Catholics who read Protestant Bibles

[gcharles]

I posted this once and I’ll post it especially for Preppyboy. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha-Revised Standard Version was approved jointly by the Catholic and Protestant bible scholars. You sound like an obnoxious Pharisee. So al the Christian missionaries who were killed are going to hell.

 

[timwatt]

Why does the Catholic Church lack good study bibles?

I own the Catholic Study Bible (Oxford) and the ESV Study Bible (Protestant). The ESV Study Bible is light years better than the Catholic Study Bible. The information found in the footnotes is very thorough, and there are many colorful maps, diagrams, and charts. People are telling me to stop reading this “evil” Protestant bible. But until the Catholic Church can get their act together and come out with a study bible that is just as good as the ESV, I will continue to read it.

 

[bitznbitez]

I posted this once and I’ll post it especially for Preppyboy. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha-Revised Standard Version was approved jointly by the Catholic and Protestant bible scholars. You sound like an obnoxious Pharisee. So al the Christian missionaries who were killed are going to hell.

I had that version before I bought my Catholic Edition of the RSV. The Catholic edition listed the variations it made from the base RSV and what I observed was, if you read the New Oxford Annotated RSV, the footnotes of alternate readings express the changes needed to get to the Catholic edition.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Tim Watt wrote: I own the Catholic Study Bible (Oxford) and the ESV Study Bible (Protestant). The ESV Study Bible is light years better than the Catholic Study Bible. The information found in the footnotes is very thorough, and there are many colorful maps, diagrams, and charts. People are telling me to stop reading this “evil” Protestant bible. But until the Catholic Church can get their act together and come out with a study bible that is just as good as the ESV, I will continue to read it.​

The new editions (in normal font and large print) of the Douay-Rheims-Challner Version Bible that TAN Books has published recently is an huge improvement over earlier editions of just about any Catholic Bible edition. It is completely reset, in more modern and eye-friendly type than before and there are lots of special features. It is not quite a study Bible, but it really is excellent for many of the purposes for which you need an enhanced Bible.

I wont question the worth of the two study Bibles that comprise the E.S.V. translation. The one that you mention is superb. Also quite good is the Lutheran Study Bible (the one of this title that Concordia publishes :thumbsup:). Hopefully, someday well have a Challoner or other really good Catholic Bible on the level of those two E.S.V. study Bibles!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Bitz wrote: *One thing I have noticed is that the cross references you find in other protestant Bibles, such as the Geneva Bible, which itself also translated the Dueterocanonicals their own way and likewise was published with cross references between the Deutero and NT books. They appear to be mostly the same as the KJV ( I’ve only sampled so far ) but not 100% identical.

I ponder if there was not an earlier list that was consulted by more than one set of translators, ie. something from the Church. And if there was such a list does anyone know what it was ?

Another item on my list is to go through my facsimile Douay and capture its listed cross references/citation notes however thats a long way out. The douay is however completely different in what it references.*​

Interesting, highly Catholic dude! I had not noticed this. Perhaps the reason, regarding the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, is that I keep a British edition of it, the nicely compact old Catholic Truth Societys edition, near my computer along with the other most essential reference books that I most use. That edition of Challoners Bible tends to limit extra features. I keep the superior American editions of the Challoner Bible at my computerless study desk at the front of the house and in a bookcase next to my dining table; they are more expansive and large in scope and I really do prefer the U.S. edition of the text of the Challoner Bible over the British text that the C.T.S. was printing in the 1950s.

I only have, for the pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims version, its New Testament as included in the Octapla Bible which the Nelson firm published years ago. I have an hankering for one of the facsimiles of that non-Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible, but it is so expensive that I still am waiting until I can afford it on my retirement budget.

As for the Geneva Bible, I did not realise that the references were so similar to those of the A.V. Bible. Interesting! When researching this matter, dont forget that some relatively early, non-royally-sanctioned editions of the A.V. printed it with the Geneva Bibles marginalia, done for Calvinists who were leaving aside, at last, the fine old Geneva Bible for the even better Authorised “King James” Version, but who still wanted to use the Geneva notes.

It would be interesting to read a scholarly, unbiassed account of the matter of notes and references in Bibles up to the Challoner Bible, Protestant and Catholic allike, especially of Bibles from both camps which contained, however presented, its full text (i.e., with Apocrypha/Deuterocanon included).

I had written an earlier version of this post, probably better than what you are reading, but a lightning storm here stopped my computer before I could post it.

 

[preppyboy6]

The entire Catholic Church in Japan has been using this Bible officially every day in mass for all these years and you claim that there is actually a possibility it is not approved by the Magisterium? I think we are getting even deeper into silly territory…

answer the question instead of dodging it please, because yes, there is a possiility that Bible is not approved, does it have the two things i mentioned inside the front cover? yes or no?

 

[preppyboy6]

Why not just take Preppyboy at his word that he IS using the original. It is available on amazon.com in both book format and kindle editions.

thank you, and i have both the E-book and the normal format, the E-book makes it easy to find specifec verses quickly.

 

[preppyboy6]

Preppy Boy asked: Jerry Parker, do you use the KJV revised, or the KJV original text?​

I prefer to use the Authorised “King James” Bible (with the Apocrypha) in any Cambridge University Press edition, including the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible but the variants in the A.V. Bibles text come from various degrees of conformity with the A.V. translators manuscript materials, which are still extant. The differences result from various attempts at improved proof-reading rather than of variant editions, and these variants do not amount to enough to constitute a different edition, such as some supposed “K.J.V. revised”. For a fascinating explanation of this, read David Norton`s *The King James Bible: a Short History from Tyndale to Today *(Cambride, 2011).

Hey Jerry, i checked, and there is no magisterium authorized KJV, sorry to burst your bubble. while i do understand you use the original, it isnt approved by the Magisterium.

 

[JackVk]

Those little green New Testaments the Gideons hand out are the NKJV. When I had one, I found it handy most dandy

 

[preppyboy6]

I posted this once and I’ll post it especially for Preppyboy. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha-Revised Standard Version was approved jointly by the Catholic and Protestant bible scholars. You sound like an obnoxious Pharisee. So al the Christian missionaries who were killed are going to hell.

Whether a scholar approves it or not does not matter, what counts is the approval of the Magisterium, and i would advise you to check whether it has any of the following on the front cover, “Impramature” “Imprimi Potest” or “Nihil Obstat” if it doesnt have at least the first and third, it isnt Magisterium approved, and isnt valid, that is a fact, whether you like it or not, so if i sound obnoxious, dont bother reading my answers.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I had written: I only have, for the pre-Challoner Douay-Rheims version, its New Testament as included in the Octapla Bible which the Nelson firm published years ago.​

There is a goof in that sentence. The Octapla, which Nelson published, to which I was referring is only of the New Testament only, not of the entire Bible.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Preppy Boy wrote: *Hey, Jerry, I checked, and there is no magisterium authorized KJV, sorry to burst your bubble. while I do understand you use the original, it isnt approved by the Magisterium. *​

Listen, Preppy Boy, don`t give the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (U.S.C.C.B.) the exalted title of “the Magisterium”. It is no such thing. It is only a national council of Roman Catholic bishops, one of many in the world. The teaching of the Magisterium is of quite another order, having international application. It was the U.S.C.C.B. that, according to what I have read, which has permitted American Catholics to use the Authorised “King James” Version of the Bible. As to what is allowed in other nations, that is another matter.

Sheesh!

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

answer the question instead of dodging it please, because yes, there is a possiility that Bible is not approved, does it have the two things i mentioned inside the front cover? yes or no?

It has “Cum approbatione ecclesiastica” in the front.

 

[bitznbitez]

It was the U.S.C.C.B. that, according to what I have read, which has permitted American Catholics to use the Authorised “King James” Version of the Bible. As to what is allowed in other nations, that is another matter.

Where did you read that ?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Preppy Boy wrote: Whether a scholar approves it or not does not matter, what counts is the approval of the Magisterium, and i would advise you to check whether it has any of the following on the front cover, “Impramature” “Imprimi Potest” or “Nihil Obstat” if it doesnt have at least the first and third, it isnt Magisterium approved, and isnt valid, that is a fact, whether you like it or not, so if i sound obnoxious, dont bother reading my answers.​

An example, simplistic Preppy Boy: have you ever looked beyond the impritatur on such a gawdforsaken, heretical, unbelieving book as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary? If you do so and resolutely take what that book is, sacrilege much of it, seldom orthodox the rest of it, as what to believe, along with altogether too many of the other awful books that bear Nil obstat and Imprimatur, you are going to be one very mixed up buckeroo! These rogue bishops are not worthy to be identified with the Magisterium when they so abuse and betray their authority. What magisterium? The devillish magisterium (if there were such a thing) of the Unversalist-Unitarian cult? An imprimatur says very little anymore about conformity with Holy Tradition and the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church!

I could go on, but I won`t. That should not really be necessary.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Bitz wrote: Where did you read that?​

I wish that I could recall that! I should have noted its source in my files somewhere, but I did not do so. It is difficult, too, to verify this kind of thing later, as I did try once, with nothing but frustration. I read this fact about the U.S.C.C.B. and the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible in magasines, in at least two different articles. Maybe others can track down the elusive article(s). However, I am not making this up. If someone else was indulging in wishful thinking, that`s another matter.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick wrote: T]*here’s also the NT being translated from the Textus Receptus, which could make things a bit confusing especially if you’re like me who use something like the NA, which is an eclectic text. *​

You dont really need to have this problem. Instead of reading the Authorised "King James" Bibles New Testament (N.T.) with Nestle-Alands (or the U.B.S.) so-called "critical text" in hand for the Greek, get one of the easily obtainable Greek N.T.s of the Text*us Receptus *(Byzantine Text) kind. The Trinitarian Bible Societys is one of them and most facilitates using with the Authorised “King James” Bible`s N.T.

To be honest I very much like the apparatuses of the NA. It isn’t perfect or the best thing in the world, yes, but I think (just my opinion mind you) it’s one of the good ones out there. (The identical - at least nowadays - UBS Greek NT is designed to be more of a translator’s source text and so includes only ‘meaningful’ textual variants). What I really want to get my hands on though is the ongoing Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus series, although it’s apparently very pricey and hard to get.

And P.S.: I was talking about Young’s Literal Translation and not the KJV.

 

[CyberAngel]

Preppy Boy wrote: Whether a scholar approves it or not does not matter, what counts is the approval of the Magisterium, and i would advise you to check whether it has any of the following on the front cover, “Impramature” “Imprimi Potest” or “Nihil Obstat” if it doesnt have at least the first and third, it isnt Magisterium approved, and isnt valid, that is a fact, whether you like it or not, so if i sound obnoxious, dont bother reading my answers.​

An example, simplistic Preppy Boy: have you ever looked beyond the impritatur on such a gawdforsaken, heretical, unbelieving book as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary? If you do so and resolutely take what that book is, sacrilege much of it, seldom orthodox the rest of it, as what to believe, along with altogether too many of the other awful books that bear Nil obstat and Imprimatur, you are going to be one very mixed up buckeroo! These rogue bishops are not worthy to be identified with the Magisterium when they so abuse and betray their authority. What magisterium? The devillish magisterium (if there were such a thing) of the Unversalist-Unitarian cult? An imprimatur says very little anymore about conformity with Holy Tradition and the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church!

I could go on, but I won`t. That should not really be necessary.

The only way to solve this is to ask the Vatican! (the Pope?)
Who will do it?
(no smileys here - I’m serious)

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Patrick wrote: *To be honest I very much like the apparatuses of the NA. It isn’t perfect or the best thing in the world, yes, but I think (just my opinion mind you) it’s one of the good ones out there. (The identical - at least nowadays - UBS Greek NT is designed to be more of a translator’s source text and so includes only ‘meaningful’ textual variants). What I really want to get my hands on though is the ongoing Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus series, although it’s apparently very pricey and hard to get.

And P.S.: I was talking about Young’s Literal Translation and not the KJV. *​

We are in a time when there is much disagreement about the textual basis of the New Testament. At least there are some encouraging signs that those who prepare the successive editions of the Nestle-Aland (and U.B.S.) “critical texts” are rethinking, gradually, the theoretical basis of their editions, which is the late 19th century approach of Westcott and Hort. Traditional, majority, “Byzantine” readings are somewhat less shunned than they used to be. That`s positive, at least.

Sorry about the mix-up in my mind between Youngs Literal Translation and the Authorised King James Version. Youngs work has held up well as a study tool, as one among others, and I use it, too, at times when an highly literal meaning can help to clarify things.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

CyberAngel wrote: *The only way to solve this is to ask the Vatican! (the Pope?) Who will do it? (No smileys here – I’m serious) *​

Yes, that is what the teaching authority of the Papacy and of councils is all about. It makes no sense to assume that each and every bishop is in his person “The Magisterium” (which should be the wisdom of the Church collectively and across the ages) when there are so many among them who abuse their authority with dubious teaching and downright fatuous use of the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat to promote thought in books which are not truly orthodox. Fortunately, the Papacy has not condoned the worst of what goes on in the Church, and with Benedict XVI there is hope, if he live long enough, of reversing many negative trends, something which takes courage and unwillingness to flinch before the challenge.