I need a new Bible... help me pick one

  • Thread starter Thread starter daylightagain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you like the Douay-Rheims translation, there is the compact Baronius Press edition. Since it was digitally retypeset, it does have a few typos, however.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those aren’t in print at the moment, though. Hopefully soon.

Edit: Actually, it looks like Baronius has them available now.
The RSV-CE compact mentioned earlier also has “typos.” Check out this thread for the story. I have the compact Baronius D-R Bible; I prefer the typos I’ve seen so far in this Bible any day over the typos in the compact RSV-CE.
Click to expand...
I don’t know whether you are being sarcastic about calling the differences in the RSV-CE Compacts as being “typos”, or whether you know of some actual printing errors that I don’t. Can you be more specific?

For everyone here, the RSV-CE compacts being distributed by Scepter, Ignatius, and Oxford were “accidentally” based on the 1971 RSV instead of the 1959, and then the Catholic specific changes where added on top of that RSV base text. This “mistake” actually made for a MUCH improved translation, however there won’t be a full size version of this ever as Oxford is in the process of “fixing” the “problem”, as it would otherwise be against the copyright and the Imprimatur.

It is my favorite modern translation at the moment but like I said, you can only get it in the compact version. Pick it up while you still can!
 
AlegreFe said:
:nope: Mother Angelica does NOT use the New Jerusalem Bible. She hates that bible for the inclusive Language.
Click to expand...
Would be interested in knowing where you heard that.:hmmm:
I know she used the JB but never heard her saying she HATED the NJB!
 
bauerice said:
Would be interested in knowing where you heard that.:hmmm:
I know she used the JB but never heard her saying she HATED the NJB!
Click to expand...
Mother Angelica said herself that she prefers the JB over the NJB because of the inclusive language.

As far as me saying that she “hates” the NJB, those were my words not Mother’s. I said, “she hates that bible…” I did not say, “Mother said she hates that bible…”

I know “hate” is a strong word and I should’ve just said that she’d rather read the 1966 version over the NJB. But she is very clear as far as her opinion about those bibles that use inclusive language. She feels strongly against liberals and feminists. I guess that is why I used the word “hate” but I still shouldn’t have used that word… my bad, sorry.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Mother Angelica hated inclusive language.
Click to expand...
She called inclusive language “satanic”; I heard it myself. If that’s not hate of inclusive language, I don’t know what is.

The NJB, NRSV, and the Revised 1991 NAB Psalms fall into this hated category.
 
Interesting considering it carries both Nhil obstat and Imprimatur. It also carries the statement “The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error”
I guess I trust the Bishops of the RCC too much.
 
bauerice said:
Interesting considering it carries both Nhil obstat and Imprimatur. It also carries the statement “The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error”
I guess I trust the Bishops of the RCC too much.
Click to expand...
Heh heh.

Personally, I don’t like inclusive language. It waters down theology and hides many important facts about Christ, his nature, and our relationship to God.

That said, even inclusive language to the degree implemented by the NRSV (and less so in the NJB), while rendering biblical passages less powerful and more grating on the ears, it still doesn’t go so far as to err in faith and morals. For example, we are “sons” of God. We are his “children” too, but “sons” conveys a more powerful relationship lost with the inclusivization. So even though we lose, the power of “sons”, “children” doesn’t render the passage theologically incorrect, and therefore, doesn’t merit the denial of a Nihil Obstat.

However, it CAN lead to the denial of approval for use in Catechisms and Lectionaries, as was the case for the NRSV and Revised NAB.

So is the NJB or NRSV or even the Revised NAB safe for Catholics? Of course (text only; the NAB notes are another story). But for more in-depth study, a more literal, un-inclusivized translation is in order, such as the RSV or even the original languages.
 
bauerice said:
Would be interested in knowing where you heard that.:hmmm:
I know she used the JB but never heard her saying she HATED the NJB!
Click to expand...
Mother’s words, as near as I can remember them from one of her live shows: “The New Jerusalem Bible is kaput! It has inclusive language.”
 
porthos11 said:
She called inclusive language “satanic”; I heard it myself. If that’s not hate of inclusive language, I don’t know what is.

The NJB, NRSV, and the Revised 1991 NAB Psalms fall into this hated category.
Click to expand...
Hmm… I’ve never heard Mother say that word about inclusive language. But I could definitely believe it. I have heard her speak very strongly against it and that is why I used the word “hate” in my post. Then I guess I take back what I said about not using the right word when I used “hate” in my post. If she says it’s satanic then “hate” is an appropriate word to describe how she feels about inclusive language.
 
AlegreFe said:
Hmm… I’ve never heard Mother say that word about inclusive language. But I could definitely believe it. I have heard her speak very strongly against it and that is why I used the word “hate” in my post. Then I guess I take back what I said about not using the right word when I used “hate” in my post. If she says it’s satanic then “hate” is an appropriate word to describe how she feels about inclusive language.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. She did say “satanic” right on Mother Angelica Live.
 
mmortal03 said:
I don’t know whether you are being sarcastic about calling the differences in the RSV-CE Compacts as being “typos”, or whether you know of some actual printing errors that I don’t. Can you be more specific?
Click to expand...
I called them “typos” because they aren’t true typos. So yes, I suppose I was being sarcastic.
mmortal03 said:
Pick it up while you still can!
Click to expand...
I disagree, for the reasons stated in the “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread.

Maria
 
I do not mean to offend anyone but why should I take Mother Angelica’s cue as to which Bible version I use? Does Mother have a degree on Sacred Scripture from the Gregorian or Angelicum in Rome? Does she have an STD after her name?
I would much prefer to consult a reliable Catholic scripture scholar. Even Dr. Scott Hahn or Father John Richard Neuhaus.
Blessings! Polishman
 
My search for a really good Bible lasted for several years, but I finally found one I love. It’s compact, very smooth & bendy, leather bound, and the translation is the one used in official Church pronouncements. The back has a collection of Catholic prayers. The only thing I didn’t like about it was a few sentences in the appendix that said the flood in Noah’s time might not necessarily be literal truth, but a myth or re-telling of a story for a greater moral lesson. Luckily, a simple and careful swipe with an eraser removes those lines… unless it doesn’t bother you (whatever floats your boat… haha). It is the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition by Oxford University Press. I believe this is the link for the same Bible: oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/TextReferenceBibles/RevisedStandardVersion/?view=usa&ci=9780195288506
 
Polishman said:
I do not mean to offend anyone but why should I take Mother Angelica’s cue as to which Bible version I use? Does Mother have a degree on Sacred Scripture from the Gregorian or Angelicum in Rome? Does she have an STD after her name?
I would much prefer to consult a reliable Catholic scripture scholar. Even Dr. Scott Hahn or Father John Richard Neuhaus.
Blessings! Polishman
Click to expand...
I would say because Mother knows her Magisterium and because of the fact that characters like Raymond Brown also have STD’s and SSL’s after their names, yet don’t count for much as far as fidelity to that same Magisterium is concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top