My Opinion of Protestant Bibles

[lak611]

It is, first and foremost, a revision of the KJV. It is actually the 5th revision - the KJV that you buy today from a bookstore is actually the 4th revision, done in 1769 (IIRC), although as the original post says, 1611 editions are available (and a lot of fun to read). The underlying Greek text is therefore the Textus Receptus, although most editions have the NU and Majority Text renderings in the margin.

I have a reprint of the original 1611 KJV. It is fun to read, especially because the spellings of a lot of English words were different back then. I have no trouble reading and understanding it though. For all interested Catholics, it contains the Apocrypha (or what we call the Deuterocanonicals), so all the books are there, including some that the Orthodox recognize but Catholics do not.

 

[colliric]

I have a reprint of the original 1611 KJV. It is fun to read, especially because the spellings of a lot of English words were different back then. I have no trouble reading and understanding it though. For all interested Catholics, it contains the Apocrypha (or what we call the Deuterocanonicals), so all the books are there, including some that the Orthodox recognize but Catholics do not.

The new Penguin Classics paperback edition is finally the first affordable($20) KJV to include the Apocrypha and the translator’s notes, although it uses modern spelling. For so long if you wanted a full version you needed to fork out upwards of $80 to get it, or $30 for a seperate “KJV apocrypha” book. Well it doesn’t hurt your pocket anymore…

This version does not indicate it is a 1611 KJV on the cover of the book, it’s simply titled “The Bible - Penguin Classics”, so look at the blurb on the back to make sure.

I don’t know why but I liked seeing this one on the “new” shelves at Melbourne Catholic Bookshop.

 

[lak611]

For so long if you wanted a full version you needed to fork out upwards of $80 to get it, or $30 for a seperate “KJV apocrypha” book. Well it doesn’t hurt your pocket anymore…

This version does not indicate it is a 1611 KJV on the cover of the book, it’s simply titled “The Bible - Penguin Classics”, so look at the blurb on the back to make sure.

I paid $40 for a leather bound copy that says 1611 Edition on the cover. The publisher is Hendrickson. ISBN no. is 1-56563-194-3. I bought it from Christian Book Distributors.

 

[colliric]

I paid $40 for a leather bound copy that says 1611 Edition on the cover. The publisher is Hendrickson. ISBN no. is 1-56563-194-3. I bought it from Christian Book Distributors.

$40 for you guys is upwards of $60 for me, I’m an Australian. Sometimes I struggle in “translating” dollar amounts to US currency values.

$20 for me, is really something like $15 for you guys.

 

[lak611]

$40 for you guys is upwards of $60 for me, I’m an Australian. Sometimes I struggle in “translating” dollar amounts to US currency values.

$20 for me, is really something like $15 for you guys.

Sorry, I don’t know the exchange rate for USA/Australia. I’m more familiar with USA/UK.

 

[RNRobert]

I heard that TAN is very “pre-vatican 2”. I don’t know if this is true; I’m not even interested in looking it up. I’m telling you what I heard though.

I have a book by TAN called “This is the Faith”. Haven’t read it all yet but I have read some.

I’ve bought a number of books from TAN- the Douai-Rheims Bible and a number of works written by pre-Vatican II authors. They are traditionalist, and some of their books criticize the Novus Ordo and call for a return to the Tridentine Mass.

 

[scylla]

I heard that TAN is very “pre-vatican 2”. I don’t know if this is true; I’m not even interested in looking it up. I’m telling you what I heard though.

I have a book by TAN called “This is the Faith”. Haven’t read it all yet but I have read some.

TAN books is very good, they were dedicated to preserving Christian classics. So many older books have been kept from being lost to history because of them making them available to people today. So yes that could mean that they are pre-Vatican 2 in a sense, but that doesn’t really matter as Vatican 2 didn’t change any teachings or beliefs of Catholicism.

It is the same faith, and TAN is great because they make it available. They are not high budget productions, but they have some very nice books.

God Bless
Scylla

colliric
If the Mormons try to substitute a Book of Mormon I will complain as I specifically asked for a Bible. I have a Book of Mormon, but the missionaries stopped coming to my house when I started sharing my faith with them.

 

[franky8]

An short exerpt from an appologetic session on an overview of the bible:

"I would like to comment on Mr. Ernest --------- letter to the editor, September 9, 2006. It is my purpose to explain the scenario of the Bible and its example of translation and printing over the centuries and to allay Mr. ----------------- “comprehension”.

Mr. ----------------is at odds with the Catholic Church and its 10 Commandments. One cannot read the “North American Bible”, approved Catholic Bible v. USCCB and not see Commandment 3 - You shall not have other gods besides me. And Commandment 4 - You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth.
Are those not Commandments against “Idol worship”?

As a good Christian, I am sure he understands that there are 26 verses pertaining to the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20. Many of the 26 were compacted into the 10. It was St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I in 382 who translated the writings into Latin. The translation was from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Latin, which was and still is the official language of the Catholic Church was used and the Bible was called the (Latin)Vulgate Bible.

The Vulgate was designed to be a definitive and officially promulgated translation of the Bible, improving upon several divergent translations then in use. It was the first, and for many centuries the only bible from c. AD 400–1530.

William Tyndale, considered the father of the Reformation, was instrumental in making the “English Bible” King James, about 1526. It was at this point in history that many books were left out or changed from the original St. Jerome version. The original King James Bible was revised in 1604; there was a 1975 version and a 1994 version. I recommend a reading of each for chapter and verse dissimilarity.

There are many translations and it would take too much space to point out the discrepancies. Suffice it to say that the Catholic Church has history and tradition on its side in determining what its authority is.

I believe we go down the wrong path in criticizing other faiths especially when the facts are not quite accurate. I think we should be seeking reconciliation with each other and have a daily prayer life. How about we start praying against the evils of abortion.

Frank

 

[lak611]

The original King James Bible was revised in 1604; there was a 1975 version and a 1994 version. I recommend a reading of each for chapter and verse dissimilarity.

Actually, the original King James Version was published in 1611 and included the Apocrypha. There were revisions in the 1700’s and in the 1800’s (I’m not sure of those exact dates, but somebody will probably find them and post them here.). I don’t think the KJV was revised in 1975, but there is the New King James Version also available now. Perhaps, that’s what you meant.

 

[franky8]

Thank you for the correction. 1604 was the start and it was finished and pubished in 1611.

 

[Dr_M]

Ah, Bibles, one of my favorite subjects

The following is my personal opinions on the translations that I have read.

NAT (New American Tragedy better known to American Catholics as the New American Bible). An absolutely horrible translation. Many of the notes are not Catholic at all. And it’s rendering of Luke 1:28: (Hail, Favored one), automatically implies it needs to be burned . Thank goodness Rome basically rehauled it for the lectionary. All of my NAB’s are buried underground.

NIV (I liked the Non-Inspired Version, I thought that was funny, so I’m keeping it, (or the Not International Version). A pretty easy read. But with that it’s very innacurate. The parodisis is translated as teaching, when it should be translated as traditon. Good to use with the Evangelicals, since this is the one most of them use.

BNT (Bad News Translation: better known as Good News Translation). I had to use this in my Church, where I teach at, I almost snapped having to use this atrocity for a translation. It is a paraphrase, no traditonal wording. This Bible should not touch the hands of any devout Catholic. I am promoting a change in Bible trnalsation for the Church. that they use the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE.

TDV (The Dead version aka: the Living Version): This translation also needs to go. just based on the fact that it’s a horrible read.

EP: A spanish edition of a Catholic Bible. This translation is the best that I’ve read. I use it to try to understand what’s attempted to be communicated in English. The notes are VERY GOOD!, and FULLY catholic. (This should be expected from the more conservative Latin American Church)

CCB: The notes are excellent in this Bible. It does keep some of the traditonal wording which is good. I use this version when I want the notes to understand somethings.

NSRV: “Greetings, Favored one” Need I say more?

NWT (newly wacked translation): So many errors I don’t have time to go through them all. I feel sorry for the JW’s that have to read this translation.

DRB: Best Catholic Translation that I’ve read in English, you’ll recognize most of the prayers, they come from this version of the Bible.

I Read my EP, RSV-CE, and DRB for scholarly purposes.

 

[Dr_M]

Ah, Bibles, one of my favorite subjects

The following is my personal opinions on the translations that I have read.

NAT (New American Tragedy better known to American Catholics as the New American Bible). An absolutely horrible translation. Many of the notes are not Catholic at all. And it’s rendering of Luke 1:28: (Hail, Favored one), automatically implies it needs to be burned . Thank goodness Rome basically rehauled it for the lectionary. All of my NAB’s are buried underground.

NIV (I liked the Non-Inspired Version, I thought that was funny, so I’m keeping it, (or the Not International Version). A pretty easy read. But with that it’s very innacurate. The parodisis is translated as teaching, when it should be translated as traditon. Good to use with the Evangelicals, since this is the one most of them use.

BNT (Bad News Translation: better known as Good News Translation). I had to use this in my Church, where I teach at, I almost snapped having to use this atrocity for a translation. It is a paraphrase, no traditonal wording. This Bible should not touch the hands of any devout Catholic. I am promoting a change in Bible trnalsation for the Church. that they use the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE.

TDV (The Dead version aka: the Living Version): This translation also needs to go. just based on the fact that it’s a horrible read.

EP: A spanish edition of a Catholic Bible. This translation is the best that I’ve read. I use it to try to understand what’s attempted to be communicated in English. The notes are VERY GOOD!, and FULLY catholic. (This should be expected from the more conservative Latin American Church)

CCB: The notes are excellent in this Bible. It does keep some of the traditonal wording which is good. I use this version when I want the notes to understand somethings.

NSRV: “Greetings, Favored one” Need I say more?

NWT (newly wacked translation): So many errors I don’t have time to go through them all. I feel sorry for the JW’s that have to read this translation.

DRB: Best Catholic Translation that I’ve read in English, you’ll recognize most of the prayers, they come from this version of the Bible.

I Read my EP, RSV-CE, and DRB for scholarly purposes.

 

[demerzel85]

BNT (Bad News Translation: better known as Good News Translation). I had to use this in my Church, where I teach at, I almost snapped having to use this atrocity for a translation. It is a paraphrase, no traditonal wording. This Bible should not touch the hands of any devout Catholic. I am promoting a change in Bible trnalsation for the Church. that they use the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE.

Based upon command of the language I would personally recommend the CCB to replace the GNT.

 

[Manfred]

Ah, Bibles, one of my favorite subjects

The following is my personal opinions on the translations that I have read.

NAT (New American Tragedy better known to American Catholics as the New American Bible). An absolutely horrible translation. Many of the notes are not Catholic at all. And it’s rendering of Luke 1:28: (Hail, Favored one), automatically implies it needs to be burned . Thank goodness Rome basically rehauled it for the lectionary. All of my NAB’s are buried underground.

NIV (I liked the Non-Inspired Version, I thought that was funny, so I’m keeping it, (or the Not International Version). A pretty easy read. But with that it’s very innacurate. The parodisis is translated as teaching, when it should be translated as traditon. Good to use with the Evangelicals, since this is the one most of them use.

BNT (Bad News Translation: better known as Good News Translation). I had to use this in my Church, where I teach at, I almost snapped having to use this atrocity for a translation. It is a paraphrase, no traditonal wording. This Bible should not touch the hands of any devout Catholic. I am promoting a change in Bible trnalsation for the Church. that they use the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE.

TDV (The Dead version aka: the Living Version): This translation also needs to go. just based on the fact that it’s a horrible read.

EP: A spanish edition of a Catholic Bible. This translation is the best that I’ve read. I use it to try to understand what’s attempted to be communicated in English. The notes are VERY GOOD!, and FULLY catholic. (This should be expected from the more conservative Latin American Church)

CCB: The notes are excellent in this Bible. It does keep some of the traditonal wording which is good. I use this version when I want the notes to understand somethings.

NSRV: “Greetings, Favored one” Need I say more?

NWT (newly wacked translation): So many errors I don’t have time to go through them all. I feel sorry for the JW’s that have to read this translation.

DRB: Best Catholic Translation that I’ve read in English, you’ll recognize most of the prayers, they come from this version of the Bible.

I Read my EP, RSV-CE, and DRB for scholarly purposes.

Dr,

I’m not familiar with the CCB or the Spanish EP, but you are “spot on” about all the others! And I did NOT at all like the Non-Inspired Version; as bland as the NAB.

 

[lak611]

Dr,

I’m not familiar with the CCB or the Spanish EP, but you are “spot on” about all the others! And I did NOT at all like the Non-Inspired Version; as bland as the NAB.

My thoughts, as well. I like the RSV the best, both the Catholic version and the ecumenical version, both of which I own.

 

[demerzel85]

Dr,

I’m not familiar with the CCB or the Spanish EP, but you are “spot on” about all the others! And I did NOT at all like the Non-Inspired Version; as bland as the NAB.

The main drawback of the CCB is the use of inclusive language and a horrible preface that supports inclusive language. The CCB is a Claretian project. More info here bible.claret.org/bibles/