Build Your Own Ultimate Study Bible Here!

[Ron_Conte]

I have published my translation of the Bible in two printed formats so far:

12 point type
6" x 9"
with 0.5" margins and an extra 0.3" for the spine side of each page (the gutter)
– the whole Bible then fits into 7 volumes, with no commentary.

If you were to add extensive commentary, you would double the size of the books or the number of volumes.

Also (available soon) a single volume
10 point type
8.5" x 11"
with 0.5" margins and an extra 0.5" for the spine side of each page (the gutter)
– the whole Bible fits into one volume but it is 700 pages.

If you were to add extensive commentary, you would need a second volume of about the same size.

I think that people are too concerned about the way that their Bible looks, and not concerned enough about its contents.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have published my translation of the Bible in two printed formats so far:

12 point type
6" x 9"
with 0.5" margins and an extra 0.3" for the spine side of each page (the gutter)
– the whole Bible then fits into 7 volumes, with no commentary.

If you were to add extensive commentary, you would double the size of the books or the number of volumes.

Also (available soon) a single volume
10 point type
8.5" x 11"
with 0.5" margins and an extra 0.5" for the spine side of each page (the gutter)
– the whole Bible fits into one volume but it is 700 pages.

If you were to add extensive commentary, you would need a second volume of about the same size.

I think that people are too concerned about the way that their Bible looks, and not concerned enough about its contents.

I highly recommend your translation and I use it all the time. Great work!

 

[zach_dunn]

I have published my translation of the Bible in two printed formats so far:

12 point type
6" x 9"
with 0.5" margins and an extra 0.3" for the spine side of each page (the gutter)
– the whole Bible then fits into 7 volumes, with no commentary.

If you were to add extensive commentary, you would double the size of the books or the number of volumes.

Also (available soon) a single volume
10 point type
8.5" x 11"
with 0.5" margins and an extra 0.5" for the spine side of each page (the gutter)
– the whole Bible fits into one volume but it is 700 pages.

If you were to add extensive commentary, you would need a second volume of about the same size.

I think that people are too concerned about the way that their Bible looks, and not concerned enough about its contents.

How do tomes like the ESV Study Bible manage to fit the Bible text, plus extremely extensive commentary into one volume that is 6.5" by 9.25" and you needed 7 volumes? does the 12-point type make that much of a difference? How long are the volumes?

Oh, and how long did you study Latin? Did you do that in college?

 

[zach_dunn]

Hmmm…with all these great suggestions, I’m afraid we’ll be looking at a Bible that looks something like this:

http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/thick-book.jpg

Just kidding! You guys are doing a great job.

Haha, either that or this:

 

[Ron_Conte]

How do tomes like the ESV Study Bible manage to fit the Bible text, plus extremely extensive commentary into one volume that is 6.5" by 9.25" and you needed 7 volumes? does the 12-point type make that much of a difference? How long are the volumes?

The ESV Study Bible is a Protestant Bible. I don’t have a copy but from the website, it seems to lack the 7 books and parts of two other books that Protestants reject from Scripture. I don’t recomment Protestant Bible versions for use by Catholics, especially a Study Bible which will undoubtedly have content that is contrary to Catholic teaching.

Size: 6 ½" x 9 ¼"
2,752 pages
Single-column Bible text (9-point type); double-column notes (7.25-point type)

12 point type, rather than 9 point type, makes a large difference in the number of pages. Also, I don’t know how they fit that many pages into one volume, it must be very thick and have very thin paper. How can anyone read 7.25 pont type?

I consider even 9 point type to be too small for a Bible. At 10 points, the whole Catholic Bible is 700 pages at 8.5 x 11 (with paper that is ordinary thickness).

 

[zach_dunn]

The ESV Study Bible is a Protestant Bible. I don’t have a copy but from the website, it seems to lack the 7 books and parts of two other books that Protestants reject from Scripture. I don’t recomment Protestant Bible versions for use by Catholics, especially a Study Bible which will undoubtedly have content that is contrary to Catholic teaching.

I realize it’s a Protestant Study Bible, I was never planning on getting it, I just pointed out that it’s one volume and has all of the notes and stuff which could be the equivalent of the deuterocanon in its entirety and still have some room left over.

Size: 6 ½" x 9 ¼"
2,752 pages
Single-column Bible text (9-point type); double-column notes (7.25-point type)

12 point type, rather than 9 point type, makes a large difference in the number of pages. Also, I don’t know how they fit that many pages into one volume, it must be very thick and have very thin paper.

Yeah, 12 point type would make a very big difference, but big enough to set off all of the notes? I’m not sure. And about the paper, apparently it’s printed on “high-opacity, high-quality French Bible paper from Papeteries Du Léman (PDL); this is widely considered the finest paper in the world.” So I don’t know . . .

How can anyone read 7.25 pont type?

Haha, oh the benefits of being young.

I consider even 9 point type to be too small for a Bible. At 10 points, the whole Catholic Bible is 700 pages at 8.5 x 11 (with paper that is ordinary thickness).

That’s long, but I don’t really mind. In fact, like patrick457, I really like having a thick tome in my hands. Just knowing it’s full of information makes the thickness worth it!

 

[zach_dunn]

patrick457: Thank you so much for your detailed response! I just love reading these responses! There is one thing I wanted to ask from the beginning (and I feel stupid for forgetting it!) but I think you addressed it briefly: what “kind” of footnotes would you like? By that I mean would you want them to be mostly historical, theological, or archeological, or a mixture of all of them?

Your chart, table, and list suggestions were really interesting and beneficial! Also, would you prefer stuff like the Document Hypothesis, Q, and the Synoptic Problem be addressed in the prefaces to books or in an appendix of some sort? Also, are there any specifically “Catholic” scholars in the field of archeology and anthropology and such? Could you name a few?

What do you think about my idea of including documents such as Dei Verbum in the Bible? I really like that feature about my St. Joseph medium sized NAB . . .

mccorm45: Thank you very much for your response! I would just like to know what you think about the Theological and Apologetic papers I mentioned? Are there any contributors you would like?

COPLAND 3: I found your ideas about translation very interesting! I’m just curious why you would rather have the New Testament translated from the Vulgate rather than Greek? Also, which Vulgate? The New Vulgate or the Clementine Vulgate?

Also, what do you think of the Theological and Apologetic papers I mentioned? Who would you like to see contribute?

Thanks again to everyone who responded! I’d really appreciate if all of you viewers out there share your opinions! I find this stuff really interesting!

Bump for patrick457 and mccorm45.

And come on people! I know the 5 or 6 people who responded to this thread aren’t the only ones who read their Bibles and have preferences! Also, all you people who read the thread (I know you’re reading it, that’s the only way it could get 407 views!), please contribute! All ideas are welcome!

 

[Ron_Conte]

here is an example of a page at 12 point font size and 6" x 9" with decent sized margins:
sacredbible.org/files/single-page-6x9.pdf (PDF file)

and here is an example at 10 point and 8.5 x 11
sacredbible.org/files/single-page-8.5x11.pdf (PDF file)

 

[mccorm45]

Bump for patrick457 and mccorm45.

And come on people! I know the 5 or 6 people who responded to this thread aren’t the only ones who read their Bibles and have preferences! Also, all you people who read the thread (I know you’re reading it, that’s the only way it could get 407 views!), please contribute! All ideas are welcome!

Zach,

In the interest of space, I think any theological/apologetics essays should be minimal. I think with solid commentary notes, cross-references to other scripture passages and the CCC, and an apologetics/theology index, one would be in good shape overall. With that being said, if someone wanted to actually develop a Catholic Apologetics Bible than absolutely. I know that the Catholic Answer Bible is out there, but even though the content is good, it is still simply inserts into the same old NAB text and format. Perhaps, an actual Catholic Apologetics Bible, organized by the folks here at Catholic Answers, would be ideal. Then sure, have lots of essays that could talk about specific doctrines, the history of apologetics, and perhaps one even on how to be a good apologist.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457: Thank you so much for your detailed response! I just love reading these responses! There is one thing I wanted to ask from the beginning (and I feel stupid for forgetting it!) but I think you addressed it briefly: what “kind” of footnotes would you like? By that I mean would you want them to be mostly historical, theological, or archeological, or a mixture of all of them?

What are you talking about? The whole and complete package, of course.

Your chart, table, and list suggestions were really interesting and beneficial! Also, would you prefer stuff like the Document Hypothesis, Q, and the Synoptic Problem be addressed in the prefaces to books or in an appendix of some sort? Also, are there any specifically “Catholic” scholars in the field of archeology and anthropology and such? Could you name a few?

1.) Well, I’d like them to be addressed in the prefaces, the footnotes, AND the appendices. After all, we Catholics are a both-and people, are we not?

The reason why I suggested that is because I’m admittedly rather sick (yeah, sorry about that, that’s a bit too strong a remark, but that’s what comes to my mind ) of a certain translation out there - you, and maybe some other readers, probably already know what I’m referring to - that kinda force stuff like Q and Markan Priority down on us, the readers, as if they’re some established gospel (pun intended) truth on the footnotes and prefaces that you’d think these are the only accepted scholarly hypotheses that exist. As a believer in equality and fairness, I thought that since there ARE other solutions out there (I realize that they receive less publicity than the usual DH-Markan Priority-2SH combination, but they do exist), why not give them all a chance at the spotlight? Don’t get me wrong, I think the translation itself is decent enough, but they could have done a better job at the footnotes and prefaces - not just in this regard.

2.) Hmm…I don’t know of any specific experts in such areas who happen to be Catholics, as of now: one that I can think of at this time is Fr. William Fulco (who constructed the Aramaic used in The Passion of the Christ, BTW). Quite a number of those that I know of - such as Father Bellarmino Bagatti or Father Roland de Vaux - are unfortunately deceased, so I guess there’s already no chance of contacting them to write an article, until God somehow decides to install telephone lines and wireless internet connection in the New Jerusalem.

What do you think about my idea of including documents such as Dei Verbum in the Bible? I really like that feature about my St. Joseph medium sized NAB . . .

Very good, I’ll say. If Roman Missals could (and did) contain papal bulls such as Quo Primum, why could Catholic Bibles not contain stuff like Dei Verbum, Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, or Divino Afflante Spiritu in them?

Oh, and one more thing I’d like to add. For my Bible, I’d prefer the Name spelled out only with the consonants, when it appears - in light of the historical confusion regarding its true pronunciation (hey, perhaps we can include a sidebar on “Yahweh” and “Jehovah”!) and to give readers a feeling of it ‘otherness’ and sanctity, or well, something along those lines: YHWH. And preferably, I’d leave other divine names/titles like El, Elohim, El Shaddai, El-Elyon, 'Adonai, or YHWH Tzevaot (Sabaoth) untranslated, with their meanings given in appropriate footnotes.

 

[Fidelis]

Oh, and one more thing I’d like to add. For my Bible, I’d prefer the Name spelled out only with the consonants, when it appears - in light of the historical confusion regarding its true pronunciation (hey, perhaps we can include a sidebar on “Yahweh” and “Jehovah”!) and to give readers a feeling of it ‘otherness’ and sanctity, or well, something along those lines: YHWH. And preferably, I’d leave other divine names/titles like El, Elohim, El Shaddai, El-Elyon, 'Adonai, or YHWH Tzevaot (Sabaoth) untranslated, with their meanings given in appropriate footnotes.

Excellent point. I would also like to see this.

 

[patrick457]

Haha, either that or this:

http://orionwell.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/pile-of-books.jpg

Oh yeah! Dividing it into several volumes might be one solution, albeit a rather cumbersome one. And BTW, if we’re going to divide it, here are several divisions that I came up with:

OLD TESTAMENT

Part 1: The Law (Torah), also known as the Five Books of Moses
Part 2: The Book of Joshua
Part 3: The Books of Judges and Ruth
Part 4: The Book of Samuel (1-2 Samuel)
Part 5: The Book of Kings (1-2 Kings)
Part 6: The Matters of the Days+ of the Kings of Judah and Israel (1-2 Chronicles)
Part 7: The First Book of Maccabees, also known as Sarbēth Sarbanael (1 Maccabees)*
Part 8: The Second Book of Maccabees, being an abridgment of Jason of Cyrene (2 Maccabees)

Part 9: The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah
Part 10: The Book of Tobit
Part 11: The Book of Judith
Part 12: The Book of Esther

Part 13: The Book of Job
Part 14: Praises (Tehilim), also known as Psalms
Part 15: The Proverbs of Solomon
Part 16: The Book of Qohelet, also known as Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs
Part 17: The Wisdom of Solomon
Part 18: The Wisdom of Yehoshua ben-Sira (Jesus son of Sirach)

Part 19: The Book of Isaiah
Part 20: The Book of Jeremiah
Part 21: The Book of Lamentations and Baruch
Part 22: The Book of Ezekiel
Part 23: The Book of Daniel
Part 24: The Twelve Minor Prophets

+ This is the title of the book/s in Hebrew: Divrei Hayyamim.

• I chose to divide the two Maccabean works since they are not really a continous work like Samuel or Kings or Chronicles are, but are in fact two separate works which basically tell many of the same events of roughly the same time period.

Origen claimed that the original title of 1 Maccabees was Sarbēth Sarbanael (also Sarbanai el or Sa[r]baneel), an enigmatic Greek transliteration from a Semitic original, which can either mean:

1.) “Book of the Prince of the House of Israel”, from the Hebrew שַׂר בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, Sar Beit-Yisra’el
2.) “Book of the Prince of the House of God (El)”, Hebrew בֵּית אֵל‎ שַׂר, Sar Beit-El
3.) “History of the House of the Warriors”
4.) “Book of the House of the Princes of God”
5.) “Book of the Dynasty of God’s resisters”, Hebrew סֵפֶר בֵּית סָרְבָנֵי אֵל, Sefer Beit Sarevanei El (“Book of the House who strive for God”)
6.) A corruption of the Aramaic for “The Book of the House of the Hasmoneans”
NEW TESTAMENT

Part 1: The Gospel according to Matthew
Part 2: The Gospel according to Mark
Part 3: The Gospel according to Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles
Part 4: The Gospel according to John, and the Epistles of John
Part 5: The Epistles of Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews
Part 6: The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude
Part 7: The Revelation of John​

And uh, yeah, the order is different from how they are usually ordered in our Bibles…but that doesn’t mean that having them in ‘proper’ order ain’t so bad.
BTW, a single part would not necessarily equal one volume. So while I have 31 Parts, I think the number of volumes would be more numerous: perhaps it would go up above 40?

 

[zach_dunn]

What are you talking about? The whole and complete package, of course.

Haha, I’m assuming that means a mixture, then.

1.) Well, I’d like them to be addressed in the prefaces, the footnotes, AND the appendices. After all, we Catholics are a both-and people, are we not?

The reason why I suggested that is because I’m admittedly rather sick (yeah, sorry about that, that’s a bit too strong a remark, but that’s what comes to my mind ) of a certain translation out there - you, and maybe some other readers, probably already know what I’m referring to - that kinda force stuff like Q and Markan Priority down on us, the readers, as if they’re some established gospel (pun intended) truth on the footnotes and prefaces that you’d think these are the only accepted scholarly hypotheses that exist. As a believer in equality and fairness, I thought that since there ARE other solutions out there (I realize that they receive less publicity than the usual DH-Markan Priority-2SH combination, but they do exist), why not give them all a chance at the spotlight? Don’t get me wrong, I think the translation itself is decent enough, but they could have done a better job at the footnotes and prefaces - not just in this regard.

I know what you mean and I totally agree . . . but does that certain translation take the authority that you seem to give it? To people actually believe this translation’s notes to be “the gospel truth”?

2.) Hmm…I don’t know of any specific experts in such areas who happen to be Catholics, as of now: one that I can think of at this time is Fr. William Fulco (who constructed the Aramaic used in The Passion of the Christ, BTW). Quite a number of those that I know of - such as Father Bellarmino Bagatti or Father Roland de Vaux - are unfortunately deceased, so I guess there’s already no chance of contacting them to write an article, until God somehow decides to install telephone lines and wireless internet connection in the New Jerusalem.

That sounds like a good one, I’m sure most of the experts at prestigious Catholic Colleges around the world would make great contributors!

Very good, I’ll say. If Roman Missals could (and did) contain papal bulls such as Quo Primum, why could Catholic Bibles not contain stuff like Dei Verbum, Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, or Divino Afflante Spiritu in them?

Wow, I had never actually heard of Spiritus Paraclitus before, that was a great read! All of those would make fine editions!

Oh, and one more thing I’d like to add. For my Bible, I’d prefer the Name spelled out only with the consonants, when it appears - in light of the historical confusion regarding its true pronunciation (hey, perhaps we can include a sidebar on “Yahweh” and “Jehovah”!) and to give readers a feeling of it ‘otherness’ and sanctity, or well, something along those lines: YHWH. And preferably, I’d leave other divine names/titles like El, Elohim, El Shaddai, El-Elyon, 'Adonai, or YHWH Tzevaot (Sabaoth) untranslated, with their meanings given in appropriate footnotes.

What about instances when those names aren’t applied to God? Doesn’t Elohim mean angels in some occasions?

Also, what do you feel about translating Jesus’ name? Would you keep it Jesus or Joshua or straight up Yehoshua?

Thanks again for all of your opinions!

 

[zach_dunn]

Oh yeah! Dividing it into several volumes might be one solution, albeit a rather cumbersome one. And BTW, if we’re going to divide it, here are several divisions that I came up with:

OLD TESTAMENT

Part 1: The Law (Torah), also known as the Five Books of Moses
Part 2: The Book of Joshua
Part 3: The Books of Judges and Ruth
Part 4: The Book of Samuel (1-2 Samuel)
Part 5: The Book of Kings (1-2 Kings)
Part 6: The Matters of the Days+ of the Kings of Judah and Israel (1-2 Chronicles)
Part 7: The First Book of Maccabees, also known as Sarbēth Sarbanael (1 Maccabees)*
Part 8: The Second Book of Maccabees, being an abridgment of Jason of Cyrene (2 Maccabees)

Part 9: The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah
Part 10: The Book of Tobit
Part 11: The Book of Judith
Part 12: The Book of Esther

Part 13: The Book of Job
Part 14: Praises (Tehilim), also known as Psalms
Part 15: The Proverbs of Solomon
Part 16: The Book of Qohelet, also known as Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs
Part 17: The Wisdom of Solomon
Part 18: The Wisdom of Yehoshua ben-Sira (Jesus son of Sirach)

Part 19: The Book of Isaiah
Part 20: The Book of Jeremiah
Part 21: The Book of Lamentations and Baruch
Part 22: The Book of Ezekiel
Part 23: The Book of Daniel
Part 24: The Twelve Minor Prophets

+ This is the title of the book/s in Hebrew: Divrei Hayyamim.

• I chose to divide the two Maccabean works since they are not really a continous work like Samuel or Kings or Chronicles are, but are in fact two separate works which basically tell many of the same events of roughly the same time period.

Origen claimed that the original title of 1 Maccabees was Sarbēth Sarbanael (also Sarbanai el or Sa[r]baneel), an enigmatic Greek transliteration from a Semitic original, which can either mean:

1.) “Book of the Prince of the House of Israel”, from the Hebrew שַׂר בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, Sar Beit-Yisra’el
2.) “Book of the Prince of the House of God (El)”, Hebrew בֵּית אֵל‎ שַׂר, Sar Beit-El
3.) “History of the House of the Warriors”
4.) “Book of the House of the Princes of God”
5.) “Book of the Dynasty of God’s resisters”, Hebrew סֵפֶר בֵּית סָרְבָנֵי אֵל, Sefer Beit Sarevanei El (“Book of the House who strive for God”)
6.) A corruption of the Aramaic for “The Book of the House of the Hasmoneans”
NEW TESTAMENT

Part 1: The Gospel according to Matthew
Part 2: The Gospel according to Mark
Part 3: The Gospel according to Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles
Part 4: The Gospel according to John, and the Epistles of John
Part 5: The Epistles of Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews
Part 6: The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude
Part 7: The Revelation of John​

And uh, yeah, the order is different from how they are usually ordered in our Bibles…but that doesn’t mean that having them in ‘proper’ order ain’t so bad.
BTW, a single part would not necessarily equal one volume. So while I have 31 Parts, I think the number of volumes would be more numerous: perhaps it would go up above 40?

Hmmm, that definitely would be the ultimate Study Bible . . . 40 volumes is a ton! Which ones would you put into it’s own volume? I’m not sure how you get 40, does that include appendices?

 

[patrick457]

I’ll address the latter half of your reply first due to the lack of time. Sorry!

What about instances when those names aren’t applied to God? Doesn’t Elohim mean angels in some occasions?

Yes, there are a few instances where elohim may refer to beings other than God, or is used as a generic plural for ‘gods’ (cf. 1 Samuel 28:13, where the witch of Endor proclaims: “I see elohim coming up out of the earth”, plus Exodus 20:3, “You shall have no other elohim before me” and Judges 2:3 “they shall be thorns in your side, and their elohim shall be a snare to you”). There are still other passages where its usage is a bit ambiguous (Exodus 22:28: “Thou shalt not revile elohim or curse a ruler of your people…”, where some are of the opinion that elohim is applied to human rulers or judges). In these instances I think that these could be translated, with a footnote on the original word.

Also, what do you feel about translating Jesus’ name? Would you keep it Jesus or Joshua or straight up Yehoshua?

If we’re going to preserve the names as they are written in the original texts, we’ll come up with Iesous for the Holy Name. But yeah, it does feel a bit odd; imagine reading Mark and finding the very first sentence as reading: “The beginning of the gospel of Iesous Christos, Son of God, as it is written in Esaias the prophet…” And well, the list of the apostles and the genealogy of Jesus would look like these (from Matthew):

And of the twelve apostles the names are these: first, Simon who is called Petros and Andreas his brother; Iakobos of Zebedaios and Ioannes his brother; Philippos and Bartholomaios; Thomas and Maththaios the tax-collector; Iakobos of Alphaios and Thaddaios; Simon the Kananean and Ioudas the Iskariotes, who also handed Him over.

…and Iessai begat Dauid the king. And Dauid the king begat Solomon, of her who had been Ouria’s, and Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begat Abia, and Abia begat Asa, and Asa begat Iosaphat, and Iosaphat begat Ioram, and Ioram begat Ozias, and Ozias begat Ioatham, and Ioatham begat Achaz, and Achaz begat Ezekias, and Ezekias begat Manasses, and Manasses begat Amon, and Amon begat Iosias, and Iosias begat Iechonias and his brothers, at the Babylonian deportation. Now after the Babylonian deportation, Iechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel, and Zorobabel begat Abioud, and Abioud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor, and Azor begat Sadok, and Sadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Elioud, and Elioud begat Eleazar, and Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Iakob, and Iakob begat Ioseph the husband of Maria, of whom was begotten Iesous, who is named Christos.

 

[zach_dunn]

Yes, there are a few instances where elohim may refer to beings other than God, or is used as a generic plural for ‘gods’ (cf. 1 Samuel 28:13, where the witch of Endor proclaims: “I see elohim coming up out of the earth”, plus Exodus 20:3, “You shall have no other elohim before me” and Judges 2:3 “they shall be thorns in your side, and their elohim shall be a snare to you”). There are still other passages where its usage is a bit ambiguous (Exodus 22:28: “Thou shalt not revile elohim or curse a ruler of your people…”, where some are of the opinion that elohim is applied to human rulers or judges). In these instances I think that these could be translated, with a footnote on the original word.

That sounds good! Footnotes are there for a reason!

If we’re going to preserve the names as they are written in the original texts, we’ll come up with Iesous for the Holy Name. But yeah, it does feel a bit odd; imagine reading Mark and finding the very first sentence as reading: “The beginning of the gospel of Iesous Christos, Son of God, as it is written in Esaias the prophet…” And well, the list of the apostles and the genealogy of Jesus would look like these (from Matthew):

And of the twelve apostles the names are these: first, Simon who is called Petros and Andreas his brother; Iakobos of Zebedaios and Ioannes his brother; Philippos and Bartholomaios; Thomas and Maththaios the tax-collector; Iakobos of Alphaios and Thaddaios; Simon the Kananean and Ioudas the Iskariotes, who also handed Him over.

…and Iessai begat Dauid the king. And Dauid the king begat Solomon, of her who had been Ouria’s, and Solomon begat Roboam, and Roboam begat Abia, and Abia begat Asa, and Asa begat Iosaphat, and Iosaphat begat Ioram, and Ioram begat Ozias, and Ozias begat Ioatham, and Ioatham begat Achaz, and Achaz begat Ezekias, and Ezekias begat Manasses, and Manasses begat Amon, and Amon begat Iosias, and Iosias begat Iechonias and his brothers, at the Babylonian deportation. Now after the Babylonian deportation, Iechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel, and Zorobabel begat Abioud, and Abioud begat Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor, and Azor begat Sadok, and Sadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Elioud, and Elioud begat Eleazar, and Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Iakob, and Iakob begat Ioseph the husband of Maria, of whom was begotten Iesous, who is named Christos.

Hahaha, that would be pretty confusing . . . from the looks of it I prefer the names we have for them now! But I do like the idea of preserving the words when referring to God, it just makes it that much more . . . what’s the word, sacred?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Perhaps the best way for an individual to make his or her own study Bible is with software.

This free software is for studying the Bible:
theword.gr/

And there are numerous free modules that can be added of Bible versions and of Bible resources.

 

[zach_dunn]

Perhaps the best way for an individual to make his or her own study Bible is with software.

This free software is for studying the Bible:
theword.gr/

And there are numerous free modules that can be added of Bible versions and of Bible resources.

Software is nice, but I simply don’t think digital can compare to holding the Word in your very own hands . . . but that’s just my opinion!

 

[HannahLisa]

I am Protestant, so some parts of my perfect Bible will be different…but perhaps others are the same.

Also, for those who were wondering about the ESV Study Bible: I owned one. I didn’t have any problems with the font size, especially in the biblical text. The pages were very thin, and the volume itself was quite large and thick. I believe most Bibles squeeze so much in by the very thin paper as well as small margins. 12 point font is not the standard for printed books, as far as I know, and it has seemed too big to me when I’ve read 12 point Bibles before.

On to my perfect Bible!
Dimensions and Margins - I’m not sure about dimensions. Smaller than an 8.5 by 11 piece of paper, but not by too much. Margins at least .5 inch on all sides except perhaps top and bottom.

Translation/Interlinear Possibility - I would want my favorite translation, the NLT, with no interlinears because I do not read Greek or Hebrew.

Intros - and background information should definitely go throughout the Bible closest to where the books are. I would actually prefer not to have section headings, and to have chapter and verse divisions minimized as much as possible while still retaining them, because it makes for easy reference.

Column Preferences - One column for the Bible text, three max for the footnotes.

Font Preferences - Not sure about font size - definitely smaller than 12 for Bible text, and no smaller than probably a 7.5 for footnotes. Definitely want words of Christ in red.

Citation Preferences - Matt. 16:18, always. I don’t like the two letter abbreviations.

Cross-References - On the inside column, or in the middle column. Only cross-references with ideas, not cross-references to random words.

Concordance/Dictionary - Probably put it in the second volume, which would also include all the

Topical/Apologetics Essays - covering all sorts of different issues, with each side presented accurately and preferably without giving the answer.

Graphic Preferences - Maps don’t do much for me. I could deal with many fewer maps than usually exist. I love the drawings like those in the ESV Study Bible though, and full color is cooler than greyscale.

Book Details - Smyth sewn, meaning the pages are less likely to just fall out! Most books are put together using glue, which can fail. Hardcover is somewhat annoying with Bibles because the Bible paper is so thin, so a leather cover would be optimal. Also, THREE RIBBON BOOKMARKS! One is never enough.

Good Ones - My favorite study Bible and the one I use most is the NLT Study Bible.

One Last Thing - As far as I know, there is a Catholic Bible for college students which does include whichever encyclical talks about reading the Bible. It’s published by St. Mary’s Press. However, it is the NAB translation if I remember correctly.

 

[zach_dunn]

I am Protestant, so some parts of my perfect Bible will be different…but perhaps others are the same.

Thank you so much for replying!! I hope to get more and more people to reply, too! And it’s ok if some things are different, that’s how ideas flow. This is just brainstorming.

Also, for those who were wondering about the ESV Study Bible: I owned one. I didn’t have any problems with the font size, especially in the biblical text. The pages were very thin, and the volume itself was quite large and thick. I believe most Bibles squeeze so much in by the very thin paper as well as small margins. 12 point font is not the standard for printed books, as far as I know, and it has seemed too big to me when I’ve read 12 point Bibles before.

How do you feel about having a thick Bible, jam-packed with information? Do you prefer ones with less notes so that you can make them yourself? I agree that 12 point would be a little too big, I like the idea of 10 or 9.5 point font . . . but that’s just me and my young eyes.

On to my perfect Bible!
Dimensions and Margins - I’m not sure about dimensions. Smaller than an 8.5 by 11 piece of paper, but not by too much. Margins at least .5 inch on all sides except perhaps top and bottom.

I’m kind of a big fan of semi-small and chunky. I’ve held a paperback ESV Study Bible and I REALLY liked the feel of it in my hand! I also would like to see larger margins! In fact, I would like to see larger margins in regular reading Bibles. When I first got into Bible reading, I didn’t like the idea of writing in my Bible. But after doing some reading, I’ve been converted and now I do it all the time! It just is hard to find Catholic publishers who will accommodate people who like large margins.

Translation/Interlinear Possibility - I would want my favorite translation, the NLT, with no interlinears because I do not read Greek or Hebrew.

If you only responded to one part of this post, I would hope you would respond to this: why is the NLT your favorite translation? From my dealings with the translation, it seems rather . . . “dumbed down” for lack of a better adjective. I mean no offense to you, but I think that the NLT has done a disservice to the text by trying to make is so that a fifth grader can read it perfectly.

Intros - and background information should definitely go throughout the Bible closest to where the books are. I would actually prefer not to have section headings, and to have chapter and verse divisions minimized as much as possible while still retaining them, because it makes for easy reference.

I’m kind of divided on the section headings, I feel like they can be really beneficial in locating certain parts of the Bible, but at the same time, they weren’t in the original text and they kinda break up the text, making it harder to get the “flow” of the book, if you know what I mean. I really like the paragraph style of writing, I never like having a verse be it’s own paragraph . . . I just think it makes the Bible very choppy.

Column Preferences - One column for the Bible text, three max for the footnotes.

I’m beginning to see a trend towards single columns for the biblical text . . . why do you like it? When I look at a single column Bible, I think it stretches the text out too much and makes it appear smaller than it is. I don’t know why this bothers me, it is just a sort of pet peeve!

Font Preferences - Not sure about font size - definitely smaller than 12 for Bible text, and no smaller than probably a 7.5 for footnotes. Definitely want words of Christ in red.

How would you propose fixing the problem of the instances where we are unsure of when Jesus is speaking?

Citation Preferences - Matt. 16:18, always. I don’t like the two letter abbreviations.

Is there a reason you dislike two letter abbreviations? I like them because they make things simpler . . . at least for me.

Cross-References - On the inside column, or in the middle column. Only cross-references with ideas, not cross-references to random words.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the middle column . . . do you mean like this? And do you mean this when you say inside column? I’m not a big fan of the middle column — as presented in that link above — but I think the inside column idea is nice and I think it keeps the one column text from looking weird . . .

Concordance/Dictionary - Probably put it in the second volume, which would also include all the

Topical/Apologetics Essays - covering all sorts of different issues, with each side presented accurately and preferably without giving the answer.

I agree these would be best in a second volume, but I have to disagree with you on the essays giving the answer . . . at least in certain aspects. When it comes to controversial topics such as Markan Priority and Q, I agree with you, both sides should be presented. But in cases such as Apologetics and Theological questions regarding the use and interpretation of Scripture, I think Catholics need to have a solid answer and definition on which to build off of. I understand why you wouldn’t want a definite answer for the simple reason that whoever wrote the article may not be of the same Christian persuasion as you, and you’d rather decide for yourself. But I think you can agree that for Catholics, who have a fairly extensively defined systematic theology, it would be better for we Catholics to have solid guidance, correct?

← continued in next post →