Which Bible is Correct

  • Thread starter Thread starter kgbdman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kgbdman

Guest
Hello,

I have been using my New American Bible since 1981, it was a gift from a dear friend prior to my shuffling off to U.S. Navy “boot-camp”. My friend was the religious education director of our local parish and a devout Catholic. My Bible carries both signatures of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimator, and I believe there is even some reference to it being a Catholic Bible in the front first or second page.

My question arises from a consistent debate about which version of the Bible is “correct”, “accurate” and/or “official”. There are many bibles that are accepted by the Catholic Church that I have seen, NAB, New Jerusalem, Dhouay-Rheims among others. What makes one version more accurate or acceptable to another? Also if I am in the market for a “new” bible which would be the most widely recognized “correct” version to purchase, and why? Should I buy a study bible as my main source or should it be only for reference and a supplement to an “official” bible?

Thanks in advance for any and all your help.
 
There are really three major things that separate all the different Bibles.

First, there is the matter of canon, meaning what books officially make up the Bible. The NT is the same (books, not translations, see below) in each, the difference being the few OT books that is in dispute between Roman Catholics and other faiths. Catholics hold the books to be inspired, the others do not.

Second, there is the matter of source documents. The Scriptures were not written in our language, so translation was involved. If I translate from document A, I end up with a Bible that says one thing; from document B, the verses are going to be slightly different.

Third, there is the matter of HOW the translation was done. Was it translated word-by-word? Phrase-by-phrase? Or was it translated in a way that gave a kind of “literal sense” to the words. The common example of this is the phrase, “It’s raining cats and dogs.” How would a person 2000 years from now translate that into another language? A word-by-word would just replace the words, where a different one might replace the words and write “It rained very heavily.” Both would be correct PROVIDED the word-by-word translation of that phrase had the same meaning in that other language as it does in ours today - otherwise, the meaning is lost.

When you consider all these factors, it’s difficult to point to any one Bible and say it is “wrong,” because it might not be wrong considering the source, the translation method, and the faith behind it.

What those two markings on Catholic Bibles tell you is that there is nothing in there that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and that it is given permission by a Bishop to be printed. That said, you CAN find things, especially in the footnotes of the NAB, that do run smack against Catholic teaching. My recommendation to you is that any Bible will do over no Bible; a Catholic Bible will do better than a non-Catholic Bible; and if you can, buy a couple different versions of Catholic Bibles and read them to see the differences for yourself.
 
OH, I love it, this is a ME question. I’m going to take a stab at it…I’m no expert, but I know a LOT, make sense? OK…HERE IS WHAT I’VE LEARNED: The Douay-Rheims version of the bible is the OLDEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the bible that predated the King James Version only by a couple years, but pre-dates it none the less.

The King James came out in 1611, 3 years after Douay-Rheims. I use the DRV & 1611-KJV to compare scripture (for 1…) but also to see how old some protestant arguements are. The easiest way to do that is to go to John 3:16. Salvation for Catholics is a process. Look at your NAB & see what John 3:16 says. NOW compare it to a non-catholic bible. SO…Douay Rheims …
Yes, THAT bible is an ENGLISH translation of a bible that came out in the 1300’s.
The 1611 KJV had ALL of the CATHOLIC books, and if you read the notice to readers, there’s a preface in there that basically states the reason why there’s catholic books in the KJV, and essentially it was because in that time, it was the CATHOLICS who could throw out scripture verbatum in a conversation, in latin OR the vulgar tongues (english, french, etc) THis made the protestants feel inferior & they began to hate the RCC even more, so they made THEIR bible, complete w. the catholic books, put them in an appendix in the bible called “APOCRYPHA” and they have those books there because they simply wanted to know the scripture in those books as well so they could argue with catholics. It was also a way of making a bold statement trying to shove the word apocrypha in the face of the RCC and any catholic who saw the KJV. THIS is why I believe that any protestant bible is propoganda. It’s all in the preface, dont take MY word for it. Page 5 through 46 is a preface that covers that & what it boils down to is the presentation of an arguement IN THE FORM OF SCRIPTURE. SO…later on, the NEXT KJV does NOT have the catholic OT books. THey had had it. SO, the way I see it, and this is MY perspective, is that if I can find the presumption in John 3:16 as early as 1611, which is the dawn of once saved, always saved, then I feel it is safe to say that starting in 1611, every protestant bible that’s published since is nothing more than the Word twisted into PROPOGANDA. NIV, KJV, ALL of them, propoganda. If they WEREN’T propoganda, then why the John 3:16 with the presumption of eternal life? They have cut out authorized books approved by the church & the council of Trent. They’re protestting more than just Church Doctrine, They’re protesting our interpretation, & by removing the Catholic books, they’re protesting Church Authority. SO, if I have an NIV in my hand, I am holding a piece of propoganda. Dont believe me? John 3:16. That’s where it starts.That’s my guage. Before I buy a bible, I look there first.

SO, all THAT out of the way, Check it out, I have narrowed it down to 4 bibles.3 really, but 4 just because. My everyday reading is either done w. my Douay-Rheims or my NAB. Mostly my NAB because the print is bolder & it’s bigger. DRV I have because it is the oldest English translation. I use that one to compare scripture, because it has not been tainted by the manipulation of language. The 1611 KJV I have to see how old some protestant arguements are. I also use it for the age of the language & for comparison w. DRV. Then an NIV for plain language use for protestant text. I would say at least a DRV & an NAB, & maybe the 1611 KJV. Have fun & enjoy that St. Jerome bug, once you catch it, it only picks up momentum.
 
Hi kgbdman and welcome to the forums. Catholic Answers has a great introduction to bible translations and some additional resources. May I suggest you start here:
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
and then come back with specific questions on the translations. I think this may answer most of your questions above.
 
<<OH, I love it, this is a ME question. I’m going to take a stab at it…I’m no expert, but I know a LOT, make sense? OK…HERE IS WHAT I’VE LEARNED: The Douay-Rheims version of the bible is the OLDEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the bible that predated the King James Version only by a couple years, but pre-dates it none the less.>>

Guess what?

You don’t even know that.

The Geneva, Bishop’s, Great, Coverdale, and Tyndale all pre-dated the Douay-Rheims.
 
Cluny said:
<<OH, I love it, this is a ME question. I’m going to take a stab at it…I’m no expert, but I know a LOT, make sense? OK…HERE IS WHAT I’VE LEARNED: The Douay-Rheims version of the bible is the OLDEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the bible that predated the King James Version only by a couple years, but pre-dates it none the less.>>

Guess what?

You don’t even know that.

The Geneva, Bishop’s, Great, Coverdale, and Tyndale all pre-dated the Douay-Rheims.
Click to expand...
Cluny - in the spirit of Christian love: O.K., so you know a little more than Jason about Bible history, but this came across as a nasty put down for an honest mistake. If it was not meant that way, you may want to read it again and see.
 
The Oldest English Bible:

www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ -

quote: The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380’s AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river.
What do Catholics make of the New International Version?
 
I believe I said the Douay Rheims came from a translation that came from the 1300’s, I should’ve said IN PRINT…but yeah, you get my point, you get the idea, whatever, no biggie. I cant know EVERYTHING, I HAVE heard of the wycliffe and I DO know why I cant own one as opposed to a DRV/Challoner version which is more affordable…

I’ve nothing to prove to anyone. No ego to bruise. People say ignorant things, and people say things out of ignorance. I completely forgot about the name of wycliffe, but knew there was one in the 1300’s, if ya go back & read my original post, I touched on it but missed at the same time. Maybe I said something out of ignorance. As long as I’m doing that & not saying ignorant things, I;m alright & I’ll sleep good tonight :coffeeread:
 
kgbdman said:
Hello,

I have been using my New American Bible since 1981, it was a gift from a dear friend prior to my shuffling off to U.S. Navy “boot-camp”. My friend was the religious education director of our local parish and a devout Catholic. My Bible carries both signatures of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimator, and I believe there is even some reference to it being a Catholic Bible in the front first or second page.

My question arises from a consistent debate about which version of the Bible is “correct”, “accurate” and/or “official”. There are many bibles that are accepted by the Catholic Church that I have seen, NAB, New Jerusalem, Dhouay-Rheims among others. What makes one version more accurate or acceptable to another? Also if I am in the market for a “new” bible which would be the most widely recognized “correct” version to purchase, and why? Should I buy a study bible as my main source or should it be only for reference and a supplement to an “official” bible?

Thanks in advance for any and all your help.
Click to expand...
If you’re a Catholic, it would probably be best to use a version that was prepared (translated, edited, etc.) under Catholic auspices (whether solely or in conjunction with other Christians).

They are all different versions/translations of the one Bible, so in that sense it’s a matter of personal preference. The NAB, RSV, NRSV, JB, NJB, Douay-Rheims are all acceptable.
 
Kamalayka said:
The Oldest English Bible:
What do Catholics make of the New International Version?
Click to expand...
On account that NIV does not contain the 7 books we have and it was not reviewed by Catholic scholars (it was compiled by Protestant ones) it is not something Catholics should use as their first bible. But it is a bible Catholics are allowed to read, if that is what you meant.
I think it is an easier read then the NAB and the RSV-CE but I would like to stick to my NAB 🙂
 
kgbdman said:
Hello,

I have been using my New American Bible since 1981, it was a gift from a dear friend prior to my shuffling off to U.S. Navy “boot-camp”. My friend was the religious education director of our local parish and a devout Catholic. My Bible carries both signatures of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimator, and I believe there is even some reference to it being a Catholic Bible in the front first or second page.

My question arises from a consistent debate about which version of the Bible is “correct”, “accurate” and/or “official”. There are many bibles that are accepted by the Catholic Church that I have seen, NAB, New Jerusalem, Dhouay-Rheims among others. What makes one version more accurate or acceptable to another? Also if I am in the market for a “new” bible which would be the most widely recognized “correct” version to purchase, and why? Should I buy a study bible as my main source or should it be only for reference and a supplement to an “official” bible?

Thanks in advance for any and all your help.
Click to expand...
From the three you mention the D-R (with the Haydock Commentary) is the best one and the Haydock commentary is excellent.
The NAB sadly is not a good translation and its notes as many in these forums will tell you range from simply incorrect to verging on the heretical.
 
TheDoctor said:
Hi kgbdman and welcome to the forums. Catholic Answers has a great introduction to bible translations and some additional resources. May I suggest you start here:
catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
and then come back with specific questions on the translations. I think this may answer most of your questions above.
Click to expand...
Great link, thanks! I like it especially because it agrees with me. 😃

As a woman, I have a freedom that many men do not feel they have (even though they really do have it)–the freedom to prefer NOT to have gender-inclusive language. I would like to know what Jesus actually said (as near as I could understand) not what some PC censor thinks He ought to have said. So I really love my RSV-CE.

I also like the use of archaic language in talking to God (e.g. in many of the Psalms) and I also like not having it elsewhere. But compare John 17:9-10 in NAB and RSV-CE

NAB: I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me, because they are yours, and everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine, and I have been glorified in them.

RSV-CE: I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

Personally I feel that the language of the second example is more beautiful and evokes God more easily for me. Obviously this is just a personal preference, not a doctrinal position, but I put it out there for what it’s worth.

Also, it is the basis for the study Bible that I love, even though that study Bible doesn’t fully exist yet. That is the Ignatius Study Bible which covers the NT (only) in thirteen different books. In some ways, they’re more like Bible studies than a study Bible, having questions and so forth, not just notes. The problem with them is that they are expensive when you buy all of them. A combined study Bible is due out (according to Amazon) next May, which would be a more affordable (and probably easier-to-carry!) option. OT books are in the works but AFAIK none have been released yet.

That said, I tried to talk my Dad into the RSV-CE but he wanted to stick with his Douay-Rheims version. 🙂 And there are a couple of passages that are translated oddly in the RSV-CE, mostly Marian and/or Messainic (OT) ones. Supposedly these are fixed in the RSV 2nd CE, but I haven’t seen one, so I don’t know.

Anyway, I agree with the people in the referenced link–the correct Bible is the one you will read. But I would definitely at least get one with all of the Catholic books in it. I personally really like Tobit and Sirach for example. And always remember with study Bibles, that the notes are all the words of men (OK, “men and women” if you’re PC 🙂 ), not the words of God. I had a NAB study Bible once, and some of the notes seemed pretty questionable, imprimatur or not.

Best of luck!

–Jen
 
So, I am a protestant, and am not very educated on the Bible translations apparently.
I’ve been told from protestants that the NASB is a pretty good translation because it is more literal in translation. I will probabaly get a Catholic Bible eventually, which versions include all of the books?
I would like one that isn’t in KJV-english-style if there is one. Actually, I think there is one in my Church’s youth room now that I think about it, haha.
If you have a good recomendation for a 17 year old protestant that needs his first Catholic Bible, that’d be great! 🙂
 
Christ_Imitator said:
So, I am a protestant, and am not very educated on the Bible translations apparently.
I’ve been told from protestants that the NASB is a pretty good translation because it is more literal in translation. I will probabaly get a Catholic Bible eventually, which versions include all of the books?
I would like one that isn’t in KJV-english-style if there is one. Actually, I think there is one in my Church’s youth room now that I think about it, haha.
If you have a good recomendation for a 17 year old protestant that needs his first Catholic Bible, that’d be great! 🙂
Click to expand...
NAB. New American Bible. The Douay Rheims is like the KJV for catholics, lol. NOW, the 1611 KJV has all the OT books, but it has all the tongue twisters that go along w. being a KJV, lol, nothing against it, it just takes longer to read for me, LOL
 
nothing against it, it just takes longer to read for me, LOL
Click to expand...
Exactly! 🙂 that’s how I feel. I thought that Catholics only read the KJV because the others are not written in the older english style.

Is there two versions of the KJV? Because I have a KJV Bible, but I don’t think it has the extra books that the Protestants took out. :confused:
 
Christ_Imitator said:
Exactly! 🙂 that’s how I feel. I thought that Catholics only read the KJV because the others are not written in the older english style.

Is there two versions of the KJV? Because I have a KJV Bible, but I don’t think it has the extra books that the Protestants took out. :confused:
Click to expand...
The Catholic Bible in the “KJV” or “Shakespearean” style English is the Douay-Rheims version. It is very similar to the KJV, but there are a few differences (besides the different books). For one thing, the books use the Greek names, rather than the Hebrew names. The Psalms are also numbered differently, and some of the translations are a little bit different. For example, you won’t find “let there be light” in the DRV - it’s “Be light made” instead.

Though, some KJV’s have the books the Catholics use - they just call it the “Apocrypha”, and lump it all together at the end.
 
The KJV was originally published with the disputed Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books.

Only in the USA do you find mutilated editions.
 
Alright. Thank you both for the information. This was a confusing thing for me, but, I think I understand now.

So, the New American Bible seems to be a good choice.
Also, I read that there’s one called the New Jerusalem Bible; would that be a good one?
(It sounded like it, because there are lots of footnotes/background information).
 
Thank you all for your suggestions and recommendations. I was hoping to obtain a version that was plentiful with notes and such, not necessary but might be nice.

I had a link to a website that was a Bible/Good News Concordance Library. An excellent site that linked many different bibles with reference materials like dictionaries, concordances, encyclopedias and other books. It was well put together and thorough. Though not assembled by a Catholic, many of the more common bible translations were included. I did especially like being able to see how a passage or phrase differed from one bible to another.

I’ll just have to open them up at the book stores and see which ones fit me best. Thanks again.
 
I own the GoodNews(includes the Apocrypha), CEV, and NCV translations. I don’t know how correct these are, but I find that they suit my needs enough for biblical study
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top