I am Catholic, I like the KJV and I don't care who knows it!

[daytons]

Dayton,

So, some comments about your latest sortie (which is above, corrected for grammar, other orthography, etc.)

you have some nerve my friend. correct my grammar? i am guessing the high horse you are sitting on gives you the right to snub your nose on other people.

i never once said any insults towards you, i never once said anything judgmental towards you. i never once inferred what type/kind of person you are. all i did was bring up the troubles in ireland. yet, u referred to me as a “redneck Catholic who gets riled much too easily”. now which argument is “ad hominem”? instead of talking about the troubles (the argument which i posed), you are replying to my argument by calling me a “redneck”.

that BOOK caused a lot of Catholics to be killed. a catholic, YOUR BROTHER, probably died today, for the sole reason of being catholic. that BOOK is a symbol of oppression in northern ireland. so no i will not read that version in support of my catholic brothers that have been murdered

 

[patrick457]

It’s getting too hot in here…let’s all calm down for a moment, shall we?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Dayton and Patrick,

Dayton, you said: * you have some nerve my friend. correct my grammar? i am guessing the high horse you are sitting on gives you the right to snub your nose on other people.

i never once said any insults towards you, i never once said anything judgmental towards you. i never once inferred what type/kind of person you are. all i did was bring up the troubles in ireland. yet, u referred to me as a “redneck Catholic who gets riled much too easily”. now which argument is “ad hominem”? instead of talking about the troubles (the argument which i posed), you are replying to my argument by calling me a “redneck”.

that BOOK caused a lot of Catholics to be killed. a catholic, YOUR BROTHER, probably died today, for the sole reason of being catholic. that BOOK is a symbol of oppression in northern ireland. so no i will not read that version in support of my catholic brothers that have been murdered *

Really, Dayton, I think that it is best just to let this matter drop. I do not wish to provoke you to the sin of anger. As for orthography and grammar, I have the impression that C.A. forums are not mere “chat rooms” for such informal English use; I was only trying to help you by making your message more readable in standard English the second time 'round. Your own usage still remains on C.A., for your pleasure and for those of like mind. This time I just left your comments as you wrote them; if that is what you like, well, so be it.

Anyway, let us just drop these matters, eh? Nobody is getting anywhere with all this recrimination. Patrick has the right attitude.

Also, Dayton, you persist in your ad hominem approach. Nothing changes or advances.

**Patrick, you said: ** It’s getting too hot in here…let’s all calm down for a moment, shall we?

That’s how I feel, too. Dayton, your bullish comments remind me of the sort of Catholic vs. Protestant “slanging” at each other when I was a sailor in the U.S. Navy, young guys chafing each other with more testosterone than good sense. Who needs it? By the way, so far as the Irish Troubles are concerned, I never condoned such brutality! Even less do I condone it now, when I am on the path to converting to your own blessed Faith. Do you think that Protestants all are blood-thirsty bigots? Well, they aren’t. Some are, but not Jerry Parker! Stereotypes are of limited use.

Jerry Parker

 

[DallasTexas]

such as this:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/KJVImages/Mas_HS_GardenEden2.jpg

(notice the masonic handshake), there are many other instances, but, I don’t exactly feel like paying $1000 for a fascimilie of an 11 inch KJV bible to find more.

Indeed I know you’ll have to agree on that one, I have a keen observation of many individuals’ nature in the 1500/1600 period; the Anglican Church is very close to the Catholic Church today - especially with Rowan Williams filling the bridge. One particular fellow who I despise is Francis Bacon - apparently so did others when they realized his evil intentions and ugly nature. He was a freemason (probable homosexual), spat in God’s face, and wrote the damnable “New Atlantis;” which in a nutshell portrays society in a world without God and having freemasonry practiced openly.

Devare,

Thank you for your post–this is really none of my business but, I don’t think that’s a masonic handshake.

Hope all is well.

 

[patrick457]

Devare,

Thank you for your post–this is really none of my business but, I don’t think that’s a masonic handshake.

Hope all is well.

Me either. As I’ve said a few posts ago (worth quoting I think):

I don’t think there’s anything wrong in depicting ‘a handshake’ (more properly a hand-in-hand gesture) - especially if you’ll see that the “handshake” is shown in cases where the Bible shows such-and-such as being husband and wife/concubine (for example, even Joseph and Mary), just as the genealogy shows a crown on someone who is a king or depicts the line of Seth with more decoration (by virtue of Seth being a distant ancestor of Jesus, or so says Luke).

So, that purported “handshake” is most probably just a convenient symbol to show that so-and-so is maritally related.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Mr. Jerry Parker:
Try here for a Haydock Commentary online!

P.S. I hope you do not do “daytons” the dignity of any further replies. He is on a trial membership, and I don’t have high hopes for him.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,

**You wrote: ** I hope you do not do “daytons” the dignity of any further replies. He is on a trial membership, and I don’t have high hopes for him.

Thanks for the link to an on-line source for the Haydock D.-R.C. study Bible; it is so expensive in print at even the least costly that I simply cannot afford to buy it for at least several months. The link, too, will help me to assess it for myself. Certainly, I am very aware of how superior both the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible (fully worthy and faithful) and Authorized “King James” Version (rightly used) remain after all these years!

Yeah, I am afraid that poor Dayton is one of those guys, probably Irish, at least in spirit, judging from his belligerent attitude (which I encountered a lot in the U.S. Navy and in Boston among the Irish) that seems to confound Irish ethnicity with the Holy Catholic Faith. I had found for myself that his membership is a trial one; I think that what would suit his needs best would be a “chat-room” type WWW site, where such testy opinions, even poor expressed, spelled, and punctuated, would have their place better than through C.A.'s Forums. There is no reason in the world, despite what Dayton and others like him may think, that anyone should not be in Christ’s True Church, whether English, Scandinavian (both of which I am), Mongolian, or whatever! Atrocities in the name of religion, too, are abhorrent to all generously minded people, of whatever faith! I refuse to get involved in trying to defend what for me is execrable!

I am progressing on my path to conversion. I have made past fellow worshipers aware of where I am headed (and that was hard to do!) and shall start to attend Mass at a small religious order’s chapel where a venerable (105 years old, but vigorous) priest presides.
I am on my way!

Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

When you visit the site Jerry, be sure to check out the downloads (for printing on your own) and the explanation of the abbreviations. The Haydock commentary was based on certain ECFs and latter day commentators, as well as including the notes (maybe all) from Dr. R. Witham’s 1730 2 vol. revision of the DR N.T. (very scarce) and ALL of Dr. Challoner’s original notes.

The story of Leo Haydock and his Bible is itself a marvel. Educated at the Douay College, but forced to flee to England during the French Revolution, he was finally ordained a Priest, when he along with his printer brother decided on the huge undertaking of assembling all of the best available comments and notes for their Catholic Bible based on (unfortunately, and not by their own choice) McMahon’s revision of Challoner’s text. The Bible was published (as you may already know,) from Manchester in two gigantic folios in 1811. Haydock’s notes and bibles proved so popular that they were reprinted in various versions throughout the 19th century in both England and the USA.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,

**You wrote: ** *The Haydock commentary was based on certain ECFs * and latter day commentators, as well as including the notes (maybe all) from Dr. R. Witham’s 1730 2-vol. revision of the D[ouay]-R[heims] N.T. (very scarce) and ALL of Dr. Challoner’s original notes.

The story of Leo Haydock and his Bible is itself a marvel. Educated at the Douay College, but forced to flee to England during the French Revolution, he was finally ordained a Priest, when he along with his printer brother decided on the huge undertaking of assembling all of the best available comments and notes for their Catholic Bible based on (unfortunately, and not by their own choice) McMahon’s revision of Challoner’s text. The Bible was published (as you may already know) from Manchester in two gigantic folios in 1811. Haydock’s notes and bibles proved so popular that they were reprinted in various versions throughout the 19th century in both England and the USA.*

Wow, there i’s quite a lot of lore in all this! It is amazing how the English Roman Catholics of those earlier times accomplished so much in the face of so much systemic opposition to “recusants”! I look look askance on the claims of most modern scholars, of whatever persuasion, who vaunt all the advantages of modern scholarship. Being a librarian, I know true scholarship and genuine research skills when I see them; too much superficiality passes as putative research these days! The level of learning, linguistic subtlety, spiritual stature, etc., of pre-20th century scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, who produced the likes of both the Athorised “King James” Version and D.-R.C. Bibles, the great commentaries on them, and so, so much more, is astonishing. Their depth and breadth of vision also is rare these days.

I really must scrimp and save to obtain this Haydock study Bible! I am the type who really prefers, when making extensive use of something like this, to have it “on paper”; I chafe at having to sit at the computer for hours at a time, and, for me, it is hard to have a complete view of something as grand as this when approached screen-by-screen. That is how I feel about the old Catholic Encyclopaedia, too, which somehow makes a dent on my perception a lot more effectively in print than on screen. The printed volumes draw me into such works, the online access tires me. Anyway, for now I can profit from the Haydock link, thanks to your kind help!

Jerry Parker*

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I chafe at having to sit at the computer for hours at a time, and, for me, it is hard to have a complete view of something as grand as this when approached screen-by-screen.

Very true Jerry. My 1852 edition of the Haydock Bible weighs 20 lbs. and every page is at least half commentary (in smaller print.) I also have Ronald Knox’s commentary on the New Testament in 3 volumes, to keep my toe in the 20th c. as it were. But of my 8 different Catholic Bibles, the only KJV I have is the RSV-CE of 1966. But I haven’t opened that one in quite some time. But perhaps I should give it another look.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose SJ,
*
**We had written: ** Jerry: I chafe at having to sit at the computer for hours at a time, and, for me, it is hard to have a complete view of something as grand as this when approached screen-by-screen.

**Ambrose: *Very true Jerry. My 1852 edition of the Haydock Bible weighs 20 lbs. and every page is at least half commentary (in smaller print.) I also have Ronald Knox’s commentary on the New Testament in 3 volumes, to keep my toe in the 20th c. as it were. But of my 8 different Catholic Bibles, the only KJV I have is the RSV-CE of 1966. But I haven’t opened that one in quite some time. But perhaps I should give it another look.

I do have respect, of course, for someone like Ronald Knox, whose writings I have known and cherished since I was in my late teens! I have two editions of his fine translation of the Bible mostly from the Clementine Latin Vulgate; I read it completely years ago and still consult it from time to time. Mgr. Knox was a truly great scholar, fine humanist, excellent Latinist, and affable but exacting man. If only the century had produced more men of his calibre!

The A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible is leagues above the R.S.V. in any form, although, of course, it is good to have the R.S.V.-C.E. among modern Roman Catholic Bibles. One should not confuse these two, even if both the A.V. and R.S.V. essentially derive from Protestant scholarship. The R.S.V.'s serious flaws, so mixed among its excellencies, come from its modernist auspices and tendencies; the A.V. Bible was produced by men who truly believed in the authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, even if they were Anglican rather than the great D.-R. Bible’s profoundly Catholic translators and promoters.

You can leave the R.S.V. on the shelf for the most part, but do take down the A.V. Bible to examine it now and then (or even frequently) in an edition with its “Apocrypha” (deuterocanonical writings) and full original (untampered) reference structure, Cambridge University Press’ editions having the best text and editions of it.

Jerry Parker

 

[JJ59]

I think I’m a little (or a lot) behind in this discussion, but I too like the KJV. The language is very beautiful. If I’m not mistaken, the translators intentionally left some words more archaic so it would sound better.

The Douay-Rheims is probably the closest Catholic translation to the KJV language-wise, but it still fails to be as linguistically great, in my opinion.

I wonder, are there any doctrinal errors in the KJV, so much so that a Catholic should avoid it? (Apart from the obvious, i.e., “highly favored one” in Luke 1:28 instead of “full of grace”, but it’s highly favored one in many Catholic bibles, too)

But, if it is doctrinally wrong, then I guess I can still enjoy it like I enjoy a good novel .

God Bless.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Hello, friend.

I, too, am Catholic and like the classic KJV. The Shakespearean English there is beautiful. Despite the extraordinary elegance of the language, the authors managed to hone amazingly close to the meaning of the original ancient Hebrew and Greek verses

But, of course, 7 books and parts of two others have been removed from the KJV. Protestant commentators say that the Reformers did it because there is little evidence that Jesus made use of the texts. This is wrong. Jesus made massive use of Wisdom and Sirach.

Did you know that it is said by some that Shakespeare encoded his name into Psalm 46? Shakespeare was 46 when the KJV was published. If you go to Psalm 46, and count 46 words in from the beginning (skipping selah, a procedural instruction), you read “shake.” If you go to the end, and count 46 words up, it says “spear” – “shake-spear”!

Esquire:

That’s only true of Later Editions. The original King James Version and almost all Editions and Printings through the 18th Century included the Deuterocanical Books…

Here’s a Website that has the KJV including Apocrypha:
Electronic Text Center - King James Version w/ Apocrypha
etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Here are copies of the KJV w/ Apocrypha you can buy from Amazon.com:
The Bible: Authorized King James Version
KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha

and, Here’s a website with the RSV w/ Apocrypha
quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

These won’t have any commentary, but they do have search functions.

I’ve found and bought a copy of the original Jerusalem Bible, which has a lot of study helps. I’ve found this to be superior to the New American Bible both in Language and Notes. I also use the RSV- 2nd Catholic Edition, which I find superior to the NAB in terms of Translation. I do keep a copy of the NAB around just in case. Those, plus the **Douay-Rheims **(online). gives me 4 Translations (5 if you count the KJV above) of the WHOLE Bible including Deuterocanicals,

Douay-Rheims Bible
drbo.org/

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I think I’m a little (or a lot) behind in this discussion, but I too like the KJV. The language is very beautiful. If I’m not mistaken, the translators intentionally left some words more archaic so it would sound better.

The Douay-Rheims is probably the closest Catholic translation to the KJV language-wise, but it still fails to be as linguistically great, in my opinion.

I wonder, are there any doctrinal errors in the KJV, so much so that a Catholic should avoid it? (Apart from the obvious, i.e., “highly favored one” in Luke 1:28 instead of “full of grace”, but it’s highly favored one in many Catholic bibles, too)

But, if it is doctrinally wrong, then I guess I can still enjoy it like I enjoy a good novel .

God Bless.

JJ59:

I don’t think you’ll find the KJV to have more Doctrinal Errors than the modern Catholic Bibles. The most important thing you can do, no matter what Translation(s) use, is to submit yourself to your parish priest, your Bishop and to the Pope. The second most important is to find out how the Church has interpreted the Scriptures you’re looking at in the past (take classes at your local parish or Diocese). The third is to get at least 2 modern translations (Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, RSV-2nd Catholic Edition) to aid in your studies.

You may want to learn about a technique called Lectio Divina which I think will help your devotion to the word of God.
The Ancient Art of Lectio Divina
valyermo.com/ld-art.html

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[tmac1956]

Quite incorrect. The Deuterocanon (aka the Apocrypha) was removed by publishers from the KJV to cut the printing costs and increase marketing appeal to non-Anglican readers, and this wholesale removal of the ‘Apocrypha’ only came into fruition during the 18th-19th centuries. From a purely commercial standpoint, this had the added bonus of increasing the printers’ profits, since they could sell the Deuterocanonical-less KJV for the same price as one who contained them.

So technically, the ones who struck the final blow and finally got rid of the Deuterocanon from the Authorized King James Version were not reformers, but printers; not (merely?) for doctrinal purposes, but for reasons of profit. What no cleric ever dared to do then was finally done by a publisher. Strange, isn’t it?

The Authorized Version published in the United Kingdom still contains the Deuterocanonical works because it is under perpetual Crown copyright there (i.e. only publishers under letters patent are licensed to reproduce them), as far as I know.

Yes - that’s my understanding as well. The KJV translators simply stripped out the Deuteros (and a few pages from other books) placing them between the Old & New testaments and calling them the Apocrypha, but did not remove them as is often claimed. I think the confusion comes in from Luther’s transaltion, in which he did “tinker” a little with the text initially.

I have a digital facsimile 1611, 1st edition KJV and it has 80 books in it. Interestingly, the KJV translators provide notes explaining why they moved various parts of the Old Testament canon into the Apocrypha. I believe it had something to do with those books not being written in Hebrew. Additionally, I read somewhere (sorry that I can’t remember the source) that the KJV translators used the Douay-Rheims to back-check themselves during their work.

Coming from a Baptist background, my personal favorite is the DR. A note of caution: be careful if you plan on adding tabs, as some of the book names are different than newer translations.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

JJ 59,

**You wrote: ** *I think I’m a little (or a lot) behind in this discussion, but I too like the KJV. The language is very beautiful. If I’m not mistaken, the translators intentionally left some words more archaic so it would sound better.

The Douay-Rheims is probably the closest Catholic translation to the KJV language-wise, but it still fails to be as linguistically great, in my opinion.

I wonder, are there any doctrinal errors in the KJV, so much so that a Catholic should avoid it? (Apart from the obvious, i.e., “highly favored one” in Luke 1:28 instead of “full of grace”, but it’s highly favored one in many Catholic bibles, too)

But, if it is doctrinally wrong, then I guess I can still enjoy it like I enjoy a good novel. *

JJ, Thanks for your added commendation of the great A.V. (K.J.V.) and D.R-C.Bibles. I and many others feel as you do, that these two versions are the most beautiful and faithful ever done in English. Some folks do make a larger question of the A.V.'s readings being rather Protestant in bias, but the Anglican scholars who produced the A.V. were moderate men who avoided the excessive Reformed (“Calvinist”) bias of the Geneva Bible of which the A.V. was, in large part, a revision. The 20th century Bibles, Protestant and Catholic alike, have far more problems of doctrine and poor text basis (for N.T. Greek) than do the A.V. or (because translated from a fine Latin text for both O.T. and N.T. more faithful than the corrupt “Critical Text” of the Greek N.T.). One simply needs to read the A.V. with the kind of caution that is even more necessary in reading deficient R.C. translations such as the N.A.B.

Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why do some people think that the Holy Spirit inspired the Psalms to be written in language that would sound pretty or beautiful in English?

Accurate does not equal sounds pretty or beautiful in English.

Accurate also does not equal metrically great for chanting in English.

Readable., metrical, or beautiful should never substitute for accurate.

And how anyone believes that the Masoretic text should be followed–written centuries later even after Jerome and different from the Dead Sea Scrolls by Jews is laughable!

The Douay Rheims Challoner isn’t perfect when it comes to the Psalms but it is better than the KJV.

If you really want accurate Psalms try the 3d edition of the Psalms by Jerome or the Bea Psalter.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jerry-Jet,
*
**You wrote: ** Why do some people think that the Holy Spirit inspired the Psalms to be written in language that would sound pretty or beautiful in English? Accurate does not equal sounds pretty or beautiful in English. Accurate also does not equal metrically great for chanting in English. Readable., metrical, or beautiful should never substitute for accurate. And how anyone believes that the Masoretic text should be followed–written centuries later even after Jerome and different from the Dead Sea Scrolls by Jews is laughable! The Douay Rheims Challoner isn’t perfect when it comes to the Psalms but it is better than the KJV. If you really want accurate Psalms try the 3d edition of the Psalms by Jerome or the Bea Psalter. *

You are right, but a bit beside the point, in what you say above. However, you do end up commending the worth and accuracy of one of the Bible versions in English which, indeed, is very lovely as well as accurate, i.e. the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version! So, you see, Jerry-Jet, that a Bible, indeed, can be beautiful and accurate at the same time! Beauty and dignity in a translation give glory to God, and, when harnassed with accuracy, honour what is translated, which is God’s Word. Of course, the same applies to the Clementine Latin Vulgate and revisions that do not wander off into speculative readings: the Vulgate, too, is both beautiful and accurate. The new Eastern Orthodox edition translated into English of the Septuagint Old Testament (O.T.) also can be preferable to the Masoretic Text, since it is even more ancient a source to translate than the Latin Vulgate itself, and both the traditional Greek and Latin O.T. texts earlier than the Masoretic Text.

There are two excellent and literarily distinguished recent translations from the Greek Septuagint into English, the ecclesiasticlly sanctioned (by the Orthodox hierarchy) “St. Athanasius Academy Septuagin’t” in English, published in the Orthodox Study Bible (T. Nelson, 2008) and A New English Translation of the Spetuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford University Press, 2007), which does not yet appear included in a volume with the New Testament (N.T.), this latter O.T. version form the LXX not having yet official ecclesiastical sanction but, if anything, being even more accurate (although a bit pedantic about such matters as transliterations of personal and place names) and also quite literate in quality.

However, the mania for resorting to the Masoretic O.T. Text is such that most modern translations, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and ecumenical alike, continue to be done from the late Masoretic Hebrew text for the O.T. of current R.C. versions, which lack lamentably both the precision and beauty of the O.T. of the Authorised “King James” Version, and, atop that, use for the N.T. the execrably corrupted “Critical Texts” (U.B.S., Nestle/Aland, others) that are so far inferior to the Ecclesiastical Byzantine Text of the majority N.T. Greek readings. So, for those who, wrongly perhaps, prefer a Bible whose O.T. is translated from the suspicious Masoretic Text into English, they will not find another more accurate and more precisely translated (and, in addition to this, a version translated from the Byzantine Text) than the Authorised “King James” Version.

Enough said. Anyway, you agree with someone like me who would promote the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible as the best choice for a truly Catholic Bible!

Jerry Parker

 

[ruslan]

Ambrose SJ,

Yeah, I am afraid that poor Dayton is one of those guys, probably shanty-town Irish, at least in spirit, judging from his belligerent attitude (which I encoutered a lot in the U.S. Navy and in Boston among the Irish) that seems to confound Irish ethnicity with the Holy Catholic Faith. I had found for myself that his membership is a trial one; I think that what would suit his needs best would be a “chat-room” type WWW site, where such testy opinions, even poor expressed, spelled, and punctuated, would have their place better than through C.A.'s Forums. There is no reason in the world, despite what Dayton and others like him may think, that anyone should not be in Christ’s True Church, whether English, Scandavavian (both of which I am), Mongolian, or whatever! Atrocities in the name of religion, too, are abhorrent to all generously minded people, of whatever faith! I refuse to get involved in trying to defend what for me is execrable!

I am progressing on my path to conversion. I have made past fellow worshippers aware of where I am headed (and that was hard to do!) and shall start to attend Mass at a small religious order’s chapel where a vernerable (105 years old, but vigourous) priest presides.
I am on my way!

Jerry Parker

I am sure you meant to spell these words correctly.

I like the KJV too. :harp:

 

[lanceg]

In other posts I have ranted about finding the perfect translation. Well after serious consideration I have managed to figure out my problem…none of the Catholic translations in my opinion equal the Protestant translations that I used prior to entering the Catholic Church…they just don’t measure up, particularly when it comes to study bibles. The KJV and NASB study bibles I have blow away all of the Catholic so-called study bibles with the exception of the DR Haydock. They just can’t be beat as far as layout, readability, and other helps go. Unfortunately some of the notes are “too Protestant” theologically speaking but most are applicable to Catholics as they are just descriptives. I know these bibles don’t contain the deuterocanonicals but I have others that do, and I do not personally see a problem with reading such bibles as long as one is aware that there may be some Protestant bias interwoven into the fabric of the text…but then again the RSV is a Protestant based translation that has been embraced by Catholic scholars and lay-readers alike. Any thoughts??

The KJV & NASB bibles are good versions, there is no reason you have to drop them now that you are Catholic. The KJV can be purchased with an Apocrypha, although there are only a couple of editions with it.

Some of the Protestant Study Bibles like the NIV, NASB, & KJV Study Bibles, are okay , with useful notes; but you have to ignore their commentary on certain issues- like the sacraments.

I disagree however, that they blow away Catholic ones. I will put the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible with full study apparatus up against any Protestant study bible on the market.

Also, how about the Orthodox Study Bible? If you are attached to the phraseology of the King James tradition, it is a good choice-It has the deuterocanon, and it used the NKJV in the NT and the OT amended the NKJV to conform to the Septuagint renderings. With their study notes, you only have to ignore Matthew 16:18, Catholics & Orthodox can pretty much agree on everything else in the commentary.