The modern translations give an illusion of timelessness through the employ of modern idiom. There would be nothing wrong with that if (1) their batting ratio were 100% and (2) if the reader knew that there is some scriptural reality that is not reflected by the modern translation and were ready to seek further guidance by recoursing to the authority of the Church. This is why Cathollics read the awful in all but ease of reading NAB and profit from it, -- because they know that the ultimate truth of the scripture is in the mind of the Church, and the NAB is but a reflection of it.
But the exact opposite is happening when a modern translation is read by a Protestant with an anti-Catholic mindset (not all Protestants have that mindset). Then these 2% falsities become a prooftext to drive one further away from the scripture by driving one further away from the mind of the Church. Combined with the notion that the NIV is The Only Scripture Beyond Which There Is Nothing But Evil Popery the end result is worse than if no scripture reading were attempted.
This is interesting to me because even at this point in the thread I could not have told you what version of the Bible the average Catholic reads. So it's the New American? I have heard of it, but I know nothing about it. What is the approach it takes, and what version do you prefer?
Combined with the notion that the NIV is The Only Scripture Beyond Which There Is Nothing But Evil Popery the end result is worse than if no scripture reading were attempted.
LOL! Well, I hope that no fellow NIV reader has really given you that impression. :) I do not believe that the NIV is the ONLY version. In fact, I have gotten quite an education from folks from every side on this thread that the KJV is really the way to go on many levels. I'm still looking into it, but every time I have cross-referrenced it recently, I have not met with any surprises, so that's good.