What Bible translation is your favorite and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOneTrueFred said:
👍 Those pictures always come to mind when I picture someone from scripture. I kinda wish there was a “grown up” Catholic bible that included them.
Click to expand...
You might like the Holy Family Edition of the bible produced in 1950 by The Catholic Press. It includes hundreds of color illustrations painted by James J. J. Tissot. Examples on ebay are here (scroll to see photos) and here. I have a version with thumb notches and a different cover than shown here. Although it is a beautiful bible, in mine the reproductions do not do justice to the original paintings and are generally darker and “duller” than they should be (but still nice!). You can see some more examples of his work at The Bible Project. Here is the striking “View From the Cross”, now in the Brooklyn Museum.
 
Odell said:
I would like to know what bible the majority of our members use. Becaue you all seem very well versed in scripture and im sure you guys could give me advise on the best option for me to use.

I mean if Karl or James Aiken or Scott Hann told me what bible they prefer I more than likely would use the translation they use.

If the translation you use is not on here chose none and tell me what you do use.

also what is the best apologest bible?

anyway thanks It will be enteresting

well I wanted to make this a poll but I messed this up

here are some choices NAB, NAS, NIV, JB, NJB
Click to expand...
I was educated on the NIV Study Bible (excellent study notes). Over the years I collected the NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, AV, and a hand-me-down JB that I never even looked at. Of these I highly favored the language of the NRSV. I like how it flows, and it’s said to be a very accurate translation.

However, earlier this month I finally opened up that old JB that’s been sitting on my shelf. Holy poetry, Batman – this Bible rocks! Wow! It’s totally my new favorite. And it has Catholic approval, too. 😉

The Haydock Bible is on my wish list. Someday I’ll have one. In the meantime I’ll use the JB.
 
Well even though I am Catholic I use different translations, both Catholic and non-Catholic. So to rate one over the other is difficult as they all have their strengths and weaknesses. But if I rate them according to their accuracy to the original languages then Catholic Translations are not as good as the non-Catholic ones. That being said here is my list.
  1. English Standard Version
  2. New American Standard Version (NOT New American Bible)
  3. New King James Version
  4. Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition
  5. Confraternity Bible
  6. Douay-Rheims Challoner
  7. King James Version
  8. Jerusalem Bible 1966
  9. New Jerusalem Bible
  10. New American Bible
Unfortunately the first 3 do not include the Deutero-Canonical books. My opinion is that if an edition of the English Standard Version were made available in a Catholic Edition then that would be THE Bible to use for Catholics.
 
While I enjoy the various translations for different reasons, when I look at what Bible I like best I need something that has the best package. I think the Ignatius Study Bible, when completed, will be that Bible. However, until that time, I will continue to use the New Jerusalem Bible (regular edition).
Here are my main reasons:
  1. Translations is readable, both poetic and accurate in most cases. I think the editors did a good job of making the NJB more literal than the original JB.
  2. While the translation does use a modest amount of inclusive language, it is far less than the NAB and the NRSV. I think, in many ways, it is the best balance between the two spectrums of the “inclusive language” debate.
  3. The Bible has the best cross-references hands down.
  4. The notes are far more detailed and “orthodox” than the NAB.
  5. I love the single column format. Reading from this Bible is a pleasure on the eyes.
  6. The introductions to each book, while mentioning modern Biblical critical theories, does not necessarily state them as facts. Rather, in many cases, it provides them along with traditional theories.
  7. Plenty of room to write personal notes in the margins.
  8. Overall size of the Bible is not too big, yet not too small.
  9. The back contains useful maps and index of footnotes and persons, as well as a useful historical chronology.
  10. The NJB, at least the one I use, is very sturdy.
 
I know you asked about versions, but I love the Navarre Bible series, the footnotes are wonderful. God Bless. In case my name is not familiar, I have been away for about a month, really busy at work and with my mom, so if I don’t post for awhile it us because I am swamped in other areas of my life. God Bless.
 
Thanks for reminding me about the Navarre Bible series. I have heard very positive comments on it. Just so I do not forget again, I will jot a note in my calendar to get a copy.

I will have to decide whether to start with The Gospel of Matthew that we begin this coming cycle (cycle A) or start at the beginning with Genesis. Hmm. Decisions. :bible1:
 
Good Morning Rick. Just FYI. If you buy the paperbacks individually The 4 Gospels and Acts the cost would be $74.75 since they average 14.95 each, but if you get the hardcover of Gospels and Acts as one book, it comes out to 44.95, in addition, hardcovers last longer. Just thought you might want to know. God Bless.
 
EphelDuath said:
Question: is the New American Bible on the USCCB website (link: usccb.org/nab/bible/) the one that’s read at Mass, or the unedited version that still has the unacceptable inclusive language?

Same question for the Christian Prayer book used for the Liturgy of the Hours book (link: catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=1805).
Click to expand...
Judging by the Psalms, which are the 1991 inclusive language versions, the NAB at the USCCB site does not seem to be the edited-for-Mass version.

I don’t know what base text is used in Christian Prayer. It may be different from the 4-volume LOTH which uses the 1970 NAB and the 1963 Grail Psalter.
 
Favorite for reading & devotion - Jerusalem Bible. No contest. This Bible sat on my shelf for a while after I purchased it used (it was labeled as a Methodist Bible on ebay), but after diving in one day it quickly became my favorite because the text comes alive. In terms of its value as epic poetry I would put it at or near the top of English translations.

Favorites for study - Haydock and RSV2CE. The Haydock for the notes and because the language brings things out that you don’t always see in other translations and the RSV2CE to make sense of the Haydock for when my brain can’t translate the language. I also use a DR to compliment the Haydock. It’s smaller. Also the RSV2CE is a thinner, floppier Bible that is very comfortable to hold, carry and use in various places. Ease of reading and accuracy make it worthy.
 
MrS said:
I would second, third and fourth that. Catholic Treasures offers the one-volumn Hard Cover at $125. It is such a great source of info. The quantity of commentary exceeds the text. Good stuff.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Haydock DR does rock, I think it is too bad it is so expensive. I think the publisher takes advantage of the fact that they know some of us die hards will fork over the money for such a precious tool. Unfortunately, I have not felt I can recently, though I hope to have one some day.

I like the Douay Rheims and The Confraternity text. I think I even like them better than the RSV, because they have passages that are deleted even in the Catholic RSV, such as the angel stirring up the water in John chapter 5, which is read in the Byzantine Church on Theophany.

I also like that the older versions say “only-begotten Son” rather than simply “only Son.”

Yes, although I like many of the recent version, I like the Douay & Confraternity more.
 
I’m relatively new to all this, but I’m a fan of the Douay-Rheims (Challoner). I have the one from Baronius Press. I chose it, and like it, because of the more literal and older style. I also tend to think more when I read this one.

I also bought an NAB (St. Benedict Press). It was on sale. I thought the more modern language might be more readable. I tend to use it when I want a simpler, less thought-provoking read; you know, sometimes you just need a general idea on a passage or something. However, though written in more modern English, it is not as smoothly readable as expected.

I wish there were a good Catholic study bible, with good notes, maps and illustrations. Someone mentioned the Haydock as a heavily footnoted DR, so am going to look into that hardcover edition.
 
ffny said:
I wish there were a good Catholic study bible, with good notes, maps and illustrations.
Click to expand...
Though nowhere near as traditional as the Douay-Rheims, there is the New Jerusalem Bible (1985 ed.). It has tons of footnotes and cross-references; there are chapter and sub-section headings, lengthy book introductions; indexes of terms, biblical names and places; color maps. But do make sure you get the “regular” (full-sized) edition, not the “reader’s edition” or the “standard” edition; the latter two lack much of the study material.

You’ll hear that it has gender-inclusive language; it does, though it was used sparingly and “not at all costs”, as its editor rightly claims. It’s considerably restrained in this regard when compared to the RNAB or NRSV.

It’s a very literary version, quite readable, and is a great aid in deciphering some of the more obscure passages of the D-R.

Oftentimes, I even prefer it to the highly-vaunted RSV-CE.
 
So, the consenus is that the NAB is on the lower end of the useful scale. Why is it the basis for the mass readings if there are, at least in the opinion of the laity, “better” versions?
 
Manfred said:
Though nowhere near as traditional as the Douay-Rheims, there is the New Jerusalem Bible (1985 ed.). It has tons of footnotes and cross-references; there are chapter and sub-section headings, lengthy book introductions; indexes of terms, biblical names and places; color maps. But do make sure you get the “regular” (full-sized) edition, not the “reader’s edition” or the “standard” edition; the latter two lack much of the study material.

You’ll hear that it has gender-inclusive language; it does, though it was used sparingly and “not at all costs”, as its editor rightly claims. It’s considerably restrained in this regard when compared to the RNAB or NRSV.

It’s a very literary version, quite readable, and is a great aid in deciphering some of the more obscure passages of the D-R.

Oftentimes, I even prefer it to the highly-vaunted RSV-CE.
Click to expand...
I like the NJB as well. I also read the RSV-CE and Douay-Rheims. Those three are the Catholic Bibles I use most. As for Protestant Bibles, I use the KJV with Apocrypha and NASB the most.
 
b_ulmen said:
So, the consenus is that the NAB is on the lower end of the useful scale. Why is it the basis for the mass readings if there are, at least in the opinion of the laity, “better” versions?
Click to expand...
The NAB is the product of the US Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

Within the past six years, I seem to recall, in the USA, other Scripture versions (RSV-CE, JB) formerly approved for use in the Liturgy had their permissions withdrawn by - you guessed it - the US bishops, in favor of exclusive use of their beloved NAB.
 
Manfred said:
The NAB is the product of the US Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

Within the past six years, I seem to recall, in the USA, other Scripture versions (RSV-CE, JB) formerly approved for use in the Liturgy had their permissions withdrawn by - you guessed it - the US bishops, in favor of exclusive use of their beloved NAB.
Click to expand...
The RNAB is one of the worst translations in terms of the use of inclusive language. The Psalms in the RNAB were rejected by the Vatican for use in the Mass.
 
Cranch said:
Judging by the Psalms, which are the 1991 inclusive language versions, the NAB at the USCCB site does not seem to be the edited-for-Mass version.

I don’t know what base text is used in Christian Prayer. It may be different from the 4-volume LOTH which uses the 1970 NAB and the 1963 Grail Psalter.
Click to expand...
Christian Prayer uses the same base texts: 1970 NAB and 1963 Grail.

Shorter Christian Prayer, on the other hand, uses the 1986 NAB NT.
 
This new Catholic translation of the Bible:
sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm
is translated from the Clementine Latin Vulgate
using the Challoner Douay Rheims as a guide.

It’s a conservative translation, which generally avoids
inclusive language, which translates the OT in
the light of the NT, and both Testaments in the light
of Catholic teaching. It is a fairly literal, but not
overly literal translation. The Popes Sixtus V and
Clement VIII Latin is used as the source text, with
consultation with other Latin editions.

I’ve been working on this project for over 3.5 years now.
I hope to have it finished in early 2009.

Ron Conte
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top