Which Bible

[CalCatholic]

I don’t know much about differences between Bibles, BUT NO KING JAMES VERSION !!!
I use the New American Standard Bible.

Do you mean the New American Bible? The New American Standard Bible is a Protestant translation that is missing the seven deutro-canonical books that are a part of sacred scripture for Catholics.

 

[po18guy]

the NABRE is the translation used in the States for the Mass readings, Canada use’s the NRSV.the rest of the english speaking world use the Jerusalem Bible.

Actually, it is a heavily modified NAB/RE that we hear at mass. The bible that you and I can buy is not approved for liturgical use by the Vatican due to its relentless gender-neutral language and other issues.

Main issues I have with the NAB and its derivative:

1. Mary is not full of grace (Luke 1:28)
2. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10)
3. Mary’s soul does not magnify the Lord (Luke 1:46)
4. Mary is not blessed for her belief, (Luke 1:45) but only for believing that God would actually do what He said.
5. The mother of the Messiah, a “young woman” is not described as a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
6. The word “hell” does not appear in this bible.
7. Let’s not even get started on the horrible notes and intros, non-clerical “theologians” and a Presbyterian pastor (a Calvinist) that were involved in this “Catholic” translation.

As a practical matter, it is far easier to defend Catholic doctrine from a King James Version than it is from this “approved” Catholic bible.

To the OP: Get a Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition and you will be well served.

 

[po18guy]

Here are the approved translations by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops:
usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

Ah, but the USCCB is just barely giving full disclosure here. They list only those editions approved since 1983. This is easily misleading, since only in the fine print will you learn that all editions approved prior to 1983 are still approved. Rather curiously, the USCCB does not approve of the RSV-2CE, but does approve of the gender-neutral NRSV-CE.

No prior approved edition has ever been “de-approved” That leaves the Douay-Rheims, the excellent Confraternity Bible and the KNOX Translation (Bishop Sheen’s personal favorite). I consider all of them as far superior to the NAB or the RE.

 

[ProVobis]

Main issues I have with the NAB and its derivative:

1. Mary is not full of grace (Luke 1:28)
2. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10)
3. Mary’s soul does not magnify the Lord (Luke 1:46)
4. Mary is not blessed for her belief, (Luke 1:45) but only for believing that God would actually do what He said.
5. The mother of the Messiah, a “young woman” is not described as a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
6. The word “hell” does not appear in this bible.
7. Let’s not even get started on the horrible notes and intros, non-clerical “theologians” and a Presbyterian pastor (a Calvinist) that were involved in this “Catholic” translation.

Out of curiosity does this have an “Imprimatur” on it?

 

[billcu1]

Ah, but the USCCB is just barely giving full disclosure here. They list only those editions approved since 1983. This is easily misleading, since only in the fine print will you learn that all editions approved prior to 1983 are still approved. Rather curiously, the USCCB does not approve of the RSV-2CE, but does approve of the gender-neutral NRSV-CE.

No prior approved edition has ever been “de-approved” That leaves the Douay-Rheims, the excellent Confraternity Bible and the KNOX Translation (Bishop Sheen’s personal favorite). I consider all of them as far superior to the NAB or the RE.

You know I might be wrong but I’m still comfortable even with all its mistakes that they all probably have have with that old KJV.

 

[billcu1]

Out of curiosity does this have an “Imprimatur” on it?

And this is approved?

 

[billcu1]

Actually, it is a heavily modified NAB/RE that we hear at mass. The bible that you and I can buy is not approved for liturgical use by the Vatican due to its relentless gender-neutral language and other issues.

Main issues I have with the NAB and its derivative:

1. Mary is not full of grace (Luke 1:28)
2. Paul did not forgive sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10)
3. Mary’s soul does not magnify the Lord (Luke 1:46)
4. Mary is not blessed for her belief, (Luke 1:45) but only for believing that God would actually do what He said.
5. The mother of the Messiah, a “young woman” is not described as a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
6. The word “hell” does not appear in this bible.
7. Let’s not even get started on the horrible notes and intros, non-clerical “theologians” and a Presbyterian pastor (a Calvinist) that were involved in this “Catholic” translation.

As a practical matter, it is far easier to defend Catholic doctrine from a King James Version than it is from this “approved” Catholic bible.

To the OP: Get a Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition and you will be well served.

And this is an approved version?

 

[StevenFrancis]

I am new to this forum and am trying to decide which Bible would be best for me. A little back round, I’ve been Catholic my entire life, attended Catholic school from 1st grade to college, married with 2 kids. I really don’t feel like I know the Bible and so many times when I listen to the readings at Mass I don’t understand or just have a lot of questions. So I’m looking for a Catholic Bible that is easy to read that would have explanations and maybe a backround on what the whole story is around that particular reading so maybe I would understand it better. I’ve been researching and my head is just spinning. Thanks for any help!

I have and use many different bibles for different purposes. I have the NAB because that’s what we use in mass. Not one of my favorites, but I like to read what we’re going to actually hear at mass before mass.

My favorite for bible study is the Ignatius Bible, (RSV-2CE, or the RSV-CE). It’s just an all around great bible (I have both editions. My red paperback (RSV-2CE) is my working bible. It’s all beat up, has lot’s of pencil underlines, margin notes etc… The Ignatius Cathlic Study Bible is this version, but all we have so far is the NT and a few select books from the Old. We’re still a few years out, I think from having a single volume study bible from the Ignatius folks, but when we do it will the RSV-2CE, and I’m patiently waiting.

My favorite bible for personal reading is my Douay-Rheims Channoler Edition with commentary by Haydock. I just love this bible in my heart more than any other. It’s simply beautiful. I have a family edition, with my famillies birthdays, deaths, marriages etc. It is faithful to the Vulgate.

Other bibles I have and use for apologetics debate:

King James (Oxford Edition with deuterocanonicals and apocrypha)
NKJV
ESV
NASB
Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Latin Vulgate)
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
DR with Latin Interlinear

It is useful sometimes to look up the same verse in some of all of these.

And of course, the best bible is one which is read. Most of the ones above used for comparisons and apologetics are on my Kindle in E Ink format, and didn’t cost that much.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[po18guy]

And this is an approved version?

It is official in the US. As mentioned, it cannot be used in the liturgy in the form in which it is sold to the public.

I think this situation begs for a new, less controversial translation. Now, as languages go, English is a horrible language, but the largest and oldest Church on earth, containing the finest theologians on earth, can certainly do better than the NAB.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The bible that I use contains the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–the Confraternity New Testament–and a New English translation of the New Latin Psalms prepared by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and authorized by Pope Pius XII–the copyright for the Psalms is 1946–the New Testament 1941–the combination 1949 and the maps and notes and rest of the bible 1952.

These combination Douay Rheims Challoner/Confraternity bible were published between 1949 through 1952.

They have conservative notes and introductions to the books of the bible.

The Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament is from 1750 and is easier to read than the Douay Rheims version of 1609 or the King James version from 1611.

The Psalms are the Bea Psalter and while they are not the best for singing or chanting they are more accurate than the Douay Rheims Challoner Psalms.

The Confraternity New Testament is from 1941. In it Mary is “Full of grace” and Paul forgives the incestuous Corinthian in 2 Cor 2:10 “In the person of Christ”.

In the Old Testament it says in Isaiah 7:14 that “a virgin will conceive” and not the abominable modernist “young woman”.

In Genesis it starts out “In the beginning God” and NOT “In the beginning WHEN”.

I’m not saying at all that this combination bible is perfect–I just think that it is–as a whole–better than anything else out there.

I think it would be great IF we had an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

I think that the best “Catholic polished” Protestant translation is the RSVCE2. What I don’t like about the RSV Catholic editions is that the deuterocanonical books are abbreviated and shorter than the Douay Rheims Challoner versions. Why should Catholics read SHORTER deuterocanonical books because Protestants that don’t even believe the books to be inspired EDITED them?

What would be great would be the New Jerusalem Bible with the above made corrections and WITHOUT any inclusive language and with conservative notes.

We’re in the ballpark of a great translation of the bible but all the modern attempts–those from 1955 onwards except maybe the Knox translation–just miss out.

Ideally we should have a translation that EXACTLY matches the lectionary that is read aloud at mass.

What you hear around here alot is that whatever is approved by the USCCB MUST be the best text possible.

The bishops of the USCCB wouldn’t go that far if you asked them–it’s not like they vote over the textual varient choices of the biblical scholars that come up with the text.

They vote OVERALL on the translation but don’t as a rule–pick it apart–maybe the translation and the notes would be much better if they did!

Also Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi said that the older translation of Hebrews 11:1 where it said that faith was the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for–the EVIDENCE of things not seen was better than CONVICITON of things hoped for the ASSURANCE of things not seen which he said was approved by the Grman conference of bishops in their approved version of the bible.

In other words people what we have is a pope saying that a Conference of bishops approved a translation that in at least one verse was NOT superior to the traditional translation.

Now that’s not saying that what they did was wrong. What they approved might have been true–but it was not the Fullness of truth.

The USCCB has a hard task OKing a great bible translation. It’s OK not to agree with every textual translation choice of the NAB even though it is overall “approved” by the USCCB. Other bibles are approved, too.

Let’s just hope that the next revision of the NAB–where the USCCB hopes to produce a bible that will be OK for study–devotional reading–and will exactly match the lectionary that will pass muster with the Holy See–that that translation effort will turn out to be a good one.

Until then I really do believe that if you use the Douay Rheims Challoner/Confraternity bible and the RSVCE2 with perhaps occasionally referencing the Knox for some of St. Paul’s discourses which can be hard to understand and the New Grail Psalms which will constitute the Psalms for the lectionary and the future revised NAB that you’ll get the major gist of the bible.

I am FOR improving the Vulgate by using original language texts–that’s what the Catholic Church teaches. I am NOT for modernist notes and textual varient choices that depart from the Vulgate when it comes to DOCTRINAL matters.

Trent said the Vulgate could be used in ALL disputations that it was FREE FROM ERROR on matters of DOCTRINE and faith and morals and it is the juridical text of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church–that STILL STANDS–it should be improved–but CAREFULLY and through the lens and approval of the Catholic magisterium now and over the centuries.

 

[Razanir]

In the Old Testament it says in Isaiah 7:14 that “a virgin will conceive” and not the abominable modernist “young woman”.

Okay. Seriously wondering on this one. Especially if it’s at least mentioned in the footnotes, what’s so bad about “young woman” that makes people scream bloody murder?

I think that the best “Catholic polished” Protestant translation is the RSVCE2. What I don’t like about the RSV Catholic editions is that the deuterocanonical books are abbreviated and shorter than the Douay Rheims Challoner versions.

:ehh: Care to give examples?

What you hear around here alot is that whatever is approved by the USCCB MUST be the best text possible.

I’ve never heard that. Most people here don’t really like the NAB.

 

[kentuckyliz]

The NAB sounds like a committee report…because it is a committee report! LOL

I posted the link because someone asked about approved translations. The notes at the top of that page explains the church’s stance on who approves translations.

Their approval is for liturgical use. There is no list of forbidden translations for your private reading.

I think it is good to use a translation that the church uses in liturgy and/or its documents. NAB, NRSV, JB, NJB, RSVCE, RSV2CE are good choices to start with. That assumes you’re not into archaic language but if you like that sort of thing, D-R.

 

[po18guy]

The bible that I use contains the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–the Confraternity New Testament–and a New English translation of the New Latin Psalms prepared by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and authorized by Pope Pius XII–the copyright for the Psalms is 1946–the New Testament 1941–the combination 1949 and the maps and notes and rest of the bible 1952.

The bottom line is that any of the available Confraternity bibles (1941-1969), no matter the year, is superior to the NAB. I prefer the 1952 and earlier Confraternity versions, but have a couple of 1953 editions. The amazing thing is that you can actually demonstrate Catholic doctrine from them. How refreshing!

Say, are we 'Confraternity Onlyists"?

 

[porthos11]

Okay. Seriously wondering on this one. Especially if it’s at least mentioned in the footnotes, what’s so bad about “young woman” that makes people scream bloody murder?

Nothing. There will be people who will cry bloody murder regardless, say that if it were a mere young woman, there would be no real sign, etc. etc.; a young woman was presumed to be a virgin, blah blah.

The fact of the matter is, if you’re translating Isaiah from the Hebrew, the word almah simply means any young woman of marriagable age, regardless of sexual status. That’s all there is to it. The sign given in the immediate context was not a prophecy of a saviour; it was a matter of timing. The birth of Emmanuel was to be the mark from which to begin a countdown towards the fall of both Syria-Damascus and the northern kingdom of Israel, both of which were attacking Judah in an effort to “persuade” King Ahaz to join them in an alliance against Assyria.

Now taken from its immediate context and quoted in Matthew 1:23 from the Septuagint as a prophecy of the saviour, the Greek word in Matthew is parthenos, which means virgin, exactly. This pretty much means any English translation other than “virgin” would be absolutely wrong in Matthew 1:23.

What those who cry bloody murder over Isaiah 7:14’s “young woman” often fail to point out that Matthew 1:23 translates the word as “virgin” exactly.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

1953 and 1954 Confraternity versions are good–they have the first eight books of the bible translated and the Psalms aren’t messed up.

In 1955 in the revised Confraternity Psalms they started in Psalms 1 with “Happy is the man” instead of “Blessed is the man”. There’s a big difference between Blessed and Happy.

That’s why my recommendation is for Confraternity bibles BEFORE 1955.

It is true though–even quibbles with the Psalms aside–that ALL Confraternity bible up through 1969 are superior to the NAB.

po18guy: I wouldn’t say that we’re Confraternity Onlyists–maybe we’re Confraternity only because everything else isn’t as good.

The REAL truth is that the Holy Spirit intended more than what the mere Hebrew word Almah would say–just because Jews of that time would use Almah doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit didn’t mean Virgin and didn’t mean for it later to be translated that way in Matthew.

Course the Holy Spirit might have also known that one day modernist scripture scholars would insist on “young woman” and the Holy Spirit let it all play out that way so that people would THINK about what was said and the real believers would know it was Virgin.

For hundreds of years around Christmas it is always read aloud in Church in Isaiah 7:14–a “Virgin will conceive”.

What you really have to ask yourself is the witness of the Church’s usage over hundreds of years more instructive than a modernist scholar loving the fact that Jews of the time wouldn’t get it and would only use Almah?

And you should also ask yourself how many of those modernist scholars actually believe in the virgin birth?

Also ask yourself if the devil would prefer “Almah” or “virgin”?

The answer is obvious.

The “almah” versus “virgin” controversy shows WHY the magisterium must TRUMP biblical scholars sometimes.

I do wonder what would be the outcome if all the bishops of the USCCB voted on “Virgin” or “Almah” which word would win.

I think it would be “virgin” but I could be wrong.

I am fairly certain that the Holy See if given the choice would choose “virgin”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

1953 and 1954 Confraternity versions are good–they have the first eight books of the bible translated and the Psalms aren’t messed up.

In 1955 in the revised Confraternity Psalms they started in Psalms 1 with “Happy is the man” instead of “Blessed is the man”. There’s a big difference between Blessed and Happy.

That’s why my recommendation is for Confraternity bibles BEFORE 1955.

It is true though–even quibbles with the Psalms aside–that ALL Confraternity bible up through 1969 are superior to the NAB.

po18guy: I wouldn’t say that we’re Confraternity Onlyists–maybe we’re Confraternity only because everything else isn’t as good.

The REAL truth is that the Holy Spirit intended more than what the mere Hebrew word Almah would say–just because Jews of that time would use Almah doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit didn’t mean Virgin and didn’t mean for it later to be translated that way in Matthew.

Course the Holy Spirit also knew that modernist scripture scholars would insist on “young woman” and the holy Spirit let it all play out that way so that people would THINK about what was said and the real believers would know it was Virgin.

For hundreds of years around Christmas it is always read aloud in Church in Isaiah 7:14–a “Virgin will conceive”.

What you really have to ask yourself is the witness of the Church’s usage over hundreds of years more instructive than a modernist scholar loving the fact that Jews of the time wouldn’t get it and would only use Almah?

And you should also ask yourself how many of those modernist scholars actually believe in the virgin birth?

Also ask yourself if the devil would prefer “Almah” or “virgin”.

The answer is obvious.

The “almah” versus “virgin” controversy shows WHY the magisterium must TRUMP biblical scholars sometimes.

I do wonder what would be the outcome if all the bishops of the USCCB voted on “Virgin” or “Almah” which word would win.

I think it would be “virgin” but I could be wrong.

I am fairly certain that the Holy See if given the choice would choose “virgin”.

 

[CalCatholic]

I am a reader of the modern Bible translations (RSV-2CE, NABRE, etc.) and prefer them overall**, BUT** I have to agree with you ‘Confraternity Onlyists’ on this. Modern translations use many sources for their OT translations as most know; MT, LXX, DSS, etc, they have to make choices on which English equivalent word to use in some situations. I think in this situation of choosing to use ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’ which clearly is a choice because the MT use the word ‘almah’ which means young woman and the LXX uses the word ‘parthenos’ which means virgin. So the translators have a choice here.

In my (un-scholarly and lowly) opinion, in a Catholic Bible translation, the translators should have used Church tradition and past usage as the deciding factor of which word to use, and that clearly comes down in the favor of** ‘virgin.’** Matthew’s Gospel clearly interprets it that way, past Catholic Bible translations, Lectionaries and the ECFs interpret it that way, so the choice is clear in my opinion!

The D-R, Confraternity, NAB, RSV-2CE use Virgin

The RSV-CE, Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible, NJB, NABRE and CCB use Young Woman (or some equivalent)

 

[yogosans14]

They have Catholics translations of the Bible on You-version. Its free to download.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The D-R, Confraternity, NAB, RSV-2CE use Virgin

The RSV-CE, Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible, NJB, NABRE and CCB use Young Woman (or some equivalent)

Sadly, the NABRE does not use virgin:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;* the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

 

[po18guy]

I am a reader of the modern Bible translations (RSV-2CE, NABRE, etc.) and prefer them overall**, BUT** I have to agree with you ‘Confraternity Onlyists’ on this. Modern translations use many sources for their OT translations as most know; MT, LXX, DSS, etc, they have to make choices on which English equivalent word to use in some situations. I think in this situation of choosing to use ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’ which clearly is a choice because the MT use the word ‘almah’ which means young woman and the LXX uses the word ‘parthenos’ which means virgin. So the translators have a choice here.

In my (un-scholarly and lowly) opinion, in a Catholic Bible translation, the translators should have used Church tradition and past usage as the deciding factor of which word to use, and that clearly comes down in the favor of** ‘virgin.’** Matthew’s Gospel clearly interprets it that way, past Catholic Bible translations, Lectionaries and the ECFs interpret it that way, so the choice is clear in my opinion!

The D-R, Confraternity, NAB, RSV-2CE use Virgin

The RSV-CE, Knox Bible, Jerusalem Bible, NJB, NABRE and CCB use Young Woman (or some equivalent)

I think the point here being that ‘almah’ was culturally understood to be a virgin without specifying virgin. Virginity was perhaps implicit and explicit in almah, whereas “virgin” applies to all ages within that category. A 90 year old virgin is still a virgin. The NAB/RE NT goes on to use “virgin” pertaining to Mary - but virgin specifies no age group. Mary could technically have been an old maid, but still of child-beraring age, and thus, not compliant with Isaiah’s prophecy, i.e. not being young.