Best catholic Bible version to read?

[SoulRebel777]

Are you saying the RCC teaches these modernist theories as dogma? If anything there confined to a group of modernists nothing more.

I am in accord with the Traditions of the Church , what the Fathers taught and some of the greatest theologians of the history of the church.

Also your assumptions about me are completly false, I attend the New mass more often then the Traditional Mass. Though my Nuptials will be the Traditional Latin Mass.

And why are you being snooty with me, are you not my brother in Christ? I wish no ill towards you, I wish you the best in Jesus. I just so very much disagree with you on this. I find it very disturbing that you’d believe such nonsense.

God bless you

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Were you there, in New Testament times? Those who Wrote the words of the NT were. And their Direct Intellectual, Truth descendants: * The RC Bishops, Magesterium: * here The US Conference of Catholic Bishops authorize/publish the New American Bible. :bible1: Know that all Catholic Bishops in the world are required to have Doctorates?
And Your credentials, authority, references for calling the Notes demonic toilet paper?
The Catholic Church operative is * The Truth*, no spins. That is The Responsibility of the Bishops in teaching and administering The Church

This is really not pertinent to the discussion. The USCCB is not infallible nor does it carry any spiritual charism as a body. Recall that the entire East was led into Arianism, and a whole legion of heresies by their bishops. It was the laity that was the safeguard of the Faith.

 

[porthos11]

Revelation “Hallelujah”

Hallelujah is actually more accurate then Alleluia, which (via the Latin) loses the rough breathing present in the Greek.

Luke 1:34 has to be the lamest rendering in the whole RSV!

On this point I will agree. While andra can mean husband, the Greek word ginosko isn’t translated anywhere. The proper translation is “I do not know man/a husband”. It’s important to note that “know” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse in Hebrew culture.

 

[Sailka]

This is really not pertinent to the discussion. The USCCB is not infallible nor does it carry any spiritual charism as a body. Recall that the entire East was led into Arianism, and a whole legion of heresies by their bishops. It was the laity that was the safeguard of the Faith.

The USCCB is The ‘Magesterium’ of the Church in the USA, subject to the Vatican. The USCCB is finishing process of minor corrections in wording of the Mass Liturgy, at insistence of the Vatican.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The USCCB is The ‘Magesterium’ of the Church in the USA, subject to the Vatican. The USCCB is finishing process of minor corrections in wording of the Mass Liturgy, at insistence of the Vatican.

Correct, since the USCCB’s submission was rejected by the Vatican.

 

[Sailka]

Are you saying the RCC teaches these modernist theories as dogma? If anything there confined to a group of modernists nothing more.

I am in accord with the Traditions of the Church , what the Fathers taught and some of the greatest theologians of the history of the church.

Also your assumptions about me are completly false, I attend the New mass more often then the Traditional Mass. Though my Nuptials will be the Traditional Latin Mass.

And why are you being snooty with me, are you not my brother in Christ? I wish no ill towards you, I wish you the best in Jesus. I just so very much disagree with you on this. I find it very disturbing that you’d believe such nonsense.

God bless you

I always blow my nose before posting on CAF. Always make sure am “Clean”. Its just that you came across Very strongly disagreeing with Basics of the Church itself.
I’ve learned so much since Returning to the Church, after going inactive in Jesuit college. Didn’t think I needed it; thinking myself ‘too good’, like most of us do.

Have become very eager student of everything Catholic since. Again, is Great book out about the Early Church and Liturgy, in Mass of the Early Christians/Mike Aquilina/Our Sunday Visitor. It documents Several First 2 Centuries Prayers By the Celebrant Returned by the Novus Ordo Mass. And the congregation participation was almost certainly at the Last Supper Feast itself.

And I found 2 documentations that the Apostles themselves Began the “Kiss of Peace” Eastern Hug at aerliest Masses. Vatican II modified it in Form as Western Handshake, in Western liturgy.

Congratulations on your pending Marriage!!! :clapping: :tiphat:
Am very traditional myself, but opposite of traditionalist which claims everything After Pius XII is false, heretical, etc. I’ve seen several of them return as Traditional Only Catholics No Prob with that.

 

[SoulRebel777]

Tony are you middle eastern? I attend a Chaldean Mass almost every Saturday evening.

 

[Sailka]

Tony are you middle eastern? I attend a Chaldean Mass almost every Saturday evening.

Nope. Central European. Wish I could find Chaldean Ancient rite in Person, not just on EWTN sometimes. Have very greaqt love for every part and detail of All parts of Catholic Church. And sometimes attend Orthodox Divine Liturgy, receiving Blessing only. I get tears in my eyes there, as well as at Catholic Mass.
We have such a Beautiful Culture, which few appreciate except us EWTN viewers

 

[rbrtncl]

The notes of the NAB are horrible. I much prefer the Haydock Bible Commentary on a breakdown of the scripture. With NAB I continually miss a point or 2. I much prefer to read the Douay-Rheims for scripture. I am still not convinced on the RSV-CE or NRSV yet. Maybe I am missing something, I am not sure. I have gotten the most out of the Douay-Rheims. I am not however saying that the Douay is the best Bible for everyone. In earlier post on this thread, I seemed a little anti-RSV-CE, but now am recanting those feelings. I still don’t feel comfortable with the RSV-CE yet. Many seem to get a lot out of it though

Yeah, nobody can go wrong with Douay-Rheims. Excellent, & It is indeed the Vulgata in English!!
The RSV-CE is a little closer to the D-R & is highly recommended by orthodox Catholic bible theologians & the like. Maybe I am thinking in a more pastoral angle since this version & the NSRV-CE are easier to understand for the general public. Moreover, the RSV-CE has been used by the aclaimed “Navarre Bible” editors with very, very excellent notes.
I personally use them all just because I don’t know any original language so that I can get a better understanding. And, again, I NEVER use the NAB neither for study nor devotion.
Another quite different isue, like mine, is that English is my second language & it is easier for me to go first to either one (NRSV & SRV) & then navigate into the Douay-Rheims bible.
There is another bible version on the making which I found to be very well done. It is the so call “Catholic Apologetic Study Bible”, being edited by Robert Sungenis. It is actually the Rouay-Rheims
in a literal but more current language. I have “The Gospel According to St. Mathew”, & other volumes are comming out. Both text & notes are really to be considered for anyone. However, I have to say that there is an ongoing debate with Dr Sungenis for certain positions concerning the Jewish people & almost nobody of the most known authorities do not recommend it in public. On the other hand, he had published before two or more books co-edited by the same people that are now distanced from him.
Now, for me there is another issue, which is that any bible translated for a single person may be somehow skewed since no other co-author is giving one corrective feedback. I have a concrete example in Spanish with the 'Biblia del Peregrino", by Schokel, that is totally skewed with horrible notes, and as a matter of fact you won’t find a single authority that would recommend it.
However, I don’t think Sungenis translation has committed the same mistakes in English since, as I said, it is a very, very close literal translation based on the D-R version.
Well, I guess anyone has to make their one choise about this. Please, be informed about the outside somewhat negative feedback he recieves about his positions & if you feel the CASB bible is OK for you use it. I do too, but is always used with my other bible versions next to it. And, my flagship translation is the NB, which a referred to constantly. The same I do with the NB Spanish translation.
I hope it is not too complicated.

 

[SoulRebel777]

Thats beautiful that you cry at Mass, it shows Jesus within you.

What is the Oldest Rite in the Church?

 

[mccorm45]

• Nope. Central European. Wish I could find Chaldean Ancient rite in Person, not just on EWTN sometimes. Have very greaqt love for every part and detail of All parts of Catholic Church. And sometimes attend Orthodox Divine Liturgy, receiving Blessing only. I get tears in my eyes there, as well as at Catholic Mass.
  We have such a Beautiful Culture, which few appreciate except us EWTN viewers

Tony,

I live in the Detroit area, which has a large population of Chaldeans. And I can certainly tell you that we appreciate the many wonderful Chaldean people and beautiful Churches that grace our struggling diocese. I go to a standard Latin Rite parish, which is blessed to have a fair number of Chaldean parishoners. They are a wonderful witness to the faith for many of us Latin Catholics.

 

[Manfred]

Hallelujah is actually more accurate then Alleluia, which (via the Latin) loses the rough breathing present in the Greek.

Perhaps, but isn’t the GREEK rendering “Alleluia”? And our liturgy uses “Alleluia”, not the Hebrew form. Of course, to be totally consistent, we should translate from the Greek NT “Isaias”, “Messias”, “Zacharias”, right?

On this point I will agree. While andra can mean husband, the Greek word ginosko isn’t translated anywhere. The proper translation is “I do not know man/a husband”. It’s important to note that “know” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse in Hebrew culture.

“Ginosko” is similar to “conosco”, the present tense, first person singular Italian verb “I know”. Thus, “How shall this be done, because I do not know man?” would be the correct way to render this. I can’t say it often enough: both RSV CEs REALLY screwed up on this one! Were the editors of the Catholic editions afraid to correct one more verse in Luke 1, after rightfully rendering 1:28 as “full of grace”?

I’m sure it’s not lost on you that all the above is per the Douay-Rheims.

 

[porthos11]

Perhaps, but isn’t the GREEK rendering “Alleluia”? And our liturgy uses “Alleluia”, not the Hebrew form.

The Greek has 'Allelouia. The rough breathing mark ’ requires the H-sound pronounciation.

Of course, to be totally consistent, we should translate from the Greek NT “Isaias”, “Messias”, “Zacharias”, right?

The KJV does that a lot. It’s not an unfair suggestion.

“Ginosko” is similar to “conosco”, the present tense, first person singular Italian verb “I know”. Thus, “How shall this be done, because I do not know man?” would be the correct way to render this. I can’t say it often enough: both RSV CEs REALLY screwed up on this one! Were the editors of the Catholic editions afraid to correct one more verse in Luke 1, after rightfully rendering 1:28 as “full of grace”?

I’m sure it’s not lost on you that all the above is per the Douay-Rheims.

While I agree with the analysis of Luke 1:34, it’s not out of any deference to thr DR, but rather because of the Greek.

 

[Manfred]

The Greek has 'Allelouia. The rough breathing mark ’ requires the H-sound pronounciation.

OK, got me there with the “rough breathing mark”, since I’ve never heard of such.

QUOTE=porthos11;4453190]The KJV does that a lot. It’s not an unfair suggestion.

KJV spells it “Esaias” (cf. D-R “Isaias”), which always struck me as odd.

QUOTE=porthos11;4453190]While I agree with the analysis of Luke 1:34, it’s not out of any deference to the DR, but rather because of the Greek.

Agreed. So why did almost all of the modern English translations - based on the Greek - screw it up to one degree or another?

 

[ChristIsLord]

Ignatius Press RSV - CE 2nd Edition it’s a great Bible however lacking in any real commentary, it’s a fantastic Bible.

 

[porthos11]

Agreed. So why did almost all of the modern English translations - based on the Greek - screw it up to one degree or another?

So far only the RSV does. Most the others get it right.

 

[Sailka]

Thats beautiful that you cry at Mass, it shows Jesus within you.

Thank you. The more one knows the Mass, or anything Catholic, the more it’s appreciated.

What is the Oldest Rite in the Church?

It all began with the Last Supper By the Lord. The Mass and the Eastern Divine Liturgy with Readings and The Apostolic Power Consecration of Bread, Wine into the Body Blood of Our Lord is the Continuation in his Remembrance He asked for

Good question. It’s alleged by our Orthodox brothers that their Divine Liturgy is more ancient than the Mass. I don’t know. Have discovered that the Novus Ordo Mass of Vatican II brought back some first 2 centuries elements, like a couple of major prayers by the Celebrant from the first 2 centuries not included in the Tridentine rite. And the “Kiss of Peace” was initiated By the Apostles, returned by Novus Ordo as the 'Sign of Peace" handshake in the Western rite

 

[Jehuty_X]

I have not seen Jehuty X around;
Thank you for confirming that the Torres Amat Bible is still around. As a matter of fact I found the new TA Version done by a Colombian priest (sorry don’t remember his name) & is a real, real good translation. Not to forget this is the Spanish, current translatiom, from the Vulgata. Thus, worthwhile to keep.
Now, the excellent Nacar-Colunga Version, can be bought directly from the editors: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. I think the address has changed but the one I know is "BAC, de La Editorial Catolica, S.A., Mateo Inurria, 15. Madrid.
Make sure googling it.
God bless,
Rob

i’m here. i have not been feeling well.
the Felix Torres Amat bible is being published by stampley. my mother has the family bible version of it (had it for years and i had no idea until recently) and i saw the publisher’s name and i did a quick search and found their website stampley.com/.
i did check BAC’s website before, but never found the bible in their catalogue. thank you for the address. i will check it out.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I got involved in the Forum discussion with others about the Confraternity Version (i.e. 1941 Confraternity Version New Testament and Confraternity Version Old Testament as of its state in 1969), and there is quite a good discussion in that Forum of how the Confraternity Version and the C.C.D.'s later New American Bible (N.A.B.) compare to each other and to other Bible versions (transaltions). (These Confraternity and “Confraternity-Douay” version Bibles are mostly out-of-print, but they are not hard to find in used book stores and through WWW sources. The Confraternity Bible in many editions of and prior to 1969 can be found through the Amazon WWW sites, especially Amazon.com) Check the Confraternity Version Forum for more about the C.V., N.A.B., the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, and several other versions.

A big problem with Bibles, Roman Catholic and otherwise, is the notes that go with them, especially in “study Bibles” (“annotated Bibles”, “reference Bibles”, etc.). Some versions that basically have good texts are published with dreadful annotations and other notes, especially those whose editors and contributors are “punch drunk” on the Higher Critical method. Such notes spoil even the most stardard editions of translations such as the N.A.B. and The New Jersusalem Bible (N.J.B.). I tend simply to ignore such notes most of the time, when reading such versions and the notes, to varying degree, which tend to be attached to nearly all of them. The Jerusalem Bible (J.B.) and the N.J.B. are eminently worth reading, for their texts, but, Lord save us, just ignore the nonsense in the notes!

At least the three best ever Roman Catholic Versions in English, i.e. the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, the Confraternity Version (as defined above), and the Knox Bible lack such acidly degrading notes. The newly published Orthodox Study Bible’s O.T. was translated from the Septuagint (O.T.) and Byzantine (N.T.) Greek texts, and its notes are quite traditionalist, so it is a fine recommendation, as well. There are notes in these English Bibles, but they are helpful (at least for the most part) and do not depart from doctrinal and exegetical orthodoxy. The texts, too, translate from their base (Latin with or without resort, variously, to Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek original language souces, in the case of the Roman Catholic translations mentioned, and entirely from Greek, in the case of the Orthodox Study Bible) with fidelity and an avoidance of undue use of paraphrase.

There is a lot of foolish drivel that has been written and published to deride versions translated into English from the Septuagint (LXX) Greek O.T. and (for both Testaments) from Latin. The Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible, to take the Bible of antiquity that was foremost in Western Catholic transmission, was an exceedingly fine ancient translation, one that those who prepared and transmitted its manuscripts did with such fidelity to the older texts from which it was prepared (compared, for example, to very late and rabbinical O.T. Hebrew Masoretic Text) that it is better to translate from the Clementine Vulgate than from some of the degraded and Hebrew O.T. and Greek N.T. texts which modernist scholars favour.

I hope that these comments, even if brief and not all that comprehensive, help.

Jerry Parker

 

[rbrtncl]

Dear Jerry:
Concise yes, but what a great comments!
I think it’ll do a lot of good to all of us.
It is unfortunately, however, that the regular reader does not know your advice about the notes.
That’s why I heardly recommned the Navarra Bibles, which is almost completly based on the RSV, because of the very excellent notes.
Additionally, in Spanish the “Biblia de Navarra” is a completely new and excedingly excellent translation, also with great orthodox notes.
Question: Do you know if the “Biblia Poliglota” is already available? It was given as a gift by the United Biblical Society to the Holy Father, which is, as we all know, a protestant enterprise. Furhtermore, I don’t know if the languages included (Hebrew, Arameic, Latin, English & Spanish) are new versions or just the same versions in English & Spanish that they have always preferred, such as the King James version, in English, and the Reina-Valera, in Spanish.
Thaks in advance,
Robert Nicodemo