Which Bible or Bibles, do you use?

[Jonny_Pollock]

I love the Douay-Rheims. I don’t think that it is as accurate to the Greek texts that we possess. It has a few notable flaws, like its mistranslation of the Greek metanoia as penance, instead of repentance. It’s better than the KJV, though, in a lot of ways. However, it benefits from not sticking the Deuterocanonicals in the back, like most Protestant Bibles that have them do. The English is also more beautiful than the KJV.

TU:

FYI: the term “penance” is a Catholic term for repentance. There is an interior penance where the soul is sorry for sin, and turns to God. Exterior penance is the next step where one actually ceases sinning, and begins to serve God. The most obvious ways are prayer, fasting, and obeying the commandments. You can’t have one part without the other and pass into the gates of heaven, as our Lord tells us in Matt. 7:21 “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” When the term “penance” is used in the DR, it can arguably present the reader with a clearer understanding of what John the Baptist was preaching (if you are familiar with Catholic doctrine.) You may have confused this word for its other use as the name of one of the Sacraments, where the Church uses this word to help explain the nature of the Sacrament.

As far as the Critical Editions of the Greek, I have also noticed that they vastly agree with the DR/Clementine Vulgate, especially when compared with the KJV. I do trust the Vulgate over the Greek. Modern scholors endeavor to interpret ancient Greek based on archeological discoveries and their own human reasoning. The Vulgate better preserves the original understanding and purity of the texts better because it is based on original Latin translations made by original Christians. Jerome then in the early 4th century, himself familiar with the languages, used these Latin texts, in conjunction with ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts no longer in existence, to create the official Church sanctioned master copy of both testiments in Latin.

If you like reading the DR but struggle with understanding it, reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church (probably available at your local library.)

As for the modern english and critical text versions, this type of Scripture study and translation has long been approved by the Catholic Church. In these, Catholic terms like “penance” are often switched to emulate the English words commonly known to non-Catholics, although retaining the same meaning. I think this is to prove that what we as Catholics know as the genuine, apostolic understanding of the scripture does not hinge upon a Bible translation, but is even supported the Protestant versions. And if you understand that, you might know more about it than many Catholics that whine about them being different.

Peace in Christ,

Jonny Pollock

 

[revert_jen]

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!

Sorry, not to derail the thread, but does the St. Benedict version have a lot of pronunciation marks in it?

My main Bible is the RSV-CE, and I love it. The only thing is, I have one published by Scepter, and it has a really distracting and unneeded amount of pronunciation marks. For one thing, it includes them for the first time a word is used in a verse (not a paragraph or chapter or anything) and for another, they think I need help with a lot more pronunciation than I do. As an example, Ex. 2:15-22 is typeset as a paragraph. In that paragraph, it has pronunciation marks for Midian twice, Reuel once, Zipporah once, and Gershom once. Personally, the only one I find helpful is the one for Reuel. How many different ways could you pronounce Gershom?

I have a travel version published by Oxford, and it is better, just indicating the accented syllables. Also they agree with me that no marks are needed for Gershom.

As an example, in the Scepter one, this is how Midian appears every time: Mĭd’ĭ∙ạn
Whereas in the Oxford it is just: Mid’ian

However, I don’t know whether the difference is because it is published by Oxford or because it is travel-size.

It’s not such a big deal in the NT, but there are places in the OT that are almost unreadable because there are so many pronunciation marks. So I was wondering whether the St. Benedict one is different, or if anyone else has a full-sized (don’t need large print yet) version of the RSV-CE that has less in the way of pronunciation marks.

The RSV-CE is my favorite because it is along the more literal end of translations, I dislike retrofitting the Bible (or in fact anything else, especially hymns and Christmas carols) with gender-neutral language, and I like the archaic language sometimes, especially in the psalms, but not everywhere. In the RSV-CE, I believe it is only used when someone (psalmist, Jesus, etc.) is addressing God (in the NT, addressing God the Father). Also, I have the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT on pre-order, really looking forward to getting it, and it is based on RSV-CE as well. I have a few pieces of it already, but I coudn’t afford them all until now, when they are all coming out in one volume.

I also have an NIV Study Bible and a Comparative Bible (NIV, NASB, Amplified, and KJV, no deutero-canonicals) from my Protestant days, which I don’t use that often anymore, but I still look at every now and again.

just my :twocents:

–Jen

 

[DeusVult09]

I personally use an interlinear parallel Greek/ English New testament which also has NRSV and NIV along each side to aid in translation. It rules![BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Publisher]

I personally use an interlinear parallel Greek/ English New testament which also has NRSV and NIV along each side to aid in translation. It rules![BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I use the NIV Greek Interlinear & Lexicon…it’s easy to follow. I bought it in college over thirty years ago…and never liked any others better than this one.

 

[DeusVult09]

I use the NIV Greek Interlinear & Lexicon…it’s easy to follow. I bought it in college over thirty years ago…and never liked any others better than this one.

I have never heard of an interlinear bible and lexicon in one I use an analytical lexicon by mounce. interlinear bibles are handy for translation and easy to follow i especially like having 2 translations either side of the word for word translation.

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

Sorry, not to derail the thread, but does the St. Benedict version have a lot of pronunciation marks in it?

My main Bible is the RSV-CE, and I love it. The only thing is, I have one published by Scepter, and it has a really distracting and unneeded amount of pronunciation marks. For one thing, it includes them for the first time a word is used in a verse (not a paragraph or chapter or anything) and for another, they think I need help with a lot more pronunciation than I do. As an example, Ex. 2:15-22 is typeset as a paragraph. In that paragraph, it has pronunciation marks for Midian twice, Reuel once, Zipporah once, and Gershom once. Personally, the only one I find helpful is the one for Reuel. How many different ways could you pronounce Gershom?

I have a travel version published by Oxford, and it is better, just indicating the accented syllables. Also they agree with me that no marks are needed for Gershom.

As an example, in the Scepter one, this is how Midian appears every time: Mĭd’ĭ∙ạn
Whereas in the Oxford it is just: Mid’ian

However, I don’t know whether the difference is because it is published by Oxford or because it is travel-size.

It’s not such a big deal in the NT, but there are places in the OT that are almost unreadable because there are so many pronunciation marks. So I was wondering whether the St. Benedict one is different, or if anyone else has a full-sized (don’t need large print yet) version of the RSV-CE that has less in the way of pronunciation marks.

The RSV-CE is my favorite because it is along the more literal end of translations, I dislike retrofitting the Bible (or in fact anything else, especially hymns and Christmas carols) with gender-neutral language, and I like the archaic language sometimes, especially in the psalms, but not everywhere. In the RSV-CE, I believe it is only used when someone (psalmist, Jesus, etc.) is addressing God (in the NT, addressing God the Father). Also, I have the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT on pre-order, really looking forward to getting it, and it is based on RSV-CE as well. I have a few pieces of it already, but I coudn’t afford them all until now, when they are all coming out in one volume.

I also have an NIV Study Bible and a Comparative Bible (NIV, NASB, Amplified, and KJV, no deutero-canonicals) from my Protestant days, which I don’t use that often anymore, but I still look at every now and again.

just my :twocents:

–Jen

Hey Jen:

The St. Benedict RSV-CE has the accent marks but no phonetical marks. The only thing that is wanting in this one is cross-references of which it has none, like the Oxford Edition (which is the same thing as the Ignatius Readers edition.)

Have you considered the Ignatius RSV-CE2? That one only has the accent marks and a lot of cross-references. This one updates a lot of the archaic language (not just the Thees and Thous), and changes a some of the words to try and make it more appealing. For instance the Our Father is conformed to the liturgal phrasing (“our tresspasses,” with the old English only in this one place that I know of,) and the famous “only begotten son” is reinserted in John 3:16 (as it soon will be in the liturgical creed.) There are many minor changes but it still reads along well with the original. One thing I do find strange about it is that it is published without an Imprimatur.

Last thing: you are right, the old pronouns and verb forms are used in the RSV in context of prayer to God in Heaven only.

Peace in Christ,

Jonny Pollock

 

[bauerice]

I have a shelf full of Bibles. But, I only grab a couple regularly. Being RC, I have the RSV-2CE and NAB. Yet, the ones I grab regularly are…the NLT(Catholic reference edition) no longer in print. It’s a shame! It’s the NLT (not the Living Bible paraphrase) with all the books. I like it because it doesn’t have the books in the back listed as apocrypha, but in the OT like a Catholic Bible. I recently have been reading the God’s Word translation. The third I grab is the RSV-2CE.

 

[CalCatholic]

The translation I use the most is the RSV-2CE (Second Catholic Edition). I am looking forward to Ignatius Press releasing the new ‘Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - New Testament’ next month. It will use Catholic theological based notes instead of historical - critical based notes (which there is already too many study bibles out there with). If I need a historical - critical based study bible, I go with my Catholic Study Bible (NAB).

 

[revert_jen]

The St. Benedict RSV-CE has the accent marks but no phonetical marks. The only thing that is wanting in this one is cross-references of which it has none, like the Oxford Edition (which is the same thing as the Ignatius Readers edition.)

Thanks! That is just what I wanted to know. I can live with the accent marks.

Have you considered the Ignatius RSV-CE2? That one only has the accent marks and a lot of cross-references. This one updates a lot of the archaic language (not just the Thees and Thous),

Yeah, it is unfortunate about the cross references, but I like the archaic language the way it is, so I’ll probably mostly stick with what I have. I have thought about getting some other Catholic Bible (not NAB which I dislike, maybe D-R) and using the references from there. Because most of the time you don’t need them.

Thanks for the info!

–Jen

 

[MoreCoffee]

TriuneUnity, the ESV is a specifically “evangelical” protestant version of the bible, it is a revision of the RSV but it aims to revert to evangelical preferences in vocabulary - thus it replaces “expiation” with “propitiation” etcetera. Even though Oxford University Press has produced an ESV with deuterocanonicals it remains an essentially evangelical translation and it does not have an imprimatur from the Catholic Church so Catholics would do well to avoid it or to use it only with caution.

The RSV-CE would suit Catholics far better than the Oxford ESV+Deuterocanonicals.

Cheers

 

[Fralupo]

The Bible I use the most is the Christian Community Bible. Occasionally I’ll flip through an NKJV NT & Psalms that a preacher was passing around when I was in college.

 

[Jonny_Pollock]

Hey Jen:

The St. Benedict RSV-CE has the accent marks but no phonetical marks. The only thing that is wanting in this one is cross-references of which it has none, like the Oxford Edition (which is the same thing as the Ignatius Readers edition.)

Have you considered the Ignatius RSV-CE2? That one only has the accent marks and a lot of cross-references. This one updates a lot of the archaic language (not just the Thees and Thous), and changes a some of the words to try and make it more appealing. For instance the Our Father is conformed to the liturgal phrasing (“our tresspasses,” with the old English only in this one place that I know of,) and the famous “only begotten son” is reinserted in John 3:16 (as it soon will be in the liturgical creed.) There are many minor changes but it still reads along well with the original. One thing I do find strange about it is that it is published without an Imprimatur.

Last thing: you are right, the old pronouns and verb forms are used in the RSV in context of prayer to God in Heaven only.

Peace in Christ,

Jonny Pollock

I want to clarify the statement I made here about the Imprimatur. I just got a copy of the new Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament delivered to me yesterday hot off the press. Unlike the full Bible version that I have this one lists:

Original RSV Bible text:
Nihil obstat: Thomas Hanlon, S.T.L., L.S.S., Ph.L.
Imprimatur: +Peter W. Bertholome, D.D.
Bishop of St. Cloud, Minnesota May 11, 1966

Second Catholic Edition approved under the same imprimatur by the
Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices,
National Conference of Catholic Bishops February 29,2000

Second Catholic Edition approved by the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA

Here is a quick description of the new book for those who like the Scott Hahn/Curtis Mitch Study series: Ignatius Press really did a good job on this. The book is quite a bit larger than what I imagined it would be (10 1/4 x 7 1/4 x 1 3/4 HB) and the larger print is nice. The guts are exactly the same as the study guides except it omits the study questions. It has the addition of a huge 168 page Concise Concordance!!!, 16 page index of Catholic Doctrines w/ Scripture references, the study helps in text are indexed, and 7 color maps in the back.

Peace in Christ,

Jonny Pollock

 

[Jon_Hus]

… 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.
…

Easy to say, hard to prove.

 

[m8g8]

I read the Good News Bible. It was compulsory at school because the language is easier for younger pupils and people who’s English isn’t strong (it was a boarding school). Also, I’m dyslexic, so it’s easier to put things together .

After reading it though, I’ll probably find a Bible that has been translated more accurately.

 

[crazzeto]

Easy to say, hard to prove.

I’d certainly welcome whatever thoughts you have with regard to your research as to the preservation of all these documents over the many thousands of years. Here is a brief explanation with some comments from the original Douay translators on the subject:

drbo.org/preface.htm

One thing is for certain, Jerome was far less removed from biblical times than any of us, he was immursed in much of the culture which to a large extent still extisted at the time, and an actual native speaker Konic Greek and he knew Latin and Hebrew perfectly well.

Again, he was also many millenia closer to the original text, which we no longer have any form of access to what so ever.

None of these facts are hard to prove, thus really the only question up in the air is whether or not you believe the Catholic Church did as good (or better) a job of preserving the Vulgate (it’s official bible for many hundereds of years) as compared to the various sources (inc the CC) preserving the Greek/Hebrew source materials. Particularly through the so called “dark ages”.

 

[wmscott]

Which Bible or Bibles, do you use? And, how did you decide, which Bible it was that you were going to use?

I have the RSV-CE from St Benedict press. I like it because of the red letter Gospel passages when Christ is speaking, the illustrations, marker ribbon, soft plush leather cover, references in the back, and is easy to read (with my glasses on – lol)

 

[Jon_Hus]

I’d certainly welcome whatever thoughts you have with regard to your research as to the preservation of all these documents over the many thousands of years. Here is a brief explanation with some comments from the original Douay translators on the subject:
…

One thing is for certain, Jerome was far less removed from biblical times than any of us, he was immursed in much of the culture which to a large extent still extisted at the time, and an actual native speaker Konic Greek and he knew Latin and Hebrew perfectly well.

Again, he was also many millenia closer to the original text, which we no longer have any form of access to what so ever.

.

Ok for starters, the Vulgate , during it’s 1000 years from Jerome to the D/R was updated many times. Second, the Greek used in NT times was not the same as the Greek in Jeromes time, it had changed somewhat. Third, the Vulgate is itself a translation from Hebrew and Greek to Latin, that makes the D/R a translation of a translation. Fourth, the D/R itself has been updated several times in it’s 400 years. Fifth, the English Language has not stood still in the last 400 years. Sixth, there is a difference between UK English and North American English.

My thoughts, just for starters.

May I repeat myself? Easy to say, hard to prove.

 

[crazzeto]

Ok for starters, the Vulgate , during it’s 1000 years from Jerome to the D/R was updated many times. Second, the Greek used in NT times was not the same as the Greek in Jeromes time, it had changed somewhat. Third, the Vulgate is itself a translation from Hebrew and Greek to Latin, that makes the D/R a translation of a translation. Fourth, the D/R itself has been updated several times in it’s 400 years. Fifth, the English Language has not stood still in the last 400 years. Sixth, there is a difference between UK English and North American English.

My thoughts, just for starters.

May I repeat myself? Easy to say, hard to prove.

1. All versions of the DR bible have proven to be extrodenarly accurate to the Vulgate, the most literal to Jeromes vulgate is the original edition (which is hard to read), but all are way more literal than any other bible avalable
2. Jerome knew Konic greek very well, this is the Greek of the NT
3. He was immursed in the culture and times (the persecutions had only just ended at his time for goodness sakes!)
4. The DR is in fact a translation of a translation, however the argument being made is that the translation it is based upon is superior for many reasons than the original language texts we have. Remember, original language != what was originally written. For instance if you want I can transcribe Romeo and Juliett in english if you really want me to, but are you really expecting shakespear?
5. You’re right, common english hasn’t stood still for all these years. That said, we still have dictionaries which inform us as to the original meanings of Arcaic words and word uses (heck even my 6th graders nailed what “fear of the Lord” really means).
6. With regard to UK english and American english… All I can say is woooooooooooooow that was a silly argument, then again so was the point about changing words and word uses.

 

[AlegreFe]

Which Bible or Bibles, do you use? And, how did you decide, which Bible it was that you were going to use?

The Douay-Rheims baby!! Nothing but!!!

It is an accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate which is an accurate translation of the original documents. My protestant brother says that the ESV is so accurate to the original texts but he’s wrong! I compare it to the DR-V, and the ESV does not stand up to it. I really like the ESV online bible website! It’s excellent for searching the verse and/or verses you would like. But from there I then go the the DR-V website to get the most accurate translation of the original documents.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Here is what James “Jimmy” Akin has to say about the D/R
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=37952823&CFTOKEN=94613062

By the way, do you think you could read the 1588-1609 D/R?

1. All versions of the DR bible have proven to be extrodenarly accurate to the Vulgate, the most literal to Jeromes vulgate is the original edition (which is hard to read), but all are way more literal than any other bible avalable
2. Jerome knew Konic greek very well, this is the Greek of the NT
3. He was immursed in the culture and times (the persecutions had only just ended at his time for goodness sakes!)
4. The DR is in fact a translation of a translation, however the argument being made is that the translation it is based upon is superior for many reasons than the original language texts we have. Remember, original language != what was originally written. For instance if you want I can transcribe Romeo and Juliett in english if you really want me to, but are you really expecting shakespear?
5. You’re right, common english hasn’t stood still for all these years. That said, we still have dictionaries which inform us as to the original meanings of Arcaic words and word uses (heck even my 6th graders nailed what “fear of the Lord” really means).
6. With regard to UK english and American english… All I can say is woooooooooooooow that was a silly argument, then again so was the point about changing words and word uses.