I have RSVCE, NJB, and NABRE. RSVCE , I usually use for study. NJB, I mainly use as a devotional bible and lectio divina. NABRE, I mainly use to follow the readings and discussion as it is the version from where our Islands (the Philippines) take the lectionary.
I'm currently reading through the NABRE to get greater context on the lectionary. After that, I'm thinking I might try to go through eastern and western reading cycles a translation at a time. Hoping to better breathe with both lungs! God bless you and yours, Matt. Thanks for posting!
I recently purchased New Revised Standard Version Catholic Gift Edition. Beginning my conversion to Catholicism I needed a Bible with the additional books...
I use a combination of the KJV, NKJV, and ESV as the ones I primarily read on the daily. I use something like Logos Bible (app) or Blue Letter Bible (app), which are apps which you can use to do word studies, compare translations, etc.
Was an Evangelical Christian and am now a Catholic Christian, but my preferred translation is still the NASB. My favorite Catholic translation is the RSVCE. The NABRE Catholic Study Bible that I was given in RCIA has notes that would lead me out of Christianity altogether, so I am not a fan.
I pretty much agree with the video. I read the KJV for two reasons: It's the one I started with and without a good reason to switch, the familiarity helps with concentrating on the message and not getting hung up on the language. The other reason is the period in which it was written was arguably the height of English literary form and is well represented in that translation.
I’m buying my first Bible after some weird intimate encounters at night. Started with a Jennifer Lawrence dream, the. Lying about to fall asleep and my sheet was being pulled slowly and I sat up and Nothing?! Then I woke up getting in the shower for work and my backside was sore and there as some blood (very little) and some other stuff. So I’m looking to buy a KJV I think. Not sure if leather Bible is good or shows no humility?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📖 Discussion about the best Bible translation and its perception by scholars and enthusiasts. 00:28 🌐 Translation is subjective, with personal preferences playing a role in choosing translations. 01:19 🌍 Interest in comparing translations across languages and cultures. 02:00 🤔 Desire to preserve cultural and linguistic identity in translations. 03:02 💬 Relevance of translation quality for understanding biblical texts. Made with HARPA AI
I second this motion. I study the Greek and Hebrew scriptures all the time, and hands down the Douay-Rheims (DR Bible) gets it 99% of the time. I do like the RSV-CE2 and even the new ESV-CE (Augustine Bible), but they still have a Protestant bias (they're both revisions of the King James Bible). There's many verses I can point out, but this message will get too long if I do that. I always tell folks to get the DR Bible as their primary Bible, you can use the RSV or ESV as a secondary source (mostly for readability).
@Don Espoleto Yes. But it's nowhere near as obnoxious with them as you would see in a KJV, IMO. What gets you sometimes in the DR is its "Latinisms". Things like "cup" is "chalice." "Blessing" is "Benediction". "Repent" is "Do penance"....etc BUT, in many places its such a beautiful way of wording things and a comfort and familiarity to a Catholic mind. Where the Latinisms get weird are in the names in the Old Testament. I'm more familiar with the KJV rendering of OT names. So that can be a confusing thing. Also, keep in mind, Bibles like the KJV and all of its Protestant descendant translations have their OT based off the Hebrew Masoretic text instead of the Greek Septuagint (which is the Bible Jesus and the Apostles quoted from). The Masoretic is a post-Temple/Jesus Jewish rabbi OT that literally changed and altered so many verses and passages to edit out Jesus Christ from the OT. The KJV had to defer to the Douay-Rheims rendering in many places. That said, the DR/Vulgate isn't completely faithful to the Greek Septuagint either. But much closer than most popular English translations. There are straight Greek to English translations of the Septuagint out there as well. Unfortunately, none put into a full Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha yet.
Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
@@bread_0113 to be honest I believe i was wrong here. I no longer believe there are any errors in the RSV-CE. Although there are versions of the vernacular i dont like the RSV is a good one. I was acting like a protestant when i wrote that . I still love my douay rheims tho
@@coondogbob Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
@@Charles-jj2su Saint Pope Pius X in the catechism he wrote instructs destroying Protestant bibles because of the errors in them and the risk of people being misled. I'm not saying to do that, but Sean here didn't just make up that idea out of thin air
@seanlegendhavemeyer9936 as a Lutheran and still technically catholic(since I left the church as a kid and not of any decision on my part) please stop burning God's word. We are all apart of mother church. We go to heaven based on believing in the finished work of Christ not on what church we go to. As your brother in Christ. It's great you have a fire for the Lord but don't be to zealous and attack God's Word and your fellow believers.
While the Church has adopted different translations, from time to time, none of those which have been used and approved in the past have actually been “abolished”. The Church takes the view that each new translation adopted has been “a very slight improvement” but not so as to dismiss the earlier translations as unacceptable. So, for example, in England, we had the Douay-Rheims, followed by the Knox, followed by the Jerusalem (in parallel with the RSV 2CE for teaching and study purposes) and now, just recently, the English Standard Version (Anglicised Catholic Edition) both in the Lectionary and for teaching and study purposes. However, the earlier translations may still be read in our private devotions. The official translation of the Sacred Scriptures, approved for use everywhere in the world, is, of course, the current approved version of the Latin Vulgate. This is not identical to the translation of St. Jerome - over the years, with better source texts and better scholarship, there have been some adjustments to the text. The final point of contention amongst Theologians is just how much weight should be given to the Septuagint. This is a translation of the Sacred Scriptures made for use by Jewish people in Greek speaking parts of the world. Some Theologians argue that the later Hebrew versions of the Bible are not so reliable as the version from which the Septuagint was prepared. In particular, the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, so it is suggested that, in preparing later versions in Hebrew, after the Church became established, they deliberately altered the prophecies concerning the Messiah (mainly in Isaiah) to point away from Jesus. However, the Church has never really acknowledged this and uses the later Hebrew texts (the Masoretic texts) rather than the Septuagint. A good Catholic study Bible will, however, include notes referring to any passages which are different in the Septuagint, so it is not necessary for the ordinary Catholic, wishing to be fully informed, to actually buy a Septuagint and go through every verse looking for differences! We do need to assume that the Church knows best. If the Magisterium is to be trusted, then, at the very least, it should be trusted in its preservation of an accurate and reliable version of the Sacred Scriptures.
NAB & RSV are corrupt protestant bibles. Omitted words and verses such as, Genesis 3:15 "She shall crush thy head". Job 5:9 Job 20:10 Job 24: 9,19-21 Job 28:4 Job 36:16-20 Matt 17:20 Acts 8:37. Mark 3:29 "Prayer & Fasting". 1 John 5:7 "there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one". Luke 1:28 "Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women". John 2:4 "what is that to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come". And moderns replaced Penance for repentance which both mean different things. These are just a few that I found. The Douay Rheims is the only correct Bible in English.
Pablo It’s definitely not a Protestant bible - it has all the Catholic books of the Bible and has ecclesiastical approval (nihil obstat and imprimatur)
It grinds my gears how many "scripture experts" fidget and get all goofy when asked this simple, and important, question. Bible translation is a very complex and vast subject. One could read for years and still not grasp all the factors involved. But when a layman asks for recommendations, one should be forthcoming. Peace and Happy New Year.
Absolutely. Plenty of heretics out there. And i would consider this guest of Matt as onenof them. Any bible is acceptable?? What about the bible of Jehovahs witness?? Some just doesnt have the balls to say the truth because they are afraid of offending anyone.
@Sir Shramp That's a great question and I guess you saw my comments regarding how hard it is for the lay faithful to get a straight answer. I will give you one, based on the comments of various respected Catholic scholars and countless hours spent reading numerous different catholic and Protestant English translations while consulting the Greek base text over the years. If you are comfortable with a more formal, sometimes harder to grasp translation, get the RSV Second Catholic Edition, sometimes abbreviated as RSV-2CE. The earlier RSV Catholic Edition is nearly as good. If you think you would do better with a translation that tries to smooth out some difficult idioms and still be pretty accurate, I would suggest the NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition). A benefit of the NABRE is that it is very close to the translation used at Mass. One warning about the NAB- the way it was copyrighted required that the footnotes appear whenever it is printed and they are rarely of a devotional or pastoral nature. They should have remained with the translation apparatus instead of winding up in the Bibles on the shelf. So take them as such. But overall, the NAB is a solid, modern translation from the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available. If you want a good, Catholic Bible with good, traditional commentary, I would recommend the Didache series. It comes in both RSV and NAB versions and the notes are drawn from good sources like the early fathers and Catechism. If you want a New Testament alone, Ignatius Press makes a volume with the RSV-2CE and commentary from Scott Hahn and Curtiss Mitch, two very reputable dudes. Finally, you say you grew up with the KJV. If you were never really comfortable with that, then forget it. But if you really spent a lot of time getting to know it and study it, so you are not put off by the 17th Century language, you might like the Douay-Rheims. This was the first Catholic translation in English and was translated right before the King James, in 1583. It is accurate and based mostly on the Latin Vulgate in use in the Church for more than 1,000 years. In many editions, it carried minimal footnotes from a 1750s revision that are very orthodox. Many people struggle with the outdated language and at times, like the KJV, it can be confusing since many English words have changed a lot in 400 years! Hope this helps sir. Peace.
@sirshramp5934if you like the KJV, get the Douay Rheims. I suggest the Baronius Press version or the Preserving Christian Publications version. Also, the haydock family Bible is awesome and has great commentary. Don’t get the NAB or any form of it. If you want a more modern Bible, look for Scott Hahns Ignatius Catholic Study Bible RSVCE-2 (full version with OT releases in Fall)
This is helpful. I've been working on NT Greek for the last couple of years and reading the day's gospel courtesy of Universalis. I'm no Greek scholar but straight narrative is generally doable. It gets a lot trickier with the Letters. I notice the DR and RSVCE follow the Greek more literally than, say, the Jerusalem Bible (most of the lectionary here in Oz is JB). Listening to Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre and others really helps. So, thanks for the wrap. It makes a lot of sense.
That's a great project. Just keep in mind that everything we call "the Greek original" today is more or less a critical text produced by modern scholars, based on manuscripts they prefer, and many of them are unbelievers. Some scholars believe Jerome had access to many very early Greek and Hebrew texts (200-300AD) that have long since been lost. Something to consider... Peace.
Yes. Many if the "approved" lectionary translations - Jerusalem and New American - really are subpar translations. And they lack a true integral quality of Liturgical texts - beauty. The post-conciliar era real anathematized beauty from its midst. Just boring, banal, and common were the standard of the day for 30-40 years.
As a Ukrainian-Greek Catholic it's high recommended from our Patriach that we use an Orthodox Bible. I personally use the Orthodox Study Bible by Ancient Faith.
Interesting timing! I've been comparing many different translations lately as I've been searching for a new bible to use as my daily. I am presently awaiting the arrival of the Great Adventure Bible that I purchased. I like the RSV-(2)CE and the Douay-Rheims. I do wish there were a Douay-Rheims that had the commentary from the Ignatius Study Bible (still waiting for the O.T.!, the Great Adventure Bible, and the Navarre Bible. I've been searching for an analysis on how the Douay-Rheims's accuracy would be ranked as if it were a translation of the original languages, especially with regard to phrasing and syntax (subordinate clauses, etc.). I haven't found a good exposition on that yet.
It's not a matter of which bible you use.... It's a matter of which MANUSCRIPTS were used. The Textus Receptus stream of manuscripts has a cloud of witnesses that is over 5000+ fragments The Alexanderian stream is less than 100 and they come from the geographical location inconsistent with document standards
My first Bible was/still is the D-Rheims ( can’t spell it tho I just saw it.) Many of the verses seem more beautiful or poetical that I still remember. Went to other translations because the “Thee, Thou, Thy, etc” were lovely, I personally became very confused even as I got older. Wish new translations could keep the wording just changing the Thees and Thous. And there may be such a translation.
Good conversation and points. I have really been enjoying reading from multiple versions with the Bible App. When I come to an interesting or perplexing verse, the app allows me to quickly compare multiple versions side by side like the ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV..etc... Really helpful at times to see scripture in multiple translations. 👍🏼
When it comes to the Catholic versions, there are the big 3, Douay Rheims, RSV CE, and NAB. I like the DRV because it's a literal translation of the latin vulgate. The RSV is good in the new testament so you can debate with Protestants because they generally accept the RSV as a good bible. Definitely not the Douay. They think it's too Catholic. And for old testament reading I Like the NAB. It's easy to understand and was translated from the original Hebrew unlike the Douay Version. I also have 5 protestant translations, NIV ,NASB, NKJV et al.
Why can't i find a single Catholic Bible that uses the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text? I want to get one with the Septuagint translation, idc if it's not stamped with approval by the bishop, if that's an option
Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
I was actually a bit thrown when I was reading NRSV and got to Luke 1:28, and the Angel Gabriel addressed Mary as “Greetings, highly favored one”. It was jarring because the “Hail, Mary full of grace” is supposed to be taken right out of the Bible. And then in the NRSV, it was completely replaced to make it more digestible for “modern audiences” it seems. I feel it lost something significant theologically for Catholics. I’m sure Protestants don’t care though.
The REASON God has given some the spiritual gift of "pastor-teacher" is so that the person who HAS this gift is SUPPOSED TO spend many, many, many hours studying & DAILY teaching the Word of God (Bible) to his (not any "hers") congregation under the filling of the Holy Spirit & using that precious GIFT which few other Christians possess! The average Christian goes to work, raises a family, & has many daily responsibilities that would make studying the Bible in more than a "passing" manner pretty much impossible....he/she would NEVER have time to (1) learn the original languages of the Bible in order to exegete; (2) learn the historical significance or background of each word, verse, chapter & book in the Bible in order to place everything in context; & (3) figure out the thousands of categorizations (themes, doctrines, etc.) that run as threads throughout the Bible & put them together succinctly & comprehensively & put it altogether for their congregants to understand, phew!. Christians should basically have the Bible that is recommended by his/her "right" pastor-teacher, & have it out & ready to go as the pastor-teacher teaches the word of God. This teaching should be longer than the current 15-30 mins. of emotional "preaching" that is done today in most churches & should be a DAILY experience. Emotions don't think. They respond to our thinking. We are commanded to have "the MIND of Christ," NOT His EMOTIONS. Every Christian should confess their sins PRIOR to listening or learning Bible doctrine (including reading the Bible for sheer pleasure!). So, it is only under this filling of the Holy Spirit that Bible doctrine is understood & used as "divine works," & so this step is imperative! The Christian is to go about each day "praying without ceasing" (in a state of having no unconfessed sins & leaving a direct line open for communicating with God). The Christian should be applying Bible doctrine that was learned by listening to their "right" pastor-teacher, daily, under the filling of the Holy Spirit. This application includes sitting & learning doctrine, & allowing the Holy Spirit (God) to change you from the inside out. You will find yourself following Jesus Christ when what is learned is slowly converted to what you think & what you do. The Christian, as "a new creature" must start with basic "milk" of the Bible, & gradually start taking in & understanding the "meat" of the Bible. Just reading the Bible is NOT enough..... Let your right pastor-teacher do his job & the individual Christian do theirs, keeping in mind that the MATURE Christian will one day discover their own spiritual gift & be ready to use it because of having spent years metabolizing (feeding on) the word of God. Choose wisely, everyone! Every Christian is both a priest & an ambassador beginning the 1st day of accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Okay, I'm done, lol.......
Please can you explain why in the Jurusalem translation it reads 'work for your salvation.....' where in nearly all others it reads 'work out....'? Philippians 2:12.
The JB is not correct. The Greek word used here basically means “to achieve; to accomplish; to bring about.” The form of the verb used in this verse signifies an ongoing effort, thus conveying the idea of working to bring something to completion.
I’m a Protestant and it’s interesting to me that we have our traditionalists who are devoted to the KJV as Catholic traditionalists are to the DRB. Those in Protestant denominations preferring a more modern or academic translation often really like the English Standard Version whereas Catholics who prefer this type of translation seem to go with the New Jerusalem Bible…..However nearly all Protestants and Catholics can agree, despite our differences, that the Message is just awful lol.
@@KP-ej7gc The message "Bible" adds things in and takes things out. It isn't a good idea to read it if you want to get a good understanding of Scripture
I still use primarily the King James Version with Apocrypha for my personal study and devotion. I was raised Southern Baptist so the KJV is just natural and, to be honest, the most beautiful English translation. I love the Douay-rheims and have multiple copies but it can be a bit "clunky" sometimes. A very good translation but I just cannot part with the KJV.
There is an edition of the KJV published by Walsingham Publishing. It is intended for the personal use of Catholics. It contains all 73 books, with the books of the Old Testament integrated in the traditional Catholic order. There are notes offering alternate translation of doctrinally important verses. It is a soft cover in two volumes. It doesn't seem to be a Catholic edition as such - no imprimatur.
very interesting video. I've been doing some small research myself and really want a Septuagint OT but in the style of the KJV/Douay-Rheims and as far as I know something of that sort doesn't exist. The Lexham LXX is my only option but it uses more modern English and is known to have some typos. But for me at this point in time I am using the KJV with "Apocrypha" and a Douay-Rheims
Brenton Septuagint OT with an ultra thin KJV strapped to it. Something with the wording of the KJV that makes you easily remember verses. I trust the LXX's OT anyday over the KJV (and most other modern translations today) , though. Reading the LXX's Isaiah and reading the KJV's Masoretic Isaiah is almost like reading two different books. I believe the Masoretic did a lot to alter and edit Christ out of many passages of the OT......it's the LXX that lines up directly with quotes by Jesus and the Apostles, not the Masoretic. For easy reading I actually don't mind the NAB. The modernist footnotes are ridiculous but the translation isn't actually as bad as most folks say it is. The NAB can be surprisingly more on the literal side contrary to what many say against it. The Douay-Rheims is timeless as well but can get weird many times with the clunky Latin to English.
Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
Disregarding translation quality, I find the formatting and layout of _The Books of the Bible_ to be the most conducive to reading. Verse numbers are removed (though verse ranges are indicated at the bottom of pages), the page itself is single column instead of double column- so more like a normal book, and finally, spacing and indents are used to break up the text into its natural narrative structures, and to differentiate quotes from the rest of the text. Overall it makes for a far more pleasant Bible reading experience. Honestly I think this layout should become the new standard. More people would actually read the Bible if it were a more pleasant experience.
Ignatius Bible (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Bible) is the best translation, as it is in formal but modern English without gender inclusive language. The Jerusalem Bible (NOT the New Jerusalem Bible) is also good.
I have a headache choosing! I am almost decided on the Divine Mercy, Ascension Press or the Catholic Illustrated with the 16th century woodcuts....I was looking first at womens bibles and decided that the colouring bibles make women look really daft!
I recommend for Catholic study and learning RSVCE (first edition). The first edition retained the higher English with the "thees" and "thous" in the psalms, canticles, and prayers. Just objectively more beautiful. The second edition dispensed with the more higher English through out. I also use "The Precise Parallel New Testament" by John R. Kohlenberger III. It has eight translations including KJV, Douay New American, etc. Very, very helpful resource to compare good translations.
NAB & RSV are corrupt protestant bibles. Omitted words and verses such as, Genesis 3:15 "She shall crush thy head". Job 5:9 Job 20:10 Job 24: 9,19-21 Job 28:4 Job 36:16-20 Matt 17:20 Acts 8:37. Mark 3:29 "Prayer & Fasting". 1 John 5:7 "there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one". Luke 1:28 "Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women". John 2:4 "what is that to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come". And moderns replaced Penance for repentance which both mean different things. These are just a few that I found. The Douay Rheims is the only correct Bible in English.
Ha ha! Nice subtle dig at the Message translation. If the original greek would say "the sun is 93 millions miles away from the earth ", a literal translation might read "There is 93 million miles from the earth to the sun". The Message would say "That bright yellow circle in the sky is farther than you think". Lol. (I'm kidding for all of you "the message" fans). 😄
I'm not the Message Buble translates John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh and bones and moved into the neighborhood" that's pretty egregious. Edit: I will say one thing about the Message and that is this Eugene Peterson gave Mary a great amount of praise in his iteration of Luke 1:28 calling her "beautiful inside and out" that's more than you ever hear from Protestants
"The message" even acknowledges that it isn't a translation per se, and uses that as an excuse for not seeking church approval for its so called "catholic edition".
One more reason why I still read the KJV is that you can find a plethora of genuinely beautifully made Bible. Goatskin, smyth-sewn, red letter, gorgeous text, etc. Catholics still have yet to make a really beautiful bible. Catholic Book Publishing is still stuck in the 1960s and has yet to update the text or quality of materials used. Their books from NAB to Liturgy of the Hours screams: "1960s post-Vatican II ugly!" Baronius and St. Benedict have tried to up the game but are still subpar in comparison. Truth is that Catholics still dont love Scripture as much as our Protestant brethren and hence the progression of actual materials is subpar
I don’t agree with that. I’m new Christian and I know enough to know I don’t know what religion loves Jesus more?? It’s the soul in that person that loves Jesus not the religion. It’s not about how good a book looks if you don’t read it and follow the message right? I’m looking to buy my first Bible in my early 40’s and I’m leaning towards KJV, I’m neither Protestant nor Catholic or Presbyterian. I’m Christian and I was brought up Catholic but if I truly follow Jesus I don’t know that it matters? I’m new in my new faith so idk maybe I’m wrong but I trust Jesus will let me know when I need to
@@greg6162 Crap materials and bad translations lead to bad faitha nd practice. The reason European churches take people's breath away when they walk in is because it was build and decorated to elicite wonder, awe, Majesty of God. Even Prots that go to Rome and Europe sprint to see the beauty of these temples of worship because they don't have that. They have a boring, banal, lame office building that inspires nothing. Same with the tools we use. Quality elicits quality results. Budget tools can get you buy for a while but have to be replaced quickly and look ugly. It does matter.
@@greg6162 I understand where you are coming from. The power of the Gospel should be the diamond we are looking for. But a diamond set in a beautiful ring setting or crown accentuates and magnifies the beauty and Majesty of that diamond. Analogies limp but make the point.
Which Jesus are you following? Within 10 years after Jesus Crucifixion we find many false teachers preaching. For St. Paul had warned the church in Corinthians . "For you gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and the gospel you received from us!" *2 Corinthians 11:4* False teachers, were masters in creating confusion in the minds of innocent sheep. They used ancestry to create it. Si. Paul says "I want you to stay in Ephesus, just as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia. Some people there are teaching false doctrines, and you must order them to stop. Tell them to give up those legends and "*those long lists of ancestors*," which only produce arguments; they do not serve God's plan, which is known by faith." 1 Timothy 1:4 The false teachers were Jews well conversed in OT and they are the ones who created the Masoretic Hebrew text to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah ! The Septuagint Bible, from which Jesus quoted the OT verses pointed towards him as the Messiah. Thats the reason why the Jews created Masoretic Hebrew text, by making a few changes in the genealogy and deleting 7 books from the Septuagint Bible. The corrupt priest, Martin Luther, called Vatican corrupt and recommended deletion of 7 books and adopting the Masoretic Hebrew text as the OT !! If Vatican was corrupt during reformation period the CHURCH OF ENGLAND would not have been formed by King Henry VIII and his successor King James would not have come out with KJV Bible. As KJV Bible has incorporated Masoretic Hebrew text as OT, its the wrong Bible for any christian who follows Jesus Christ ; who died on the cross for us sinners. Matthew 27:17-26 says So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: *Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah* ?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him. So which Jesus do you follow ? If you read KJV, you follow Barrabas If you read a Catholic Bible / Bible which has the Septuagint Bible as OT ,you follow Christ !!! So which Jesus do you follow ?Which Jesus are you following? Within 10 years after Jesus Crucifixion we find many false teachers preaching. For St. Paul had warned the church in Corinthians . "For you gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and the gospel you received from us!" *2 Corinthians 11:4* False teachers, were masters in creating confusion in the minds of innocent sheep. They used ancestry to create it. Si. Paul says "I want you to stay in Ephesus, just as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia. Some people there are teaching false doctrines, and you must order them to stop. Tell them to give up those legends and "*those long lists of ancestors*," which only produce arguments; they do not serve God's plan, which is known by faith." 1 Timothy 1:4 The false teachers were Jews well conversed in OT and they are the ones who created the Masoretic Hebrew text to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah ! The Septuagint Bible, from which Jesus quoted the OT verses pointed towards him as the Messiah. Thats the reason why the Jews created Masoretic Hebrew text, by making a few changes in the genealogy and deleting 7 books from the Septuagint Bible. The corrupt priest, Martin Luther, called Vatican corrupt and recommended deletion of 7 books and adopting the Masoretic Hebrew text as the OT !! If Vatican was corrupt during reformation period the CHURCH OF ENGLAND would not have been formed by King Henry VIII and his successor King James would not have come out with KJV Bible. As KJV Bible has incorporated Masoretic Hebrew text as OT, its the wrong Bible for any christian who follows Jesus Christ ; who died on the cross for us sinners. Matthew 27:17-26 says So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: *Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah* ?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him. So which Jesus do you follow ? If you read KJV, you follow Barrabas If you read a Catholic Bible / Bible which has the Septuagint Bible as OT ,you follow Christ !!! So which Jesus do you follow ?
The Jewish community has Hebrew school for its adherents and they still conduct their ordinary human life to boot. I think , we as Christians should learn NT Greek in a similar manner rather than rely on other translations(unless your referring to the Gospel of Matthew, probably originally in Aramaic). We have a calling to understand the Gospel without necessarily having a poor translation or parental priest constantly over our shoulder.
I feel like all translations are bad because words themselves are bad. But we either talk about something or we don’t, and it’s better to talk about it than not, so any translation is better than none. But I prefer David Hart’s translation of the NT. Reasons? Because it wasn’t cobbled together by a council with a bone to pick with respect to certain doctrines. It’s “raw,” so to speak.
Deuteronomy 8:3 + Matthew 4:4 + Luke 4:4 --- 1611 A.V King James Bible God preserved his word as promised, using mathematical precision. Psalm 12:6-7 King James Version 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV all the way. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" Not Mary, not the saints. Purgatory isn't in The Bible and you can't pray to the dead as they can't hear you and it's classed as necromancy. Only Jesus saves and you need to be born again. John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God'" Baptism is a choice, not a sacrament
@Daren Fliflet As JW's are not Arianists so what? Still, Arianism might well have been eventually condemned by a human council in the late 4th century but that cuts no ice with me. So what if a non-inspired human council condemns or approves anything? The Scriptures are the touchstone as to what is true, orthodox, heterodox or heresy.
@Daren Fliflet No, not from Arius but from Colossians 1.15 and Revelation 3.14 which undoubtedly show the Son to be a part of, albeit, the first, of creation. He is not an angel. If a JW could see the throne of God now, they would see Jehovah and His Son on the same throne. The Son has been so highly exalted that he is *almost* indistinguishable from Jehovah. Just thought I'd share this thought with you my friend. PS. If you wish to discuss those scripture places I'm OK with that
The NABRE is the best catholic bible. Very scholarly because Catholics aren’t as intent as Protestants to fit the Bible to their views (as Catholics ultimately don’t care what the bible says). I use the New World Translation because it hasn’t illicitly removed God’s name (unlike every other modern English translation) - in English translated as “Jehovah” - and it is simply a better translation than all the alternatives (see “Truth in Translation” by Prof. Jason BeDuhn).
I think you mean the NAB. The NASB is a Protestant translation. I would also disagree with describing the NAB as scholarly. The footnotes in the NAB are the fruit of trying to interpret the Bible through a modernist/historical critical hermeneutic, which is more an example of ideology than scholarship. We have a long history of caring about the Bible. I would direct you to Thomas Ward's 17th century work, Errata to the Protestant Bible, which is an example of Catholics very much caring about how the Bible is translated. Or we can look as far back as the Pope asking St. Jerome to produce a better Latin translation than that found in the various Vetus Latin translations. Or the mountains of interpretative work done by the Church Fathers. Or the various illuminated manuscripts produced in the Middle Ages. Or the various German translations of the Bible before Luther was even born.
Jehovah is not the name of God for one thing there is no Hebrew "J" sound seeing as Jesus' literal Hebrew name is "Yeshua." On a historical basis this falls even further apart: Jews didn't include vowels in the earliest transcriptions of scripture, because they carved them in stone so they never used vowel sounds, so the Divine Name was spelled: Y H W/V H. People began to refuse speaking the Divine Name because they didn't know how to pronounce it, so they would substitute a word for YHWH, usually "Adonai." By the time The Scriptures were transcribed to scrolls people had entirely forgotten how to say the Divine Name, this is evident by the fact that nowhere in the Greek New Testament is the Divine Name used, which is another problem with NWT. Any way to deal with the problem of the ignorance of the Divine Name they always added the first three vowels of Adonai to YHWH, to remind people to use that name instead, so it was spelled: Y A H O W/V A H. Most scholars would render the Divine Name "Yahweh," but we don't know for sure so instead of using any of the number of things God gave us to call him instead such as "Lord" or "Father" you are calling him by a word that literally only exist because people were scared of mispronouncing the Divine Name. To conclude, you might as well be calling Him "Gosh" or "Cheese and Rice" since you are using a word that was only created to prevent people from blaspheming and you aren't even pronouncing it correctly. Funny how you have the audacity to say that Catholics don't care about The Scriptures that we compiled, just so your Arian Heresy could mistranslate 66 of the books into undoubtedly the worst translation of The Scriptures known to man. If there is a religion that doesn't care about Scripture it is the Jehovah's Witnesses
So what translation of the Bible do you use and why?
I have RSVCE, NJB, and NABRE.
RSVCE , I usually use for study.
NJB, I mainly use as a devotional bible and lectio divina.
NABRE, I mainly use to follow the readings and discussion as it is the version from where our Islands (the Philippines) take the lectionary.
I'm currently reading through the NABRE to get greater context on the lectionary. After that, I'm thinking I might try to go through eastern and western reading cycles a translation at a time. Hoping to better breathe with both lungs! God bless you and yours, Matt. Thanks for posting!
I recently purchased New Revised Standard Version Catholic Gift Edition. Beginning my conversion to Catholicism I needed a Bible with the additional books...
I use a combination of the KJV, NKJV, and ESV as the ones I primarily read on the daily. I use something like Logos Bible (app) or Blue Letter Bible (app), which are apps which you can use to do word studies, compare translations, etc.
Was an Evangelical Christian and am now a Catholic Christian, but my preferred translation is still the NASB. My favorite Catholic translation is the RSVCE. The NABRE Catholic Study Bible that I was given in RCIA has notes that would lead me out of Christianity altogether, so I am not a fan.
Douay Rheims was written by a literal saint
No
every believer in christ is a real saint
All true Christians are saints. Read the Bible.
We understand, you don’t like Saints, you believe that being a Protestant you will still be save. Any bible is acceptable…sure. IF YOuRe A HeReTIC.
St Jerome...yes absolutely...DR is good as a reference bible....to study passages ...
I got a beautiful leatherbound Douay Rheims
I pretty much agree with the video. I read the KJV for two reasons: It's the one I started with and without a good reason to switch, the familiarity helps with concentrating on the message and not getting hung up on the language. The other reason is the period in which it was written was arguably the height of English literary form and is well represented in that translation.
I’m buying my first Bible after some weird intimate encounters at night. Started with a Jennifer Lawrence dream, the. Lying about to fall asleep and my sheet was being pulled slowly and I sat up and Nothing?! Then I woke up getting in the shower for work and my backside was sore and there as some blood (very little) and some other stuff. So I’m looking to buy a KJV I think. Not sure if leather Bible is good or shows no humility?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📖 Discussion about the best Bible translation and its perception by scholars and enthusiasts.
00:28 🌐 Translation is subjective, with personal preferences playing a role in choosing translations.
01:19 🌍 Interest in comparing translations across languages and cultures.
02:00 🤔 Desire to preserve cultural and linguistic identity in translations.
03:02 💬 Relevance of translation quality for understanding biblical texts.
Made with HARPA AI
The Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible >
I second this motion. I study the Greek and Hebrew scriptures all the time, and hands down the Douay-Rheims (DR Bible) gets it 99% of the time. I do like the RSV-CE2 and even the new ESV-CE (Augustine Bible), but they still have a Protestant bias (they're both revisions of the King James Bible). There's many verses I can point out, but this message will get too long if I do that. I always tell folks to get the DR Bible as their primary Bible, you can use the RSV or ESV as a secondary source (mostly for readability).
@@johnnymendez7423
I want to know which verses. I have a Douay Rheims myself btw.
@Don Espoleto yes, however I’m not quite sure about newer Douay-Rheims versions.
@Don Espoleto Yes. But it's nowhere near as obnoxious with them as you would see in a KJV, IMO. What gets you sometimes in the DR is its "Latinisms".
Things like "cup" is "chalice." "Blessing" is "Benediction". "Repent" is "Do penance"....etc
BUT, in many places its such a beautiful way of wording things and a comfort and familiarity to a Catholic mind.
Where the Latinisms get weird are in the names in the Old Testament. I'm more familiar with the KJV rendering of OT names. So that can be a confusing thing.
Also, keep in mind, Bibles like the KJV and all of its Protestant descendant translations have their OT based off the Hebrew Masoretic text instead of the Greek Septuagint (which is the Bible Jesus and the Apostles quoted from).
The Masoretic is a post-Temple/Jesus Jewish rabbi OT that literally changed and altered so many verses and passages to edit out Jesus Christ from the OT. The KJV had to defer to the Douay-Rheims rendering in many places.
That said, the DR/Vulgate isn't completely faithful to the Greek Septuagint either. But much closer than most popular English translations. There are straight Greek to English translations of the Septuagint out there as well. Unfortunately, none put into a full Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha yet.
Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
Douay-Rheims.. simply because there’s no hidden protestant biases like the RSV CE . Foot notes can be dangerous
@@coondogbob is there an alternative? I don’t speak Latin.
@@bread_0113 its in English..
@@coondogbob oh my bad thx
@@bread_0113 to be honest I believe i was wrong here. I no longer believe there are any errors in the RSV-CE. Although there are versions of the vernacular i dont like the RSV is a good one. I was acting like a protestant when i wrote that . I still love my douay rheims tho
@@coondogbob Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
There are no bad bibles imo but I've found the DR to be the most enjoyable so far. I love the footnotes in it, it's really helpful
Whenever i get a protestant bible in my hand like the KJV , i burn it immediately. I cant allow heresy to spread around.
@@Radtrad_strada you’re burning sacred scripture dude
@@Charles-jj2su a Jehovahs witness bible that denies the Holy Trinity, is sacred? I dont think so.
@@Charles-jj2su Saint Pope Pius X in the catechism he wrote instructs destroying Protestant bibles because of the errors in them and the risk of people being misled. I'm not saying to do that, but Sean here didn't just make up that idea out of thin air
@seanlegendhavemeyer9936 as a Lutheran and still technically catholic(since I left the church as a kid and not of any decision on my part) please stop burning God's word.
We are all apart of mother church. We go to heaven based on believing in the finished work of Christ not on what church we go to.
As your brother in Christ. It's great you have a fire for the Lord but don't be to zealous and attack God's Word and your fellow believers.
While the Church has adopted different translations, from time to time, none of those which have been used and approved in the past have actually been “abolished”. The Church takes the view that each new translation adopted has been “a very slight improvement” but not so as to dismiss the earlier translations as unacceptable. So, for example, in England, we had the Douay-Rheims, followed by the Knox, followed by the Jerusalem (in parallel with the RSV 2CE for teaching and study purposes) and now, just recently, the English Standard Version (Anglicised Catholic Edition) both in the Lectionary and for teaching and study purposes. However, the earlier translations may still be read in our private devotions. The official translation of the Sacred Scriptures, approved for use everywhere in the world, is, of course, the current approved version of the Latin Vulgate. This is not identical to the translation of St. Jerome - over the years, with better source texts and better scholarship, there have been some adjustments to the text. The final point of contention amongst Theologians is just how much weight should be given to the Septuagint. This is a translation of the Sacred Scriptures made for use by Jewish people in Greek speaking parts of the world. Some Theologians argue that the later Hebrew versions of the Bible are not so reliable as the version from which the Septuagint was prepared. In particular, the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, so it is suggested that, in preparing later versions in Hebrew, after the Church became established, they deliberately altered the prophecies concerning the Messiah (mainly in Isaiah) to point away from Jesus. However, the Church has never really acknowledged this and uses the later Hebrew texts (the Masoretic texts) rather than the Septuagint. A good Catholic study Bible will, however, include notes referring to any passages which are different in the Septuagint, so it is not necessary for the ordinary Catholic, wishing to be fully informed, to actually buy a Septuagint and go through every verse looking for differences! We do need to assume that the Church knows best. If the Magisterium is to be trusted, then, at the very least, it should be trusted in its preservation of an accurate and reliable version of the Sacred Scriptures.
I use RSVSCE - it's very readable. I hope to use the full Ignatius Study when it's (hopefully) released this year
NAB & RSV are corrupt protestant bibles. Omitted words and verses such as, Genesis 3:15 "She shall crush thy head". Job 5:9 Job 20:10 Job 24: 9,19-21 Job 28:4 Job 36:16-20 Matt 17:20 Acts 8:37. Mark 3:29 "Prayer & Fasting". 1 John 5:7 "there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one". Luke 1:28 "Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women". John 2:4 "what is that to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come". And moderns replaced Penance for repentance which both mean different things. These are just a few that I found. The Douay Rheims is the only correct Bible in English.
Pablo It’s definitely not a Protestant bible - it has all the Catholic books of the Bible and has ecclesiastical approval (nihil obstat and imprimatur)
As a Lutheran I use the RSVCE as well.
When will the Pints With Aquinas beer steins be available for purchase again??
It grinds my gears how many "scripture experts" fidget and get all goofy when asked this simple, and important, question. Bible translation is a very complex and vast subject. One could read for years and still not grasp all the factors involved. But when a layman asks for recommendations, one should be forthcoming.
Peace and Happy New Year.
Absolutely. Plenty of heretics out there. And i would consider this guest of Matt as onenof them. Any bible is acceptable?? What about the bible of Jehovahs witness?? Some just doesnt have the balls to say the truth because they are afraid of offending anyone.
@Sir Shramp That's a great question and I guess you saw my comments regarding how hard it is for the lay faithful to get a straight answer. I will give you one, based on the comments of various respected Catholic scholars and countless hours spent reading numerous different catholic and Protestant English translations while consulting the Greek base text over the years.
If you are comfortable with a more formal, sometimes harder to grasp translation, get the RSV Second Catholic Edition, sometimes abbreviated as RSV-2CE. The earlier RSV Catholic Edition is nearly as good.
If you think you would do better with a translation that tries to smooth out some difficult idioms and still be pretty accurate, I would suggest the NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition). A benefit of the NABRE is that it is very close to the translation used at Mass. One warning about the NAB- the way it was copyrighted required that the footnotes appear whenever it is printed and they are rarely of a devotional or pastoral nature. They should have remained with the translation apparatus instead of winding up in the Bibles on the shelf. So take them as such. But overall, the NAB is a solid, modern translation from the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available.
If you want a good, Catholic Bible with good, traditional commentary, I would recommend the Didache series. It comes in both RSV and NAB versions and the notes are drawn from good sources like the early fathers and Catechism. If you want a New Testament alone, Ignatius Press makes a volume with the RSV-2CE and commentary from Scott Hahn and Curtiss Mitch, two very reputable dudes.
Finally, you say you grew up with the KJV. If you were never really comfortable with that, then forget it. But if you really spent a lot of time getting to know it and study it, so you are not put off by the 17th Century language, you might like the Douay-Rheims. This was the first Catholic translation in English and was translated right before the King James, in 1583. It is accurate and based mostly on the Latin Vulgate in use in the Church for more than 1,000 years. In many editions, it carried minimal footnotes from a 1750s revision that are very orthodox. Many people struggle with the outdated language and at times, like the KJV, it can be confusing since many English words have changed a lot in 400 years!
Hope this helps sir.
Peace.
@sirshramp5934if you like the KJV, get the Douay Rheims. I suggest the Baronius Press version or the Preserving Christian Publications version. Also, the haydock family Bible is awesome and has great commentary. Don’t get the NAB or any form of it. If you want a more modern Bible, look for Scott Hahns Ignatius Catholic Study Bible RSVCE-2 (full version with OT releases in Fall)
This is helpful. I've been working on NT Greek for the last couple of years and reading the day's gospel courtesy of Universalis. I'm no Greek scholar but straight narrative is generally doable. It gets a lot trickier with the Letters. I notice the DR and RSVCE follow the Greek more literally than, say, the Jerusalem Bible (most of the lectionary here in Oz is JB). Listening to Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre and others really helps. So, thanks for the wrap. It makes a lot of sense.
That's a great project. Just keep in mind that everything we call "the Greek original" today is more or less a critical text produced by modern scholars, based on manuscripts they prefer, and many of them are unbelievers.
Some scholars believe Jerome had access to many very early Greek and Hebrew texts (200-300AD) that have long since been lost.
Something to consider...
Peace.
Yes. Many if the "approved" lectionary translations - Jerusalem and New American - really are subpar translations. And they lack a true integral quality of Liturgical texts - beauty. The post-conciliar era real anathematized beauty from its midst. Just boring, banal, and common were the standard of the day for 30-40 years.
As a Ukrainian-Greek Catholic it's high recommended from our Patriach that we use an Orthodox Bible. I personally use the Orthodox Study Bible by Ancient Faith.
Interesting timing! I've been comparing many different translations lately as I've been searching for a new bible to use as my daily. I am presently awaiting the arrival of the Great Adventure Bible that I purchased. I like the RSV-(2)CE and the Douay-Rheims. I do wish there were a Douay-Rheims that had the commentary from the Ignatius Study Bible (still waiting for the O.T.!, the Great Adventure Bible, and the Navarre Bible. I've been searching for an analysis on how the Douay-Rheims's accuracy would be ranked as if it were a translation of the original languages, especially with regard to phrasing and syntax (subordinate clauses, etc.). I haven't found a good exposition on that yet.
It's not a matter of which bible you use....
It's a matter of which MANUSCRIPTS were used.
The Textus Receptus stream of manuscripts has a cloud of witnesses that is over 5000+ fragments
The Alexanderian stream is less than 100 and they come from the geographical location inconsistent with document standards
My first Bible was/still is the D-Rheims ( can’t spell it tho I just saw it.) Many of the verses seem more beautiful or poetical that I still remember. Went to other translations because the “Thee, Thou, Thy, etc” were lovely, I personally became very confused even as I got older. Wish new translations could keep the wording just changing the Thees and Thous. And there may be such a translation.
Good conversation and points. I have really been enjoying reading from multiple versions with the Bible App. When I come to an interesting or perplexing verse, the app allows me to quickly compare multiple versions side by side like the ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV..etc... Really helpful at times to see scripture in multiple translations. 👍🏼
Among the non-Catholic versions, my favourite are the English Standard Version and the Authorised Version.
I love the DR but prefer a Septuagint for my Old Testament
When it comes to the Catholic versions, there are the big 3, Douay Rheims, RSV CE, and NAB. I like the DRV because it's a literal translation of the latin vulgate. The RSV is good in the new testament so you can debate with Protestants because they generally accept the RSV as a good bible. Definitely not the Douay. They think it's too Catholic. And for old testament reading I Like the NAB. It's easy to understand and was translated from the original Hebrew unlike the Douay Version. I also have 5 protestant translations, NIV ,NASB, NKJV et al.
Why can't i find a single Catholic Bible that uses the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text? I want to get one with the Septuagint translation, idc if it's not stamped with approval by the bishop, if that's an option
Cambridge ESV CE Cornerstone
Douay-Rhiems for Genesis 3:15
Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
I was actually a bit thrown when I was reading NRSV and got to Luke 1:28, and the Angel Gabriel addressed Mary as “Greetings, highly favored one”. It was jarring because the “Hail, Mary full of grace” is supposed to be taken right out of the Bible. And then in the NRSV, it was completely replaced to make it more digestible for “modern audiences” it seems. I feel it lost something significant theologically for Catholics. I’m sure Protestants don’t care though.
There are several good translations, but I like the NJB, primarily for its literary qualities. 😊
What about the Niv
The REASON God has given some the spiritual gift of "pastor-teacher" is so that the person who HAS this gift is SUPPOSED TO spend many, many, many hours studying & DAILY teaching the Word of God (Bible) to his (not any "hers") congregation under the filling of the Holy Spirit & using that precious GIFT which few other Christians possess!
The average Christian goes to work, raises a family, & has many daily responsibilities that would make studying the Bible in more than a "passing" manner pretty much impossible....he/she would NEVER have time to
(1) learn the original languages of the Bible in order to exegete;
(2) learn the historical significance or background of each word, verse, chapter & book in the Bible in order to place everything in context; &
(3) figure out the thousands of categorizations (themes, doctrines, etc.) that run as threads throughout the Bible & put them together succinctly & comprehensively & put it altogether for their congregants to understand, phew!.
Christians should basically have the Bible that is recommended by his/her "right" pastor-teacher, & have it out & ready to go as the pastor-teacher teaches the word of God. This teaching should be longer than the current 15-30 mins. of emotional "preaching" that is done today in most churches & should be a DAILY experience.
Emotions don't think. They respond to our thinking. We are commanded to have "the MIND of Christ," NOT His EMOTIONS.
Every Christian should confess their sins PRIOR to listening or learning Bible doctrine (including reading the Bible for sheer pleasure!). So, it is only under this filling of the Holy Spirit that Bible doctrine is understood & used as "divine works," & so this step is imperative!
The Christian is to go about each day "praying without ceasing" (in a state of having no unconfessed sins & leaving a direct line open for communicating with God).
The Christian should be applying Bible doctrine that was learned by listening to their "right" pastor-teacher, daily, under the filling of the Holy Spirit. This application includes sitting & learning doctrine, & allowing the Holy Spirit (God) to change you from the inside out. You will find yourself following Jesus Christ when what is learned is slowly converted to what you think & what you do. The Christian, as "a new creature" must start with basic "milk" of the Bible, & gradually start taking in & understanding the "meat" of the Bible. Just reading the Bible is NOT enough.....
Let your right pastor-teacher do his job & the individual Christian do theirs, keeping in mind that the MATURE Christian will one day discover their own spiritual gift & be ready to use it because of having spent years metabolizing (feeding on) the word of God. Choose wisely, everyone! Every Christian is both a priest & an ambassador beginning the 1st day of accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Okay, I'm done, lol.......
Please can you explain why in the Jurusalem translation it reads 'work for your salvation.....' where in nearly all others it reads 'work out....'? Philippians 2:12.
The JB is not correct. The Greek word used here basically means “to achieve; to accomplish; to bring about.” The form of the verb used in this verse signifies an ongoing effort, thus conveying the idea of working to bring something to completion.
I’m a Protestant and it’s interesting to me that we have our traditionalists who are devoted to the KJV as Catholic traditionalists are to the DRB. Those in Protestant denominations preferring a more modern or academic translation often really like the English Standard Version whereas Catholics who prefer this type of translation seem to go with the New Jerusalem Bible…..However nearly all Protestants and Catholics can agree, despite our differences, that the Message is just awful lol.
Lol what???
@@KP-ej7gc About the Mess-age? Yea, it’s awful.
@@samueljennings4809 what!
@@KP-ej7gc The message "Bible" adds things in and takes things out. It isn't a good idea to read it if you want to get a good understanding of Scripture
Wholly agree lol “The Message” is a paraphrase and is horrible. Best example is to compare the “Our Father” in Matthew 6. Absolutely atrocious.
The link to the full episode does not work, FYI
I still use primarily the King James Version with Apocrypha for my personal study and devotion. I was raised Southern Baptist so the KJV is just natural and, to be honest, the most beautiful English translation. I love the Douay-rheims and have multiple copies but it can be a bit "clunky" sometimes. A very good translation but I just cannot part with the KJV.
KJV is easier to recite and is poetic
I love the NKJV, if there was a Catholic equivalent I'd be all over that LoL
There is an edition of the KJV published by Walsingham Publishing. It is intended for the personal use of Catholics. It contains all 73 books, with the books of the Old Testament integrated in the traditional Catholic order. There are notes offering alternate translation of doctrinally important verses.
It is a soft cover in two volumes.
It doesn't seem to be a Catholic edition as such - no imprimatur.
@@PadraigTomas Yes. I have it. It's great. But paperback. Good for reference but not carry
very interesting video. I've been doing some small research myself and really want a Septuagint OT but in the style of the KJV/Douay-Rheims and as far as I know something of that sort doesn't exist. The Lexham LXX is my only option but it uses more modern English and is known to have some typos. But for me at this point in time I am using the KJV with "Apocrypha" and a Douay-Rheims
Brenton Septuagint OT with an ultra thin KJV strapped to it. Something with the wording of the KJV that makes you easily remember verses. I trust the LXX's OT anyday over the KJV (and most other modern translations today) , though. Reading the LXX's Isaiah and reading the KJV's Masoretic Isaiah is almost like reading two different books. I believe the Masoretic did a lot to alter and edit Christ out of many passages of the OT......it's the LXX that lines up directly with quotes by Jesus and the Apostles, not the Masoretic.
For easy reading I actually don't mind the NAB. The modernist footnotes are ridiculous but the translation isn't actually as bad as most folks say it is. The NAB can be surprisingly more on the literal side contrary to what many say against it.
The Douay-Rheims is timeless as well but can get weird many times with the clunky Latin to English.
Does this guy snort espresso beans?!
Douay Rheims Bible should be the go to Bible for Catholics.
Not everybody understands old English and so reading it would be pointless if you don't understand it, that's why there's modern bibles like NKJV,ESV,NIV..
Disregarding translation quality, I find the formatting and layout of _The Books of the Bible_ to be the most conducive to reading. Verse numbers are removed (though verse ranges are indicated at the bottom of pages), the page itself is single column instead of double column- so more like a normal book, and finally, spacing and indents are used to break up the text into its natural narrative structures, and to differentiate quotes from the rest of the text.
Overall it makes for a far more pleasant Bible reading experience. Honestly I think this layout should become the new standard. More people would actually read the Bible if it were a more pleasant experience.
Ignatius Bible (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Bible) is the best translation, as it is in formal but modern English without gender inclusive language. The Jerusalem Bible (NOT the New Jerusalem Bible) is also good.
i thought i was watching on 1.25 speed
Definitely the DRB Bible. Obviously, and Protestant translations are out of the question.
I just want to point out that Richard Challoner referenced the KJV a lot in his edits of the DRB.
@@jtcunningham7589
It is shocking how much the DR Bible and the KJV Bible agreeeeeeeeeee with each other.
I have a headache choosing! I am almost decided on the Divine Mercy, Ascension Press or the Catholic Illustrated with the 16th century woodcuts....I was looking first at womens bibles and decided that the colouring bibles make women look really daft!
He never really answered the question.
One that you understand. So I guess for me the one bible that exists in Swedish that have the missing books.
He said a lot without saying anything HAHAAAA
I recommend for Catholic study and learning RSVCE (first edition). The first edition retained the higher English with the "thees" and "thous" in the psalms, canticles, and prayers. Just objectively more beautiful. The second edition dispensed with the more higher English through out. I also use "The Precise Parallel New Testament"
by John R. Kohlenberger III. It has eight translations including KJV, Douay New American, etc. Very, very helpful resource to compare good translations.
The RSV despite the CE is a classic liberal protest translation.
The BEST BIBLE TRANSLATION - is the one you'll actually READ instead of just talking about it.
I hope you’re not propping up your mics on your bibles! I am sure that is not the case. 🙂
Those are copies of the Summa 😉
Rscve Best translation watching from philippines
NAB & RSV are corrupt protestant bibles. Omitted words and verses such as, Genesis 3:15 "She shall crush thy head". Job 5:9 Job 20:10 Job 24: 9,19-21 Job 28:4 Job 36:16-20 Matt 17:20 Acts 8:37. Mark 3:29 "Prayer & Fasting". 1 John 5:7 "there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one". Luke 1:28 "Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women". John 2:4 "what is that to me and to thee? My hour has not yet come". And moderns replaced Penance for repentance which both mean different things. These are just a few that I found. The Douay Rheims is the only correct Bible in English.
Well that was a bit confusing.
Ha ha! Nice subtle dig at the Message translation.
If the original greek would say "the sun is 93 millions miles away from the earth ", a literal translation might read "There is 93 million miles from the earth to the sun". The Message would say "That bright yellow circle in the sky is farther than you think". Lol. (I'm kidding for all of you "the message" fans). 😄
I'm not the Message Buble translates John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh and bones and moved into the neighborhood" that's pretty egregious.
Edit: I will say one thing about the Message and that is this Eugene Peterson gave Mary a great amount of praise in his iteration of Luke 1:28 calling her "beautiful inside and out" that's more than you ever hear from Protestants
"The message" even acknowledges that it isn't a translation per se, and uses that as an excuse for not seeking church approval for its so called "catholic edition".
One more reason why I still read the KJV is that you can find a plethora of genuinely beautifully made Bible. Goatskin, smyth-sewn, red letter, gorgeous text, etc. Catholics still have yet to make a really beautiful bible. Catholic Book Publishing is still stuck in the 1960s and has yet to update the text or quality of materials used. Their books from NAB to Liturgy of the Hours screams: "1960s post-Vatican II ugly!" Baronius and St. Benedict have tried to up the game but are still subpar in comparison. Truth is that Catholics still dont love Scripture as much as our Protestant brethren and hence the progression of actual materials is subpar
I don’t agree with that. I’m new Christian and I know enough to know I don’t know what religion loves Jesus more?? It’s the soul in that person that loves Jesus not the religion. It’s not about how good a book looks if you don’t read it and follow the message right? I’m looking to buy my first Bible in my early 40’s and I’m leaning towards KJV, I’m neither Protestant nor Catholic or Presbyterian. I’m Christian and I was brought up Catholic but if I truly follow Jesus I don’t know that it matters? I’m new in my new faith so idk maybe I’m wrong but I trust Jesus will let me know when I need to
@@greg6162 Crap materials and bad translations lead to bad faitha nd practice. The reason European churches take people's breath away when they walk in is because it was build and decorated to elicite wonder, awe, Majesty of God. Even Prots that go to Rome and Europe sprint to see the beauty of these temples of worship because they don't have that. They have a boring, banal, lame office building that inspires nothing. Same with the tools we use. Quality elicits quality results. Budget tools can get you buy for a while but have to be replaced quickly and look ugly. It does matter.
@@greg6162 I understand where you are coming from. The power of the Gospel should be the diamond we are looking for. But a diamond set in a beautiful ring setting or crown accentuates and magnifies the beauty and Majesty of that diamond. Analogies limp but make the point.
Which Jesus are you following?
Within 10 years after Jesus Crucifixion we find many false teachers preaching.
For St. Paul had warned the church in Corinthians .
"For you gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and the gospel you received from us!"
*2 Corinthians 11:4*
False teachers, were masters in creating confusion in the minds of innocent sheep. They used ancestry to create it.
Si. Paul says
"I want you to stay in Ephesus, just as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia. Some people there are teaching false doctrines, and you must order them to stop. Tell them to give up those legends and "*those long lists of ancestors*," which only produce arguments; they do not serve God's plan, which is known by faith."
1 Timothy 1:4
The false teachers were Jews well conversed in OT and they are the ones who created the Masoretic Hebrew text to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah !
The Septuagint Bible, from which Jesus quoted the OT verses pointed towards him as the Messiah.
Thats the reason why the Jews created Masoretic Hebrew text, by making a few changes in the genealogy and deleting 7 books from the Septuagint Bible.
The corrupt priest, Martin Luther, called Vatican corrupt and recommended deletion of 7 books and adopting the Masoretic Hebrew text as the OT !!
If Vatican was corrupt during reformation period the CHURCH OF ENGLAND would not have been formed by King Henry VIII and his successor King James would not have come out with KJV Bible.
As KJV Bible has incorporated Masoretic Hebrew text as OT, its the wrong Bible for any christian who follows Jesus Christ ; who died on the cross for us sinners.
Matthew 27:17-26 says
So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: *Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah* ?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
So which Jesus do you follow ?
If you read KJV, you follow Barrabas
If you read a Catholic Bible / Bible which has the Septuagint Bible as OT ,you follow Christ !!!
So which Jesus do you follow ?Which Jesus are you following?
Within 10 years after Jesus Crucifixion we find many false teachers preaching.
For St. Paul had warned the church in Corinthians .
"For you gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and the gospel you received from us!"
*2 Corinthians 11:4*
False teachers, were masters in creating confusion in the minds of innocent sheep. They used ancestry to create it.
Si. Paul says
"I want you to stay in Ephesus, just as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia. Some people there are teaching false doctrines, and you must order them to stop. Tell them to give up those legends and "*those long lists of ancestors*," which only produce arguments; they do not serve God's plan, which is known by faith."
1 Timothy 1:4
The false teachers were Jews well conversed in OT and they are the ones who created the Masoretic Hebrew text to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah !
The Septuagint Bible, from which Jesus quoted the OT verses pointed towards him as the Messiah.
Thats the reason why the Jews created Masoretic Hebrew text, by making a few changes in the genealogy and deleting 7 books from the Septuagint Bible.
The corrupt priest, Martin Luther, called Vatican corrupt and recommended deletion of 7 books and adopting the Masoretic Hebrew text as the OT !!
If Vatican was corrupt during reformation period the CHURCH OF ENGLAND would not have been formed by King Henry VIII and his successor King James would not have come out with KJV Bible.
As KJV Bible has incorporated Masoretic Hebrew text as OT, its the wrong Bible for any christian who follows Jesus Christ ; who died on the cross for us sinners.
Matthew 27:17-26 says
So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: *Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah* ?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
So which Jesus do you follow ?
If you read KJV, you follow Barrabas
If you read a Catholic Bible / Bible which has the Septuagint Bible as OT ,you follow Christ !!!
So which Jesus do you follow ?
The Jewish community has Hebrew school for its adherents and they still conduct their ordinary human life to boot. I think , we as Christians should learn NT Greek in a similar manner rather than rely on other translations(unless your referring to the Gospel of Matthew, probably originally in Aramaic). We have a calling to understand the Gospel without necessarily having a poor translation or parental priest constantly over our shoulder.
The Augustine Bible (English Standard Version Catholic Edition) is a good one.
Dou ray Reims version hands down
Knox translation.
DR
The Vulgate is the correct answer.
I have a Douay Rheims and Biblia Sacra side by side bible, that is what I use when I read the bible.
Just whatever you do, don't read KJV!
Why not?
@@Hambaha Faulty/inaccurate translation.. I do think it’s beautiful but I’d rather read the Douay Rheims.
The KJV is pretty nice as far as Protestant translations go
I feel like all translations are bad because words themselves are bad. But we either talk about something or we don’t, and it’s better to talk about it than not, so any translation is better than none.
But I prefer David Hart’s translation of the NT. Reasons? Because it wasn’t cobbled together by a council with a bone to pick with respect to certain doctrines. It’s “raw,” so to speak.
Well that wasnt helpful at all
Deuteronomy 8:3
+
Matthew 4:4
+
Luke 4:4
---
1611 A.V King James Bible
God preserved his word as promised, using mathematical precision.
Psalm 12:6-7
King James Version
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Huh?
NLT
KJV all the way. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" Not Mary, not the saints. Purgatory isn't in The Bible and you can't pray to the dead as they can't hear you and it's classed as necromancy. Only Jesus saves and you need to be born again. John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God'" Baptism is a choice, not a sacrament
First
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures(2013)
No.
@@jtcunningham7589 ....yes
@Daren Fliflet As JW's are not Arianists so what? Still, Arianism might well have been eventually condemned by a human council in the late 4th century but that cuts no ice with me. So what if a non-inspired human council condemns or approves anything? The Scriptures are the touchstone as to what is true, orthodox, heterodox or heresy.
@Daren Fliflet And Arius believed that the holy spirit was a person, contra JW's.
@Daren Fliflet No, not from Arius but from Colossians 1.15 and Revelation 3.14 which undoubtedly show the Son to be a part of, albeit, the first, of creation. He is not an angel. If a JW could see the throne of God now, they would see Jehovah and His Son on the same throne. The Son has been so highly exalted that he is *almost* indistinguishable from Jehovah. Just thought I'd share this thought with you my friend.
PS. If you wish to discuss those scripture places I'm OK with that
The NABRE is the best catholic bible. Very scholarly because Catholics aren’t as intent as Protestants to fit the Bible to their views (as Catholics ultimately don’t care what the bible says).
I use the New World Translation because it hasn’t illicitly removed God’s name (unlike every other modern English translation) - in English translated as “Jehovah” - and it is simply a better translation than all the alternatives (see “Truth in Translation” by Prof. Jason BeDuhn).
"As Catholics ultimately don't care what the bible says."
If I may ask, how do you come to this conclusion?
I don't think NASB is a Catholic Bible. The NAB is a Catholic Bible.
And why would you say that "We don't care about what the Bible says"?
I think you mean the NAB. The NASB is a Protestant translation. I would also disagree with describing the NAB as scholarly. The footnotes in the NAB are the fruit of trying to interpret the Bible through a modernist/historical critical hermeneutic, which is more an example of ideology than scholarship.
We have a long history of caring about the Bible. I would direct you to Thomas Ward's 17th century work, Errata to the Protestant Bible, which is an example of Catholics very much caring about how the Bible is translated. Or we can look as far back as the Pope asking St. Jerome to produce a better Latin translation than that found in the various Vetus Latin translations. Or the mountains of interpretative work done by the Church Fathers. Or the various illuminated manuscripts produced in the Middle Ages. Or the various German translations of the Bible before Luther was even born.
Ironic, considering protestants removed books they disliked from the Bible
Jehovah is not the name of God for one thing there is no Hebrew "J" sound seeing as Jesus' literal Hebrew name is "Yeshua." On a historical basis this falls even further apart: Jews didn't include vowels in the earliest transcriptions of scripture, because they carved them in stone so they never used vowel sounds, so the Divine Name was spelled:
Y H W/V H.
People began to refuse speaking the Divine Name because they didn't know how to pronounce it, so they would substitute a word for YHWH, usually "Adonai." By the time The Scriptures were transcribed to scrolls people had entirely forgotten how to say the Divine Name, this is evident by the fact that nowhere in the Greek New Testament is the Divine Name used, which is another problem with NWT. Any way to deal with the problem of the ignorance of the Divine Name they always added the first three vowels of Adonai to YHWH, to remind people to use that name instead, so it was spelled:
Y A H O W/V A H.
Most scholars would render the Divine Name "Yahweh," but we don't know for sure so instead of using any of the number of things God gave us to call him instead such as "Lord" or "Father" you are calling him by a word that literally only exist because people were scared of mispronouncing the Divine Name.
To conclude, you might as well be calling Him "Gosh" or "Cheese and Rice" since you are using a word that was only created to prevent people from blaspheming and you aren't even pronouncing it correctly.
Funny how you have the audacity to say that Catholics don't care about The Scriptures that we compiled, just so your Arian Heresy could mistranslate 66 of the books into undoubtedly the worst translation of The Scriptures known to man. If there is a religion that doesn't care about Scripture it is the Jehovah's Witnesses
All modern versions of the Bible are trash. KJV is by far the best translation.