Should Catholic's read non-catholic Bible's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicollette
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CindiA said:
Are you looking for the tabs so that the books of the Bible are easier to find? If so, no need to buy a new Bible. You can pick up self sticking tabs at your local Christian Book Store and then thumb thru the Bible and place them on the page that starts each book. It’s real handy and costs a whole lot less!! 🙂
Click to expand...
I have the Scepter RSV-CE, which has thumb index tabs, just in case you do wish to purchase a new Bible.
 
lak611 said:
I have the RSV with Apocrypha, but mine’s published by Oxford, rather than Cambridge (the other big university in Britain).
Click to expand...
I think you must have the New Oxford Annotated RSV like I have. I love that Bible! in fact, I was reading the introduction the other day and noticed that it was given an imprimitaur (sp?) by I believe the Archbishop of Boston?. I hadn’t known that and I thought that was wonderful after I read it. Made me feel so much better about that Bible!
 
AngelRose81 said:
I think you must have the New Oxford Annotated RSV like I have. I love that Bible! in fact, I was reading the introduction the other day and noticed that it was given an imprimitaur (sp?) by I believe the Archbishop of Boston?. I hadn’t known that and I thought that was wonderful after I read it. Made me feel so much better about that Bible!
Click to expand...
Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, gave his Imprimatur to the first edition (1965) of the Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha. Though it has the RSV NT of 1959, it does NOT include any of the changes that went into the RSV-CE. This edition is probably long out of print, having been replaced by the New Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha, published in 1977; the NT is the RSV 1971 2nd ed., and it has the “expanded” Apocrypha. It is self-billed as “An Ecumenical Study Bible”. As far as I can tell, there is NO Imprimatur for this edition. I have a copy of this one, and I believe Laura does, too.
 
Manfred said:
This edition is probably long out of print, having been replaced by the New Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha, published in 1977; the NT is the RSV 1971 2nd ed., and it has the “expanded” Apocrypha. It is self-billed as “An Ecumenical Study Bible”. As far as I can tell, there is NO Imprimatur for this edition. I have a copy of this one, and I believe Laura does, too.
Click to expand...
That is the copy I own. I also own the original RSV-CE with the Imprimatur by +Gordon Joseph Gray, Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Endinburgh, Epiphany 1966 and +Peter W. Bartholome, D.D., Bishop of Saint Cloud, Minnesota, May 11, 1966.
 
For me it is not about what Bible has the best translation,

but rather which Bible has the most precise translation from the original manuscripts…THE TRUE TRANSLATION.

As far as I know, I personally don’t recommend using King James for some of its words are “corrupted” and not consistent which the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is based on my apologetics classes I have attended. 🙂
 
Manfred said:
Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, gave his Imprimatur to the first edition (1965) of the Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha. Though it has the RSV NT of 1959, it does NOT include any of the changes that went into the RSV-CE. This edition is probably long out of print, having been replaced by the New Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha, published in 1977; the NT is the RSV 1971 2nd ed., and it has the “expanded” Apocrypha. It is self-billed as “An Ecumenical Study Bible”. As far as I can tell, there is NO Imprimatur for this edition. I have a copy of this one, and I believe Laura does, too.
Click to expand...
You’re right, I had just glanced at it the other day and I read it more fully last night. I did go through and check the verses in my comparison table that were changed for the RSV-CE and I marked them with a star in my Oxford RSV and corrected them at the bottom:)
 
rafael_vicho said:
For me it is not about what Bible has the best translation,

but rather which Bible has the most precise translation from the original manuscripts…THE TRUE TRANSLATION.
Click to expand...
Just curious: why wouldn’t the bible version that “has the most precise translation from the original language” manuscripts be the bible with “the best translation”? :confused:
 
rafael_vicho said:
For me it is not about what Bible has the best translation,

but rather which Bible has the most precise translation from the original manuscripts…THE TRUE TRANSLATION.

As far as I know, I personally don’t recommend using King James for some of its words are “corrupted” and not consistent which the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is based on my apologetics classes I have attended. 🙂
Click to expand...
In the Eastern Orthodox Church I attend we use the NKJV (new King James Version) Our Priest doesn’t care if we use the NIV at our Wed Scripture Study (adult Ed) because it is a “translation”
I use the Orthodox Study Bible (NT) the OT will be published next year.

Reading scripture with an attitude of obedience is more important than the translation you use.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” translates pretty much the same way in every translation.

I would be more concerned in understanding what I was reading (so I can do it) than anything else.
I don’t think anyone uses the “old” King James translation, the language is archaic. The NKJV is easy to understand and stays true to the original.

I agree with the person who suggests reading a passage in different translations. We want to be sure to understand what Jesus commands us to do. 🙂

Barbara
 
I read NASB In Touch Ministries wide margin edition, Black calfskin… absolutely fantastic translation, truly awesome Bible, and of course Dr Charles F Stanley is one truly amazing Bible teacher that teaches the truth of scripture :):D:thumbsup:
 
nicollette said:
Hi! I’m new to the board and have a question about Bible versions.

I’m having a debate with someone about the KJV and the history of King James. I’ve been running across my share of Catholics that read the KJV as their prefered version. As catholics shouldn’t we read a catholic Bible and not a protestant version? That is what our priest tells us to do. He also doesn’t think that having non-catholic Bibles in the house is a good idea unless they are being used for specific purposes (not for devotion). I am inclinded to agree and would certainly obey his request.

Now I don’t have a personal grudge against other versions but we do have three approved versions. Is there something wrong with a catholic reading non catholic Bibles instead of a catholic one? The reasons I’m getting are that the KJV “sounds better” and is the first “approved” version and doesn’t have any error. I’m actually debating a KJV only protestant but running into a bunch of Catholics in the process. I’m finding it a little “off-putting” I suppose.
Click to expand...
You are allowed to read them,but remember they might be missing the 7 books. However,some Bibles do add them at the end. Likewise,remember we have different beliefs such as the Real Presence of the Eucharist and for some Christians it is merely symbolic. However,some Protestant Study Bibles do state in their footnotes that for some Christians it is literal and for others symbolic. My advice, always have a Catholic Bible and Catechism to compare notes and always refer to Catholic teachings. I read from the NKJV and compare it to my Catholic Bibles. Learn o first get a good grasp of Catholic doctrine and teachings so you will not get confused.
 
I think the dangers of unapproved Bibles are exaggerated, at least in the case of Christians who are familiar with the Bible. Even a bad translation will simply annoy them but not cause them to stumble. (Unfortunately, the NOTES that come with the NAB might cause a new Christian to stumble even though the Bible text is safe – what a shame!).

In the case of Protestant Bibles, the most damage would come from someone who takes a single mistranslated verse or word and uses it to try to build a case for his particular view.

My Protestant Bibles did not stop me from becoming a Catholic; they showed me the way to the Church. I accumulated a small mountain of Bibles during my 50 years or so as a Protestant and I certainly won’t throw them away now even though my main Bible is the RSV-2CE. I admit I still sometimes find myself reaching for the NASB to get a clearer picture of the wording of the Hebrew or Greek text.
 
nicollette said:
Hi! I’m new to the board and have a question about Bible versions.

I’m having a debate with someone about the KJV and the history of King James. I’ve been running across my share of Catholics that read the KJV as their prefered version. As catholics shouldn’t we read a catholic Bible and not a protestant version? That is what our priest tells us to do. He also doesn’t think that having non-catholic Bibles in the house is a good idea unless they are being used for specific purposes (not for devotion). I am inclinded to agree and would certainly obey his request.

Now I don’t have a personal grudge against other versions but we do have three approved versions. Is there something wrong with a catholic reading non catholic Bibles instead of a catholic one? The reasons I’m getting are that the KJV “sounds better” and is the first “approved” version and doesn’t have any error. I’m actually debating a KJV only protestant but running into a bunch of Catholics in the process. I’m finding it a little “off-putting” I suppose.
Click to expand...
The Vatican approved Catholics to read other versions of the Bible but says these should not explicitly attack Catholic doctrine.

I’d recommend private or group Catholic Bible study. As appealing as it is (I’ve been there) you should stay on the Catholic side of the line.

I have spent a couple years looking into Jewish commentaries. They are very short-sighted in a major way: they avoid looking into typology in the text. That is a Christian thing, in a major way.

The ancient Catholic saying is the the NT is hidden in the OT. Well, the Jewish scholars don’t think so, so you’re not going to find that perspective in their work.
 
I think the answer to this question is yes and non catholic bible can be read by catholic’s.
 
The best translation is the one you’ll actually read. Unless of course it’s the JW version. Then you have a problem. I think it’s best to have a variety of translations at hand. I would beware of people who subcribe to the King James-onlyism or Douay Rheims-onlyism. Onlyisms aren’t good :nope: – that’s when the “reformation” threw the baby out with the bathwater.

PS Did you know there’s an indulgence attached to reading the Bible for a half hour? 👍
 
constantconvert said:
The best translation is the one you’ll actually read. Unless of course it’s the JW version. Then you have a problem. I think it’s best to have a variety of translations at hand. I would beware of people who subcribe to the King James-onlyism or Douay Rheims-onlyism. Onlyisms aren’t good :nope: – that’s when the “reformation” threw the baby out with the bathwater. PS Did you know there’s an indulgence attached to reading the Bible for a half hour? 👍
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. I read from many different Bibles: NAB,RSV-CE 2nd edition,JB, GNT,KJV,NKJV,NIV,ESV,etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top