Anti-Eucharist = Anti-Christ
.
 Well, Michael, it's easy enough for you to say that they are not part of the RCC. But since many are pastors and ministers and teachers and sundry ambassadors of said church, it seems that they think that they are not only a part of the RCC, but a very important, and indeed indispensable, part of the RCC. Moreover, since a Canadian bishop recently sang the praises of Woman-Church before an episcopal council (to rave reviews, I hear), I fancy that we shall be seeing more and more authority (over the People of God) invested (shall we say) within these wise and compassionate 'outstanding Christians' whom you claim are not a part of the Romish communion of Pharisees ...

ON THE NASB,NAB&NRSV / 3

 Well now it seems to me that we have wandered away somewhat from our starting point. The purpose of this thread was a question regarding popular Catholic translations. We have seen some of the strengths and weaknesses of both the NASB & NAB, and we have mentioned the enormous influence of the Jerusalem Bibles, but no short list of the top Catholic Bibles would be complete without the NRSV. I want to stress the importance of this version over even the above three best-sellers. This is primarily because it is the NRSV that easily has the greatest influence over Canadian Christians ... By virtue of the fact that it is the one that most Catholics in Canada actually use and/or hear. This is one of the perks that comes from being the official text of the Canadian Catholic Church (ie. the CCC).
.
 Are you with me so far? ...
.
 So then, if you want to know which Bible to urge upon Catholics (and Christians in general), I would not hesitate to recommend the NASB and NAB over almost all other versions. Yes, but even so, the best overall choice for cats and true believers may be neither of those two, but rather the NRSV. It has much to recommend it for general reading. It has a long and distinguished tradition behind it. It is not a partisan or denominational Bible (after the manner of the NAB, 4X). It is also a top-notch translation, no doubt. And it comes in many forms and varieties; including a study Bible edition. This is the well-known NRSV Oxford Study Bible. So if you want to know what makes the Roman-Church of Canada tick, as regards Biblical matters, I strongly suggest that you gather your pesos, and purchase a copy of this almost magnificent study Bible! Of course, textman can't afford the luxury to add it to his personal library; but demz da breaks ...  :)
.
 Anyway! About the NRSV: in their Introduction to the NT (NRSV), the committee of translators explains the motivating circumstances for the NRSV: "The need for issuing a revision of the Revised Standard version of the Bible arises from three circumstances: (a) the acquisition of still older biblical manuscripts, (b) further investigation of linguistic features of the text, and (c) changes in preferred English usage" (Bruce Metzger, 'To The Reader'). Being thus in the tradition of the King James Bible, the translators were guided by the maxim: 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary'. Thus the NRSV claims to be a literal translation; but this is rather doubtful, owing to the enormous difficulty of making a readable and intelligible 'literal' translation. [Technically speaking, only the interlinear versions can correctly claim to be literal translations.] And the innovation of using inclusive language can be filed under the necessary freedoms, I guess? And current English usage means bye-bye to those great and pious words of centuries past (eg. thee, thou, hast, etc). Oh well, you gotta give a little to get a little.
.
 The closing statement of this intro also bears repeating: "It is the hope and prayer of the translators that this version may continue to hold a large place in congregation life and to speak to all readers, young and old alike, helping them to understand and believe and respond to its message." So, then! What does our new-improved KJV say about the Ones of Old? And how does it compare with our other versions of Jude 24 and 25?  ...  "Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (NRSV).
.
 Here we see one long and difficult compound sentence; the meaning of which is determined largely by an effective use of commas and caps. Thus what we have here is basically an elaborate doxology built around the simple statement 'To God be glory and power'. It is a good translation; as translations go. However, I think it misses the clear intention of the prophet Jude to emphasize the importance and necessity of the one who makes you stand in the presence of God. This one is properly identified as those who are able to keep you from falling. That is to say: from falling into error or heresy or iniquity. That is to say: the good and faithful Christian teacher; who is not to be identified here with the Episcopal muffinheads (or their priestly minions), but rather with the true prophet of the Lord, after the manner of James (the second century Alexandrian prophet and slave of Christ). Therefore, the best translation among all of those that we have examined here remains the Prophet Version.
.
 The obvious lesson to be learned from all this is that even the best modern translations have a long way to go before they can claim to be an accurate and effective presentation of the Word of God!