G
GraceSofia
Guest
And Psalm 23. The first time I read Psalm 23 in the NAB, I was really surprised and disappointed at how ugly it seemed. And decided I’d better not throw out my KJV.
- Status
B
bauerice
Guest
Psalm 23 in KJV is beautiful, nothing comes close.And Psalm 23. The first time I read Psalm 23 in the NAB, I was really surprised and disappointed at how ugly it seemed. And decided I’d better not throw out my KJV.
Fr Groeschel often talks about having a KJV NT in jail with him. He has been arrested for protesting outside abortion clinics.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
It is good for a Catholic (or for any Christian) to take care in ready ANY Bible version (translation or, even more so, paraphrase) in English. There are so many defective Bible versions out there, and, alas, many of the poor ones are Catholic. For example, though I dislike paraphrases in general, I would say that the New Jerusalem Bible and the older Jerusalem Bible are good examples of paraphrased Bibles that approach the sacred texts carefully and with respect, but the New American Bible is a paraphrase with borders on being downright dreadful. In England the Catholic Truth Society
s edition of the Jerusalem Bible makes the most of the N.J.B.s best qualities and has edited it for public (liturgical) use. It is titled The C.T.S. New Catholic Bible. The N.A.B. is bad beyond repair, not so terrible that a Catholic should avoid this episcopally sanctioned Bible. However, no Catholic should be content with such a shoddy product.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Does he? Well! If it is good enough for Father Groeschel…
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Grace and Beurice,
How right you two are!
The Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) is incomparably beautiful and accurate, too. However, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version is almost as lovely and is a very faithful translation. If a Catholic has qualms about reading the A.V. and he loves the English language, he no option but to turn to Challoner`s superb revision, itself vnerable, of the Douay-Rheims Bible. However, having grown up on the A.V., there is no way that I ever will abandon reading it.
Some of the 20th and now 21st century versions at least have some purely literary value, although they pale compared to the A.V. or Challoner versions. The Moffett, Knox, and Jerusalem (and New Jerusalem) versions have real appeal, but none of them is accurate enough for constant study use. The English Standard Version, a real translation (not a paraprhase) is lovely to read and marvellously accurate. However, for all the mass of widely used modern Bibles in English. The New American Bible and the New International Versions, from a literary standpoint, are trash, and too inaccurate enough to tolerate their use.
Jerry
How right you two are!
The Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) is incomparably beautiful and accurate, too. However, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version is almost as lovely and is a very faithful translation. If a Catholic has qualms about reading the A.V. and he loves the English language, he no option but to turn to Challoner`s superb revision, itself vnerable, of the Douay-Rheims Bible. However, having grown up on the A.V., there is no way that I ever will abandon reading it.Some of the 20th and now 21st century versions at least have some purely literary value, although they pale compared to the A.V. or Challoner versions. The Moffett, Knox, and Jerusalem (and New Jerusalem) versions have real appeal, but none of them is accurate enough for constant study use. The English Standard Version, a real translation (not a paraprhase) is lovely to read and marvellously accurate. However, for all the mass of widely used modern Bibles in English. The New American Bible and the New International Versions, from a literary standpoint, are trash, and too inaccurate enough to tolerate their use.
Jerry
G
garysibio
Guest
I emailed the publisher and suggested they do a Catholic version. They sent me a nice letter saying it was unlikely to happen. (There were no references to hot places turning cold.) Maybe if more people did so, they might start thinking there’s a market for it.
G
garysibio
Guest
The Ryrie Study Bible was similar to the Scofield Reference Bible. It refers to the footnotes and not the text of the Bible. When the Ryrie Bible first came out it was available with the KJV or NASB.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Gary,
The same is true about the desirability, even urgency, of having a Catholic Edition of the English Standard Version, now especially that it can be had already with the deuterocanonicals (or “Apocrypha”). There are not any too many fine, genuine translations, rather than paraphrases or quasi-paraphrases, of the Holy Bible, either Protestant (or sectarian) or Catholic.
You wrote: *I emailed the publisher and suggested they do a Catholic version *of the NASB, the New American Standard Version of the Bible]. *They sent me a nice letter saying it was unlikely to happen. (There were no references to hot places turning cold.) Maybe if more people did so, they might start thinking there’s a market for it. *
There are good things to say about the N.A.S.B., especially about the Updated edition of it, which reads better without losing the literalness in translation that always has marked the N.A.S.B.The same is true about the desirability, even urgency, of having a Catholic Edition of the English Standard Version, now especially that it can be had already with the deuterocanonicals (or “Apocrypha”). There are not any too many fine, genuine translations, rather than paraphrases or quasi-paraphrases, of the Holy Bible, either Protestant (or sectarian) or Catholic.
C
catholictiger
Guest
we need to be careful when we read protestant bibles, if we go into it without knowledge of the differences it could lead us into a trap. But even though protestants don’t have the fullness of truth their bibles can give us alot of good information. Some of the best biblical commentaries are from protestant sources. Keep in mind as far as scripture goes we agree mostly with what it says and what it means, there are only a few things like Mary Faith Alone, and some other things, but we have alot of similarities, and differences to, as far as theology goes.
G
garysibio
Guest
Except for the missing portions, there is nothing to worry about with a good Protestant translation. Protestants want to have accurate translations just as much as as Catholics.
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
Maybe they didn’t say it, but I’m sure a certain hot place would have to turn cold before you could get the surviving NASB translating team to get back together in order to translate the Deutercanonicals. The ESV might be possible since as mentioned above, the ESV Deuterocanonicals already exist. However, the current people in charge have apparently said it would not happen, according to reports I’ve read. But the next generation of people in charge may have a different attitude.
I do prefer the feature in the NASB where they italicized English words that had no equivalent in the original Greek or Hebrew, but I suppose it’s not crucial since one language sometimes has to supply extra words to bring out the full meaning of just one word in the original language. So sometimes an italicized word may give the wrong impression that it is not necessary.
I’m actually starting to warm up to the RSV-CE because sometimes it is more accurate that the NASB. Where the text might result in unnatural English, sometimes the NASB smooths it out and puts the unnatural version in the footnote while the RSV just uses the unnatural English right in the text. I prefer that.
BTW speaking of the Ryrie Study Bibles, I remember hearing several of his sermons when Dr. Ryrie used to be a guest speaker at my Church (back when I was a Protestant youth). He used to stay over at my friend’s home when he came through town. He was highly respected, and many of my church friends swore by the Ryrie Study Bible. I never had the desire to have any particular commentary bound with my Bible.
D
Daizies
Guest
I still have all my Protestant Bibles - when I converted I wasn’t about to get rid of them all 
I may be a Bible-a-holic if there is such a thing
Lets see, I have KJV, NKJV, KJV 1611, NIV, NASB, CE, Amplified, Douay-Rheims (on computer), Good News Bible, Living Bible, NAB, NRSV-CE, The Message
And probably a few other ones I forgot. I also have the deuterocanonical books and some pseudopigraphical books in separate editions.
And yes, I have used every one of them too :bible1:
I may be a Bible-a-holic if there is such a thing
Lets see, I have KJV, NKJV, KJV 1611, NIV, NASB, CE, Amplified, Douay-Rheims (on computer), Good News Bible, Living Bible, NAB, NRSV-CE, The Message
And probably a few other ones I forgot. I also have the deuterocanonical books and some pseudopigraphical books in separate editions.
And yes, I have used every one of them too
:bible1:
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
**Russ wrote: ***Maybe they didn’t say it, but I’m sure a certain hot place would have to turn cold before you could get the surviving NASB translating team to get back together in order to translate the Deutercanonicals. The ESV might be possible since as mentioned above, the ESV Deuterocanonicals already exist. However, the current people in charge have apparently said it would not happen, according to reports I’ve read. But the next generation of people in charge may have a different attitude…
I prefer the R.S.V.-C.E. 2 over the R.S.V.-C.E. that originally had appeared. In addition to the stylistic improvement in language, some of the remaining Old Testament (O.T.) blots on the R.S.V.`s text of the O.T. were rectified in the R.S.V.-C.E. 2. It still has some problems, but it is a big improvement and is more thoroughly Catholic. Although I remain an “A.V. and Douay-Rheims-Challoner man”, I used the R.S.V. in its various Protestant, Oecumenical, and Catholic forms for too many years not to have some remaining fondness and respect for it.
Regarding atrocities like the Ryrie Bible and similar ones of that Fundamentalist-Dispensationalist-Chilastic ilk, it is the notes that are bad, not necessarily the translations to which they are affixed. One does not have to buy a Ryrie “study” Bible to have the New King James Version of the Bible!
I’m actually starting to warm up to the RSV-CE because sometimes it is more accurate that the NASB. Where the text might result in unnatural English, sometimes the NASB smooths it out and puts the unnatural version in the footnote while the RSV just uses the unnatural English right in the text. I prefer that.*
If you have access to a local binder who can do this for you, find a copy of a Protestant or Oecumenical Apocrypha as it exists for another translation that is of the same size or close to it (a binder can trim it) and have him take apart the binding of that New American Standard Version of the Bible and insert, for example, an Authorised “King James” Version or Revised Standard Version (or New Revised Standard Verson) Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. I only would take this expense if I really like a particular Protestant version (like the Moffett Bible, a literarily elegant paraphrase) or sectarian Bible (e.g., the N.A.S.B.) quite a lot. The Moffatt Bible and Goodspeeds Apocrypha in the "Modern Library" edition of it fit nicely together. Dont wait for any Apocrypha of the N.A.S.B.; its market is almost exclusively sectarian and to only a lesser extent, Confessional Protestant, so jump the gun and put back what never should have been hacked out in your own copy of such versions!I prefer the R.S.V.-C.E. 2 over the R.S.V.-C.E. that originally had appeared. In addition to the stylistic improvement in language, some of the remaining Old Testament (O.T.) blots on the R.S.V.`s text of the O.T. were rectified in the R.S.V.-C.E. 2. It still has some problems, but it is a big improvement and is more thoroughly Catholic. Although I remain an “A.V. and Douay-Rheims-Challoner man”, I used the R.S.V. in its various Protestant, Oecumenical, and Catholic forms for too many years not to have some remaining fondness and respect for it.
Regarding atrocities like the Ryrie Bible and similar ones of that Fundamentalist-Dispensationalist-Chilastic ilk, it is the notes that are bad, not necessarily the translations to which they are affixed. One does not have to buy a Ryrie “study” Bible to have the New King James Version of the Bible!
R
Russ_of_Tokyo
Guest
I had to laugh. I bought that NASB in 1978, a huge leather bound Bible. After 34 years, it would be easy to take apart the binding; I’m trying to keep it together with tape and glue!
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Russ wrote: I had to laugh. I bought that NASB in 1978, a huge leather bound Bible. After 34 years, it would be easy to take apart the binding; I’m trying to keep it together with tape and glue!
Good binders know how to repair or to re-do the stitching of the binding, too, after making the insertion of the new pages, thus rebinding an N.A.S.B. to include an Apocrypha, is nothing all that unusual. The binding of the inserted pages (the Apocrypha), of course, requires stripping off it original binding, in case that was not clear. The binder even could retain those leather covers (but not the leather over the now thicker spine), if that is the client`s fancy.Your main problem, for such a large Bible, would be finding any separately published Apocrypha large enough to match the page size, with any trimming to help the fit, of your N.A.S.B. Binding materials of too uneven size makes for a messy-looking and less durable final volume.
These kinds of binding situations are no problem for any really good professional binder. I worked as a librarian before I retired and my first professional position included supervising an in-house binder and deciding what to send out for my elaborate binding to an outside firm.
C
catholictiger
Guest
that’s why I said you need to be careful
I don’t have any protestant bibles but I may in the future use their commentaries for research and such, just because they are protestant doesn’t mean they can’t give good orthodox views of the bible
G
garysibio
Guest
Sorry. In the past when I’ve seen comments about being careful of Protestant sources the commenter seems to think there is some giant Protestant conspiracy to lead Catholics into Hell. Kinda like the reverse of the Chick tract people.that’s why I said you need to be careful
I don’t have any protestant bibles but I may in the future use their commentaries for research and such, just because they are protestant doesn’t mean they can’t give good orthodox views of the bible
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Protestants including Jack Chick want to lead Catholics out of the Church and into hell with them.
G
garysibio
Guest
That’s ridiculous. Prove it or retract it.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
“Dangerous” may be a bit strong. Missing the deuterocanonical books could be an impediment to the fullness of the faith. I do see your point though. I’ve seen more Catholics pick up a King James or NIV than a Protestant pick up a Douay.I have a catholic friend who has many influential protestant family members/friends. Also, this same catholic friend reads out of a protestant bible instead of a catholic bible. He believes there is no difference and that the protestant and catholic bible are both one in the same, “the bible”.
Searching the internet, it seems opinions vary from one catholic to the next as to why catholics should only read a catholic bible, and why it is okay/not okay for catholics to read primarily from a protestant bible.
There are many opinions my friend has that are very protestant-esque, and I know some of the influences comes from his protestant family, but I’m curious if it also comes from the protestant bible he reads.
In my opinion, I find protestant bibles dangerous since men interpreted specific scripture to fit their personal belief structure.
Can you please shed light on this topic? Is it okay for catholics to own a protestant bible if it is the only bible in their house? Thanks for your help!
- Status