Which Bible is Correct

  • Thread starter Thread starter kgbdman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeiGratia said:
I posted something on another thread about Bible Study tools, but that got me thinking.

What Bible Commentaries, etc., do folks find useful. Would you recommend any, or caution against any?
Click to expand...
I really like the Ignatius Bible Study series. The Navarre one is very good too but I didn’t personally find it as helpful.

If you are Catholic, I would recommend against most if not all Protestant study aids, as they make what we as Catholics consider to be false assumptions, and take them so much for granted that they can enter your head unnoticed unless you are careful.

–Jen
 
:angel1:
Although I have different versions of Holy Bible, still I love my Holy Bible NRSV
Catholic Edition the most!
:gopray:
 
I can give a number of translations, to show where they might differ slightly. The abbreviation of each Bible will be used to identify it. The parentheses contain whether the translation is Protestant (P) or Catholic (C). The date the translation was made appears along side. I personally use the RSV-CE

ASV American Standard Version (P.1901)
DR Douay ¬Rhiems (C. 1899)
JB Jerusalem Bible (C. 1966)
KJV King James Bible (P.1611/1769)
KNX Knox Bible (C. 1943)
LB Living Bible paraphrased (P.1971)
NAB New American Bible (C. 1987)
NAS New American Standard Bible (P.1971)
NEB New English Bible (P.1976)
NIV New International Version (P.1984)
NJB New Jerusalem Bible (C. 1987)
NLT New Living Translation (P.1997) NRS New Revised Standard Bible (P.1986)
RSV Revised Standard Version (P.1946) TEV Today’s English Version(P.1966)

RSV: 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

Latin Vulgate:11 hii autem erant nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae qui susceperunt verbum cum omni aviditate cotidie scrutantes scripturas si aec ita se haberent. 12 et multi quidem crediderunt ex eis et gentilium mulierum honestarum et viri non pauci

**More Literal translations: **

DR:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. 12 And many indeed of them believed: and of honorable women that were Gentiles and of men, not a few.

KJV:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

ASV:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed; also of the Greek women of honorable estate, and of men, not a few.

NAS:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

**Moderate translations: **
NRS:11 These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, including not a few Greek women and men of high standing.

NAB:11 These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. 12 Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.

NIV:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

NJB:11 Here the Jews were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true. 12 Many of them became believers, and so did many Greek women of high standing and a number of the men.

**Less moderate: **

NLT:11 And the people of Berea were more open minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth. 12 As a result, many Jews believed, as did some of the prominent Greek women and many men
.
NEB: The Jews here were more civil than those at Thessalonica; they received the message with great eagerness, studying the scriptures every day to see whether it was as they said. Many of them therefore became believers, and so did a fair number of Gentiles, women of standing as well as men.

JB: Here the Jews were more open minded than those in Thessolonika, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true. 12 Many Jews became believers, and so did many Greek women from the upper classes and a number of the men.

**Translations tending toward paraphrase: **
TEV: The people there were more open minded than the people in Thessalonica. They listened to the message with great eagerness, and everyday they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was really true. 12 Many of them believed and many Greek women of high social standing and many Greek men also believed.

KNX: These were of a better breed than the Thessalonians; they welcomed the word with all eagerness, and examined the scriptures, day after day, to find out whether all this was true; so that many of them learned to believe, as certain Greek women of fashion did, and not a few of the men as well.

**Paraphrase: **

LB: But the people of Beroea were more open minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the Scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas’ statements to see if they were really so. As a result, many of them believed, including several prominent Greek women and many men also.
 
I recommend the Revised Standard Version (RSV), 2nd Catholic Edition as well. If you’re looking for a bible with commentary, get the Navarre or Ignatius Study Bible. They’re both RSV and very good resources.
 
I believe that one should have all the versions of the Bible they can get. For one thing, it will give you a better understanding of what that prospective of the Bible is on, comparing to other translations. It is through understanding, we receive a deeper belief of what we read and understand. Look at different dictionary’s, you will see the same meanings with different translations of the word or missing words altogether. If you want to study the Bible, I believe you should have all information that is available for you to get your best understanding. God blesses us for wanting to understand him in greater depth.

Peace of the Lord be upon us all.
 
Allow me clear this up for anyone in doubt, especially the thread starter. As Catholics one should only have many different versions of the Bible for purposes of Evangelization and to show the errors in the less than scholarly translations, let us attend!
The word Canon means “measuring rod” When one is talking of the Canon of the bible we mean the authoritative list of INSPIRED books that make it up. Come on folks, the Bible didn’t fall pre-printed from heaven, where did it come form? How do we know we can trust everything in it? Many non-Catholics claim Sola Scriptura, or that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith. Sadly, “Bible-only” Christians have NO WAY of answering the question “How do we know what belongs in the Bible?” Because those who put it together were part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nowhere in the Bible Gen or Ex or Gen-Rev does it say what belongs in the Bible. If we rely on the Bible as the sole rule of Faith and authority in all religious matters, and the Bible nowhere tells us what belongs in it, then the Bible alone doctrine has just been refuted, that’s logical fallacies 101 folks, can I get an A-Men!! my Catholic brethren and Sisten?
Now in Christs day and age the OT hand not been determined yet! Different groups of Palestine used different canons of scripture. The Sadducees held the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible (Gen-Deut) were Scripture. The Samaritans the same with their own versions. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition about the same as modern Protestantism though the exact lines were not set until well after Christ. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls considered a few more books Scriptural. Finally you have the Jews who honor the Septuagint translation of the OT.
 
Cont… This Greek translation originated between250-125 BC, and is known as the “Septuagint” for the Latin word 70 which was the number of translators who compiled its Pentateuch according to Tradition. The question becomes which canon did Jesus and his followers and Apostles use? Hebrew was a dead language Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic. Greek was common tongue. Not surprisingly the NT writers used the Greek Septuagint. The VAST majority of OT quotes found in NT are from Septuagint. Prot authors Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno list 340 places where the NT cites Septuagint and only 33 places where it cites the Hebrew Canon. ::::Citation::: Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A complete Survey (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983,) xxv-xxxii.
OVER 90% of the time the NT writers quote Septuagint. Sometimes it is mentioned that in the late 1st century a group of Jewish sages(Jan brought this up in our pms) met in a council in Jamni(Yavneh) and established the canon of Jewish Scripture. Excluding the process the seven Deuty books anf NT books. BUT!! Keep in mind the sages who met at Jamnia did not form a “council” because that by definition is a group that meets and disbands like a Vatican council. These sages formed a more stable institution which is characterized as a Sanhedrin or Rabbinical school. Furthermore the sages barely dealt with the question of canon of Scripture. ::::Citation::: Gedaliah Alon, The Jews In Their Land In The Talmudic Age (Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press 1996), 272-276.

The Christian Universal Church continued to use Septuagint. I quote the evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce “So thoroughly, indeed, did Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the Scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it.” :::Citation:: The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 50

Now we get to Luther, in 1529 he roposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism of 39 books as OT canon. Luther justified his decision to rid these books by the concerns of St. Jerome. In his prologue to “the three books of Solomon” (Proverbs , Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs), St. Jerome offered the OPINION: “Therefore as the Church indeed reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them amonf canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes [Sirach and Wisdom] for the edification of the people but not for the eablishing authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” But UNLIKE Luther St. Jerome HUMBLY submitted his private judgment to the authority of the Church, and included the books in the Vulgate. If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow the Apostles and the other NT writers and the early Churh. If your Bible omits the seven books you follow the non-Christian rabbis and Martin Luther–a man whose view of Sacred Scripture allowed him to deliberately add the word “alone” ti his German translation of Romans 3:28 and attempt to throw out more books including Esther, Revelation!!!, and JAMES!!!, which he called “an epistle of straw”. ::::Citation::::
Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith (Rockford, IL: TAN Books 1990), 137

I said can I get an A-MEN Catholic Brothas and Sistas!!! Moral of the story use the Septuagint Bible end OF STORY it is the most accurate.
 
AMEN

God set us on the path he wants us to follow, go in the peace of God.
 
I too am confused, but on perhaps a more specific level. That is, i ran across the link below that shows the following books that they claim are part of the Apocrypha.

quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

Apocrypha
Code: 
* 1 Esdras
* 2 Esdras
* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to the Book of Esther
* Wisdom of Solomon
* Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
* Baruch
* Letter of Jeremiah
* Prayer of Azariah
* Susanna
* Bel and the Dragon
* Prayer of Manasseh
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* 3 Maccabees
* 4 Maccabees
* Psalm 151
Only the DR has the other chapters of Esther, but not sure what else this version contains besides the “standard” 7 additional Catholic books. The NAB and RSV-CE only cont the “standard” 7 Catholic books. If the NAB is the “Official” church bible, can I assume that these other books/chapters do not have enough support to include?
I have only returned to the Catholic church about a year ago and am trying to understand our faith better. I am sure this topic has been covered many times, but not sure where this info is located.

thanks
Dave
 
The NAB is OK but I would hardly call it the “official Church Bible”. Also as a Catholic, refrain from using the word “Apocrypha”, this was a term invented by Protestants. In a Catholic circle, we refer to the “7 books” you mention as the DeuteroCanonicals, and they are not additional. I think I explained in my earlier posts if you read. The Catholic Church did NOT ADD those seven books at that council, they merely dogmatically re-affirmed them as Scripture. So these “7 books” are not in any way “additional”. Many people fail to realize the errors of Luther. He wanted to throw out NT books as well for crying out loud.
 
NRSV, Douay-Rheims Challoner, King James with Apocrypha.

THose are my top 3.
 
Leo_The_Great said:
NRSV, Douay-Rheims Challoner, King James with Apocrypha.

THose are my top 3.
Click to expand...
UGH It’s NOT called the Apocrypha GEEZ, guys where are your CCD teachers at!!
xD Say it with me now…“Deuterocanonicals!”…>.>…<.< …Thank you…
Aaaand I would be skeptical at all of using a KJV for any kind of devotional purpose as things in it were changed from their original meanings, there are just better versions, the first one you mentioned is solid though.
 
Jason_1977 said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
If it’s a King James Bible it is correct to call it Apocrypha, as it will be labeled as such. I don’t see why it is such a dirty word. Certainly, it really doesn’t refer to the deuteros but it has been so commonly used for them today I don’t think it should be considered horrible to use it… The KJV is not a Catholic translation and it is rather lacking as far as translation goes, since it is based on quite late manuscripts. In all honesty, the same goes for DR. That was the best they had in that time, but they are both unparalleled in beauty.
If you’re looking for something for study, by all means, use your NAB. For devotional reading, you’re probably safer with DR but I don’t think KJV has any errors serious enough to send you astray. As far as the NAB being the Church’s official Bible, it is endorsed by the USCCB and for all intents and purposes, it is the Catholic Bible in the USA for the time being.
 
GeorgeSword said:
If it’s a King James Bible it is correct to call it Apocrypha, as it will be labeled as such. I don’t see why it is such a dirty word. Certainly, it really doesn’t refer to the deuteros but it has been so commonly used for them today I don’t think it should be considered horrible to use it… The KJV is not a Catholic translation and it is rather lacking as far as translation goes, since it is based on quite late manuscripts. In all honesty, the same goes for DR. That was the best they had in that time, but they are both unparalleled in beauty.
If you’re looking for something for study, by all means, use your NAB. For devotional reading, you’re probably safer with DR but I don’t think KJV has any errors serious enough to send you astray. As far as the NAB being the Church’s official Bible, it is endorsed by the USCCB and for all intents and purposes, it is the Catholic Bible in the USA for the time being.
Click to expand...
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.
 
truevaticanii said:
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.
Click to expand...
Apocrypha means ‘the Hidden Books’. I don’t see how this means that they are not inspired. Deuterocanonical sounds just as bad, though, if we are saying they are not part of the canon. The very thing we argue is that they are, and how ironic it is that we use a word that says they are not.
 
Thanks for the info and correction. CCD was a long time ago! I will make sure that i use “DeuteroCanonicals” in future discussions on this topic.

However, i am still wondering about the other books/chapters that are not part of the “7”, but listed by some as part of the DeuteroCanonicals.

Were they included in the Septuagint? If not then the Church does not look at them as canonical?

thanks again. must go for tonight.

Dave
 
Thank you true, for clarifying. My point was that as a Catholic one should AVOID using the term “Apocrypha”. And as far as the DR is concerned, it has been revised throughout ages as needed, but IS the most accurate translation. KJV comes from rebellious people, and had changes made to it not authorized by Christs Church, or that were part of scholarly necessity. For these reasons it should be avoided for devotional purposes, but used for cases of Evangelization. Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. If one studies the data you can find numerous errors in over 70 instances, if requested I will cite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top