Which English version of the Bible is the most reliable

[ILoveTheLordGod]

With no doubt, the most original Scriptures are the most reliable, but they’re in Hebrew.
I am afraid that there could be corruptions in some versions of the Bible. For example, if you take a look at Romans 1:26 we have “vile affections” in some versions and “degrading passions” in others.

 

[Matt86]

Publishers of the Douay Rheims always argue for it’s slavish accuracy to the Latin Vulgate, which in turn came from the Original Hebrew and Greek.

In my humble opinion, the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition is the most reliable of current Englsh Catholic Bibles.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . **1966 Jerusalem Bible ** (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . 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 Vulgate, the Catholic Church’s Official Bible. Bishop Challoner’s edition 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 is largely the result of the **Holy Spirit’s **inspiration and annointing of the labors of the blessed St. Jerome . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence.

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Latin Vulgate Translation
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 . . . vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html . . . you can’t go wrong with this Bible . . .

Below are comments from the **Eternal Word Television Network’s ** ewtn.com 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.​

I’ve read several times that** that the Holy Father in Rome ** uses 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 Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . when/if purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful not to request the NEW RSV-CE . . . which is being heavily promoted nowadays and 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) [also a paraphrase not a word for word translation]. 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+​

 

[RPRPsych]

My own personal “roll of honour” would be:

1. Douay-Rheims (Challoner) - as the publisher’s blurb on my copy states, this is the “safest”. Nothing contrary to faith and morals, good correspondence to the Vulgate, no errors on “proof texts” of orthodoxy (Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, etc.), and good annotations.
2. Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition - especially the Ignatius Study Bible (I only have the New Testament, though). A translation in modern English, easy to read, fairly literal, and the notes, though they acknowledge “liberal” scholarship, do try to defend traditional teachings and interpretations.
3. Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition - it has “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14, but otherwise, this is generally a very sound version. But if you’ve got the 2nd edition, there’s no real need to have this one too (unless, like me, you’re a collector!)
4. Jerusalem Bible (original 1966 translation) - the notes are quite “liberal” (they accept the Wellhausen “JEDP” hypothesis, the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory, the late authorship of Daniel), but the text itself - if you can overlook the use of “Yahweh” in the Old Testament - is very good. It’s not always literal, but it has a more “literary” feel than the RSV.

…and if I can “cheat” and add a French version, then I will also add…

1. La Bible de Jerusalem (the French Jerusalem Bible). The notes carry the same caveat as the English Jerusalem Bible, but traditional Catholic interpretations are also found (such as the Marian applications of Proverbs 8:22-31, Psalm 45 and Revelation 12, which are all missing in the NAB), and if you can read French, this is a great version indeed. I was fortunate to get a full version of it last year, and I refer to it frequently.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The most reliable bible is the Confraternity New Testament with Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–and the Bea Psalter–an English translation of the New Latin Psalms authorized by Pope Pius XII and published first in 1945. T

These combination bibles were printed for the most part between 1949 to 1952.

They are Catholic and have conservative notes.

 

[I_Thirst]

With no doubt, the most original Scriptures are the most reliable, but they’re in Hebrew.

Just a note. The New Testament is originally in Koine Greek, and the Old Testament is in Hebrew and Greek, though most of the earliest Christians (such as St Paul) used a Greek version of the OT called the Septuagint (LXX).

 

[Nelka]

New Jerusalem Bible.

 

[CalCatholic]

In my humble opinion, the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition is the most reliable of current Englsh Catholic Bibles.

 

[Deenie]

So, my question is this then… I am not a Catholic, however I am seeking to learn more about the Catholic Faith Traditions. I have read some of the 7 books that were removed from the Protestant bible and would like to get a bible that has the 7 books in it. However… I currently use the NIV version of the protestant bible… I have a hard time understanding what I’m reading, so I must “dummy” it down. Any suggestions???

 

[CalCatholic]

So, my question is this then… I am not a Catholic, however I am seeking to learn more about the Catholic Faith Traditions. I have read some of the 7 books that were removed from the Protestant bible and would like to get a bible that has the 7 books in it. However… I currently use the NIV version of the protestant bible… I have a hard time understanding what I’m reading, so I must “dummy” it down. Any suggestions???

If you can get a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, it is easy to read. It is only available ‘new’ in a reader’s edition,’ with out the commentary notes (from Double Day). You can get a copy of the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible with the extensive notes on e-bay.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I agree with many others. Douay Rheims is the most reliable translation, but many people have difficulty reading it because of the outdated language. I was using the 1966 Jerusalem Bible for the last several years. There are several things I love about it, but I am well aware that it is not literal. It is beautifully written, for the most part, and very poetic. However, some of the key “Marian” passages are not traditionally worded (Hail, favored one, “young woman” instead of virgin). Additionally, it uses the word happy instead of blessed-- this especially annoys me in the psalms and the beatitudes. Finally, I do not like the use of the name “Yahweh”, preferring instead the use of “the Lord”. So, with that in mind, I made the leap to the Revised Standard Version – 2nd Catholic edition. I find it highly readable with traditional renderings of all my favorite passages. Since the Douay Rheims is difficult for me, this is the Bible I use for my daily study.

Deenie-- I highly recommend the RSV- 2nd Catholic edition for you rather than the other two I mentioned, for the reasons listed above. I have a leather bound Ignatius Bible found on Amazon for a reasonable price. Paperback and kindle are cheaper of course. Keep in mind there is a difference between the NEW Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the RSV-2nd Catholic Edition. There is also the original RSV Catholic edition, but the 2nd edition is better version in my opinion.

If you have the money, you may consider buying the new Ignatius Study Bible which is New Testament only. It will definitely give you commentary to help you understand how the Catholic Church approaches the scriptures.

 

[patrick457]

I won’t give an answer as to what is the most ‘reliable’ English translation, since it is really an area of personal judgment, and so different people will give different answers. Also, just what do we mean by ‘reliable’: does it mean being faithful to the meaning of the original texts? If so I think that many translations are at least okay in this respect (even if they are not woodenly literal), excepting of course the blatantly faulty ones (the New World Translation, for one). Does reliability mean being faithful to the words of the original languages? Then one should choose the more word-for-word, ‘formal equivalence’ translations and stay away from the more freer ‘dynamic equivalence’ versions like the Good News Bible, the Contemporary English Version, or the New Living Translation. If one still has some mistrust against translations, better it would be IMHO to get an interlinear, or better yet, just learn Greek and Hebrew (even if just one step at a time!) and plod through the original language texts.

I’m more of a literal type of person: I’m more concerned with how the text reflects the original languages and so am not concerned much with readability, so I tend to use highly-literal versions. One of these is Young’s Literal Version. Admittedly it’s a Protestant version (and is slightly antiquated) but it’s one of the woodenly literal editions in English available. Working under the belief that “the word of God is made void by the traditions of men” (i.e. translation conventions that make the text more readable, at the cost of less fidelity to the text) Young tries to keep to the original word order and tenses whenever possible, sacrificing proper grammar. It has some drawbacks (Young was never fully consistent in his translation, something especially observable in areas where there are similarities - the Synoptic Gospels for one) and a lot of people might find his renderings strange, grating into the ears and off-putting (at times rendering Hebrew 'olam and Greek aion as ‘age-during’, for one), but to his credit his is the closest one could get to the feel of the originals without an interlinear.

Another translation I would mention is the Rheims-Douai translation. Unlike the other posters, I don’t mean the Challoner ‘revision’ (which is partly based on the KJV’s wording and is really almost a new version of its own), but the original 1582 Rheims NT and the 1609-10 Douai OT. The original DR is (in)famous for being slavishly faithful to its source text, the Latin Vulgate, down to word order and choice of words (the original is famous for coining many new words from the Latin, some of which entered into English - because it was believed that preserving certain words would convey the sense and meaning better than if one were to translate it all into English), to the point that the Israelites are commanded to immolate a ram “for a pacifique host to the Lord”, the young man in Gethsemane is “clothed with sindon upon the bare”, and St. Paul speaks of the gentiles being “coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ JESUS by the Gospel”!

The reason for the wooden rendering is, according to the translators: “we presume not in hard places to modifie the speaches or phrases, but religiously keepe them word for word, and point for point, for feare of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.” They were of the opinion that heretofore, Protestant translations had attempted render things in clear and understandable English: too clearly, one might say. They thought that when the original text is obscure and hard to understand then a good translation should not attempt to ‘fix’ and clarify it but should likewise be, out of respect for the original, ambiguous as well, with the various options for understanding the text placed somewhere else, e.g. in a marginal note. The Latin Vulgate, after all, had often tended to rather render the Greek very literally, even to the extent of generating improper Latin constructions.

 

[patrick457]

I am aware of course that the translations I mentioned are not for everyone. If you’re looking for a more readable yet still ‘formal’ translation I would recommend the same versions as the other posters, if you’re looking for Catholic translations: the Challoner ‘Douai-Rheims’ if you can handle the Early Modern ‘Biblese’ English (whew!), or the Catholic editions of the Revised Standard Version or the Catholic Public Domain Version (a new translation from the Vulgate by Ron Conte), if you like something more modern. If we’re going to add non-Catholic versions into the mix I would include the American Standard Version (again, King James Biblese alert!), the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, and the World English Bible in recommendations.

 

[mccorm45]

With no doubt, the most original Scriptures are the most reliable, but they’re in Hebrew.
I am afraid that there could be corruptions in some versions of the Bible. For example, if you take a look at Romans 1:26 we have “vile affections” in some versions and “degrading passions” in others.

I recently did a series of posts about my top 5 favorite English Bible translations, which may be helpful. It looks at a whole series of issues relating to the various translations:

catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search/label/Top%205%20Bibles

 

[Matt86]

So, my question is this then… I am not a Catholic, however I am seeking to learn more about the Catholic Faith Traditions. I have read some of the 7 books that were removed from the Protestant bible and would like to get a bible that has the 7 books in it. However… I currently use the NIV version of the protestant bible… I have a hard time understanding what I’m reading, so I must “dummy” it down. Any suggestions???

You may wish to get the CTS New Catholic Bible. It’s the 1966 Jerusalem Bible but ‘Yahweh’ has been changed to ‘Lord’ throughout the Old Testament, and it uses the Grail Translation of Psalms. Quite a nice readable version. (It’s also the lectionary text in the UK).

 

[RPRPsych]

You may wish to get the CTS New Catholic Bible. It’s the 1966 Jerusalem Bible but ‘Yahweh’ has been changed to ‘Lord’ throughout the Old Testament, and it uses the Grail Translation of Psalms. Quite a nice readable version. (It’s also the lectionary text in the UK).

Awesome!

I’d somehow never heard of this one before, but I definitely have to add it to my collection now! (Unfortunately, my regular dealer is “out of stock”, but I shall wait my turn…)

 

[JRRTFAN]

+Mother Angelica of worldwide EWTN fame loved and used the . . . 1966 Jerusalem Bible (a paraphrase not a word for word translation) . . . 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 . . .

]

The Jerusalem Bible (and the New Jerusalem Bible) are NOT paraphrase bibles. They are direct translations of the Greek and Hebrew text done in a “Dynamic Equivalence” = “Thought for Thought” mode. “The Way” (an Evangelical effort) is a paraphrase.

I have both JB and NJB, I like the JB better, its notes are fantastic, but I find it rather poor for study, preferring the RSV-CE (1 or 2) for the text. Everybody demeans the JB "it’s a translation of the French (false) it’s a parphrase (false) it’s just hyper dynamic translation.

 

[JRRTFAN]

My own personal “roll of honour” would be:

1. Jerusalem Bible (original 1966 translation) - the notes are quite “liberal” (they accept the Wellhausen “JEDP” hypothesis, the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory, the late authorship of Daniel), but the text itself - if you can overlook the use of “Yahweh” in the Old Testament - is very good. It’s not always literal, but it has a more “literary” feel than the RSV.

y.

I find the notes of the 1966 JB infinitely more “Catholic” than those of the New American Bible (which is the one most Catholics have heard. Many of the NAB notes are stinkeroos. I have not found any JB notes so afflicted.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Douay-Rheim Challoner is the the best as far as a Study Bible you can carry with you to work or anywhere, and it has the best footnotes for being as concise as it is. And it is very cheap to purchase. The Navarre Bible and Ignatius Study Bible excellent, but they are closer to being Bible commentaries rather than a “Study Bible”. The Navarre in my opinion is a little better than the Ignatius Study Bible but the Ignatius Study BIble has in my opinion a little better format. Both are expensive when you go to buy multiple volumes.

If you want concise but nearly flawless footnotes, then the Challoner is great!

 

[JRRTFAN]

The Douay-Rheim Challoner is the the best as far as a Study Bible you can carry with you to work or anywhere, and it has the best footnotes for being as concise as it is. And it is very cheap to purchase. The Navarre Bible and Ignatius Study Bible excellent, but they are closer to being Bible commentaries rather than a “Study Bible”. The Navarre in my opinion is a little better than the Ignatius Study Bible but the Ignatius Study BIble has in my opinion a little better format. Both are expensive when you go to buy multiple volumes.

If you want concise but nearly flawless footnotes, then the Challoner is great!

You can now buy the Ignatius in one comiled volume. I bought the paper cover for about 18 on Amazon.