Which bible do YOU use?

[Chris_LaRock]

I confess, even though it IS Protestant, I still read the NIV at home. Why? Well, I used to be pretty much agnostic, when I became open to the idea of Christ, it was the first Bible I ever bought for myself, whatever flaws it has…it pointed me in the right direction. I am in RCIA! (For Church I take my RSV Catholic Edition)

They make an NIV that has the deuteros in it.

 

[Glorfindel]

They make an NIV that has the deuteros in it.

Really? Cool, I have never seen that! Thank you for telling me!

 

[mccorm45]

Really? Cool, I have never seen that! Thank you for telling me!

I have never seen an NIV with Deuterocanonicals in it. I am 100% sure that none exist. I have been in contact with the TNIV committee, and they told me that they were just beginning to consider adding the Deuterocanonicals to future TNIV editions. But they were not definite.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I have never seen an NIV with Deuterocanonicals in it. I am 100% sure that none exist. I have been in contact with the TNIV committee, and they told me that they were just beginning to consider adding the Deuterocanonicals to future TNIV editions. But they were not definite.

I too have never seen a NIV with the Deuterocanonicals either. I still don’t know that I could trust the NIV even with the Deuterocanonicals. I would must rather read the RSV that the NIV any day

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I have never seen an NIV with Deuterocanonicals in it. I am 100% sure that none exist. I have been in contact with the TNIV committee, and they told me that they were just beginning to consider adding the Deuterocanonicals to future TNIV editions. But they were not definite.

I’ve seen them online. Just google ‘NIV with apocrypha’.

 

[mccorm45]

I’ve seen them online. Just google ‘NIV with apocrypha’.

I did…there is no NIV with Apocrypha. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV

 

[Glorfindel]

I too have never seen a NIV with the Deuterocanonicals either. I still don’t know that I could trust the NIV even with the Deuterocanonicals. I would must rather read the RSV that the NIV any day

I do prefer the RSV for STUDY, as it is more literal. So I agree on that much. The strong point of the NIV is that it is a “natural” English, so it lends itself to devotional reading.:twocents:

 

[ernie67]

Hi,
I use the Douay Rheim Bible and RSV CE.

 

[Church_Militant]

I did…there is no NIV with Apocrypha. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV

IN that case, I would suggest using the NAB which in many cases reads the same as the NIV and yet contains all the books.

I used it in n-C Bible studies where the NIV was prevalent and no one even noticed.

 

[lak611]

I cannot vote because multiple-choices are not allowed. I use the Challoner-Rheims, original RSV-CE, NJB, and Confraternity.

I also own the RNAB and several Protestant versions, including the NEB, RSV, and KJV (containing all the books).

 

[Canto]

I love the first Douay Rheims for its festidiousness to the Latin and all the trad terms like full of grace, consumate, catechize etc.

The notes too are really interesting, especially considering the times (1582) and there are mountains of references to the Church Fathers.

I also use though the Nova Vulgata - in my opinion the most accurate translation!

 

[Mattjolley]

I love the first Douay Rheims for its festidiousness to the Latin and all the trad terms like full of grace, consumate, catechize etc.

The notes too are really interesting, especially considering the times (1582) and there are mountains of references to the Church Fathers.

I also use though the Nova Vulgata - in my opinion the most accurate translation!

were the notes not added by Challenor in the 18th Century? Either way they’re good, rooted firmly in Traditional Catholic Teaching, which sometimes can’t be said of more modern versions’ notes!

 

[Mortal_Man]

I generally use the NRSV, but I will compare NAB and Jerusalem Bible texts to it. I like using the Grail Psalter for the psalms, though.

 

[Church_Militant]

There is a poll and thread that offers multiple choice that is similar to this thread.

Catholics: When did you last read the Bible?

 

[patrick457]

were the notes not added by Challenor in the 18th Century? Either way they’re good, rooted firmly in Traditional Catholic Teaching, which sometimes can’t be said of more modern versions’ notes!

The original 1582 New Testament did have notes (and cross-references) of its own; however they are not quite the same with the Challoner and Haydock footnotes, as far as I know.

 

[mmplps7783]

I did…there is no NIV with Apocrypha. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV

Maybe this will help. I looked it up in Christianity.com and they do have it. It’s a bible resource site. I use the site to study but it was my first time actually opening a bible other than the NIV.

 

[AlegreFe]

I know I am not alone in confusion over which Bible to use. And, I know CAFers have passionate opinions in this area. However, I have not seen a poll posted on which Bible CAFers prefer. All refer to Catholic editions of course. So, here is your chance to vote. Comments welcomed, of course.

No confusion here. I use more than one though. And not because I’m confused.

I love the Douay-Rheims Version. I also like the RSV-CE & 2CE. But will never use the NRSV because of the inclusive language. Nor will I use NIV and not because it’s protestant but because it’s a bad version that is paraphrased as opposed to translated word for word. The only good protestant version that I like is the English Standard Version (ESV), not that I use it a whole lot but it comes in handy when speaking to protestants. Plus it’s very close to the RSV-CE and the NAB.

 

[Nickkname]

I use the Bible on the Vatican’s website.

 

[Canto]

were the notes not added by Challenor in the 18th Century? Either way they’re good, rooted firmly in Traditional Catholic Teaching, which sometimes can’t be said of more modern versions’ notes!

The original had at the end of each chapter a mountain, an absoloute mountain of notes. Challenor acutually got rid of the notes and just added his own condensed version. I like His notes, but you can’t beat the original.

Here’s an example of the original

1. I know not man.] These words declare (saith St. Augustine) that she had now vowed virginity to God. For otherwise neither would she say, How shall this be done? nor have added, because I know not man. Yea if she had said only the first words, How shall this be done? it is evident that she would not have asked such a question, how a woman should bear a son promised here, if she had married meaning to have carnal copulation. c. 4. de virgin. If she might have known a man and so have had a child, she would never have asked, How shall this be done? but because that ordinary way was excluded by her vow of virginity, therefore she asketh, How? And in asking, How? she plainly declareth she might not have a child by knowing man, because of her vow. See St. Grego. Nyssene de sancta Christi Nativitate.