Looking for an Easy to Read Bible

[colliric]

From personal experience: The GNB is a deliberate mistranslation of scripture that one should not waste time and money on. I would instead recommend the CCB.

Yeah i saw that one. Is that the one that uses God’s personal name in all the places where other bibles say “the LORD”(No it’s not the JW version, it’s actually a Catholic version and uses “Yahweh”) because I saw one that did that in the Bookshop.

 

[MH84]

Yeah i saw that one. Is that the one that uses God’s personal name in all the places where other bibles say “the LORD”(No it’s not the JW version, it’s actually a Catholic version and uses “Yahweh”) because I saw one that did that in the Bookshop.

The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible uses the Divine Name in the Old Testament.

 

[rciadan]

lak611:
And I also believe that the RSV is doctrinally less precise in 2 Corinthians verse 10. Paul did forgive “In the Person of Christ”–not in the Presence of Christ.

2Cor, verse 10? 2 Corintians has 13 chapters and they all have a verse 10. Be more specific with your reference, please.

 

[rciadan]

I have read, to some extent, every english language bible I’ve ever heard of and have many on my bookshelf for cross referencing. After much comparison and research I have come to the conclusion that the Douray-Rheims is, in fact, the only accurate translation of the scriptures into english. I base this conclusion on many, many facts, of which I will state just a few:

1. 
   *] It is the only version that is translated directly from the St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. This is important because St. Jerome had a multitude of extant originals of the Hewbrew texts to translate from that have not existed for a thousand years. He spoke ancient Greek from birth and ancient Hebrew from the age of 26. He even took the time to learn Chaldean in order to guarantee the accuracy of the translation of the book of Daniel. If you read his own words you will see the great care he took to make absolutely certain that the scriptures were translated 100% accurately into the Latin.
   ]Taking number one into account when comparing other versions to the DR I find an extreme amount of discrepencies, such as; whole sections of chapters missing, single word changes that drastically alter the meaning *of the verse, completely different “phrasing” that makes the original interpretation of the verse (i.e. by the early church fathers or Saints for instance) meaningless, and more.
   *]This is the version, (or at least St. Jerme’s Latin Vulgate is, of which the DR is the only faithful translation of such) that virtually all of the Doctors of the Church, the greatest Saints in the history of the Church (Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and literally thousands of others, read from daily and from which they received so much of thier understanding of thier faith. They would not have dared to read such bibles as the KJV (which was available to them) or the others out there today.
   *]I suggest one reads the following Papal Encyclicals for a more thorough understanding of how to read and interpret the holy scriptures, and as you do you will gain understanding of why so many of these other translations do not “pass muster”. A. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII (On the study of Holy Scripture): B. Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII (on promoting biblical studies); and C. Spiritus Paraclitus by Pope Benedict XV (on St. Jerome).

 

[Cranch]

rciadan – As a reader of the D-R myself, I like your post but I found the part I bolded a little confusing:

1. This is the version, (or at least St. Jerme’s Latin Vulgate is, of which the DR is the only faithful translation of such) that virtually all of the Doctors of the Church, the greatest Saints in the history of the Church (Thomas Aquinas, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and literally thousands of others, read from daily and from which they received so much of thier understanding of thier faith. They would not have dared to read such bibles as** the KJV (which was available to them)** or the others out there today.

Who do you mean by “them” above? Certainly not the saints you mentioned who were dead before the publication of the KJV. And the few I can think of who weren’t (Saint Thérèse de Lisieux, St. Francis de Sales, Saint Alphonsus Liguori) were not English speakers and would not have made use of the KJV for that reason alone. And as Catholics, why would they avail themselves of a translation created by Protestants?

 

[lak611]

2Cor, verse 10? 2 Corintians has 13 chapters and they all have a verse 10. Be more specific with your reference, please.

I wasn’t the poster who mentioned the reference from 2 Corinthians.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

2Corinthians chapter 2 verse 10. The Douay Rheims and the KJV says that Paul forgives the incestuous corinthian “in the Person of Christ”.

Protestant versions since and even some catholic translations since say "In the Presence of Christ’.

This is an important difference because it involves Catholic doctrine concerning confession and a priest Retaining one’s sin and then Absolving that sin.

Now of course absolution doesn’t depend only on this one verse but it does scripturaly support Catholic priests acting “In Personna Christi”.

“Person” instead of “presence” does make a doctrinal significant difference in the translation!

 

[rciadan]

rciadan – As a reader of the D-R myself, I like your post but I found the part I bolded a little confusing:

Who do you mean by “them” above? Certainly not the saints you mentioned who were dead before the publication of the KJV. And the few I can think of who weren’t (Saint Thérèse de Lisieux, St. Francis de Sales, Saint Alphonsus Liguori) were not English speakers and would not have made use of the KJV for that reason alone. And as Catholics, why would they avail themselves of a translation created by Protestants?

Sorry for the confusion. My point is that virtually all of the great men and women of the faith used the DR as thier text if they used English. They may have read in Latin, but, time after time they quoted and taught in English and when they did it was the DR. St. Elizabeth Anne Seton would be one. And, while not Saints, what about the great minds, even of our time such as Bishop Fulton Sheen and the priests from Radio Replies? My point is that for 300 years, all english speaking Catholics used the DR and within that time frame many great people (and Saints) used the DR as thier baseline for understanding the faith in writing. I would also point to a correlation (undocumented, but still, I think, fairly obvious) to the advent of these new versions and the decline of the Catholic Church, especially in America.

 

[rciadan]

2Corinthians chapter 2 verse 10. The Douay Rheims and the KJV says that Paul forgives the incestuous corinthian “in the Person of Christ”.

Protestant versions since and even some catholic translations since say "In the Presence of Christ’.

This is an important difference because it involves Catholic doctrine concerning confession and a priest Retaining one’s sin and then Absolving that sin.

Now of course absolution doesn’t depend only on this one verse but it does scripturaly support Catholic priests acting “In Personna Christi”.

“Person” instead of “presence” does make a doctrinal significant difference in the translation!

These kind of problematic examples are why I no longer value any of these other translations other than for occasional referencing. There are dozens of these that I have found just in daily reading and most of them drastically change the “meaning” away from the Traditional Catholic understanding of the passages!

 

[colliric]

These kind of problematic examples are why I no longer value any of these other translations other than for occasional referencing. There are dozens of these that I have found just in daily reading and most of them drastically change the “meaning” away from the Traditional Catholic understanding of the passages!

The Douay Rheims version is the only version which is accurate to me for the same reason.

TAN’s tract “Which Bible Should You Read” pretty much sums up why it remains the best translation of the bible into English.

John 1 verse 12 should read something similar to “the power, the sons of god, to be made” not “The power, the sons of god, to become”(or something simular). Doctrinally this is very important, because we do not choose to become followers of god, but are in fact made followers by God once we accept him.

Also why do modern Catholic bibles refuse to refer to Hell by that name? I do not like the use of “hades” or “the underworld”, they are unchristian and ignore the original meaning of the Greek word Hadou(“House of the God of the underworld”, which is to me clear. especially with the Gates metaphor. He was to me saying “and the gates of the house of Satan will not rise against thee”, so “Hell” is the only substitute/summary there)the last bible to use the proper name was both DR and KJV. Matthew 16:19.

And Mary does not question god about if he can make her pregnant, but is really asking “how shall it be done?” not “How can it be done?”.

 

[rciadan]

The Douay Rheims version is the only version which is accurate to me for the same reason.

TAN’s tract “Which Bible Should You Read” pretty much sums up why it remains the best translation of the bible into English.

John 1 verse 12 should read something similar to “the power, the sons of god, to be made” not “The power, the sons of god, to become”(or something simular). Doctrinally this is very important, because we do not choose to become followers of god, but are in fact made followers by God once we accept him.

Also why do modern Catholic bibles refuse to refer to Hell by that name? I do not like the use of “hades” or “the underworld”, they are unchristian and ignore the original meaning of the Greek word Hadou(“House of the God of the underworld”, which is to me clear. especially with the Gates metaphor. He was to me saying “and the gates of the house of Satan will not rise against thee”, so “Hell” is the only substitute/summary there)the last bible to use the proper name was both DR and KJV. Matthew 16:19.

And Mary does not question god about if he can make her pregnant, but is really asking “how shall it be done?” not “How can it be done?”.

I have that booklet as well. Pray for me for I am goint to give a copy of it to my pastor. Besides that booklet I have found on my own far too many instances of the more modern (other than the Confronternity Version) translations being what has to be, in my opinion, purposefully done so so as to obliterate all references to Catholic Dogman and Doctrine. I think I will start a new thread, specifically for the purpose of reporting the ways in which the DR is the only accurate transation into english.

 

[Augustine]

After much comparison and research I have come to the conclusion that the Douray-Rheims is, in fact, the only accurate translation of the scriptures into english.

I’ve been wishing for a translation that was not only close to me in the language, but also in the light of the Magisterium. I figured that a translation from the Vulgate would accomplish that, as St. Jerome sought to make the Word of God available to the people, thus his choice for popular Latin, not classic Latin. I didn’t know that the DR Bible was this one and I’m certainly glad to know it.

I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant, so I don’t believe the heresy of Sola Scriptura. Thus, why should I care about idioms in Aramaic or in Shakespearian English? Scholars may care about it, but I just want to live the Word of God through His Spirit alive in the Magisterium of His Church.