Which Bible should I purchase/use?

[Jerry-Jet]

Then tell me why it is that in Pope Benedict’s encyclial on hope that he mentions that the Vulgate translation is more accurate than the newer ones.

Also tell me how Protestant choices on translation renderings that negate St. Paul giving absolution for sins is superior in 1st Corinthians 2:10.

Also tell me how the Protestant rendering for John 3:16 is superior.

Then tell me how the Exclusion in the Our Father of “Supersubstantial bread” is superior.

And then tell me why we should think Protestasnt biased renderings like these are doctrinaly superior when the Ecumenical Council of Trent stated that the Vulgate could be used in “All Disputations”.

Shouldn’t an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church hold more weight when a Catholic considers a translation of the bible than the renderings choices of Protestants who wrote the RSV and could care less about Catholic doctrine?

And please spare me the blather about “Original languages”–with any translation choice there are multiple ancient texts.

And what I’m saying is just because any group of Protestant chooses any particular choice of ancient texts that support their view of doctrine–that in no way means that their choices are superior.

Every word of Holy Scripture is important.

And though Catholic Doctrine is not built solely on Holy Scripture–Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the magisterium do come from Holy Scripture.

And just because Protestants or liberal Catholics don’t believe that the Vulgate does not err in terms of doctrine does not make it so!

Trent saying that the Vulgate does not err in matters of faith and doctrine does make it so!

Does that mean that the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata are perfect?

No!

But don’t tell me that just because anyone anywhere claims to go back to “Origianl languages” and then claims that their version of the scrioptures is superior–that simply isn’t the case!

Any Catholic who really believes that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ” is Doctrinaly wrong! And anyone who believes in the accuracy of the Vulgate on that matter of doctrine is correct by the Authority of Trent!

In fact–to advocate that Catholics use as Holy Scripture bibles that are doctrinally in error is also wrong!

Should there be advances in the translation of the Holy Scriptures? Absolutely!

I’ll tell you what–get a group of Catholic Scholars commissioned by the Holy See–have them go back to the best ancient texts that we have–weigh them against the witness of the Vulgate as prayed by the Catholic Church over the centuries in its liturgy–and THEN–

if there are improvements that can be made to the text of the bible–if those improvements are truely valid–and if the Holy See approves–THEN-- you would would have a better translation of the scriptures than the Vulgate!

But even then–even if the English translation was better from Latin, Hebrew, and Greek-the doctrinal differences with the Vulgate would still be non existent because as Trent says–the Vulgate is without error in terms of faith and doctrine!

Now of course there are many aspects to the bible and verses that do not have to do with doctrine.

They can be improved.

But please–the NAB, the New Jerusalem, and the RSV in any of their iterations are in error in doctrinal matters and the Vulgate is not.

That is a fact!

And that’s why I say that the Cnfraternity Version of the New Testament–because it is based on the Vulgate–“In light of the Greek” and because it is better stylistically when it comes to the English language–is better than any other New Testament out there.

Is it perfect? No! Does it have doctrinal error? No!

And that trumps ANY other bible no matter how good they may be on non doctrinal matters–anytime!

 

[RedSoxFan]

The Confraternity New Testament is being sold brand new today.

I challenge anybody who lauds the other translations mentioned in this thread to explain how they are superior to it.

I also challenge anyone who extols the RSV-CE and its translation choices to show how they are superior in Catholic Doctrine to the Vulgate.

I actually have about 4 old confraternity bibles from the early 60’s late 50’s era. I think that they were very underrated, with that being said I don’t think there is any real conflict with the Confraternity and the RSV-CE. They are both good and have strengths. One based more on the vulgate is awesome, because it is still based of St. Jerome’s Vulgate that used sources no longer in existence. The other based on the KJV and newer finds is good especially when talking to Protestants, many of whom wouldn’t even debate using a confraternity bible.

But if you want a good little feud on your hands over who has the better toy go ahead.

~RSF

 

[RedSoxFan]

Then tell me why it is that in Pope Benedict’s encyclial on hope that he mentions that the Vulgate translation is more accurate than the newer ones.

Also tell me how Protestant choices on translation renderings that negate St. Paul giving absolution for sins is superior in 1st Corinthians 2:10.

Also tell me how the Protestant rendering for John 3:16 is superior.

Then tell me how the Exclusion in the Our Father of “Supersubstantial bread” is superior.

And then tell me why we should think Protestasnt biased renderings like these are doctrinaly superior when the Ecumenical Council of Trent stated that the Vulgate could be used in “All Disputations”.

Shouldn’t an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church hold more weight when a Catholic considers a translation of the bible than the renderings choices of Protestants who wrote the RSV and could care less about Catholic doctrine?

And please spare me the blather about “Original languages”–with any translation choice there are multiple ancient texts.

And what I’m saying is just because any group of Protestant chooses any particular choice of ancient texts that support their view of doctrine–that in no way means that their choices are superior.

Every word of Holy Scripture is important.

And though Catholic Doctrine is not built solely on Holy Scripture–Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the magisterium do come from Holy Scripture.

And just because Protestants or liberal Catholics don’t believe that the Vulgate does not err in terms of doctrine does not make it so!

Trent saying that the Vulgate does not err in matters of faith and doctrine does make it so!

Does that mean that the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata are perfect?

No!

But don’t tell me that just because anyone anywhere claims to go back to “Origianl languages” and then claims that their version of the scrioptures is superior–that simply isn’t the case!

Any Catholic who really believes that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ” is Doctrinaly wrong! And anyone who believes in the accuracy of the Vulgate on that matter of doctrine is correct by the Authority of Trent!

In fact–to advocate that Catholics use as Holy Scripture bibles that are doctrinally in error is also wrong!

Should there be advances in the translation of the Holy Scriptures? Absolutely!

I’ll tell you what–get a group of Catholic Scholars commissioned by the Holy See–have them go back to the best ancient texts that we have–weigh them against the witness of the Vulgate as prayed by the Catholic Church over the centuries in its liturgy–and THEN–

if there are improvements that can be made to the text of the bible–if those improvements are truely valid–and if the Holy See approves–THEN-- you would would have a better translation of the scriptures than the Vulgate!

But even then–even if the English translation was better from Latin, Hebrew, and Greek-the doctrinal differences with the Vulgate would still be non existent because as Trent says–the Vulgate is without error in terms of faith and doctrine!

Now of course there are many aspects to the bible and verses that do not have to do with doctrine.

They can be improved.

But please–the NAB, the New Jerusalem, and the RSV in any of their iterations are in error in doctrinal matters and the Vulgate is not.

That is a fact!

And that’s why I say that the Cnfraternity Version of the New Testament–because it is based on the Vulgate–“In light of the Greek” and because it is better stylistically when it comes to the English language–is better than any other New Testament out there.

Is it perfect? No! Does it have doctrinal error? No!

And that trumps ANY other bible no matter how good they may be on non doctrinal matters–anytime!

Some good points there. How do you feel about just the regular JB then? I noticed you don’t care for the NJB but the JB isn’t inclusive so I was curious.

 

[mccorm45]

Then tell me why it is that in Pope Benedict’s encyclial on hope that he mentions that the Vulgate translation is more accurate than the newer ones.

Also tell me how Protestant choices on translation renderings that negate St. Paul giving absolution for sins is superior in 1st Corinthians 2:10.

Also tell me how the Protestant rendering for John 3:16 is superior.

Then tell me how the Exclusion in the Our Father of “Supersubstantial bread” is superior.

And then tell me why we should think Protestasnt biased renderings like these are doctrinaly superior when the Ecumenical Council of Trent stated that the Vulgate could be used in “All Disputations”.

Shouldn’t an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church hold more weight when a Catholic considers a translation of the bible than the renderings choices of Protestants who wrote the RSV and could care less about Catholic doctrine?

And please spare me the blather about “Original languages”–with any translation choice there are multiple ancient texts.

And what I’m saying is just because any group of Protestant chooses any particular choice of ancient texts that support their view of doctrine–that in no way means that their choices are superior.

Every word of Holy Scripture is important.

And though Catholic Doctrine is not built solely on Holy Scripture–Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the magisterium do come from Holy Scripture.

And just because Protestants or liberal Catholics don’t believe that the Vulgate does not err in terms of doctrine does not make it so!

Trent saying that the Vulgate does not err in matters of faith and doctrine does make it so!

Does that mean that the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata are perfect?

No!

But don’t tell me that just because anyone anywhere claims to go back to “Origianl languages” and then claims that their version of the scrioptures is superior–that simply isn’t the case!

Any Catholic who really believes that St. Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian “In the presence of Christ” instead of “In the person of Christ” is Doctrinaly wrong! And anyone who believes in the accuracy of the Vulgate on that matter of doctrine is correct by the Authority of Trent!

In fact–to advocate that Catholics use as Holy Scripture bibles that are doctrinally in error is also wrong!

Should there be advances in the translation of the Holy Scriptures? Absolutely!

I’ll tell you what–get a group of Catholic Scholars commissioned by the Holy See–have them go back to the best ancient texts that we have–weigh them against the witness of the Vulgate as prayed by the Catholic Church over the centuries in its liturgy–and THEN–

if there are improvements that can be made to the text of the bible–if those improvements are truely valid–and if the Holy See approves–THEN-- you would would have a better translation of the scriptures than the Vulgate!

But even then–even if the English translation was better from Latin, Hebrew, and Greek-the doctrinal differences with the Vulgate would still be non existent because as Trent says–the Vulgate is without error in terms of faith and doctrine!

Now of course there are many aspects to the bible and verses that do not have to do with doctrine.

They can be improved.

But please–the NAB, the New Jerusalem, and the RSV in any of their iterations are in error in doctrinal matters and the Vulgate is not.

That is a fact!

And that’s why I say that the Cnfraternity Version of the New Testament–because it is based on the Vulgate–“In light of the Greek” and because it is better stylistically when it comes to the English language–is better than any other New Testament out there.

Is it perfect? No! Does it have doctrinal error? No!

And that trumps ANY other bible no matter how good they may be on non doctrinal matters–anytime!

Jerry,

All I will say is two things, which will be my last post in this thread:

1. Why then did the same Church that talked about the Vulgate being “free from doctrinal error” also under Pius XII release Divino Afflante Spiritu? As Pope Pius XII writes: “16. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.”

Why not just use the*** authority*** of the most ancient Latin text? Why look to the “original languages”? This passage also seems to indicate that we now posses better tools for translations, as well as many more manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic.

1. Why didn’t Pope Benedict XVI use the confraternity or Douay-Rheims version for the English versions of his book “Jesus of Nazareth” or any other title that has been released in English?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There is no reason to use the most ancient Latin text as an authority because antiquity of itself does not equate with accuracy.

There are Latin texts older than Jerome’s–that does not mean that they are more accurate than Jerome’s.

For that matter we do not have the original latin text of Jerome–if we did there would be no reason for the Nova Vulgata in the first place.

The “authority” of the Vulgate lies not in the words themselves but in the use of those words by the Catholic Church over the centuries.

That use has validated the text–not in terms of every word being precisely what the original Holy Scripture writer wrote–but certainly in terms of the doctrine contained in the word of God.

There are many words in Holy Scripture that do not deal with doctrine.

There can be improvements in the translation of all of those words.

There could be additional texts dsicovered from other languages such as Greek, Aramic, and Hebrew.

In all of those cases–if warranted–the text could depart from the Vulgate.

The key element when deciding between two different early texts though is that they should always be viewed through the window of the Vulgate–at least that’s what the Congregation for Divine Worship says.

That does not mean the window of Protestant experience!

As for for Pope Benedict’s books–he could of course tried to attempt to translate directly into English or he could have used a number of biblical versions of the bible.

Doing so is not wrong–especially if you want to communicate with English speaking people who are used to modern English style.

But don’t think for a moment that whenever Pope Benedict was trying to make a point that was integraly involved with Catholic doctrine that he did know of or didn’t consult the Vulgate and he is a native German speaker!

The expression "translation of a translation’ gets tossed around quite a bit.

Do you think for a moment that a Protestant biblical scholar has not been influenced in his knowledge of the bible by that text with which he is most comfortable?

Do you think a Protestant scholar objectively looks at a number of different “original language” text variants and chooses what he think is most accuarate with no reference to the RSV–the KJV–as opposed to the Vulgate?

What “Window” is he viewing those textual variant decisions through? Do you think that he is looking through no window? Please!

Now look–I understand the frustrations of Catholics looking for an English translation of the bible.

The Jerusalem bible takes all sorts of liberties with the text but has the value of not much inclusive language.

The New Jerusalem bible is literally quite better but it is plagued by too much inclusive language.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could read the New Jerusalem bible with No inclusive language?

But even then the Jeruslaem bible–and other Catholic translations of the bible such as the NAB are plagued by what I term “Ecumenical inclusivism”.

“Ecumenical inclusivism” occurrs when a translator when faced with the choice of a textual variant that will be at odds with Protestant translations of the bible proceeds to go with the Protestant choice of a word involving doctrine–because he doesn’t want to offend Protestant sensibilities–and justifies it by saying “It’s OK to make that compromise because Catholic doctrine does not depend on LITERALISM.”

In other words the magisterium can always bail him out no matter what choice he makes!

He doesn’t have to look through the Vulgate window!

That is just plain wrong!

And don’t get me wrong–I’m not a Latin worshiper. I’m not a Vulgate worshiper And I do believe that the bible should always be improved with biblical scholarship.

It’s just that I don’t trust those who are not Catholic and do not look through the Vulgate window when faced with textual variant choices to be accuarate!

And it’s not as if the RSV is worthless. The number of times that it is in conflict with Catholic doctrine are quite small. Some things it does get right even better than the Vulgate.

I’d just caution Catholics who like to use it not to fall hook, line, and sinker for all it’s textual choices–and especially whenever there is a conflict between Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

And yes folks that does happen.

The NAB is a hodgpodge mess!

Bad stylistically–odd–stilted–awkward–and with no poetic value whatsoever.

If the USCCB did not hold the copyright to it we wouldn’t still be plagued with it!

A person could purchase many bibles. But I’ll tell you this–if you are not very knowledgeable in the Catholic faith–if you are a new convert to Catholicism–read the Confraternity or Douay Rheims Challoner first and then read the RSV-CE.

That way you may be better equipped to understand different passages of the bible and whenever there is a conflict that sounds like it might be doctrinal you’ll see not only that there is a Difference–but it will embolden you to find out what the Catholic Church really believes!

You’ll never know the whole truth if that truth is viewed through the Protestant window!

 

[NoelFitz]

The Navarre Bible uses the Revised Standard Version.

My favorite English Bible is the NRSV, Catholic Edition, Anglicized Text.

I consider that the best version of the GNT is that of the United Bible Societies (4th Ed). Cardinal Montini is one of the editors. Thus the best English translation is the one closest to this.

I also like the NAB and the NASB (1995 Ed.)

 

[Mea_Culpa]

“Ecumenical inclusivism” occurrs when a translator when faced with the choice of a textual variant that will be at odds with Protestant translations of the bible proceeds to go with the Protestant choice of a word involving doctrine–because he doesn’t want to offend Protestant sensibilities–and justifies it by saying “It’s OK to make that compromise because Catholic doctrine does not depend on LITERALISM.”

In other words the magisterium can always bail him out no matter what choice he makes!

He doesn’t have to look through the Vulgate window!

That is just plain wrong!

And don’t get me wrong–I’m not a Latin worshiper. I’m not a Vulgate worshiper And I do believe that the bible should always be improved with biblical scholarship.

It’s just that I don’t trust those who are not Catholic and do not look through the Vulgate window when faced with textual variant choices to be accuarate!

And it’s not as if the RSV is worthless. The number of times that it is in conflict with Catholic doctrine are quite small. Some things it does get right even better than the Vulgate.

Can you give some examples of this “ecumenical inclusivism” in the RSV-CE? Where is it at odds with Catholic teaching?

I’d just caution Catholics who like to use it not to fall hook, line, and sinker for all it’s textual choices–and especially whenever there is a conflict between Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

Examples?

And yes folks that does happen.

The NAB is a hodgpodge mess!

Bad stylistically–odd–stilted–awkward–and with no poetic value whatsoever.

Examples?

A person could purchase many bibles. But I’ll tell you this–if you are not very knowledgeable in the Catholic faith–if you are a new convert to Catholicism–read the Confraternity or Douay Rheims Challoner first and then read the RSV-CE.

This is bad advice. The Douay Rheims is not easy for modern readers because of its archaic language. It was written before the time of Shakespeare.

That way you may be better equipped to understand different passages of the bible and whenever there is a conflict that sounds like it might be doctrinal you’ll see not only that there is a Difference–but it will embolden you to find out what the Catholic Church really believes!

What are some of these passages?

You’ll never know the whole truth if that truth is viewed through the Protestant window!

The RSV-CE is approved for liturgical use in Great Britian and in the Liturgy of the Hours in North America. I doubt if it would be so approved if it was stilted toward a Protestant view of things. You just spout off generalities without one single example. Please point out where the RSV-CE is biased toward Protestant, as opposed to Catholic, doctrine. Specific examples.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Push the Protestant RSV and throw away the vulgate—par for the course around here.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t get the idea of using Catholic bible based on a Protestant Bible such as the RSV-CE. I really don’t. I have several translations both Protestant and Catholic. I started out reading the NAB, but after purchasing the more traditional Douay-Rheims, my eyes were opened. I felt that I had been missing something. I honestly don’t think I understood what it means to be Catholic until I started to read the Douay-Rheims. It has become my main translation. Sometimes I read the Jerusalem Bible, but it just seems so lackluster as does the NAB compared to the Douay-Rheims. I personally would stay far away from the RSV-CE as possible. Not to be rude or anything, but I just refuse to read RSV-CE or any “Catholic Bible” based off of a Protestant translation

 

[ElizabethPH]

I don’t get the idea of using Catholic bible based on a Protestant Bible such as the RSV-CE. I really don’t. I have several translations both Protestant and Catholic. I started out reading the NAB, but after purchasing the more traditional Douay-Rheims, my eyes were opened. I felt that I had been missing something. I honestly don’t think I understood what it means to be Catholic until I started to read the Douay-Rheims. It has become my main translation. Sometimes I read the Jerusalem Bible, but it just seems so lackluster as does the NAB compared to the Douay-Rheims. I personally would stay far away from the RSV-CE as possible. Not to be rude or anything, but I just refuse to read RSV-CE or any “Catholic Bible” based off of a Protestant translation

I think here at CA they recommend the RSV-CE (Ignatius Bible) because it’s a better version to have in Apologetics with Protestants. I don’t know. I do have it and the NAB and like I said before I always reach for my Confraternity version.

 

[NoelFitz]

ElizabethPH

I like the NAB issued by the

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. The New American Bible : Translated from the Original Languages With Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources and the Revised New Testament. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1996, c1986.

You wrote :

do have it and the NAB and like I said before I always reach for my Confraternity version.

Are the NAB and your Confraternity version the same>

 

[ElizabethPH]

ElizabethPH

I like the NAB issued by the

You wrote :

Are the NAB and your Confraternity version the same>

I am talking about the Saint Joseph Confraternity Version. The Old Testament is the Confraternity-Douay. "With the New Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation of the First Eight Books, the Seven Sapiential Books, and the Eighteen Prophetic Books of the Old Testament. The New Testament is the Confraternity Version. A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version Edited by Catholic Scholars uner the Patronage of the Espiscopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. COPR 1963. The OT is almost the same the Psalms are not though and the NT is not the same. I read on the forums in another thread that explained about it. Wish I was smart enough to explain further. Perhaps Jerry can.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Confraternity New Testament is based on the Vulgate and the NAB New Testament isn’t.

For the most part the Old Testament is the same as the NAB unless it is one from 1952 or earlier which had the compte Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament.

The Old Testament was translated in parts between 1953 and 1970 and would become the NAB Old Testament except for one exception–Genesis was retranslated and combined with the other books of the Old Testament when the NAB came out in 1970.

For that reason I say to get a Douay Confraternity bible with the Bea psalter authorized by Pope Pius XII.

That way you get a Catholic version of the New Testament based on the Vulgate in light of the Greek but more readable than the Douay Rheims–a Catholic version of the Old Testament–the Douay Rheims Challoner–not perfect but more readable than the KJV and not Protestant–and the Bea Psalter done by the pontifical bible commission–not strictly from the Vulgate but slightly improved and less in the direction of the masoretic text than any Protestant bible.

Such bibles existed from 1952 and earlier–they aren’t perfect–but are less flawed than any other bibles out there because they are as improved as you can get without being Protestant and with some connection to the Vulgate–thus being free of doctrinal error.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Which brings me to my Grand Uncle’s bible. He was a priest and I have his old bible. It was a Confraternity Bible from the 1950’s. I read it as my first bible and thought it was great. The NAB to me didn’t seem as being as nice. I bought a bunch of used versions of the Confraternity bible from a protestant bookstore. No one there was going to touch em. Most of them where memorial bibles for union workers who had died. I loved it, still do.

Though I also love my JB and RSV-CE greatly. Im just a bibliophile I guess.

 

[NoelFitz]

I am not sure what makes a Bible Catholic or Protestant. Are there Catholic and Protestant words?

When I was young Catholic words were Messias and Isaias, while Protestant words were Messiah and Isaiah. It seems we are all Protestants now.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Noel,

Im not sure if you’re being overly philosophical or not. Yeah the spellings are often different, and titles are different, and even the number of books are different. Not to mention often the meaning being conveyed has often been suited to fit the needs of the translator. So you really need to trust your bible.

take care~rsf

 

[RedSoxFan]

Noel,

Im not sure if you’re being overly philosophical or not. Yeah the spellings are often different, and titles are different, and even the number of books are different. Not to mention often the meaning being conveyed has often been suited to fit the needs of the translator. It might seem like a lot of people here are being a bit over kill about thier bible, but these differences count!

take care~rsf

 

[NoelFitz]

RedSoxFan

I am not being over-philosophical.

The most philosophical thing I met recently was:

To paraphrase a quote from a Frenchman about Americans in general, to understand the New England mind one must first understand Red Sox baseball. The expectation of failure, the calm unwavering anticipation of Shakesperean tragedy, the Hardy-esque fatalism, is part and parcel to the existence of Red Sox Nation and even the charm and heroism of the team’s hard-core fan base. Someone this year once defined faith as believing in something when common sense tells you not to.

I am surprised we have established that there is Catholic and Protestant spelling.

Titles are different. Which are Catholic and which Protestant in the Scripture (P) or in the Bible (C):
Apocalypse/Revelation; Ecclesiastes/Qoheleth; Ecclesiasticus/Sirach; Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon? Some of these are deuterocanonical (C)/apocryphal (P).

You wrote:

Not to mention often the meaning being conveyed has often been suited to fit the needs of the translator.

Did these difference emerge during the Counter Reformation (P)/Catholic Reformation (C).

I cannot see how there can be Protestant or Catholic Bibles. The Bible is the Bible.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Heya Fitzy,

Not all of us where as described in your quote. I never was. And that’s a bit outdated now isn’t it?

I wish I could agree with you that a bible is a bible is a bible. But I can’t. Take the New World Translation (jehovah’s witnesses bible) It’s a bible, but has been so warped I can’t really call it holy even.

The differences might have started in the reformation, but they’re not going anywhere. Read some of Jerry-jet’s posts he goes into the translation differences and why they matter pretty well.

Take care~RSF

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

All of us ANAHEIM Angels fans (those pounders of the scarlet hose) use the New American Bible or the RSV- Catholic Edition.

It must be the Bible of choice, seeing how our Catholic boys are tearing up the league!

Robert