Best catholic Bible version to read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
by the way, my main version is the rsv ce, but it seems to me like Jerome would have had access to the best and oldest manuscripts, as he said, and that our speculations on a handful of moldy parchments that disagree significantly might not be as good. Not disaffirming textual criticism, but it does not seem like a bad point of view to me. Jerome had manuscripts, both complete and authenticated by centuries of use in the church, we are using badly copied and thrice corrected manuscripts and fragments from the time period he was alive, Jerome was using documents that easily could have been from the time of the apostles himself. Thanks for replying!
 
Roman_1 said:
I think Jerome did the deuterocanon in one sitting because he did not believe they were inspired. By the way, does this mean he is anathema? I know he is supposed to be a saint, but doesn’t disagreement about the canon cause someone to go to hell?
Click to expand...
The canon wasn’t defined in council yet, but Jerome deferred to the Pope. It doesn’t mean he’s anathema. St. Jerome had worse going for him than his disagreement with the canon, such as his legendary temper.

But he’s a saint, most assuredly.
 
I’ve invested most of my interpretative studies in a Protestant Bible. I own about half a dozen Bibles. For me, it really doesn’t matter at this point. I only study, in depth, the Gospels and Acts. The rest of the Bible I only ‘spot-read’. I believe I’ve read the entire Bible several times throughout my life. I’m at a different place, now, in my Biblical spirituality. 👍
 
ok…good, that clears that up. I appreciate the time and the posting. So you recommend the RSV CE? do you have an opinion on the 1st or second edition.
 
ok…good, that clears that up. I appreciate the time and the posting. So you recommend the RSV CE? do you have an opinion on the 1st or second edition.
 
I read the Navarre Bible, mostly for the extensive notes and commentaries
 
Roman_1 said:
ok…good, that clears that up. I appreciate the time and the posting. So you recommend the RSV CE? do you have an opinion on the 1st or second edition.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I prefer the 2nd Ignatius Edition, but I also have the new Oxford retypeset 1st Edition.
 
wow thanks! I have a paperback 2nd edition, but I am looking for a compact 2nd edition to replace the compact 1st edition I now have
 
strugglingalong said:
I agree with the Douay-Rheims crowd 👋

Pax Christi tecum.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It’s not to say that the Douay-Rheims is the best but from what I gathered at studylight.org, I checked several translations to see Luke 1:28, not only does the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate say the same thing, but the same things are said in the Geneva, Wycliffe, Bishop’s , Tyndale NT, and Coverdale’s. So if these were the same words in different Bibles for almost 1400 years why change them??? I noticed things change with the Bible versions after 1800. To say that the Vulgate is not as accurate as a modern Bible because of some new manuscripts found in the last 100 years supersede them is a bold move. How do you know these "manuscripts"are legit? I am open to read other Bibles, but I don’t find anything that is quite nice as the Douay-Rheims.
 
colliric said:
Yes, this is because they are both actually translations of the Vulgate which is where that rendering of that verse came from. The KJV is however only about 95% a translation of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata so it stuffs up the first half of that verse rather delibratly. I do not agree with the modern translative work of the RSV, but it is because I have a preference for the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
When you talk Biblia Sacra Vulgata, you are referring to the Struttgart edtion??? I believe there may be some minor changes from that of the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinum. Correct me if I am wrong. But these differences are nothing major to dimish the text of the Vulgate. I didn’t even know about the Vulgate until I started studying the Bible and its orgins and everything else last year.
 
tobinatorstark said:
That is fine that you all see the RSV-CE as a Bible to read. I would just assume not to even read it unless I absolutely have to. I just don’t think it has any business to be involved with the Catholic Church. Call me old-fashioned or whatever. I do the translations of the Bible for worse after Vatican II. Not to knock on Vatican II because it did have some fine points in there. It just seems some stuff took a turn for the worse after Vatican II. I am not saying that we should revert back to Latin Mass. What I am getting at is that some standards are little lower than what they should be and what they used to be. If the Protestant based Bible manufacturer wants to produce a Catholic edition, great. Just don’t expect me to buy it. In my opinion it would just lead me to becoming a Protestant. I would assume just sticking to true Catholic Bibles Douay-Rheims, Confraternity, Jerusalem. I feel that Protestant Bible should not try to make a Catholic version for the fact I feel they are just trying to mislead us
Click to expand...
Doesn’t Bxvi use RSVCE- whoa- I didn’t know he was a Protestant shill? Gotta watch that guy:D
 
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

This source cam from the website bible-researcher.com/trent1.html

Therefore I don’t reject anything said in the Latin Vulgate. As to tamper with its text by changing words and cutting off parts a verse would by in violation of the last part, right??? Rejection is not always saying that you don’t accept it
 
In the book of _______________ chapter __________ verse _______________ the RSV-CE is expounding protestant ideas as opposed to Catholic ones.

Please fill in the blanks.
 
Mea_Culpa said:
In the book of St.Luke____1 chapter 28__ verse _______________ the RSV-CE is expounding protestant ideas as opposed to Catholic ones.

Please fill in the blanks.
Click to expand...
Diminishes the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception happened at this time when the Angel spoke to her. It lacks the end of the verse Blessed are thou among women, which the Angel had said to her.Elizabeth also said she was blessed among women, but that wasn’t the start of the Immaculate Conception. Blessed are thou among women must be in BOTH places or it isn’t entirely accurate. Accurate, YES. ENTIRELY ACCURATE, NO. It is also documented that the Dead Sea Scroll were in word for word of the Vulgate.(correct me if I am wrong). Protestants don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. The RSV-CE is an off shot of a PROTESTANT BIBLE and was merely modified to the liking of CATHOLICS. I don’t understand if the Genvea, Bishops, Wycliffe, Tyndale NT and Coverdale versions all have it, then all of a sudden it isn’t accurate. The Geneva, Bishops, Wycliffe, Tyndal NT and Coverdale versions aren’t Catholic but they the same thing. Then comes the Miraculous RSV-CE in the 20th century, and it used this text, which was discovered, and seems to be older, so therefore it is more accurate than the Vulgate and we should follow this translation and reject the Vulgate alltogether. I think not. In the council of Trent is was stated that all Biblical works (this includes the Bible) stemming from the likes John Calvin and Martin Luther and etc. and his followers (for all generations thereafter) are to be regarding as Heretical. It doesn’t matter to me if the pope uses it or Scott Hahn or this Jimmy Akin person either. It part of the verse of in Luke 1:28. It’s proper places are in Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42
 
tobinatorstark said:
Diminishes the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception happened at this time when the Angel spoke to her. It lacks the end of the verse Blessed are thou among women, which the Angel had said to her.Elizabeth also said she was blessed among women, but that wasn’t the start of the Immaculate Conception. Blessed are thou among women must be in BOTH places or it isn’t entirely accurate. Accurate, YES. ENTIRELY ACCURATE, NO. It is also documented that the Dead Sea Scroll were in word for word of the Vulgate.(correct me if I am wrong). Protestants don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. The RSV-CE is an off shot of a PROTESTANT BIBLE and was merely modified to the liking of CATHOLICS. I don’t understand if the Genvea, Bishops, Wycliffe, Tyndale NT and Coverdale versions all have it, then all of a sudden it isn’t accurate. The Geneva, Bishops, Wycliffe, Tyndal NT and Coverdale versions aren’t Catholic but they the same thing. Then comes the Miraculous RSV-CE in the 20th century, and it used this text, which was discovered, and seems to be older, so therefore it is more accurate than the Vulgate and we should follow this translation and reject the Vulgate alltogether. I think not. In the council of Trent is was stated that all Biblical works (this includes the Bible) stemming from the likes John Calvin and Martin Luther and etc. and his followers (for all generations thereafter) are to be regarding as Heretical. It doesn’t matter to me if the pope uses it or Scott Hahn or this Jimmy Akin person either. It part of the verse of in Luke 1:28. It’s proper places are in Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42
Click to expand...
I just felt like I should say that Jimmy Akin is the Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers(the organization that runs this forum)
 
good to know. Maybe he’ll give his (name removed by moderator)ut on the RSV-CE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top