Which bible translation should i use to begin memorizing bible verses?

[Harry123]

My new years resolution this year is to learn some of the key bible verses.

Which translation is the best for this?

I’d like a Catholic approved translation that is as close as possible to the King James bible as i want to be able to converse with protestants using my bible verses.

Would it be ok to just use the King James bible altogether? And just learn my verses from that?

 

[Saul_to_Paul_1]

My new years resolution this year is to learn some of the key bible verses.

Which translation is the best for this?

I’d like a Catholic approved translation that is as close as possible to the King James bible as i want to be able to converse with protestants using my bible verses.

Would it be ok to just use the King James bible altogether? And just learn my verses from that?

I’d use a Catholic Bible. The New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition is probably good. The only problem is that the NABRE is the one used at Mass. The NRSV will be closer to what you remember if you were raised Protestant, and more familiar to your Protestant friends.

 

[MiserableSinner]

My new years resolution this year is to learn some of the key bible verses.

Which translation is the best for this?

I’d like a Catholic approved translation that is as close as possible to the King James bible as i want to be able to converse with protestants using my bible verses.

Would it be ok to just use the King James bible altogether? And just learn my verses from that?

Douay-Rheims Bible:
biblehub.com/drb/john/16.htm

No it is not OK to use a KJB. It is missing books, for one, that the heretic rebels (“protestant reformers” if you want to be “politically correct”) decided they would remove because they didn’t like them. From what I understand, the translation is also bad.

Always use Church approved Bibles. The KJV is not on the list.

Are you trying to convert Protestants? I have been doing some of that and it seems God has been giving me a lot of grace. I can help by showing you what God has shown me. Send me a message, or I will probably send you one later if I remember.

 

[pianistclare]

It’s more beneficial to comprehend the verses than to memorize them.

 

[porthos11]

My new years resolution this year is to learn some of the key bible verses.

Which translation is the best for this?

I’d like a Catholic approved translation that is as close as possible to the King James bible as i want to be able to converse with protestants using my bible verses.

Would it be ok to just use the King James bible altogether? And just learn my verses from that?

The RSV Catholic Edition is the way to go. The RSV is the direct descendant of the King James.

 

[CountrySteve]

It’s more beneficial to comprehend the verses than to memorize them.

That reminds me of the story about a certain Desert Father who using the Psalms for Lectio read the first verse of Psalm 1 and spent 40 years reading it before moving on to verse 2

Pax

@Harry123 If you want to memorize the Bible your best bet is to use the version your Lectionary use’s

PAx

 

[porthos11]

It’s more beneficial to comprehend the verses than to memorize them.

Memorization is valuable too. Kimberly Hahn expressed in her book how glad she was that Bible memorization was made a habit back in her Calvinist days because she was able to call to mind words of comfort during a difficult time and she had no Bible around.

To the OP, I say, by all means memorize. And because the King James is pretty much the memorization Bible, if it helps, then memorize the King James. But try the RSV first because it’s Catholic-approved.

 

[PJH_74]

Not all Protestants use the KJV, maybe not even the majority. One has to remember that it is one if not the only that does not have a copyright.

 

[peter26]

Of course you can use the KJV, but also buy the separate Apocrypha volume which will give you the missing books. Douay-Rheims is fine and Revised Standard Version is pretty decent, we use that in the Ordinariate. Seeing as you clearly like traditional language, I would pick one of those three and avoid the likes of the NAB or Jerusalem Bible. They are in many senses weak translations that often miss part of the point of a passage (one example in the Jerusalem Bible is the Beatitudes. “Blessed” here means “enjoying the beatific vision”, i.e. in heaven. The Jerusalem Bible uses “happy”. Point missed). But the KJV is renowned for the accuracy of its translation. It is not a protestant bible, its a bible in a good translation and that is all that matters.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s more beneficial to comprehend the verses than to memorize them.

I’d agree with that. Also the internet allows you a comparison of the translations so you get a better feel for the originals.

I have a growling liking of the Knox Bible. But it’s probably too dynamic for one to memorize.

 

[SirEwenii]

If you are interested the original KJV had all the deuterocanonical books…

I’m curious, which verses are on your list to memorise?

 

[Vico]

The RSV Catholic Edition is the way to go. The RSV is the direct descendant of the King James.

King James NT is based on three Greek sources, Erasmus, Stephenus, and Beza, and also uses portions of the Vulgate and Complutensian Polyglot bibles. The RSV NT is based upon later translations of Greek sources. Example, including Catholic Douay-Rheims-Challoner:

1 John 5:7-8

• KJV - 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
  8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
• DRB(C) - 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
  8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
• RSV - 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
  8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
• RSVCE - 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
  8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

 

[ProVobis]

I’d use a Catholic Bible. The New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition is probably good. The only problem is that the NABRE is the one used at Mass. The NRSV will be closer to what you remember if you were raised Protestant, and more familiar to your Protestant friends.

It is indeed a problem if the priest uses a line or two of it in his sermon. It may not agree verbatim with what you memorized it as.

 

[porthos11]

King James NT is based on three Greek sources, Erasmus, Stephenus, and Beza, and also uses portions of the Vulgate and Complutensian Polyglot bibles. The RSV NT is based upon later translations of Greek sources. Example, including Catholic Douay-Rheims-Challoner:

1 John 5:7-8

• KJV - 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
  8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
• DRB(C) - 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
  8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
• RSV - 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
  8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
• RSVCE - 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
  8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Yes, we know all that, and the RSV better represents the originals than the KJV.

I’m talking about the revision history. The RSV is in the direct line of official revisions of the King James: AV–>RV/ASV–>RSV—>NRSV. The other versions, such as the NASB and ESV are also such revisions but are not by the body that held the copyright to the ASV. This makes the “official” KJV descendants the RSV and the NRSV.

 

[Vico]

Yes, we know all that, and the RSV better represents the originals than the KJV.

I’m talking about the revision history. The RSV is in the direct line of official revisions of the King James: AV–>RV/ASV–>RSV—>NRSV. The other versions, such as the NASB and ESV are also such revisions but are not by the body that held the copyright to the ASV. This makes the “official” KJV descendants the RSV and the NRSV.

So your concern is official revisions rather than selection of texts. I understand. The official line then choose to use different texts than those used in KJV (which is the usual course).

The texts used in KJV were based on textus receptus (1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus) and the RV was based on Westcott-Hort NT (substantially different from the textus receptus basis of manuscript evidence).

 

[mattp0625]

I agree with Douay Rheims.

It was translated to English at about the same time as KJV (I believe DRA had the first NT translation to English). It has the same old English feel.

Additionally, DRA was translated from Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was translated from Greek and Hebrew at approximately 400 AD (he went to Antioch and Jerusalem). To me, that is the closest thing we have to scripture’s first century, Middle Eastern origins. (Latin is a more direct translation to English compared to Hebrew).

Note that translation is not an exact science. It depends on an understanding of the culture, which is why Saint Jerome’s work is important. KJV has no direct or indirect connection to the original culture.

Lastly, in the KJV, notice it says Mary was “highly favored” instead of full of grace. That, along with the removal of the seven OT books (it is not approved by the Church), is reason enough for me to avoid. The KJV uses the canon “authority” of Martin Luther (not the way to go).

 

[ProVobis]

Additionally, DRA was translated from Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was translated from Greek and Hebrew at approximately 400 AD (he went to Antioch and Jerusalem). To me, that is the closest thing we have to scripture’s first century, Middle Eastern origins. (Latin is a more direct translation to English compared to Hebrew).

Actually St. Jerome used the older Latin Vulgate (Vetus Latina) as the basis for many of the books. The origins of Vetus Latina are mostly unknown.

 

[Faith1960]

My new years resolution this year is to learn some of the key bible verses.

Which translation is the best for this?

I’d like a Catholic approved translation that is as close as possible to the King James bible as i want to be able to converse with protestants using my bible verses.

Would it be ok to just use the King James bible altogether? And just learn my verses from that?

I’d use a Catholic Bible, too. I usually read the NAB but I’m getting an Ignatiius (I think) study Bible for Christmas.

 

[mattp0625]

Actually St. Jerome used the older Latin Vulgate (Vetus Latina) as the basis for many of the books. The origins of Vetus Latina are mostly unknown.

Good point. Thank you for the correction!

Here is a listing of the source documents:

Jerome’s independent translation from the Hebrew: the books of the Hebrew Bible, usually not including his translation of the Psalms. This was completed in 405.

Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon. The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, the other two additions Jerome moved to the end of the book.

Translation from the Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the book of Esther.

Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms. Jerome’s Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive.

Free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version: Tobias and Judith.

Revision by Jerome of the Old Latin, corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available: the Gospels.

Old Latin, more or less revised by a person or persons unknown: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Esdras, Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse.

Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

 

[Harry123]

Ok, so it looks like either:

“Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

or

“New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)”

is the way to go.

For some reason, the few quick verses i have looked at look nicer in the “revised edition” rather than the “new revised edition”.

P.S. Is there any translation that is accepted by both the protestant and catholic church?. Some Protestants i know might not like being quoted to from a “catholic edition” bible.