Are there any DR bibles available that have a sewn binding and are softcover?

[WoundedIcon]

I just want an actual Catholic bible that’s actually nice

 

[Rich_C]

St. Benedict Press/TAN sells exactly what you want, from the sound of it. My wife loves her copy, and the softcover leather was really good quality.

 

[WoundedIcon]

The genuine leather one, right? I’ve checked that out online, but I’m nervous about the leather quality. Sometimes “genuine leather” can be some nasty stuff.

 

[Rich_C]

The genuine leather one, right? I’ve checked that out online, but I’m nervous about the leather quality. Sometimes “genuine leather” can be some nasty stuff.

Quality can change, for sure, but the 4-5 y/o copy we have is quite nice. I suggest checking Amazon for recent custom reviews. That should give you an idea if it is the right Bible for you.

 

[rotlex]

The St. Benedict Press editions are nice, but far from the quality of a lot of the protestant publishers. The leather is OK I guess, but the bindings are glued, not sewn.

If you search these forums you will find many, many posts on people that are disatisfied with the quality of the Bibles available from Catholic publishers. The nicest I have is from Oxford Press, two of them actually. (One is a study Bible, the other a straight reader). Both are real leather, and have sewn bindings, but I don’t think they are even available any longer. (They were RSV versions which are becoming harder and harder to find).

I actually opted for a KJV w\Apocrypha from Cambridge quite some time ago and have been very, very happy with it. The build of it from the cover and paper to the binding are exceptional. I actually like the way it reads more than the DR, just flows better, and the book names and Pslam numbering are the standard you will find in all versions other than the DR. I use a separate on line Haydock commentary in conjunction with it and love the way it works out.

 

[EphelDuath]

I actually opted for a KJV w\Apocrypha from Cambridge quite some time ago and have been very, very happy with it. The build of it from the cover and paper to the binding are exceptional. I actually like the way it reads more than the DR, just flows better, and the book names and Pslam numbering are the standard you will find in all versions other than the DR. I use a separate on line Haydock commentary in conjunction with it and love the way it works out.

I hope you understand that you’re reading a translation of the Bible which considers seven of its books to not be the Word of God, and was purposefully mistranslated in parts for the purpose of refuting Catholicism by order of a heretic king that bloodied himself greatly with nonviolent Catholics for being a threat to his throne… because you like the binding and poetry better.

Granted the Douay-Rheims feels awfully clumsy to a 21st century English speaker, but I don’t hold severe theological and moral reservations for trusting it as a translation.

 

[rotlex]

I hope you understand that you’re reading a translation of the Bible which considers seven of its books to not be the Word of God, and was purposefully mistranslated in parts for the purpose of refuting Catholicism by order of a heretic king that bloodied himself greatly with nonviolent Catholics for being a threat to his throne… because you like the binding and poetry better.

Granted the Douay-Rheims feels awfully clumsy to a 21st century English speaker, but I don’t hold severe theological and moral reservations for trusting it as a translation.

Uh, yeah, OK.

Yes, I realize that the KJV separates the Deuterocanonical books out to a separate section. They are still there in a few of the versions you can find however. When doing a comparison of the DR and KJV, I think you’ll find the differences are extremely minor. Much more minor than when comparing the DR to our own NAB. You can’t even tell me it’s not more dangerous to read from the NAB, with it’s horrendous notes and such than it is to read from the KJV

I’m confident, and knowledgeable enough in my own faith to read the KJV and understand the differences where need be. Can you say the same?

Didn’t mean to make this a discussion on the KJV, just mentioning the quality of the Bibles available from other sources. I probably own more translations than I should, and simply prefer the way the KJV reads,and yes, feels in my hand when bound properly.

 

[EphelDuath]

Yes, I realize that the KJV separates the Deuterocanonical books out to a separate section. They are still there in a few of the versions you can find however. When doing a comparison of the DR and KJV, I think you’ll find the differences are extremely minor. Much more minor than when comparing the DR to our own NAB. You can’t even tell me it’s not more dangerous to read from the NAB, with it’s horrendous notes and such than it is to read from the KJV

In the KJV: 1 Peter 1:18 was rendered in order to devalue Apostolic tradition; John 1:42 was rendered in order to specifically refute that Peter is the Rock which Matthew 16:18-19 refers to.

Agreed on the NAB.

I’m confident, and knowledgeable enough in my own faith to read the KJV and understand the differences where need be. Can you say the same?

I can. I still reject the KJV for its historical circumstances in creation.

 

[corsair]

I only read the DR. My Baronius Press edition is leather and sewn. My only complaint is that the “gold leaf” started flaking off right after I got it . Other than that its well made.

 

[EphelDuath]

I only read the DR. My Baronius Press edition is leather and sewn. My only complaint is that the “gold leaf” started flaking off right after I got it . Other than that its well made.

“One does not live on gold leaf alone, but on every word of God”

 

[WoundedIcon]

In the KJV: 1 Peter 1:18 was rendered in order to devalue Apostolic tradition; John 1:42 was rendered in order to specifically refute that Peter is the Rock which Matthew 16:18-19 refers to.

Agreed on the NAB.

I can. I still reject the KJV for its historical circumstances in creation.

I can see how one could perceive the KJV’s rendering of 1 Peter 1:18 as a slight against tradition in general, but at the same time the context in no way demands it. It can simply be read as speaking of the backwards ways of the audience’s ancestors. And, to be honest, the rendering in John 1:42, by specifically mentioning “a stone” actually seems to draw a much more obvious parallel to Matthew than, say, the RSV for example, which just gives the name Peter and leaves it to the reader to find out what the name means. Also, there’s 2 Corinthians 2:10, which reads in the KJV as “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ…” which is quite favorable to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and is one of the verses most modern translations botch out of theological bias, rendering it as “in the presence of Christ” instead.

Also, the KJV is now one of the approved Bibles of the Catholic Church due to its use in the Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the current translation we call the Douay Rheims is actually a revision done by Bishop Challoner. And a lot of the revisions were in the direction of the KJV’s diction and renderings.

 

[WoundedIcon]

But, back to topic, I think I’m going to try to procure a used version of the Baronius Press DR and see if I luck out and get the French Morocco version instead of the bonded leather one.

 

[EphelDuath]

I can see how one could perceive the KJV’s rendering of 1 Peter 1:18 as a slight against tradition in general, but at the same time the context in no way demands it. It can simply be read as speaking of the backwards ways of the audience’s ancestors. And, to be honest, the rendering in John 1:42, by specifically mentioning “a stone” actually seems to draw a much more obvious parallel to Matthew than, say, the RSV for example, which just gives the name Peter and leaves it to the reader to find out what the name means.

The “by interpretation” sly was put in there specifically to target those Catholics that have to “interpret” the Word of God through the sinful tradition of man rather than take it for what it is.

As I said, these were rendered that way specifically to refute Catholicism.

Also, there’s 2 Corinthians 2:10, which reads in the KJV as “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ…” which is quite favorable to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and is one of the verses most modern translations botch out of theological bias, rendering it as “in the presence of Christ” instead.

Fair point, D-R has “in the person of Christ” as well though

Also, the KJV is now one of the approved Bibles of the Catholic Church due to its use in the Anglican Ordinariate.

Eh? Source please? According to this article they’re using the RSV-2CE, but that was from months ago.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the current translation we call the Douay Rheims is actually a revision done by Bishop Challoner. And a lot of the revisions were in the direction of the KJV’s diction and renderings.

Big difference from the actual KJV.