Douay-Rheims Bible vs Other Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dje101

Guest
So I’ve seen a lot of discussion about what bible to get. Many people seem to recommend the DR Bible Translation (and not the NAB) because it comes from the Latin Vulgate. I, coming from a Protestant background, have many bibles of many different translations: NIV, NASV, ESV, KJV, and NKJV. All of these translations say that they were translated using the most up-to-date language professors and what not using the earliest available manuscripts (or something along those lines). If the NIV, NASV, etc, all say that they are using the manuscripts, and the DR translation comes from the Latin Vulate, then why should I get a DR translation? It just seems to me that the translations that were translated from the manuscripts THEMSELVES would be more accurate than the DR bible, which is translated from the LV.

I’m not trying to start a debate or anything, just looking for good solid reasons as to why I would want to get a DR bible. Thanks for you time!!
 
Well one of the biggest things would be that the DR has the apocryphal books in it that protestant bibles don’t have. So its more complete.
 
AndrewF1995 said:
Well one of the biggest things would be that the DR has the apocryphal books in it that protestant bibles don’t have. So its more complete.
Click to expand...
Well thats the reason why I’m looking into getting a Catholic bible. I have an NAB translation, but everyone says that it has bad translations, the study notes on it are horrible and potentially dangerous. So, I guess I should have asked: DR Bible vs NAB vs Protestant bibles. Aside from the “completeness” of the Catholic Bible, why should I go with the DR translation?
 
dje101 said:
So I’ve seen a lot of discussion about what bible to get. Many people seem to recommend the DR Bible Translation (and not the NAB) because it comes from the Latin Vulgate. I, coming from a Protestant background, have many bibles of many different translations: NIV, NASV, ESV, KJV, and NKJV. All of these translations say that they were translated using the most up-to-date language professors and what not using the earliest available manuscripts (or something along those lines). If the NIV, NASV, etc, all say that they are using the manuscripts, and the DR translation comes from the Latin Vulate, then why should I get a DR translation? It just seems to me that the translations that were translated from the manuscripts THEMSELVES would be more accurate than the DR bible, which is translated from the LV.

I’m not trying to start a debate or anything, just looking for good solid reasons as to why I would want to get a DR bible. Thanks for you time!!
Click to expand...
To be honest,do not bang your head against the wall. My personal advice:

Buy a Bible you will enjoy and be able to comprehend. I am past all the formalities which Bible is better and so on and so on. It is like discussing politics,no one will win or get their point across. Those my 2 pennies.
 
I have a NAB but don’t like the translation, so I recently bought the Ignatius RSE-2nd edition based on many positive reviews found here and on the following blog. For a complete review on this bible plus others alike, check out this great blog: catholicbibles.blogspot.com/
 
You might ask about the RSV-2CE.
Catholic Study Bible based on the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament brings together all of the books of the New Testament and the penetrating study tools developed by renowned Bible teachers Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.
Click to expand...
amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Testament/dp/1586172506/ref=pd_sim_b_3

68 people have reviewed in on Amazon.

There are things I don’t like about the NAB but what I do like is the introduction on each chapter and the amount of detail and cross reference they’ve put into the footnotes.

For ease of use, I go online to the USCCB and read it there. The footnotes are highlighted and you can hot key into them:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml Very easy to move chapter / verse and from the New Testament into the Old Testament for references.

If you have the funds, you also might check out the Navarre Bible series:

amazon.com/Complete-Navarre-Bible-Collection/lm/4WBDJ3W2KH7F
 
+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into ALL this Bible’s versions thereafter . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
was **
“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.”**
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims [Douay-Rheims]. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**EWTN ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as their favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE).Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …**​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

**NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​
. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​
 
First thing to remember is that there are no known “original” NT manuscripts. Not only that, but scholars disagree on who actually wrote most of the NT - even the authorship of the Gospels is debated. Additionally, everything we have today has been translated from copies of varying quality, which were made by unknown copyists. For this reason alone, the debate rages on. Here is something to consider: The Latin Vulgate was accomplished between the years of 382-384, when the Church was united and clearly is much closer in time to the original documents. Since the original D-R was translated directly from the Vulgate, it has less of the “trickle down” inaccuracy.

The NAB is a pretty lousy translation, IMO. It is not fully supportive of even Catholic doctrine, and its notes are horrible. The NIV is a very recent, agenda-driven translation, which causes me to suspect it. There are KJV sites that roundly condemn the NIV as changing the nature of Christ, for example. For my daily bible, I have an RSV-2CE, which is quite good, and all 66 books in common are agreed upon by Catholic and non-Catholic sources as to the translation - that was the reason for its existence.

However, and this is important, the Catholic version of the RSV has the 73 Catholic books in it, which will help you to understand the formation of certain Catholic doctrines. The seven books of the Deuterocanon are included (as they were in the original KJV). On this topic of the number of books, the original 1611 KJV, for instance, had 81 books in it! This makes one wonder how (and by whom) it got trimmed down to just 66.

The D-R New Testament was finished in 1582, some 29 years before the KJV. and so some of its language was used in the KJV. If you are good with reading a KJV, the D-R will seem right at home. However, there are different versions of the D-R, as well. There is the original (which I think is only on CD), and the Bishop Challoner revision, as well as possibly others.

So… what to buy? The easiest is to simply buy an Ignatius RSV-2CE. That will give you time for a little further study into which D-R version is preferable.
 
Yeah, the D-R is a faithful translation of the Vulgate, and the Vulgate was used for century after century after century after century by every Pope, Bishop, and Priest. The Vulgate was used or heard by every Saint for a long, long time. A faithful translation of the Vulgate is most certainly trustworthy.

The Douay Rheims New Testament was published for the first time in 1582, and the OT was published in 1609 or 1610, so it does have a distinguished history over several centuries.

Translations of the original texts of Sacred Scripture into other languages are not guaranteed to be free from error unless you see an imprimatur. The imprimatur is one of the great ways that the Church protects Her children. The Douay Rheims is imprimatured.

Bear in mind that I don’t think that an imprimatur automatically means that it is a wonderful translation, just that it is free from error.

An interesting quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Douay Bible <—clicky:
“Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias”
Click to expand...
While the article states that the Douay didn’t originally have an imprimatur, the D-R sitting on my shelf does (along with the nihil obstat, of course).
 
po18guy said:
First thing to remember is that there are no known “original” NT manuscripts. Not only that, but scholars disagree on who actually wrote most of the NT - even the authorship of the Gospels is debated. Additionally, everything we have today has been translated from copies of varying quality, which were made by unknown copyists. For this reason alone, the debate rages on. Here is something to consider: The Latin Vulgate was accomplished between the years of 382-384, when the Church was united and clearly is much closer in time to the original documents. Since the original D-R was translated directly from the Vulgate, it has less of the “trickle down” inaccuracy.

The NAB is a pretty lousy translation, IMO. It is not fully supportive of even Catholic doctrine, and its notes are horrible. The NIV is a very recent, agenda-driven translation, which causes me to suspect it. There are KJV sites that roundly condemn the NIV as changing the nature of Christ, for example. For my daily bible, I have an RSV-2CE, which is quite good, and all 66 books in common are agreed upon by Catholic and non-Catholic sources as to the translation - that was the reason for its existence.

However, and this is important, the Catholic version of the RSV has the 73 Catholic books in it, which will help you to understand the formation of certain Catholic doctrines. The seven books of the Deuterocanon are included (as they were in the original KJV). On this topic of the number of books, the original 1611 KJV, for instance, had 81 books in it! This makes one wonder how (and by whom) it got trimmed down to just 66.

The D-R New Testament was finished in 1582, some 29 years before the KJV. and so some of its language was used in the KJV. If you are good with reading a KJV, the D-R will seem right at home. However, there are different versions of the D-R, as well. There is the original (which I think is only on CD), and the Bishop Challoner revision, as well as possibly others.

So… what to buy? The easiest is to simply buy an Ignatius RSV-2CE. That will give you time for a little further study into which D-R version is preferable.
Click to expand...
is there a study bible version that contains the OT and NT? On amazon, it only shows the RSV-2CE NT Study Bible.
 
dje101 said:
All of these translations say that they were translated using the most up-to-date language professors and what not using the earliest available manuscripts (or something along those lines). If the NIV, NASV, etc, all say that they are using the manuscripts, and the DR translation comes from the Latin Vulate, then why should I get a DR translation? It just seems to me that the translations that were translated from the manuscripts THEMSELVES would be more accurate than the DR bible, which is translated from the LV.
Click to expand...
In the Introduction of the original (1582) version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, there are several pages of reasons why the translators used the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek to translate the Bible into English (although they did compare it to the Greek). It basically comes down to the belief that, in the Latin Vulgate, there were older (less corrupted) versions of Greek used when the original Latin Vulgate was translated. They support this contention by showing where the other English (Protestant) translators used the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek in many passages – claiming the Greek they were using was corrupted.

Here’s one paragraph from that Introduction:
Whereupon we conclude from these premises that it is no derogation to the vulgar Latin text, which we translate, to disagree from the Greek text, whereas it may notwithstanding be not only as good, but also better. And this the Adversary hismelf, their greatest and latest translator of the Greek, doth avouch against Erasmus on behalf of the old vulgar Latin translation, in these notorious words: How unworthily without cause (saith he) doth Erasmus blame the old Interpreter as dissenting from the Greek? He dissented, I grant, from those Greek copies which he had gotten. But we have found, not in one place, that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded upon the authority of other Greek copies, and those most ancient. Yea, in some number of places we have observed that the reading of the Latin text of the old Interpreter, though it agree sometimes with our Greek copies, yet it is much more convenient for that it seemeth he followed some better and truer copy (Beza, Preface to the New Testament of 1556. See him also, Annotations at Acts 13.20). Thus far Beza. In which words he unwittingly, but most truly, justifieth and defendeth the old vulgar Translation against himself and all other cavillers, that accuse the same because it is not always agreeable to the Greek text. Whereas it was translated out of other Greek copies (partly extant, partly not extant at this day) either as good or as ancient, or better and more ancient, such as St Augustine speaketh of, calling them “doctiores et diligentiores,” the more learned and diligent Greek copies, whereunto the Latin translations that fail in any place must yield, On Christian Instruction, book 2, chapter 15.
Click to expand...
Full introduction can be found, online, here: bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html

And from the Old Testament Introduction (1609)
But here another question may be proposed: Why we translate the Latin text, rather than the Hebrew or Greek, which Protestants prefer as the fountain tongues wherein Holy Scriptures were first written? To this we answer that if indeed those first pure Editions were now extant, or if such as be extant were more pure than the Latin, we would also prefer such fountains before the rivers, in whatsoever they should be found to disagree. But the ancient, best-learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church (Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 5; St Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, book 3, chapter 11; St Jerome, Against Jovinian, book 1) do much complain and testify to us that both the Hebrew and Greek Editions are foully corrupted by Jews and Heretics since the Latin was truly translated out of them, while they were more pure. And that the same Latin hath been far better conserved from corruptions, so that the old Vulgate Latin Edition hath been preferred and used as most authentic above a thousand and three hundred years.
Click to expand...
So, again, the Latin Vulgate relied on Greek manuscripts that were older and less corrupted than are now in existence.

You might find both the Introductions, to the Old and New Testaments, to be interesting reading.

Old Testament introduction can be found here: bombaxo.com/douai-ot.html
 
Note: probably 99% of the so-called “Douay Rheims” bibles beind sold today are NOT the bible published in Douay and Rheims in the late 1500s/1600’s - they are, by far, what is known as the “Challoner” version. Bishop Challoner made so many changes to the original DR that what was supposed to be an update turned out to be a revision.

You CAN read (here: digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/etext/bie-idx?type=header&bible=Rheims%20Douai&byte=63217271#63217271) what the original DR bible looked like when it was first published (the “old english” phraseology becomes VERY tedious to read, as we simply do not speak or spell words as they did back then), and you can purchase a facsimile of the original DR bible at: realdouayrheims.com/

As some have pointed out, but to go even further, keep in mind the following:

As far as we know,
  1. No one in the world has a “copy” of the Latin Vulgate that appeared as translated by St. Jerome. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate had long “disappeared” through copying errors over the centuries between the time he translated the LV and the time it was revised.
  2. No one in the world has any “original” manuscripts of ANY books of either the OT or NT. I say “as far as we know” because no one is around (obviously) from the time the original books of the OT and NT were first written, so we have no one to authenticate any ancient texts as being even COPIES, let alone an “original”.
I believe I am accurate in saying that the original authors of each of the books of the bible wrote their manuscript ONCE, and that was it. From then on, it needed to be copied for it to spread.
  1. The oldest manuscripts are the following:
A. Dead Sea Scrolls - they include the oldest known surviving copies and extra-biblical religious documents ever found to date. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. These manuscripts generally date between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D.

B. Codex Sinaiticus - is one of the most important books in the world because it was handwritten over 1600 years ago. The manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, and includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.

C. Codex Vaticanus - named for the residence in the Vatican Library where it has been stored since the 15th century. It is written on 759 leaves of vellum in uncial letters, and has been dated palaeographically to the 4th century. Current scholarship considers the Codex Vaticanus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament, with that of the Codex Sinaiticus as its only competitor. Until the discovery the Codex Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled, and was used heavily in the publication of The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. In fact, the most widely sold editions of the Greek New Testament are largely based on the text of the Codex Vaticanus.

My list of bible translations

If you have the money, I would purchase the following translations (the order of the following list reflects what I consider to be the “best” - which, of course, is relative - translations of the books of the bible (I would ALWAYS purchase a translation that has the deuterocanonical/apocaphryl books in them - you don’t HAVE to read them, but at least you will have them in the event you want to):
  1. The Confraternity Bible (consists of one NT volume and 4 OT volumes). You can find these on Ebay and on the “out of print” sections of online booksellers such as Amazon, B&N, Abebooks, Bibliofind, and Loome Theological bookseller. Volume 2 (published last) will be almost impossible to find - I don’t know why. I have an entire set that is in almost mint condition, is doctrinally sound in its translation, and is a joy to read.
Ironically, The Confraternity Bible is the predecessor to the current NAB (New American Bible), which many Catholics find to be horrible as both a translation and for its notes.
  1. The Navarre Bible - this set contains the Nova Vulgata (the “New Vulgate” of the Catholic Church that was published in 1979/1986), the Revised Standard Version of the OT and NT in english, and a very extensive, conservative running commentary that follows the text throughout the entire bible. Because of the amount of material it contains, it consists of 7 OT hardback volumes and 3 NT hardback volumes.
  2. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - just published this past year, it is a one volume commentary that is, unfortunately, limited to only the NT. The authors/editors are moving at a snail’s pace, so I do not anticipate the OT version to be out for several more years. The text is the RSV-CE-2nd ed. (Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition).
  3. The Orthodox Study Bible - although I am Catholic, I DO appreciate the East’s contribution to biblical scholarship. This bible is VERY anti-Catholic in its comments and pretty much makes no bones about it - the Orthodox Church is the “true Church” and “Rome” is the one who left in 1054. It has extensive notes AND has even more OT books than the Catholic OT bible. Catholics call the OT books recognized as canonical by the Orthodox Church BUT NOT canonical by the Catholic Church as “Apocrypha” (which is a bit confusing to some, as protestants refer to the OT books that Catholics recognize as canonical but protestants do not as also “Apocrypha”).
  4. Douay Rheims/Clementine Vulgata - published by Baronius Press, this is one of the most beautiful bibles produced (leatherbound). When the bible is open, it has the DR Challoner Revision on one side and the Clementine Vulgate on the other. Popes Sixtus and Clement authorized a revision of the “Latin Vulgate” that I mentioned above because the then-most recent versions of Jerome’s LV were full of errors. What many today call the “Latin Vulgate” by St. Jerome is actually the Sixtus/Clementine latin revision.
cont’d
 
To accompany ANY bible you purchase, I recommend the following commentaries (as a Catholic, I am always going to side with a Catholic-oriented commentary):

A. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture - 1953 first edition - NOT the 1970’s revision (although it has some merit). Until the last year, this book was out of print and could only be purchased on the second-hand market. Lulu.com just began publishing it again.

B. Catena Aurea - although this 4 volume commentary applies to only the Gospels of the NT, it is outstanding. St. Thomas Aquinas compiled this opus from sermons and commentaries on the Gospels written by over 80 early Church Fathers, arranging their thoughts in such a way that they form a continuous commentary on each Gospel. For each of the four Gospel writers, the Catena Aurea starts by indicating the verses to be analyzed, then taking each verse phrase-by-phrase, provides the early Fathers insights into the passage.

***Something I was surprised to find and is proving to be very interesting . . . ***

The Vulgate Bible, to be published in, I think, 5 volumes total. You can purchase the first volume here: amazon.com/Vulgate-Bible-Pentateuch-Douay-Rheims-Translation/dp/0674055349/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300752387&sr=1-1

This may sound complicated (and it is, quite frankly), but it is interesting and important.

As I mentioned above, when Popes Sixtus and Clement authorized a revision of the Latin Vulgate that existed at the time they reigned as popes, the Latin Vulgate was no longer the same latin text that was translated and produced by St. Jerome. Remember - until Gutenberg, copies of books were performed primarily by monks living in monasteries. Well, over the centuries, errors in copying began to creep in and after around 1000 years of copies, St. Jerome’s original Latin translation was long gone.

In THIS project, the translator refers to numerous Latin translations that existed around the time the DR english translation was produced by Father Gregory Martin. Although the current translator revised the english text to reflect current english reading/writing, the Latin text is probably the closest thing we now have to what Father Martin looked at when he translated the bible into the DR english bible.

This is probably much more than you asked for, but I hope it at least provides you with some background information on bible translations that many people (myself, at one time, included - before I began researching the issue myself) either take for granted or mistakenly believe.
 
dje101 said:
is there a study bible version that contains the OT and NT? On amazon, it only shows the RSV-2CE NT Study Bible.
Click to expand...
All they have released so far is the NT study version 😦 We’ll just have to wait on the OT. someday, maybe the entire scriptures will be under one cover in the study RSV, but not yet.
 
po18guy said:
First thing to remember is that there are no known “original” NT manuscripts. Not only that, but scholars disagree on who actually wrote most of the NT - even the authorship of the Gospels is debated. Additionally, everything we have today has been translated from copies of varying quality, which were made by unknown copyists. For this reason alone, the debate rages on. Here is something to consider: The Latin Vulgate was accomplished between the years of 382-384, when the Church was united and clearly is much closer in time to the original documents. Since the original D-R was translated directly from the Vulgate, it has less of the “trickle down” inaccuracy.

The NAB is a pretty lousy translation, IMO. It is not fully supportive of even Catholic doctrine, and its notes are horrible. The NIV is a very recent, agenda-driven translation, which causes me to suspect it. There are KJV sites that roundly condemn the NIV as changing the nature of Christ, for example. For my daily bible, I have an RSV-2CE, which is quite good, and all 66 books in common are agreed upon by Catholic and non-Catholic sources as to the translation - that was the reason for its existence.

However, and this is important, the Catholic version of the RSV has the 73 Catholic books in it, which will help you to understand the formation of certain Catholic doctrines. The seven books of the Deuterocanon are included (as they were in the original KJV). On this topic of the number of books, the original 1611 KJV, for instance, had 81 books in it! This makes one wonder how (and by whom) it got trimmed down to just 66.

The D-R New Testament was finished in 1582, some 29 years before the KJV. and so some of its language was used in the KJV. If you are good with reading a KJV, the D-R will seem right at home. However, there are different versions of the D-R, as well. There is the original (which I think is only on CD), and the Bishop Challoner revision, as well as possibly others.

So… what to buy? The easiest is to simply buy an Ignatius RSV-2CE. That will give you time for a little further study into which D-R version is preferable.
Click to expand...
the RSV-2CE has the WHOLE bible in it, right? Its not just the NT…?
 
The Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition IS an entire bible - OT and NT.

But if you buy the Ignatius RSV2ndCE STUDY BIBLE, then you will only receive the NT - that is because Ignatius (the publisher) and its editors have not finished it study-portion of the OT.

So you can get an Ignatius study bible (which is just the NT, but with quite a few study notes and articles) or just the bible (which will contain OT and NT, but very few, if any, notes), or both.
 
Salvatore123 said:
The Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition IS an entire bible - OT and NT.

But if you buy the Ignatius RSV2ndCE STUDY BIBLE, then you will only receive the NT - that is because Ignatius (the publisher) and its editors have not finished it study-portion of the OT.

So you can get an Ignatius study bible (which is just the NT, but with quite a few study notes and articles) or just the bible (which will contain OT and NT, but very few, if any, notes), or both.
Click to expand...
Awesome, thanks so much. I just ordered the RSV-2CE off amazon. It should be here on Friday. I’m excited! 😃
 
AndrewF1995 said:
Well one of the biggest things would be that the DR has the apocryphal books in it that protestant bibles don’t have. So its more complete.
Click to expand...
To a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian, those books are simply known as “sacred scripture”. “Apocrypha” is a pejorative term, assigned by the rebellious to the Deuterocanon less than 500 years ago.
 
dje101,

I mean this: it does my heart good to see someone get excited by something that represents the faith of my fathers. I hope your new Bible will lead you to a new understanding and hopefully, a realization, that we Catholics don’t want protestants to become Catholics because we NEED them to . . .

We want protestants to become Catholic because we love them, my friend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top