Which Bible translation?

[zach_dunn]

Thank you all for your responds and explanation. I will probably use the Doauy-Rheims Bible and the Authorized Bible as my main Bibles with the Orthodox Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Bible as my Study Bibles. Thank you all again.

Ouch I got shafted . . . just kidding!

 

[Jesus_123]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into all this Bible’s versions thereafter and could only recommend the 1966 version and not any subsequent versions . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin. Bishop Challoner’s version simply phrases it to make it more reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The original Latin translation was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . you can’t go wrong with this edition . . .

Below are comments from the Eternal Word Television Network’s (EWTN’s) website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims.[Douay-Rheims] The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …******​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to the Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful to request the trustworthy **ORIGINAL RSV-CE **. . . the new untrustworthy version which is being heavily promoted nowadays contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[Axion]

The Douai Rheims is probably the safest Catholic Bible, fairly uncontaminated by protestant interpretations, and modern day liberal revisionism in translation. However it is more difficult to read than a modern translation.

The NAB is easy to read, but a fairly horrible translation, highly influenced by Liberal translators and EXTREMELY liberal notes which take all Liberal-critical theories as fact, and at times run counter to Catholic teaching. The Christian Community Bible is a good modern translation, with far more helpful notes, which actually try to apply the bible text to Catholic teaching.

 

[Jesus_123]

• Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** . . . in her teaching . . . but frequently sounded serious warnings about the . . . loss of Sacred Truth (Holy Thoughts of God) . . . via the unholy use of . . . “inclusive language” . . . incorporated into all this Bible’s versions thereafter.

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . . it was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin. Bishop Challoner’s version carefully phrases it to make it more English language reader-friendly. It was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such. The Latin Vulgate is the Catholic Church’s official Holy :bible1: Bible) and was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s declaration of support . . . you can’t go wrong with this edition.

Below are comments from ** (EWTN’s)** website . . . which also contain some examples of the Holy See’s** gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view** on some Biblical translations on the market today.

:bible1: Douai-Rheims.[Douay-Rheims] The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT [New Testament] was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE . . . the Pope and the Navarre Bible use this English translation.

:bible1: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …******​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to the Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful to request the trustworthy **ORIGINAL RSV-CE **. . . the new untrustworthy version which is being heavily promoted nowadays contains real errors . . . the NAB version also has a similar problem.

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . St. Jerome please pray for us+
. . . thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[Rose_Commander]

Okay, Thank you again for replying. Now that I got a job, now I wish to ask, what Bible translation should I get? Now there is no limit of which translation I should get. Please also include the reason for that particular Bible translation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi endorses and highly recommends the ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition of Sacred Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL RSV-CE.

Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press …

The RSV-CE is now available in a second edition, which was revised with the close cooperation of Cardinal Arinze and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. The editors prepared a lectionary using this new edition (RSV-CE2) which is approved by the Congregation. The RSV-CE2 is an improvement on the eariler edition.

 

[Rose_Commander]

Brothers, I was looking around the Internet for a good Bible and I came upon this Bible. It is called CTS New Catholic Bible. I wonder if anybody had heard of it before. Here is the link:

cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC103.html

Also, I am thinking of buying a Haydock Bible. I know that this bible is the best in the market for it contains the Douay-Rheims Bible with the Haydock Commentary that I heard is very scholarly and orthodox to the Faith.

So what do you think?

 

[swampboy]

Brothers, I was looking around the Internet for a good Bible and I came upon this Bible. It is called CTS New Catholic Bible. I wonder if anybody had heard of it before. Here is the link:

cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_SC103.html

Also, I am thinking of buying a Haydock Bible. I know that this bible is the best in the market for it contains the Douay-Rheims Bible with the Haydock Commentary that I heard is very scholarly and orthodox to the Faith.

So what do you think?

The CTS is supposed to be nice if you like the Jerusalem Bible (1966 edition)–as it is this edition with new notes and the replacement of “Yahweh” with LORD. I do not personally have this edition but I hear the notes are not as good as the original.

I do, however, own the Haydock which is very good but expensive. I find the Douay a little hard to read, although I wish I could get through it easier, as I find it to be the best–but it is too much of a chore to read. I have been in the same position as you not being able to choose a bible version for years. I bounce between the Douay, RSV-2CE, and Jerusalem, and now the Confraternity…I don’t know which to use as my main bible–very frustrating. If I were you, before dropping $100 on a Haydock, go to www.veritasbible.com and check it out. I find the reproduction I have to be a little hard to read as the print is small for the notes (which are the best commentary by the way) and the quality is not great…I wish this site was around when I got mine because I wouldn’t have bought it. I can see the text on the website great and can add the latin as well.

I was looking at that Orthodox Study Bible–how do you like it? Are there cross-references? How is the commentary?

 

[Rose_Commander]

The CTS is supposed to be nice if you like the Jerusalem Bible (1966 edition)–as it is this edition with new notes and the replacement of “Yahweh” with LORD. I do not personally have this edition but I hear the notes are not as good as the original.

I do, however, own the Haydock which is very good but expensive. I find the Douay a little hard to read, although I wish I could get through it easier, as I find it to be the best–but it is too much of a chore to read. I have been in the same position as you not being able to choose a bible version for years. I bounce between the Douay, RSV-2CE, and Jerusalem, and now the Confraternity…I don’t know which to use as my main bible–very frustrating. If I were you, before dropping $100 on a Haydock, go to www.veritasbible.com and check it out. I find the reproduction I have to be a little hard to read as the print is small for the notes (which are the best commentary by the way) and the quality is not great…I wish this site was around when I got mine because I wouldn’t have bought it. I can see the text on the website great and can add the latin as well.

I was looking at that Orthodox Study Bible–how do you like it? Are there cross-references? How is the commentary?

The Orthodox Study Bible is a very good translation with good, but biased towards the Eastern Churches, commentary. I use it when I want a variant reading from the Greek LXX (I don’t know how to spell that word). I would still like to buy the Haydock Bible, since I love the commentary. I got the commentary on my E-Sword Bible Software and I love it. But I want printed copy of it so when I am on the go, I can just open it and read.

 

[Bookcat]

RSV CE

more literal and beautiful.

and the Catechism and I believe most Vatican Documents in English use the RSV

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ideally, a Catholic who is studying Scripture should own and use several different Catholic Bible translations. Interlinear editions are also useful for study.

 

[rocketrob]

I would still like to buy the Haydock Bible, since I love the commentary. I got the commentary on my E-Sword Bible Software and I love it. But I want printed copy of it so when I am on the go, I can just open it and read.

The Haydock Bible is a great resource, and the hard copy has a significant amount of additional reference material than is found in the online versions (eg, a Catholic bible dictionary, history of the books of the bible, topical reference index, etc). However, it is quite large and heavy. I’m not sure its the kind of bible you’ll want to carry with you when you’re ‘on the go.’

rocketrob

 

[Ignatius]

Okay, people, I need help. I need to choose which of my Bibles should be my main Bible. .

I would suggest RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims and Orthodox Study Bible as all three have beautiful traditional language and excellent commentaries. The NAB is mediocre in the main text and the commentary is actually problematic.

 

[David_Zampino]

Good comments Jerry-Jet.

Why are so many Catholics praising without any reservation Protestant versions of the Bible? Do you people not know that Protestant Bible translators are material heretics?

And your "proclamations, without benefit of Episcopal authority are what???

And as for the King James Version:

1. The source texts used by the translators were much more limited than what is available to scholars today.

To a certain extent, this is correct. I would delete the adjective “much”.

1. The translators were Anglicans who were complicit, at least by their silence and by sins of omission, in the severe persecution of Catholics occurring at the time.

You tar and feather with a broad brush – and I suspect that you know this. As a convert from the Anglican tradition, who has taught on this subject on the pastoral, undergraduate, and Archdiocesan level, you are AT BEST understating history.

1. The commission of translators and editors was appointed under King James I, who continued the persecution of Catholics during his reign, a persecution begun by previous rulers of England. During this persecution many Catholics suffered greatly and more than a few were martyred.

I will never, NEVER minimize the suffering of the English Catholic martyrs. This being said, it is apparent that you have not studied the histories or religious backgrounds of the translators – all of which were scholars, first and foremost, and many of which were certainly “Anglo-Catholic” in their sympathies.

How can any Catholic use a Bible version named after a persecutor of the Church? How can any Catholic use a Bible version translated and edited by scholars appointed by that same persecutor, scholars who were complicit in that persecution by cooperating with source of that persecution?

Ron, try studying some Church History, and stop trying to pretend that you’re something that you’re quite obviously not. It’s dishonest, and does no service to the Church.

I’m no stooge for the KJV – but you need to get your facts straight.