A good Catholic Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter searn77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

searn77

Guest
I was just wondering what are the best Catholic bibles? I definitely need an upgrade from the one I have now. I wanted one with more footnotes so I could better understand Catholicism. I have the newest “Orthodox Study Bible” and it’s great for getting an Orthodox perspective on things with all of the footnotes containing commentary. I don’t want to buy anything over $100 and I don’t want to buy the separate commentary books that correspond to the bible (I want all of the info in one bible). Any suggestions?
 
I don’t have it but I heard good things on the Douay-Rheims bible
 
wiggbuggie said:
I don’t have it but I heard good things on the Douay-Rheims bible
Click to expand...
I have to Douay-Rheims and so far its the best. Depending on your reading style. the D-R is a very literal translation. Next in line with literal is the Confraternity, Ronald Knox Translation and the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is a little more modern with language. The dynamic translations for beginners are the New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible. They were made for readablity and not literal translation the choice is up to you. I fully recommend the Douay-Rheims. You can get a Douay from locations like Loreto Publications, Tan Books or Baronius Press as well as many other locations that carry the Douay-Rheims published by the 3 I mentioned above for between 35-60 dollars.
 
The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is the best Bible approved for use by Catholics.

The best Bible out right now is the English Standard Version. Oxford is going to publish it with the Apocrypha in January 2009. It will have all of the Catholic deuterocanonical books plus the books that the Orthodox Churches use as well as the 66 books everyone accepts.

The problem with the Doauy Rheims is that it has passages that aren’t in the most trusted manuscripts we have available for use today. The RSV-CE has these passages in the footnotes, however the Douay has them in the text. Plus, it is archaic in language and not ecumenical at all. (No other denomination will give the douay any credit) The RSV-CE is not credible among many evangelical KJ only or NIV groups but it is at least not looked at as a false version the way they look at the Douay.

So I personally use the 1st edition Ignatius RSV-CE as my main Bible. I check difficult text against the KJV, Douay, ESV, NASB, NAB, NIV, and NRSV.

I have a ESV with Apocrypha by Oxford on preorder. It might replace my RSV-CE as my main version. I’ll have to get a feel for it though before I make that decision. I like my pocket 66 book ESV though. So, I’ll judge when I see the deuterocanonical books in my new Bible. Note: The ESV isn’t approved by the Church yet. But it should be. It’s the best Bible to be translated into the English language, in my opinion. The RSV-CE is just the best approved for Catholics.
 
DD2007 said:
The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is the best Bible approved for use by Catholics.

The best Bible out right now is the English Standard Version. Oxford is going to publish it with the Apocrypha in January 2009. It will have all of the Catholic deuterocanonical books plus the books that the Orthodox Churches use as well as the 66 books everyone accepts.

The problem with the Doauy Rheims is that it has passages that aren’t in the most trusted manuscripts we have available for use today. The RSV-CE has these passages in the footnotes, however the Douay has them in the text. Plus, it is archaic in language and not ecumenical at all. (No other denomination will give the douay any credit) The RSV-CE is not credible among many evangelical KJ only or NIV groups but it is at least not looked at as a false version the way they look at the Douay.

So I personally use the 1st edition Ignatius RSV-CE as my main Bible. I check difficult text against the KJV, Douay, ESV, NASB, NAB, NIV, and NRSV.

I have a ESV with Apocrypha by Oxford on preorder. It might replace my RSV-CE as my main version. I’ll have to get a feel for it though before I make that decision. I like my pocket 66 book ESV though. So, I’ll judge when I see the deuterocanonical books in my new Bible. Note: The ESV isn’t approved by the Church yet. But it should be. It’s the best Bible to be translated into the English language, in my opinion. The RSV-CE is just the best approved for Catholics.
Click to expand...
I too am interested in getting the ESV with Apocrypha. But what do you think about the 1 Tim 3:15 translation in the ESV? A little off?

As for a good Catholic Bible, it just depends on what you like to read. I would suggest going to a local Catholic (or even secular) bookstore and just pick up and read some of the Catholic Bibles they have there. Check out some of your favorite verses and read them. Every translation has its good points and bad points. I would certainly recommend looking at the RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, NJB, NAB, and the NRSV. All of these are modern translations and have imprimaturs from the bishops.
 
mccorm45 said:
I too am interested in getting the ESV with Apocrypha. But what do you think about the 1 Tim 3:15 translation in the ESV? A little off?

As for a good Catholic Bible, it just depends on what you like to read. I would suggest going to a local Catholic (or even secular) bookstore and just pick up and read some of the Catholic Bibles they have there. Check out some of your favorite verses and read them. Every translation has its good points and bad points. I would certainly recommend looking at the RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, NJB, NAB, and the NRSV. All of these are modern translations and have imprimaturs from the bishops.
Click to expand...
Actually you should use the term deuterocanonicals. Apocrypha is generally the word used by Protestants with a more negative connotation.
 
mccorm45 said:
I too am interested in getting the ESV with Apocrypha. But what do you think about the 1 Tim 3:15 translation in the ESV? A little off?

As for a good Catholic Bible, it just depends on what you like to read. I would suggest going to a local Catholic (or even secular) bookstore and just pick up and read some of the Catholic Bibles they have there. Check out some of your favorite verses and read them. Every translation has its good points and bad points. I would certainly recommend looking at the RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, NJB, NAB, and the NRSV. All of these are modern translations and have imprimaturs from the bishops.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that even though it isn’t a modern translation the Douay-Rheims does have a imprimatur as well. Any how I am still working on issues with the RSV-CE. Little by little I am starting to appreciate the RSV-CE
 
mccorm45 said:
I too am interested in getting the ESV with Apocrypha. But what do you think about the 1 Tim 3:15 translation in the ESV? A little off?

As for a good Catholic Bible, it just depends on what you like to read. I would suggest going to a local Catholic (or even secular) bookstore and just pick up and read some of the Catholic Bibles they have there. Check out some of your favorite verses and read them. Every translation has its good points and bad points. I would certainly recommend looking at the RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, NJB, NAB, and the NRSV. All of these are modern translations and have imprimaturs from the bishops.
Click to expand...
The 1 Tim 3:15 translation of “a pillar” instead of “the pillar”. In every single translation someone always finds a way to take a liberty with it.

In the RSV it’s Isaiah 7:14. In almost all Catholic editions the controversy of Luke 1:28. In the ESV it’s 1 Tim 3:15.

There is no perfect translation. In my opinion the ESV is great. What is the difference between a pillar and the pillar? God is the ultimate truth. The Bible is true. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth that not only guides the Church but individuals as well.

Sometimes I think that when The Scripture refers to the Pillar and Bulwark, Ground, Support, Foundation, Butress, etc (every translation team picks a name to call it) it is talking about not just the Church, but the Gospel that the Church contains. The Gospel is the Truth that the Church proclaims. So the Church is the protector of the truth of the Gospel. The Support and foundation upon which that truth rests. So, God and the Scriptures are also truth and supports of the Gospel. Perhaps using “a” instead of “the” isn’t a bad idea.

However, where the rubber hits the road is this; Is that what the original manuscripts say? Do they say “a” or do they say “the”. All parties must simply deal with what the text actually says. We can’t change the wording to suit our whims.

Does it actually say a or the? Is the ESV the first English translation to actually get this right and therefore obsolete the others or is the ESV just another translation that got something wrong and fell short of it’s literal goal.

It is billed as a literal translation, a revision of the Revised Standard that is supposed to fix all contraversies in light of the original manuscripts. It is supposed to supplant the New American Standard as the Standard for literal accuracy in an English translation.
 
mccorm45 said:
I too am interested in getting the ESV with Apocrypha. But what do you think about the 1 Tim 3:15 translation in the ESV? A little off?

As for a good Catholic Bible, it just depends on what you like to read. I would suggest going to a local Catholic (or even secular) bookstore and just pick up and read some of the Catholic Bibles they have there. Check out some of your favorite verses and read them. Every translation has its good points and bad points. I would certainly recommend looking at the RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, NJB, NAB, and the NRSV. All of these are modern translations and have imprimaturs from the bishops.
Click to expand...
Ok. I’ve looked into this a little more.

1 Timothy 3:15 is only translated using a pillar instead of the pillar in 2 major english versions…The ESV and the Wycliff!

The KJV, NIV, NCV, RSV, NRSV, NJK, tNIV, NLV, Amplified, HSCB, NASB, Douay Rheims, NAB, ALL translate it the instead of a.

Honestly, I must question if the translators did this with the intent of changing this verse so that it couldn’t be used against sola scriptura.

Does anyone know if the originals say a or the? IS Mr. Wycliff and the translators of the ESV the only ones who have translated this correctly or did they manipulate scripture to suit their doctrine?

It can be interpreted as the Church is one of the Pillars and Foundations of truth or it is THE pillar…so it’s a big question really. a or the changes the meaning of this passage.
 
DD2007 said:
Ok. I’ve looked into this a little more.

1 Timothy 3:15 is only translated using a pillar instead of the pillar in 2 major english versions…The ESV and the Wycliff!

The KJV, NIV, NCV, RSV, NRSV, NJK, tNIV, NLV, Amplified, HSCB, NASB, Douay Rheims, NAB, ALL translate it the instead of a.

Honestly, I must question if the translators did this with the intent of changing this verse so that it couldn’t be used against sola scriptura.

Does anyone know if the originals say a or the? IS Mr. Wycliff and the translators of the ESV the only ones who have translated this correctly or did they manipulate scripture to suit their doctrine?

It can be interpreted as the Church is one of the Pillars and Foundations of truth or it is THE pillar…so it’s a big question really. a or the changes the meaning of this passage.
Click to expand...
I agree that the ESV, overall, is a pretty darn good translation. I do own a New Testament version and have looked at it from time to time. However, I still wonder why they translated 1 Tim 3:15 the way they did. I think it is a Sola Scriptura thing. (I would also like to look at the ESV a little more to see if there are any other cases out there). It reminds me abit of the NIV which did not translate “traditions” in places where it was used in a positive sense.

With that being said, I really like the new ESV Study Bible that recently was published, it has some wonderful study tools, maps, and charts. Of course it doesn’t have the Deuterocanonicals so it is incomplete.
 
tobinatorstark said:
Don’t forget that even though it isn’t a modern translation the Douay-Rheims does have a imprimatur as well. Any how I am still working on issues with the RSV-CE. Little by little I am starting to appreciate the RSV-CE
Click to expand...
You’re coming around! 😃
 
The big thing that I’m interested in for a Catholic Bible is the commentary. I wanted to get a Catholic bible with good commentary in it. I know there are separate commentary books you can buy but I wanted one with the commentary in the bible.
 
searn77 said:
The big thing that I’m interested in for a Catholic Bible is the commentary. I wanted to get a Catholic bible with good commentary in it. I know there are separate commentary books you can buy but I wanted one with the commentary in the bible.
Click to expand...
The Haydock Bible Commentary is the one that comes to mind. There are Haydock Bibles with and without commentary.
 
I also enjoy the ESV translation. I hope it gains approval. 🙂 Minor corrections could be made as was done with the RSV. For example, the comment for Matthew 16:18 says “The Greek words for Peter and rock sound similar.” While this is true, it seems obscure the real issue, which is the difference in gender between the two words.

1 Tim 3:15 doesn’t have a definite article in the Greek. I know very little Greek, but when you first learn Greek, you are taught that if a noun is anarthrous (does not have a definite article) in the Greek, you typically translate it as having either an indefinite article or as having no article at all. Consequently, 1 Tim 3:15 would read as either

“the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.”

or

“the church of the living God, pillar and buttress of the truth.”

That said, I do not think that this is an absolute rule, so it may be permissible to translate the verse using “the” too.

I like DD2007’s comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top