Talk:Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

message: I _really_ think this should be merged with the main article on the RSV. I don't see the need for a separate article. iHoshie 05:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: In the article as it is, one does not clearly see the difference between RSV-CE and NRSV-CE. It should also become clearer in the header that RSV-CE is the Catholic bible.--Robin.rueth 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification

message: The wording previously implied that in the RSV-CE Books were added by the Catholics.
Things like this fuel a common Protestant misconception that Catholics added books to the Bible to support thier beliefs.  While it may be debatable if these books are inspired or not, these books were later subtracted, not added by the Catholics.  We are talking about books in the Old Testement that would have been included in the text that Jesus knew and used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.145.193 (talk • contribs) 
:Strictly speaking, they were added to the Hebrew Bible in some versions of the LXX. They are not, as far as I know, to be found in the Jewish canon; therefore most Protestants reject them as being uninspired. Similarly, doctrines that are primarily or exclusively supported in these works are usually rejected by Protestants. (Note, however, that, as with other issues concerning the Bible, the story is more complex if the matter is examined in greater detail.) 108.246.205.134 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics did not add books 

message: Both this article and the corresponding section in Revised Standard Version are a jumbled mess, and frankly I'm a little loathe to propse a merge that I couldn't actually accomplish. But I just don't see how this article can be justified as anything but as section(s) in the main RSV article. It doesn't even appear to be a single thing. Mangoe 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisitng the merge issue 

message: Lawyers for the New Living Translation and Amplified bibles in particular are hounding the web just like the RIAA. Unlike music though, isn't the word of god supposed to be spread freely? Why not a copyleft license such as the GFDL (GNU Free doucmentation license) or the CC-by-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). The copyleft is very important. It prevents proprietarization of derivitative works (including shell-wrapping if the copyleft is strong like the GNU-GPL)
Every modern translation seems to need lots of permission and even royalties to give away free copies (only digital copies - .txt .pdf .doc - can be manufactured cheaply by individuals).  And the ones who are translating for charity rather than money are going public domain.  Copyleft is the way to go.  Lest you will find another big business modding your translation a bit and selling it with full-restrictions copyright.  Copyleft gurantees the entire recipient downline to be able to copy and spread the gospel freely.--GreatInca 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't they copyleft bibles? 

message: I believe the NAB in the official lectionary is the only version approved for the US (this is the version on the USCCB web site, for example).  Can someone please find an authoritative citation allowing the RSV-CE?  Explicitly disallowing the NRSV does not imply the RSV is approved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.145.62 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  liturgical use in the us 

message: This section of the wikipedia page: 
"However Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Catholic Church need to understand that the NRSV was revised and became the NRSV-CE due to the formers use of "inclusive language." The NRSV-CE (1989) is an adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV. Although the NRSV was used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the NRSV (non-CE) was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary)."
This implies a difference in the translation between the NRSV and the NRSV-CE. The preface to NRSV-CE states that other than inclusion of the deuterocanonical Esther and parts of Daniel, there was no change to the translation (from the 1989 NRSV). The inclusive language remains, this article should no imply that it does not. including quotes from the preface to the NRSV-CE could help that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.17.95 (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RSV-CE Today 

message: Hello, I have an RSV-CE and I believe that this article's chart of differences between the Catholic Edition and the original Revised Standard Version comes directly from the RSV-CE appendix and violates copyright laws. I think some of the information may be presented without reproducing the exact chart, but I wanted to mention this here before just deleting that section. LovesMacs (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation