Which bible do you use?

[Jimmy_B]

Hello again my friend, lak611,

I don’t know what the RNAB is. I have never heard of it. I went to the link that you provided, the “Adoremus Bulletin” and I must say, that personally I am somewhat skeptical. I have never read or heard anything from what I consider a “reliable” Catholic source, about removing the Psalms from the NAB Bible.

I always try to consider the source of any Catholic group, because I know, for instance that their exist “Catholic” groups who are apposed to, Vatican II.

At the “Adoremus” website, at the link that you provided, I found this:

“The aim of Liturgy is union with Christ in communion with the Church. The need for liturgical reform is clear after thirty years experience since Vatican II of falling Mass attendance, declining priestly and religious vocations, a decrease in belief in the Real Presence, the weakening of doctrinal content and a loss of the sense of the sacred.”

I can’t tell you if this organization is right or wrong because I don’t know enough about it. It does however, appear to be an organization with the specific goal of, “liturgical reform”. I am not sure if this is fully supported by the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy See, I could be wrong.

Thank you for your post, I’ll keep my eyes open for more information on this subject.

I don’t have an opinion regarding my faith, I surrender myself to Christ and His Most Holy Roman Catholic Church.

I am fallible.

Take Care

 

[lak611]

Hello again my friend, lak611****,****

****I don’t know what the RNAB is. I have never heard of it. ****

The RNAB is the current edition of the New American Bible that was published in 1991. The original NAB was published in 1970 and is out-of-print. When posters refer to the “RNAB”, they are referring to the only version of the NAB that is currently available in bookstores (unless one wishes to try to find a used copy of the original 1970 version on e-bay or a similar site). See this article for history of the translation.

 

[Manfred]

Hello again my friend, lak611****,****

****I don’t know what the RNAB is. I have never heard of it. I went to the link that you provided, the “Adoremus Bulletin” and I must say, that personally, I am somewhat skeptical. I have never read or heard anything from, what I consider a “reliable” Catholic source, about removing the Psalms from the NAB Bible. ****

---

I always try to consider the source of any Catholic group, because I know, for instance that their exist “Catholic” groups who are apposed to, Vatican II.

---

At the “Adoremus” website, at the link that you provided, I found this:

---

---

I can’t tell you if this organization is right or wrong. it does however, appear to be an organization with the specific goal of, “liturgical reform”. I am not sure if this is fully supported by the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy See, I could be wrong.

---

****Thank you for your post, I’ll keep my eyes open for more information on this subject. ****

---

****I don’t have an opinion regarding my faith, I surrender myself to Christ and His Most Holy Roman Catholic Church. I am fallible. ****

---

Take Care.

Jimmy,

The Adoremus website is one of the most orthodox Catholic sites around, bar none. Yes, they are very much advocating “a reform of the reform”, as was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself, because the “fruits” borne by the liturgical changes of Vatican II are wanting. Read some of their articles, and, if you find them critical of present liturgical abuses, they are merely calling a spade a spade. BTW - notice they quote from folks like Cardinal Arinze and Bishop Bruskewitz and Fr. John Neuhaus a lot; these are HARDLY a “rebel” bunch.

As for the Psalms not appearing on the Vatican web site: the USCCB should have just posted the 1970 Psalter in place of that wretched 1991 edition, so as to avoid embarassment all the way around. The 1991 edition was rightly rejected for liturgical use because it blurred too many Messianic references by going out of its way to sound politically correct. Thus we’ve never heard these gems in the Mass and probably never will, Deo gratias. But the 1970 Psalms, which were originally issued in 1955, can be, and are, used in the Mass and, therefore, should have been on the Vatican site. My guess is the USCCB is being its usual petty self.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy,

The Adoremus website is one of the most orthodox Catholic sites around, bar none. Yes, they are very much advocating “a reform of the reform”, as was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself, because the “fruits” borne by the liturgical changes of Vatican II are wanting. Read some of their articles, and, if you find them critical of present liturgical abuses, they are merely calling a spade a spade. BTW - notice they quote from folks like Cardinal Arinze and Bishop Bruskewitz and Fr. John Neuhaus a lot; these are HARDLY a “rebel” bunch.

As for the Psalms not appearing on the Vatican web site: the USCCB should have just posted the 1970 Psalter in place of that wretched 1991 edition, so as to avoid embarassment all the way around. The 1991 edition was rightly rejected for liturgical use because it blurred too many Messianic references by going out of its way to sound politically correct. Thus we’ve never heard these gems in the Mass and probably never will, Deo gratias. But the 1970 Psalms, which were originally issued in 1955, can be, and are, used in the Mass and, therefore, should have been on the Vatican site. My guess is the USCCB is being its usual petty self.

Sound’s good, thank you. Like I said before, I have many different Catholic Bibles and I like them all, for different reasons.

I wonder what version of the NAB Bible was used the make the Bible (NAB) on CD, narrated by Eric Martin. Does anybody know?

 

[eli1118]

So does that mean that Women’t Devotional Bibles are out of the question? So, should I only use a Catholic Bible?
You can tell I am a “newbie”:bible1:

 

[Ron_Conte]

So does that mean that Women’t Devotional Bibles are out of the question? So, should I only use a Catholic Bible?
You can tell I am a “newbie”

There are a number of women’s devotional bibles, based on different versions. Some are based on Catholic versions and others on Protestant versions.

In my view, Catholics should prefer Catholic translations of the Bible.

 

[eli1118]

Does anyone have any suggestions of some good Women’s Devotional Catholic bibles?
thanks

 

[Jimmy_B]

Does anyone have any suggestions of some good Women’s Devotional Catholic bibles?
thanks

Hello,

I conducted a brief internet search for “Women’s Devotional Catholic bibles” which yielded many results, however to my surprise, I didn’t see where a description actually stated, which Bible version they were. Maybe you could call “customer service” at one of these sites and get some more information. Does EWTN or Catholic Answers sell one? I’ll keep looking for you and if I find one with a description, I will link it here.

Good Luck

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello,

Here is the only one I could find so far and it is a Catholic Women’s Devotional Bible (NRSV) here. I once, myself, spent a great deal of time looking for a Catholic Daily reader or devotional Bible and after an exhaustive search, all I was able to find was a Catholic (NRSV) version, so that’s the one I own. However, this was a few years back.

Does anyone here have any “Catholic" objections to this Bible? Is there a problem in having and using “different” Catholic Bibles? Most Bibles have footnotes where in my experience the translations are all pretty much consistant, with a few exceptions. I’m guessing here, but it seems to me, that most Bibles have more than 90% in common and even more, if you read the footnote, language translations. This is not true of the footnote interpretation’s, especially those found in the in the KJV. In the KJV, they are lacking or are way off.

Take Care,

 

[inthecloud]

BTW What Bible is used by Spanish speaking Catholics in the USA?

 

[eli1118]

I truly appreciate you taking the time to look for a devotional bible. I will definitely take a look at the link. I am very blessed to have found this site filled with such helpful people.
thanks again

 

[Mattjolley]

Does anyone here have any “Catholic" objections to this Bible?

Its well known that the NRSV uses inclusive language, so even though it has an imprimatur, many of us feel it isnt exactly sticking to Catholic Traditions.
Bibles like the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV Catholic Edition(s) don’t have inclusive language, which is the line the Vatican follows in their teaching, using non-inclusive Scripture in their official documents. I hear they even refused use of the NAB’s Psalms in your Lectionary due to the inclusiveness they featured? I’m curious, does the rest of the NAB for the U.S lectionary have any inclusive language, even moderate?

Dont get me wrong, inclusive language isn’t necesarily a bad thing, you might find some on here who like this feature of the NRSV and the NJB. From my experience on here, its (and my personal taste following the official line of the Vatican) just that most Catholics arent fond of it, as it really isnt our way of doing things, hence why many prefer the Douay, RSV-CE, Or Jeruslaem Bible.

By the way, The ‘New’ Jeruslaem Bible has moderate inclusive language, meaning its not to the extent of the NRSV, which can be argued goes out of its way to be inclusive.

The original Jerusalem bible is used in our English (British) lectionary, and doesnt have any inclusive langauge. (Although not the main reason it was chosen, I’m sure it helped)

I’m sure somebody else could explain all this better for you if you want to know the church’s ‘official’ stance on inclusive language. but id say His Holiness personally isnt for it, as most of us dont seem to be

Matt

 

[Manfred]

Its well known that the NRSV uses inclusive language, so even though it has an imprimatur, many of us feel it isnt exactly sticking to Catholic Traditions.
Bibles like the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV Catholic Edition(s) don’t have inclusive language, which is the line the Vatican follows in their teaching, using non-inclusive Scripture in their official documents. I hear they even refused use of the NAB’s Psalms in your Lectionary due to the inclusiveness they featured? I’m curious, does the rest of the NAB for the U.S lectionary have any inclusive language, even moderate?

Dont get me wrong, inclusive language isn’t necesarily a bad thing, you might find some on here who like this feature of the NRSV and the NJB. From my experience on here, its (and my personal taste following the official line of the Vatican) just that most Catholics arent fond of it, as it really isnt our way of doing things, hence why many prefer the Douay, RSV-CE, Or Jeruslaem Bible.

By the way, The ‘New’ Jeruslaem Bible has moderate inclusive language, meaning its not to the extent of the NRSV, which can be argued goes out of its way to be inclusive.

The original Jerusalem bible is used in our English (British) lectionary, and doesnt have any inclusive langauge. (Although not the main reason it was chosen, I’m sure it helped)

I’m sure somebody else could explain all this better for you if you want to know the church’s ‘official’ stance on inclusive language. but id say His Holiness personally isnt for it, as most of us dont seem to be

Matt

Matt,

The US lectionary is based on a modified RNAB, meaning: the Psalms are from the 1970 NAB (non-inclusive, Deo gratias), and the NT is the 1986 edition with several VATICAN-MANDATED changes to purge inclusive language in those places where Christology was clearly being affected. That said, there is still - for my tastes - way too much IL that was left in. In fact, even a few select portions of the 1970 OT have been horizontally-inclusivized; our beloved shepherds here just love being “pastorally effective”.

The only IL version I consider as decent is the NJB, since it’s quite restrained compared to the original RNAB (poor literary quality as well) or the NRSV (no restraint at all).

 

[lak611]

Its well known that the NRSV uses inclusive language, so even though it has an imprimatur, many of us feel it isnt exactly sticking to Catholic Traditions.
Bibles like the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV Catholic Edition(s) don’t have inclusive language, which is the line the Vatican follows in their teaching, using non-inclusive Scripture in their official documents. I hear they even refused use of the NAB’s Psalms in your Lectionary due to the inclusiveness they featured? I’m curious, does the rest of the NAB for the U.S lectionary have any inclusive language, even moderate?

Yes it does have inclusive language throughout. Here is Romans 5:7 from the RNAB.

Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die.

The same verse from the D-R:

Rom 5:7 For scarce for a just man will one die: yet perhaps for a good man some one would dare to die.

Here is Romans 5:7 from the RSV-CE:

Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man–though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.

I chose that verse since it was in last Sunday’s lectionary reading and is an example of use of inclusive language.

 

[Mattjolley]

thanks for the answers guys.
I still can’t believe you have to put up with that translation!
Everything I see from the NAB makes it seem worse and worse. I must say, Manfred, I do find the NJB quite agreeable, it doesn’t go overboard with its inclusiveness.
However I am slightly biased because I did use it in my biblical studies at college.
That doesnt mean its my preferred translation, though! I use and consult several translations.(JB, NJB, RSV-CE2,D-R)

For the record, (and the benefit of the original post) in my daily/general reading, I use the original Jerusalem Bible, as used in the English and Welsh lectionary.
It’s just struck me that this translation uses other Psalms, than its originals, too.
But unlike the NAB this isn’t due to inclusiveness, but because the original JB ones used Yahweh, and the Church directs us to use ‘The LORD’, as the grail Psalams we use here in our lectionary do.

Any of our U.S. brothers (see what I did? ) may be interested in visiting the Catholic Truth Society website, you can find it through google. They recently published the original JB with the Psalm version used in the lectionary. Essentially it’s the ‘official’ UK Church bible, and is intended for liturgical use, featuring tables for the sunday and weekly readings at the back, just if your disaffected with the NAB, you could use this version for your daily readings? It is a fine version. Hope this helps any of you:thumbsup:

Matt

 

[lak611]

Any of our U.S. brothers (see what I did? ) may be interested in visiting the Catholic Truth Society website, you can find it through google. They recently published the original JB with the Psalm version used in the lectionary. Essentially it’s the ‘official’ UK Church bible, and is intended for liturgical use, featuring tables for the sunday and weekly readings at the back, just if your disaffected with the NAB, you could use this version for your daily readings? It is a fine version. Hope this helps any of you:thumbsup:

Matt

Thank you for the link! I will check it out. I understand standard wriiten English and its rules, so I know that I am included in your last post despite the lack of inclusive language.

 

[Mattjolley]

haha good stuff, lak611!

…Just a tip for anyone who may be interested in buying the aforementioned Bible, the site cenacle.co.uk would be easier as its an actual store/site, and the CTS isnt, you have to either contact them directly on the phone or fill out a confusing order form and email it to them, and to my knowledge it doesn’t even have the Bible on it since its one of their newest publications.

However, on the CTS site they have a.pdf brochure explaining the perks of their new Bible, pretty neat to see before you buy. Hope this helps anyone out there interetsed in buying their first JB.

Any by the way, to avoid confusion, yeah its called the ‘CTS New Catholic Bible’, but that’s just because it uses the ‘Grail’ Psalms. The rest of the text is the original JB.

Matt

 

[Faustina_Pio]

I like Douay-Rheims. I read that it is the oldest version and most accurate. I use to read the New American bible but read that the language is based on the phonetic knowledge of an 8th grader and uses language more modern. I wasn’t happy with that. According to statistics the Amercan Bible is the most popular though.I decided to go with the oldest one. I stay away from protestant versions because the books are missing.

 

[eli1118]

Okay, so does that mean that the the Women’s Catholic Devotional bible that Jimmy suggested is not one that most Catholic woment would read and/or agree with?
Just checking–I am trying to learn and am definitley a “newbie” based on my question.

 

[lak611]

Okay, so does that mean that the the Women’s Catholic Devotional bible that Jimmy suggested is not one that most Catholic woment would read and/or agree with?
Just checking–I am trying to learn and am definitley a “newbie” based on my question.

Is there any special reason why it has to be a “Women’s” Bible? I really do not see why the Bible should be any different for men or women. Of course, children would need children’s Bibles because an adult Bible would be too hard for them to understand. Why would men and women have a need to read different Bibles?