Which Bible is Correct

[diggerdomer]

Apocrapha means that it is not divinely inspired (but may be useful) such as the Gospel According to Thomas.
Deuterocanonical means that it is not apart of the canon.

Though Protestants use them interchangeably to stress that they believe a certain book is not divinely inspired.

Deuterocanonical means “second canon.” It does not mean “not part of the canon.”

The books Catholics refer to as “deuterocanonical” are part of the canon. Protestants refer to these books as apocryphal (which as GeorgeSword noted means simply “hidden” and says nothing about inspiration). Catholics often use “apocryphal” to refer to non-canonical books as well, but would not classify the deuterocanonical writings in this category as Protestants would.

 

[Havard]

I believe the D-R came directly from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate… which was written in Latin at a time when most of those who would be reading the Bible would speak Latin (like the woman who St. Jerome taught a Bible study to).

Douay-Rheims, Ignatius, and the New Jerusalem should all be good… research them.
The New Jerusalem Bible is said to be translated from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. The Douay-Rheims of course is from Latin. The Ignatius is just said to be another good one… not sure what it is translated from though… but it is supposed to be accurate.

The Ignatius Bible = RSV-CE.

Apparently when the NSRV was released in 1989, the original RSV-CE went out of print. Negative reaction to the NSRV lead to Ignatius Press reviving the RSV-CE under the name “Ignatius Bible” in 1994.

Personally, I love it. It lacks paraphrasing and gender-revisionist language, and it’s faithful to Church teaching.