I finally got a Catholic Bible!

  • Thread starter Thread starter amazingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel like in that case we don’t even know what the canon of the Bible is.
Seriously, it may sound ridiculous but it is true. If texts have enough differences, how do we even know which version is the scripture and which is not? If a verse in the Greek says one thing and the Latin says another, and the Church in the 4th century made the Vulgate the sole source from which all other translations must be based, then which one is scripture?
Well, look at it this way. To really know the original, go to the oldest manuscripts. And that’s what the modern translators do.

The Vulgate never really replaced the Septuagint throughout. Disputes regarding meaning were often settled by recourse to the Septuaient. And of course the Douay-Rheims replaced the Vulgate in English-speaking countries – but not in countries that don’t speak English.
 
The Septuagint contains books not in the Vulgate such as 3 and 4 Maccabees. Are you implying they too are canon then if we should look at that for the source? I mean Orthodox do accept them for that reason.
 
The Septuagint contains books not in the Vulgate such as 3 and 4 Maccabees. Are you implying they too are canon then if we should look at that for the source? I mean Orthodox do accept them for that reason.
But the Catholic Church does not. But the subject under discussion is the quality and desirability of various translations, not the cannon.

The formation of the cannon is a complex subject, and if we want to talk about that, we should start a separate thread.
 
Congratulations to the OP! Read it in good health.
quality and desirability of various translations
I read Classics (Classical Greek and Classical Latin) for my undergraduate, with further study in Koine Greek and Classical Hebrew.

In respect to this, I generally feel that all approved contemporary English translations are quite fine for personal reading and study.

I personally use the NRSV-CE (Anglicized), which is the English translation used by most scholarly Catholic resources (at least, in the Commonwealth) when it is assumed that the audience does not read Greek or Hebrew. Otherwise the text is cited as is from the critical editions: the NA-28 for the Greek NT and the HBS-4 for the Hebrew OT (also the Greek LXX at times).
 
@CRV
Your 4 posts (Post #s 12, 15, 19, & 30) imply that vern_humphrey responded negatively to or disagreed with Thomasbradley312. Could it not be that you have misinterpreted him? Numerous times I’ve reread the entire thread—just the words of the thread, nothing else. I still see no hint of anything nefarious in Post 10 or in any other posts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—CRV Post 12: “Was this impolite comment necessary?”
—CRV Post 15: “That comment was unnecessary and added nothing positive to the conversation. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion/thoughts, and yes, everyone is free to respectfully disagree”
—CRV Post 19: It immediately followed Thomasbradley312 - the time is the same (right now both show 16mins), and the thread you linked to also had the last post by Thomasbradley312.
Connection seemed obvious to me and unrelated to the thread title “I finally got a Catholic Bible”
—CRV Post 30: “Posts are time stamped though obviously not to the exact second, but that is too obvious. So why state the obvious. Highlighting the timing I gave to explain my reasoning does not explain your comment in relation to this thread title/topic.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Post 2, vern’s first words to the ecstatic OP were enthusiastic: “That is a superb bible!” Then he went on to describe how he himself uses that bible to disprove questioners or naysayers in apologetics. Thomas plugged the antiquity translation of Douay Rheims, and vern merely asked why we can’t use any Church-approved bible. There were no barbs exchanged, at all.

Yes, vern’s Post 10 was appropriate for this thread because it was a continuation of his Post 2, in that he introduced the comments from Nigel7’s thread to show an example of how he uses the NAB in apologetics when people may not be too friendly toward Catholicism.

vern’s very first phrase, “I would have,” indicates a different tense—in the future—and only in response to something like the situation suggested by Nigel7—a claim made in a challenging way toward Catholicism, perhaps with disdain, or an edge, as though the Church’s interpretation is wrong.

If such circumstances were to occur, vern would say to that person, “Who the bleep gave YOU the authority to make pronouncements on the Pauline corpus?” He is saying to that future questioner that the Catholic Church claims that right, not the questioner.

It looks to me that vern didn’t even see Thomas’s Post 15 on Nigel7’s thread, but, whether he did or didn’t is irrelevant because vern’s response actually backs up Thomas’s Post 15. It makes no swipes at Thomas; it supports him! Vern didn’t write a single word in the entire thread against Thomas or his posts.

Seeing something like this literally gives me chest pain. Why does this happen on a Catholic forum, of all places?
 
Last edited:
I have read all of your post.

I guess you and I when reading through the thread came to different viewpoints.

I had no quibble with vern other than the comment which I quoted and asked a simple question of whether that was necessary to be added at all as it read as being impolite. I felt it could have been left out and still gotten verns thoughts across just as well, which was behind my post at #15.

It was the way it was worded with the emphasis being on “you” as it was in all capitals, plus the word bleep being a replacement for swearing (or that is as how I am accustomed to people using it in that way) which combined with the rest of that sentence, reads as a question/challenge. As in who do you think you are, what authority do you have type of attitude (how I wish I could say it, which would better explain what I mean).

My other posts you’ve numbered, were my explanations of my reasoning to vern.

And yes, this was the start of the thread veering off course from what the original poster started.

The forum rules also state we are to be polite amongst other things in our posting to others.

My initial post querying verns comment was polite and rather tame compared to some comments written by others on other threads of which I have read.
 
@CRV
I have read all of your post.

I guess you and I when reading through the thread came to different viewpoints.

I had no quibble with vern other than the comment which I quoted and asked a simple question of whether that was necessary to be added at all as it read as being impolite. I felt it could have been left out and still gotten verns thoughts across just as well, which was behind my post at #15.

It was the way it was worded with the emphasis being on “you” as it was in all capitals, plus the word bleep being a replacement for swearing (or that is as how I am accustomed to people using it in that way) which combined with the rest of that sentence, reads as a question/challenge. As in who do you think you are, what authority do you have type of attitude (how I wish I could say it, which would better explain what I mean).

My other posts you’ve numbered, were my explanations of my reasoning to vern.

And yes, this was the start of the thread veering off course from what the original poster started.

The forum rules also state we are to be polite amongst other things in our posting to others.

My initial post querying verns comment was polite and rather tame compared to some comments written by others on other threads of which I have read.
Poor amazingcatholic! Only on CAF could this happen to a perfectly wonderful thread about finally acquiring a bible! Shakespeare’s play, “Much Ado About Nothing” is a good summary.

Yes, vern’s “YOU” was in caps, and probably meant pretty much as you thought, but it was addressed to a fictional future questioner (of the vein suggested by Nigel7), not to anyone on CAF. He used that example as evidence of how he enjoys using the NAB in apologetics, explaining to you that the sentence you dislike is his standard retort to people who are questioning the authority of the Church. He did refer to “‘bible study’ with Protestants.” Since he used quotes, I took that to mean bull sessions in which the bible may have been animatedly discussed, but not in an official bible study class. At no time, though, was vern impolite to anyone on the thread.

I don’t know how to do things such as make bold or italic print or links on the computer, nor on my iPhone, which is all that I use now. Several of us use caps for a word or phrase to indicate that we’re stressing them. I see nothing wrong with it. A big paragraph is a different story.

“Bleep” is a perfectly good word, regardless of what it may represent. In the past few days I’ve read unchallenged words here that rhyme with kiss, kissed, kissable, shoo, loop, drew, and paid—none of which raised the standards level, and all of which didn’t belong on CAF, in my opinion, but that was only my opinion.

I have seen people misinterpret, jump the gun, go off on a tangent, and never back down as long as they lived. I’ve endured decades of heartache because of misunderstandings and false accusations. I can’t sit quietly while someone else is falsely accused.
 
I appreciate your point of view in all this.

I chose to select just the single comment which in my opinion was impolite and unnecessary by asking a simple polite question about it.

I also chose not to be snarky, rude or bitchy or condescending or whatever - pointless and imflammatory and against the forum rules.

But since your first post to me, I scrolled back up after replying to you to see it has been flagged by the community. And for the record I did not flag that post. In fact, I deliberately chose not to and instead thought it better to ask a polite question if the comment was necessary. But apparently there are other posters who also considered it offensive or against forum rules or whatever reason they had as others have indeed flagged it. So this says to me I was not the only one to interpret this comment in this way.

Poor amazingcatholic indeed! Excited to post about finally getting a Catholic Bible and expecting postive uplifting responses, which wasn’t how it turned out.

Whilst I respect your posts, and I have chosen to reply to you as you deserve to be acknowledged and answered, I feel it would be for the best to let this thread end.

Peace to you. God bless.
 
I only just found out about this Bible. I was highly recommended by the Catholic bookstore where I saw it. They even recommended it over the new Ascension Press Bible. In fact, they told me the NAB has some misleading footnotes. I use the NAB, but am looking for a Bible that has more comprehensive footnotes. I’m reluctant to give up my NAB because I have so many notes and highlights, but maybe it’s time? Or maybe I can use two Bibles? (Not sure how that would work).
 
And it’s only $39.00 at the Catholic Supply store, $10.00 cheaper than on Amazon.

Thanks for your help!
 
I just received my Didache Bible. All of the extra documents are wonderful. I’ve been putting it off, but finally went for it.
 
I think NAB footnotes involve linguistic and historical issues and may not be removed.

I hope that this requirement is removed in the 2025 revision, and that the same revision will make the edition appropriate for liturgy and catechism. That way, they can come up with several editions, e.g., a scholar’s edition with the current notes, a layperson’s study edition using basic historical and catechism notes, a prayer bible, a combination of the last two, etc.

For the NRSV-UE they will have to come up with a Catholic Edition which contains all of the books, and then a second Catholic Edition that makes the translation suitable for liturgy, etc.
 
scholar’s edition with the current notes, a layperson’s study edition using basic historical and catechism notes, a prayer bible, a combination of the last two, etc.
I always thought that this was the best approach. It seems that a lot of publishers try to create a “one size fits all” Bible that caters to liturgy, personal reading, prayer, study, mission and whatever else.

I can understand why the editorial board often inserts introductions to books and copious footnotes, but I feel that - a lot of the time - they’re an unwanted distraction, and a brief footnote seems somewhat inappropriate to introduce a complex point on translation or textual criticism.

I’m glad that my edition of the NRSV-CE (Anglicized) omits introductions and keeps footnotes to a bare minimum: they just highlight some alternate readings “other ancient authorities read …”

The most obnoxious in respect to this is the ESV where all instances of the Greek δοῦλος (doulos) ‘slave’ are footnoted with “or servants; Greek bondservants”.
 
@amazingcatholic

I, too, congratulate you upon your new acquisition of the New American Bible! Thank you for sharing your excitement with us.

Although I felt that my previous two posts needed to be said, I sincerely apologize for my part in deviating from your thread.

The exact words of Jesus were quoted in John 13:34: “Love one another as I have loved you.”

I pray that God will grant each and every one of us here a heart filled with joy, peace, understanding , patience, kindness, forgiveness, and above all…Love…, as Jesus said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top