The poster wanted a Bible that had all the books found in the Septuagint. The Catholic Church does not recognise all the books that the Orthodox Church recognises. Therefore, I gave a link to the ecumenical RSV because that Bible contains books in its Apocrypha that are not Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Church but are actually apocryphal to the Catholic Church. Once the Orthodox Study Bible is complete, I will be able to reference that one as well.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible is a Protestant RSV that has the Protestant fabricated Canon containing 66 Books. As such the Deutro-Canon would be wrongly labelled as Apocrypha.
It would be next to impossible to find a D-R with those books nowadays, unless one was a book collector willing to spend $$$$$ for it through an antique dealer. I know better which books are the Deuterocanonicals and which are apocryphal (and no one could be confused by purchasing the ecumenical RSV, because it explains what the canon is for Catholics, Protestants and the various Orthodox Churches in the introduction). I’m sure the poster who wanted the Septuagint knows this as well. Another option will be available next year when the Orthodox Study Bible is completed.
The following has them: realdouayrheims.com
No, thank you. I have an excellent grasp of the English language. In college, I had the best paper in my English composition class. I also had a short story published in the college literary magazine. That particular Bible uses such archaic English that I would not be able to understand it. I’ll stick with the ecumenical RSV right now. Next year, when the Orthodox Study Bible is available, I’ll purchase it.
Hmm… this particular one uses the modern spelling although I think the ‘-eth’, thee, thou, thy, thine is kept. Ultimately, it really is not that hard.
I thought the one in the link was a facsimile of the original D-R.
No worries, and well when I quoted from the 1582 Rhemes NT in post #18 that was the first time I really read a specific verse from it. The old spelling just needs to get abit of getting use to.
It’s interesting that the RSV stumbles on John 3:16, but seems to get it right at John 12:46.For what its worth… the 1582 Rhemes NT reads “For so God loved the world that he gave his only-begotton Son, that everyone who believeth in him, perish not, but may have life everlasting.” [Using current spelling]
Belief does not guarantee life everlasting
For reference the 1611 KJV reads “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
As does the Good News Bible. Yet the Jersualem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible are a bit obscure for this verse.
Well, let’s make a distinction between a transliteration and a facsimile. If the transliteration is hard to read, then you definitely don’t want to get anywhere near the facsimile.
I guess that could be done, but I think we actually have a confusion of terms going on here. If it is a facsimile, then it really can’t be a transliteration.
