Which version of the bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter m_crane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please excuse me for being such a dunce but I still find getting the correct bible very confusing along with confusion on getting the correct missal.

The bible I have is the Holy :bible1: Bible
Revised Standard Version
Second Catholic Edition.

Is this one OK?
I’ve read their advertisements . . . which proclaim this version does not include the corruption of “inclusive language” which changes the Holy See is being so wonderfully vigilant as to absolutely refuse to accept or allow . . . which is a big plus and a very good thing . . . *I haven’t had a chance to check it yet otherwise . . . *

. . . all for Jesus+​
 
Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I will probably purchase a Douay version for him since it appears to be the english translation that is directly from the Latin.
 
FWIW, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation recommends Church-approved translations “especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” rather than from the Latin, which is itself a translation. The Vulgate is a norm regarding which passages must appear in the canon, not the source for all subsequent translation.
 
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 … ******​
I am not aware of statements by the Holy See about the NRSV. In the United States the NAB is used, but here in Canada, the NRSV-CE is used (or at least the Lectionary tries to be similar to the NRSV, as is explained in my “Living with Christ” Sunday Missal booklet).

While I don’t profess to be an expert on Bible translations, the Douay-Rheims is a good version to read due to its stylistic elements (one can get a new perspective on certain parts of the Bible), I enjoy the NRSV and feel I can trust it and understand the Bible correctly, given that it is written in modern English.
 
I am not aware of statements by the Holy See about the NRSV. In the United States the NAB is used, but here in Canada, the NRSV-CE is used (or at least the Lectionary tries to be similar to the NRSV, as is explained in my “Living with Christ” Sunday Missal booklet).

While I don’t profess to be an expert on Bible translations, the Douay-Rheims is a good version to read due to its stylistic elements (one can get a new perspective on certain parts of the Bible), I enjoy the NRSV and feel I can trust it and understand the Bible correctly, given that it is written in modern English.
Below is the link from the EWTN website which specifically address various verisons of Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and some of the specific serious problems with some versions . . . and a link to the **“Norms” **required by the **Holy See **regarding same . . . which norms have unfortunately not been faithfully followed by many many so-called-translators in the very lucrative market place of the selling of Bibles . . . it is a great sadness that man feels he can change Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . the **Holy Word of God **. . . *whenever he pleases . . . for whatever reason he wants . . . *truly the below holy prophecy is tragically being fulfilled today before our very eyes . . .

:compcoff: **Link: **ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm#inclusive

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

The Holy :bible1: Bible

Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord****.
- Amos 8:11

. . . all for Jesus+​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top