Buying a new Bible

[melchesidechpio]

A good bible that I use and that Mother Angelica herself has recomended is the new jeruselem bible. Another good one is the Ignatious bible.

Mother Angelica doesn’t recommend the new Jerusalem Bible but the orginal Jerusalem Bible. She feels that the new Jerusalem Bible is heretic and has inclusive anguagel. The Ignatius Bible is good too, but I’ll stick with my Douay-Rheims or Latin Vulgate

 

[Irishgal49]

I like the Jerusalem Bible. I will check out the NRSV however as I like to have more than one version.:bible1:

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I like the Jerusalem Bible. I will check out the NRSV however as I like to have more than one version.:bible1:

Good idea. The more the better. :bible1::bible1::bible1:

 

[Cristiano]

As far as I understand the Jerusalem Bible is simply a translation of the French version and I do not think that it meets the new standards that a Bible must be a translation from the original version. However, I also understand that the New Jerusalem Bible is translated from the originals and not from the French version.

 

[johnbres2]

I really can’t figure out why people like this version so much. It contains the inclusive language, resulting in (among many other instances) a butchered Psalm 1, it does not say “Hail Full of Grace” at Luke 1:28 and does not say “virgin” at Is. 7:14. Now, these things are not necessarily fatal to the translation as a whole (though they may be, from the Catholic perspective); but the question remains, what is there about the NRSV that is a positive? I just don’t get it. I would much rather have a NABRE (which, thankfully, has at least improved the Psalms), as at least it was created to be a Catholic Bible.

I also agree that the hybrid Confraternity/Douay bible is great. And check out the Catholic Public Domain bible that someone here created for a translation of the Vulage.

 

[puzzleannie]

I made several other purchases too; it’s dangerous to let me loose in a book shop.

if they had shopping carts in bookstores I would be in big trouble

did you ever find out what translation is approved for liturgy in your country?

 

[puzzleannie]

It’s easy to get a full 1966 edition of the JB on eBay or ABEBOOKS.com, the notes are great. The NEW JB is a different animal and is gender neutral with notes which are less good.

The JB is a very dynamic edition, thought for thought, it is on the opposite end of the scale from the RSV-CE.

for some reason the original binding on most runs of the original JB are atrocious and deteriorating badly, unless it was in a controlled humidity environment, you may have to get it rebound or make a cover for it. Also the print for some reason is tiny and light which rules it out for me now.

 

[Phyllo]

for some reason the original binding on most runs of the original JB are atrocious and deteriorating badly, unless it was in a controlled humidity environment, you may have to get it rebound or make a cover for it. Also the print for some reason is tiny and light which rules it out for me now.

I have an original 1966 JB with some kind of a vinyl cover. I have since sent it away to a book binder and had a gorgeous leather cover put on. It was well worth the price.

I don’t find the print faded and small and hard to read.

I have purchased and used many other bibles but continually go back to my old JB and love it.

I was able to purchase a hard cover bible from the net. It is very thick, maybe about 3 inches? It is like brand new. It was owned by a priest and his name is hand written in the book. I think it was about $50.00 if memory serves. I just can’t imagine selling a bible.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

did you ever find out what translation is approved for liturgy in your country?

Yes, I did. They approve, for liturgical use, the following two versions of the Bible, viz. the Jerusalem Bible and Revised Standard Version. They approve a further two, the New Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Standard Version, but say their explicit permission is required to produce a Lectionary using either of the latter two versions.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think that bibles don’t don’t say “hail full of grace” and " a virgin will conceive" should not be used. If you’re Catholic read a REAL Catholic bible that does say “hailf full of grace” and “a virgin will conceive”. Satan wants you to use bibles that don’t say these things and are disrespectful of Our Lady.

 

[Phyllo]

I bought my bible on line. It has the Douay Challoner Old Testament–an English version of the new Latin Psalms approved by Pope Pius XII–and the Confraternity New Testament.

I truely believe that this combination of the bible has the lowest number of inaccuracies of any bible.

It isn’t Protestant. It isn’t liberal. It has conservative notes.

It has “a virgin will conceive”–“hail Mary full of grace”–2 Corinthians 2:10 “in the PERSON of Christ”.

It also has “Supersubstantial bread” in the footnotes of the Our Father.

It also has the angel moving the waters where people were waiting to be healed.

And it even has the Johanine Comma in the footnotes.

The Copyright for the bible was 1950–I believe it was purchased in 1953 or 1954–it was new in the box and appeared to never have been read because all the pages kind of stuck together when you turned to various pages in the bible.

Hey Jerry,
I received a similar copy from my parents when we got married. The cover fell off and I sent it to a book binder and had a great leather cover put on. It is red.

I had a great find at a church tag sale last year. You guessed it. A similar copy of the bible you mentioned. It too looked like it had never been opened. This one has beautiful pictures and extra stories in it. It is slightly big, but not too big, to carry to a bible study but I love it. It happened to have a cover that was in ruins so again off to the book binder. this one I had covered in deep forest green. Just beautiful. Oh, I only paid $2.00 for the book but $100.00 for the cover.

I like to buy used bibles even Protestant ones and especially if they have hand written notes.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Tomcmaj]

I have an original 1966 JB with some kind of a vinyl cover. I have since sent it away to a book binder and had a gorgeous leather cover put on. It was well worth the price.

Wow. Now there’s an excellent idea! Please private mail me recommendations for book binders.

Thanks, tomcmaj

 

[Tomcmaj]

Can someone please explain to me what the issue is with inclusive language, except of course, making sure that it is used appropriately: e.g.

Matt. 5:9

“Happy the peacemakers: they shall be called sons of God” (JB)

“Blessed are the peacemakers: they shall be recognized as children of God” (NJB)

Personally, I think this is an appropriate use of inclusive language. (BTW, this is also a good example of the more poetic style of the NJB.)

 

[Trolol]

I’m on my 17th bible after burning all the others on “accident”…but my Satanic bible is the original!!!

 

[Digitonomy]

Satan wants you to use bibles that don’t say these things…

Satan wants us to use Bibles?

 

[jwinch2]

My main issue with the NSRV other than the virgin vs. young woman comments expressed earlier is that I believe that they went overboard with the inclusive language. For example, there are times when the word “brethren” can be translated to “brothers and sisters” without altering the meaning or the context in any way. However, there are also times when it cannot. For example, there is a passage that reads in the RSV “brethren, if any of you have wives…”. In the NSRV, that same passage reads “brothers and sisters, if any of you have wives…”. That one doesn’t make sense. It is almost as if someone just did a find and replace function on Microsoft Word and didn’t bother to check and see if there are instances where the changes did not make sense with the context of the passage.

If they would fix that, I believe the NSRV-CE would be a pretty good choice for very readable version of the Bible.

Until then, I will be sticking with my RSV2CE.

 

[Khalid]

For reading or devotional study:

First choice:

Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition (Ignatius Study Bible - New Testament)

Lancelot Brenton’s Septuagint (Old Testament)

If you keep your ******** meter engaged insofar as the commentaries go, either the Jerusalem Bible (my personal choice: JRR Tolkien translated part of it! very poetic) or the New Jerusalem Bible are alright. These would be my second choices.

The New American Bible is lukewarm at best, but used for lectionary in the USA.

Too many of these Bibles seem to be translated by people who want to call in to question everything written in Scripture and/or don’t believe a word of it! This tendency especially shines through in book introductions.

The Orthodox Study Bible is based on the NKJV, with a supposedly new translation of the Septuagint for the OT, but there are many places I have found it hewed to the Masoretic text and not the LXX (even the Psalms have the Jewish numbering!). The New Testament is just a ******** NKJV, and the footnotes are pretty banal.

For Old Testament usage, use the Septuagint, not the Masoretic (Hebrew Jewish) text. All modern Bibles are based on the Masoretic text unless specifically noted otherwise, but usually with some LXX influence. It’s what Jesus and the Apostles used, and what the Church Fathers used. The Masoretic text is from 900AD, 1200 years after the LXX, and the Jews had 900 years in which to alter Messianic passages, etc. - the Jews gave up the LXX mainly because the Christians used it.

The English Standard Version is good in text even if Protestant, but I wouldn’t trust any commentaries in it.

Stay away from the New International Version, New Living Translation, Good News for Modern Man, etc.

In the end, I would use the Lancelot Brenton Septuagint for the Old Testament, and any of the RSV-(2)CE, ESV, JB, NJB, or even the NRSV-CE for the New Testament. If you can’t use two separate volumes for some reason, the RSV-(2)CE (Ignatius Study Bible) is the most accurate (especially because the commentary is unabashedly orthodox) and the Jerusalem Bible is the greatest pleasure to read, although the commentary is a bit Modernist for my taste.

All-in-all, for a Catholic (or an Orthodox) the edition of New Testament is less important, as long as it’s half-decent (no NIVs) but the RSV-(2)CE and the Jerusalem Bible are by far the best. However, there are major discrepancies (including, but not limited to the removal of 7 or 10 books from the Canon) between Septuagint Old Testaments and MT-Jewish Old Testaments.

 

[Khalid]

I’ve been considering purchasing a new Bible. I saw one in a book shop today called “Catholic Bible”. I didn’t buy it for two reasons. The first was that it said it was NRSV. I think I’ve heard poor reviews of that version on CAF. The other reason was it said Anglicized Version, which struck me as strange as I’ve never seen that on an English language Bible before.

I’ve checked the website of the National Liturgy Office, an agency of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, and it lists the NRSV as an approved version but says that it can’t be used for lectionaries.

Any opinions on this version, please?

“Anglicised Version” means only that the spelling and grammar have been changed to a Mid-Atlantic tone or to be acceptable to a British readership (notably “s” instead of “z” and “u” after “o” before “r”).

 

[melbanglican]

Yes, I did. They approve, for liturgical use, the following two versions of the Bible, viz. the Jerusalem Bible and Revised Standard Version. They approve a further two, the New Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Standard Version, but say their explicit permission is required to produce a Lectionary using either of the latter two versions.

So, what status, if any, does the Douay-Rheims Challenor enjoy in the Church today? Can anyone clarify this for me?

 

[JRRTFAN]

for some reason the original binding on most runs of the original JB are atrocious and deteriorating badly, unless it was in a controlled humidity environment, you may have to get it rebound or make a cover for it. Also the print for some reason is tiny and light which rules it out for me now.

I have one printed by Doubleday n 66. It is kind of a red/purple cloth cover in a slip case and is in above average condition. I have a NEW JB, also from Doubleday, I bought in the early 90s.

It has pages falling out from poor binding. These old JB and NJB printings are THICK, like 3 inches thick, and it’s hard to bind something like that so it won’t fall apart.