Which Bible or Bibles, do you use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am Pagan but when I need to read it I use Dhouay-Rhimes or New Jerusalem
 
In personal study,

Haydock Douay-Rheims, Chanlor Douay-Rheims (yes there’s a difference), RSV-CE (though usually as a part of study marterials as my only copy is digital only) and NAB.

I’ve used many many more in comparing scriptures here on the forums and otherwise including:

ASV, ESV, Darby, ISV, Many different KJV’s including 1611, Good News, Greek interliniar.
 
I have the Catholic Study Bible, which I enjoy very much. I have the New English, The Jerusalem (which I like very much), KJV, Revised Standard and I just picked up a Dartmouth Edition bible at a used book store. I still have have my NWT’s from my JW days for reference including their hard to find Interlinear.
 
I have over 100 Bibles and NTs in my collection in about 40 different English translations. The one I use most for study is the NKJV followed by the NIV and NASB.
I have a 1526 Tyndale NT in the orig spelling which is fun to read, also a 1560 Geneva and 1611 KJV-also in the orig spelling, plus a slew of modern versions/translations.
crazzeto said:
In personal study,

Haydock Douay-Rheims, Chanlor Douay-Rheims (yes there’s a difference), RSV-CE (though usually as a part of study marterials as my only copy is digital only) and NAB.
Click to expand...
I have a Catholic NAB and NJB (unabridged edition) but I hardly ever use them, generally I use them for the notes and to try to get the Catholic perspective on a passage I might be laboring over. I would like to get a D-R for my collection however I want the orig spelling 1582-1610 edition. There is a web site offering it for sale but it is expensive and the web site doesn’t inspire consumer confidance. Other than that I have not see it for sale (the orig, not the Challoner) . If once I get that I will look for the Challoner edition if I can find a good buy on one. I have not heard of the Haydock version, what is it?
 
I grew up on the KJV and the NIV. I still like the KJV for formal occasions’ public reading. I have an NKJV and and NASB on the shelf, but I use the ESV with deuterocanonicals that Triune mentioned for my daily reading. 😃
 
Jon_Hus said:
I have a Catholic NAB and NJB (unabridged edition) but I hardly ever use them, generally I use them for the notes and to try to get the Catholic perspective on a passage I might be laboring over. I would like to get a D-R for my collection however I want the orig spelling 1582-1610 edition. There is a web site offering it for sale but it is expensive and the web site doesn’t inspire consumer confidance. Other than that I have not see it for sale (the orig, not the Challoner) . If once I get that I will look for the Challoner edition if I can find a good buy on one. I have not heard of the Haydock version, what is it?
Click to expand...
Honestly I haven’t even tried to find an original, frankly the Challoner & Haydock are expensive enough for this very economically commited fellow. I understand the sentance structure of the pre-Challoner D-R is very awkward, but that technically speaking it is by far the most accurate english bible money can buy. No theological slants at all, just a strict and true translation directly from the Vulgate, which is thought by many scholars to quite possibly be more accurate than existant Greek and Hebrew texts as the Vulgate was more carefully and lovingly perserved than any other version of the biblical text.

Challoner switchs up the wording, makes it a little more KJV like but from what I read manages to retain accuracy, though I would venture to say it’s not quite as literal. The Haydock is still a little less literal, but honestly it improves upon readability greatly. Plus the notes are excellent bar none, Haydock really shines the early christians in his notes… If you want to know how the early Christians felt about biblical passages, those closest to Christ, get the Haydock bible and read the notes.
 
I actually use multiple translations of the Bible. The New American Bible, and the NRSV are my most used in English. I also like the Traducción argentina (its a Spanish translation).
The New American Bible I use because its worded very similarly (if not absolutely exact) to the Scripture readings. I use the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) for typically recreational read because of its fluidity. I use the Traducción argentina because of my love of the Argentine dialect of Spanish (as well as el castellano, the dialect of Madrid, but that is purely an aesthetic attraction), and because I know the Argentine dialect the best, since my instructor is from Patagonia in south-western Argentina. I typically try to read the Spanish translation and one of the English translations together, analyzing their differences and possible shades of meaning as Spanish is far closer to the Latin of the Vulgate (and by extension, the New Testament Greek) than is English.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Oh, since we were mentioning the deuterocanonicals…If you ever want to check out the Lutheran Study Bible ESV translation, it’s good. They are releasing a companion for it next year of the Deuterocanonicals with Lutheran commentary. And geeks like me say WOOT. It’s about fricken time.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. Do you mind if I ask about how the deuteros are viewed among Lutherans? Are they read in Church? Do Lutherans generally seek them out and study them? Pardon my stupid question, but I am really not versed in Lutheran worship.

And to comment on the topic I will say that I read the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible, and the Confraternity Version (the one without the Bea Psalter). I really love the Confraternity, and for daily reading I think it is probably my favourite version. It manages to be contemporary and easier to read without feeling like an overly modern translation. It also uses the Douay forms of the names, Elias instead of Elijah, and so on, and the Psalms are numbered in the old way. It may seem trivial but I just can’t get used to the hebraic spellings and the 50th Psalm being the 51st. It is a big reason why the RSV-CE hasn’t taken off for me. I also chose not to try out the Orthodox Study Bible as I had been told that, even though it claims to be based on the LXX, it doesn’t use the names from that version. I just didn’t like the sound of that, and decided to let it pass.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Which Bible or Bibles, do you use? And, how did you decide, which Bible it was that you were going to use?
Click to expand...
the Douay rheims brother. i wanted something that used the kings english and was translated by Catholics. peace:)
 
cothrige said:
This is interesting. Do you mind if I ask about how the deuteros are viewed among Lutherans? Are they read in Church? Do Lutherans generally seek them out and study them? Pardon my stupid question, but I am really not versed in Lutheran worship.
Click to expand...
The general consensus is that they are uninspired texts. They are useful for study and incorporation into liturgy and hymnody. Several popular Lutheran hymns use the deuteros as a basis for the verses (most notably Now Thank We All Our God). Unlike most other Protestant churches, however, our confessions of faith in the Book of Concord do not list a canon of Scripture. They draw no doctrine contained in the deuteros, but do not forbid individual Lutherans from deeming them to be inspired, if, for whatever historical and theological reasons, he or she wishes to do so.

All of the editions of the Luther Bible contained the deuterocanonicals, which means, all Lutherans had them in their Bibles up until we began using the English translations of Scripture sometime in the early 20th century.

EDIT: I would also add that even those who do not consider them inspired, such as myself, should take a great helping of caution in cavalierly dismissing them. Many great men of God throughout church history have considered them to be God’s word. In and of itself, therefore, we should not let our opinions of them mock the consciences of those who reverence them, as mistaken as it may be for them to do so.
 
For CATHOLICS -

It seems like some folks have unlimted funds to purchase all types of Bibles. The majority who are getting or giving Bibles as gifts can not afford those kind of dollars)

As I stated before, due to significant differences between Catholic and most non-Catholic Bibles such as not including Maccabees 1 & 2 in the Old Testament and some footnotes that do not agree with Catholic teaching,
those who are Catholic should:
  1. get a Catholic Bible - to insure that the Bible is in accord with Catholic teachings, there will be an Nihil Obstat, ir Imprimatur on the copyright page;
  2. determine if you want large print;
  3. read the description of each Bible, and shop price on the internet.
    Two good sources for Catholic Bibles is Ignatious Press Catalogue, and EWTN Catalogue. (There are other sources.)
 
My two favorites are the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-CE. I keep both on my desk for daily reading, and study. I prefer the old english style, and layout of the DR, but admit, for daily reading, I find the RSV-CE a bit easier. Primarily due to the paragraph layouts and such.

I also find it handy, when reading through, to reference one or the other to get a different feel for a particular chapter or verse. Most days, I read something from the OT as well as the NT, and rotate between the versions.

As a side note, and no, I don’t work for St. Benedict Press, but their newest versions of either translation are a true joy to read from! I picked up an ultra soft version of the DR, black, and a genuine leather version of the RSV-CE, also in black, a while back, and I think they are perhaps the nicest Catholic Bibles I have seen to date!
 
TriuneUnity said:
Unlike most other Protestant churches, however, our confessions of faith in the Book of Concord do not list a canon of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea.
All of the editions of the Luther Bible contained the deuterocanonicals, which means, all Lutherans had them in their Bibles up until we began using the English translations of Scripture sometime in the early 20th century.
Click to expand...
I also did not know this. This is very interesting stuff.
EDIT: I would also add that even those who do not consider them inspired, such as myself, should take a great helping of caution in cavalierly dismissing them. Many great men of God throughout church history have considered them to be God’s word. In and of itself, therefore, we should not let our opinions of them mock the consciences of those who reverence them, as mistaken as it may be for them to do so.
Click to expand...
I like your perspective. Even if one is inclined to doubt about something like this I do think it is wise to show caution in how we express our doubts in order to avoid disparaging or appearing to disparage the memory of any of God’s saints.

Thank you very much for enlightening me on this, and sharing your opinion about it. I do not personally know any Lutherans and so I am terribly ignorant about your Church. You have very kindly allowed me to be less ignorant, and I do thank you for it.
 
I personally love the KIV. It is my favorite. Also love the Thompson
chain NIV> It is a wonderful study Bible.
 
I use the ESV version although the sentence structure frustrates me sometimes. I own a plain ESV bible and CPH’s new Lutheran Study Bible, which uses the ESV translation.
 
cothrige said:
I like your perspective. Even if one is inclined to doubt about something like this I do think it is wise to show caution in how we express our doubts in order to avoid disparaging or appearing to disparage the memory of any of God’s saints.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. Even aside from the saints of the past, there are, albeit few, Lutheran scholars today who accept the deuterocanonicals if, not as inspired, at least as being very holy human writings. It would be unfair to them, as well as obviously to Catholics, to bind their consciences toward rejecting the DC books, when our Confessions don’t explicitly reject them as Scripture.

Generally speaking, on a doctrinal level, we consider 13 of the NT books as undisputed; the four Gospels, Acts, the 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John. We categorize these as homologoumena and draw doctrine primarily from them. The other seven NT books we categorize as antilegomena (meaning disputed); Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Although considered inspired, because these were disputed for a long time in the church, we do not draw doctrine primarily from them, but use them to confirm doctrine taught in the 22 undisputed books. The DC books then, are generally not considered inspired, so we do not draw nor confirm doctrine from them, but use them for instructive purposes only.

Speaking of hymnody, the “Now Thank We All Our God” hymn is based on Luther’s translation of Sirach 50:22-24. Also, “All You Works of the Lord” is the Song of the Three Young Men (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) who were thrown into the fiery furnace and kept safe by the pre-incarnate Christ. However, that song is not in the Hebrew text of Daniel, and so is not known to most Christians, since their English translations are taken from the Hebrew.

If you are familiar with the Christmas hymn It Came Upon a Midnight Clear is based on Wisdom 18:14-15.
Thank you very much for enlightening me on this, and sharing your opinion about it. I do not personally know any Lutherans and so I am terribly ignorant about your Church. You have very kindly allowed me to be less ignorant, and I do thank you for it.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome!

We do tend to be a lot more closed off than other Protestant traditions, especially in light of the fact that in America, like Catholicism, Lutheranism is an immigrant faith. The early Lutherans who migrated from Germany were at odds with the dominant religion of America, which was Calvinistic and so to avoid their doctrines from influencing the Lutheran churches, we kept pretty segregated from mainstream American Protestantism (which is why Lutheran schools are second in number only to Catholic schools; because in early America, Reformed Protestantism was taught in the public schools). It definitely had the advantage of avoiding mixing truth with error in our churches, but has the disadvantage that we are less well-represented in the religious marketplace.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Oh, since we were mentioning the deuterocanonicals…If you ever want to check out the Lutheran Study Bible ESV translation, it’s good. They are releasing a companion for it next year of the Deuterocanonicals with Lutheran commentary. And geeks like me say WOOT. It’s about fricken time.
Click to expand...
Cool,thanks for the information. I do not own an ESV translation,but I hear good reviews.

I’ll check out Amazon.com 👍
 
NAB (Catholic Study Bible) and RSV (Oxford Annotated) but I recently got a New Jerusalem Bible and like it. I find the footnotes helpful though a lot of people seem not to.
 
I grew up with the Douay-Rheims Confraternity (which I believe is based upon the ‘Bishop Challoner’ version Crazzeto mentions). I had two copies of DR until last year but hardly ever actually referred to them. Most of my Bibles were boxed up or sold when I left the States.

My favorites were the Jerusalem Bible and the English Standard Version Bible for reading, but I switched off a lot with the RSV-CE, the NAB and others. In fact I was never very consistent :o .

I purchased the Orthodox Study Bible for study purposes, and it is the only one I took to China (because of the weight of books). The OSB translation is based upon the Alfred Rahlfs Greek Septuagint and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. It actually uses the NKJV for the basic English translation whenever the Masoretic based text agrees with the Septuagint and is corrected where necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top