Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I am presenting a lecture in English, I use the Jerusalem Bible if I have to give biblical references/passages in translation.
 
po18guy said:
I have but one Douay-Rheims, a 1914 copyright, with the approbation of James Cardinal Gibbons. A bit of living history, and the 100+ year old B&W photos reveal a middle East that stands in stark contrast to that of today. It is the gold standard.

I have the most copies of the Douay-Confraternity Bible (1941-1969). This was a work in progress, with the first editions having the pure D-R Old Testament combined with the Confraternity New Testament. As it progressed toward and through the 1950s, varying degrees of the Confraternity Old Testament translation were introduced. Sadly, it was euthanized by the adoption of the remarkably mediocre NAB in 1970.

The Confraternity was eventually completed, but never under a single cover, which is a shame. It was basically a revision and update of the Clementine Vulgate, but Pius XII had encouraged the use of source manuscripts, which pretty much was the last nail in the coffin of the Vulgate-based Confraternity Bible. They are plentiful and affordable on eBay. I think every serious bible reader should have at least one copy. The Confraternity NT is simply excellent.

The Knox is an absolutely monumental single-handed work of translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox. It is pure Queen’s English, but is beautifully translated. The Psalms read like poetic love letters, which they are.

The Jerusalem is fine, but the seeming choice of fidelity to linguistic accuracy in preference to Church tradition shows. Also, “Yahweh” appears almost innumerable times in it. Pope Benedict XVI was correct in requesting the Catholic Truth Society of England omit the unpronounceable Name in lieu of “Lord” in the version they print today.

Strangely, I find myself not relying on the RSV-2CE all that much. No real reason, I guess - it just sits there on the shelf.

A dark horse that I have taken to recently is the Revised English Bible (with Apocrypha/Deuterocanon). It is a well translated bible that remains imperfect, but is eminently readable, having had (name removed by moderator)ut by all mainline denominations in the UK, as well as the Catholic Church. It is a true ecumenical bible, technically (if not practically) usable by Jews as well as all Christians. A couple of Eastern Orthodox books are missing, but most of them are there.

Out of several KJVs, I like the compact Oxford KJV with Apocrypha. As to 66 book KJVs and other protestant bibles, I simply dislike the attitude of publishers who have declared books of sacred scripture unworthy of inclusion.

Much to the consternation of a lunchtime friend, I bought a used Catholic Living Bible. $2. Tyndale simply could not resist trying to protestant-ize Catholics. During cancer treatment, there were times when its ultra-simple text was all that I could digest. Its redeeming quality is that Our Sunday Visitor supplied the Deuterocanon translations to Tyndale.

The NAB and NAB/RE? I have a few. They are mostly place-holders on a shelf. Aside from the mediocre translation (it is easier to defend Catholic doctrine from a KJV), the absolutely horrendous modernist footnotes that crept in ruin the experience for me. The USCCB’s first error was allowing them in. Their second is in failing to remove them. I do have a 1970 coffee table sized NAB that is devoid of those notes.

The rest (NIV, NASB, various permutations of the KJV, etc.) I page through occasionally, normally only to get another view on a word of phrase.
Click to expand...
👍👍 Your collection sounds a lot like mine, except for that 1914 Douay-Rheims. 🙂
Don_Ruggero said:
If I am presenting a lecture in English, I use the Jerusalem Bible if I have to give biblical references/passages in translation.
Click to expand...
I love that translation, Father. The New Jerusalem and Jerusalem are the first Bibles I bought with my own salary. :)👍
 
po18guy said:
I have but one Douay-Rheims, a 1914 copyright, with the approbation of James Cardinal Gibbons. A bit of living history, and the 100+ year old B&W photos reveal a middle East that stands in stark contrast to that of today. It is the gold standard.

I have the most copies of the Douay-Confraternity Bible (1941-1969). This was a work in progress, with the first editions having the pure D-R Old Testament combined with the Confraternity New Testament. As it progressed toward and through the 1950s, varying degrees of the Confraternity Old Testament translation were introduced. Sadly, it was euthanized by the adoption of the remarkably mediocre NAB in 1970.

The Confraternity was eventually completed, but never under a single cover, which is a shame. It was basically a revision and update of the Clementine Vulgate, but Pius XII had encouraged the use of source manuscripts, which pretty much was the last nail in the coffin of the Vulgate-based Confraternity Bible. They are plentiful and affordable on eBay. I think every serious bible reader should have at least one copy. The Confraternity NT is simply excellent.

The Knox is an absolutely monumental single-handed work of translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox. It is pure Queen’s English, but is beautifully translated. The Psalms read like poetic love letters, which they are.

The Jerusalem is fine, but the seeming choice of fidelity to linguistic accuracy in preference to Church tradition shows. Also, “Yahweh” appears almost innumerable times in it. Pope Benedict XVI was correct in requesting the Catholic Truth Society of England omit the unpronounceable Name in lieu of “Lord” in the version they print today.

Strangely, I find myself not relying on the RSV-2CE all that much. No real reason, I guess - it just sits there on the shelf.

A dark horse that I have taken to recently is the Revised English Bible (with Apocrypha/Deuterocanon). It is a well translated bible that remains imperfect, but is eminently readable, having had (name removed by moderator)ut by all mainline denominations in the UK, as well as the Catholic Church. It is a true ecumenical bible, technically (if not practically) usable by Jews as well as all Christians. A couple of Eastern Orthodox books are missing, but most of them are there.

Out of several KJVs, I like the compact Oxford KJV with Apocrypha. As to 66 book KJVs and other protestant bibles, I simply dislike the attitude of publishers who have declared books of sacred scripture unworthy of inclusion.

Much to the consternation of a lunchtime friend, I bought a used Catholic Living Bible. $2. Tyndale simply could not resist trying to protestant-ize Catholics. During cancer treatment, there were times when its ultra-simple text was all that I could digest. Its redeeming quality is that Our Sunday Visitor supplied the Deuterocanon translations to Tyndale.

The NAB and NAB/RE? I have a few. They are mostly place-holders on a shelf. Aside from the mediocre translation (it is easier to defend Catholic doctrine from a KJV), the absolutely horrendous modernist footnotes that crept in ruin the experience for me. The USCCB’s first error was allowing them in. Their second is in failing to remove them. I do have a 1970 coffee table sized NAB that is devoid of those notes.

The rest (NIV, NASB, various permutations of the KJV, etc.) I page through occasionally, normally only to get another view on a word of phrase.
Click to expand...
Hey, I’m just glad you’re reading the Bible!👍
 
Don_Ruggero said:
If I am presenting a lecture in English, I use the Jerusalem Bible if I have to give biblical references/passages in translation.
Click to expand...
I have the Bible de Jerusalem in French on phone. What I do not have is the Jerusalem Bible in English. I do however, know a local place I can buy it at. If I recall correctly, Tolkien was actually involved in the translation of the Book of Jonah into English.
 
RSV

I use others too which is good to do (I have one work that has them side by side) - but hands down the RSV (tis also the one used by the Church for the official translations of Scripture in Church documents such as the Catechism).

This is the version that I was introduced as the one to use (since it is more literal, and is beautiful etc) - at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

I like to carry the NT with me when I am out -as Pope Benedict did - at least as Cardinal Ratzinger - though it was in Greek! and as Pope Francis keeps exhorting us to carry the Gospels or NT and read it often… it was my practice to often take it along so I was very happy to see him promoting this.

I have among my little new Testaments a pocket size from the 1940s of the RSV but it was not the Catholic edition - that I usually took with me.

Happily there just came out a new pocket size RSV (CE) from Scepter that yes is pocket size for a normal pocket! 🙂

scepterpublishers.org/collections/bibles-and-missals/products/pocket-new-testament

I like the red one personally - as does my wife.
 
Bookcat said:
RSV

I use others too which is good to do (I have one work that has them side by side) - but hands down the RSV (tis also the one used by the Church for the official translations of Scripture in Church documents such as the Catechism).

This is the version that I was introduced as the one to use (since it is more literal, and is beautiful etc) - at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

I like to carry the NT with me when I am out -as Pope Benedict did - at least as Cardinal Ratzinger - though it was in Greek! and as Pope Francis keeps exhorting us to carry the Gospels or NT and read it often… it was my practice to often take it along so I was very happy to see him promoting this.

I have among my little new Testaments a pocket size from the 1940s of the RSV but it was not the Catholic edition - that I usually took with me.

Happily there just came out a new pocket size RSV (CE) from Scepter that yes is pocket size for a normal pocket! 🙂

scepterpublishers.org/collections/bibles-and-missals/products/pocket-new-testament

I like the red one personally - as does my wife.
Click to expand...
I would love to have a pocket-sized RSV-CE. Generally, I’d just take my usual Bible for reading and sometimes my study Bible when I got to campus early before I went to class, sometimes I would read the Bible between classes. You get a lot of respect from people when you read the Bible in public. Well, sometimes. Anyway, I liked having it on hand, because my Hindu friend and I were talking about Chanukkah (yes, you read that correctly) and I told him how our Bibles have the story of Maccabees in it. He seemed legitimately interested. So I got my Bible out and gave him information on it. (He was reading a book about Chanukkah and I saw him on campus and we started talking about religion, I just happened to have my Bible with me). Anyway, if I recall correctly, EWTN religious catalogue has a pocket Douay-Rheims New Testament.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I do not want argue over which is best, I just want to know what y’all prefer and why you prefer it. My preferred translation is the RSV-CE 1st edition (which I am having trouble finding, my original was destroyed by accident). Most commonly, I read RSV-CE 2nd edition, but my first Catholic Bible was NRSV-CE. I own a New American Bible (I got it for free, and gave it to my Grandpa not too long before his death, I guess I inherited it), I don’t care too much for that one, but that’s my opinion. I know a lot of folks like The Douay–Rheims, but I find that one a little too complicated. Anyway, let’s discuss this. I think we could all use some enrichment and encouragement when it comes to scripture 🙂
Click to expand...
Why would there be diffculty finding the first edition? It’s available TAN Books (St. Benedict Press).

tanbooks.com/index.php/bibles/revised-standard-rsv-ce/revised-standard-version-catholic-edition-bible-burgundy-premium-ultrasoft-standard-print-size.html
 
porthos11 said:
Why would there be diffculty finding the first edition? It’s available TAN Books (St. Benedict Press).

tanbooks.com/index.php/bibles/revised-standard-rsv-ce/revised-standard-version-catholic-edition-bible-burgundy-premium-ultrasoft-standard-print-size.html
Click to expand...
The only thing I see on this that says it is first edition is a comment. The date of publication is in the late 2000s. Mine was actually published in the 1960s. Which was one the RSV-with deuterocanon was published (1966). That said, I don’t doubt it is, and I thank you for the link. I think the next Bible version I am going to get is the Jerusalem Bible or the the French Bible de Jerusalem (other than on my phone)
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Whilst we are at it, let’s talk about our least favourite versions! I haven’t read this one, but I am sure it would rank high on my unpopularity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version_Inclusive_Language_Edition
Or the Queen James Version of the Bible (Not kidding).
Click to expand...
Here are some I’d never want to read:
  1. Watchtower Bible (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version)
  2. The Message (a paraphrase)
  3. Good As New: A Radical Retelling of the Gospels (“gay-friendly” stuff, plus the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas)
  4. The Cotton Patch Bible (another silly paraphrase)
The following site is a good resource: Bible Researcher (it’s by a Reformed Protestant, so caveat lector, but it has plenty of good material)
 
I like any one of five, depending on the day and the mood. They are (in order of translation):

Douay-Rheims
Confraternity NT (pocket size)
Knox
Jerusalem Bible reader’s ed (no notes)
RSV2 Didache Bible (with the ICSB on my iPhone)

While not a favorite, I also have a Little Rock Study NABRE that I reference. Despite my distaste for the notes, it is a joy to use and the NABRE reads well in places.
 
tvknight415 said:
While not a favorite, I also have a Little Rock Study NABRE that I reference. Despite my distaste for the notes, it is a joy to use and the NABRE reads well in places.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t have many problems with the NABRE text. The Psalms and New Testament have significant improvements; the issues are mainly with key Old Testament passages (Genesis 3, Isaiah 7). Ignore the notes, and it’s a perfectly acceptable translation. 🙂
 
tvknight415 said:
I like any one of five, depending on the day and the mood. They are (in order of translation):

Douay-Rheims
Confraternity NT (pocket size)
Knox
Jerusalem Bible reader’s ed (no notes)
RSV2 Didache Bible (with the ICSB on my iPhone)

While not a favorite, I also have a Little Rock Study NABRE that I reference. Despite my distaste for the notes, it is a joy to use and the NABRE reads well in places.
Click to expand...
I think the revisions to the NAB were actually quite good compared to what it was before
 
adamhovey1988 said:
The only thing I see on this that says it is first edition is a comment. The date of publication is in the late 2000s. Mine was actually published in the 1960s. Which was one the RSV-with deuterocanon was published (1966). That said, I don’t doubt it is, and I thank you for the link. I think the next Bible version I am going to get is the Jerusalem Bible or the the French Bible de Jerusalem (other than on my phone)
Click to expand...
It IS the 1966 edition. Newly retypeset and laid out, waaay better than the original Nelson layout (now known of course as the “blue” Ignatius Bible). That’s why it has a 20xx publication date. But the content is identical (the only thing missing are cross-references; St. Benedict Press has an explanation for that).

That is the RSV-CE I use now. It’s an excellent publication.
 
porthos11 said:
It IS the 1966 edition. Newly retypeset and laid out, waaay better than the original Nelson layout (now known of course as the “blue” Ignatius Bible). That’s why it has a 20xx publication date. But the content is identical (the only thing missing are cross-references; St. Benedict Press has an explanation for that).

That is the RSV-CE I use now. It’s an excellent publication.
Click to expand...
Oh okay, cool. I was just a little confused by what I was reading. Thank you for telling me about it.👍
 
RPRPsych said:
Here are some I’d never want to read:
  1. Watchtower Bible (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version)
  2. The Message (a paraphrase)
  3. Good As New: A Radical Retelling of the Gospels (“gay-friendly” stuff, plus the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas)
  4. The Cotton Patch Bible (another silly paraphrase)
The following site is a good resource: Bible Researcher (it’s by a Reformed Protestant, so caveat lector, but it has plenty of good material)
Click to expand...
I know the Cotton Patch Bible. I’ve never read it but I do recall talking to people about it. It seems, umm, weird.
 
In my life I have only owned the NAB.

My first NAB Bible was given to me by the pastor of my home parish right before I was about to make my first Holy Communion in 1983. I keep it for sentimental reasons but had to stop reading it once I realized how silly “John the Baptist” sounds being read as “John the Baptizer”. Fingernails on a chalkboard.

About four years ago I bought a new NAB - “The New Catholic Answer Bible”. It actually helped me learn about the Faith with inserts throughout the book explaining the Catholic teachings and practices that people always have the most questions about, and directing the reader to the passages in the Bible that answer those questions. Much better than the 1970(?) version. They also went back to calling “John the Baptist” by his proper name. Thank God.

I have to say that my favorite is a version I haven’t read yet. I’d love to get my hands on the Douay-Reims Bible or the RSV-CE and read through those. Just haven’t made it to the local Christian bookstore yet.

My wife (a former Protestant) still has a handful of NIV Bibles. To me, they “sound” more like a Bible should (if that makes any sense…).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top