I love intelligent conversations like these. I wish I had a group of friends to have these conceptual and big thinking discussions every night over a drink next to a warm fire 👍
Douay Rheims reader here. I started off with the KJV, and it reads just fine. But since going to the DA, I haven't looked back. I wish there was less end fighting with us all with translations, Catholic vs. Protestant, ect. We're all brothers in arms fighting for and with Jesus Christ ✝️Peace be with you all 🙏
I like to think of the Rosary as music. As a former guitarist I like to think of the prayers as the chords and the meditation on the Mysteries as the solo.
I loved this and will watch more of their conversations. Thank you. When doing theology we were told to use NRSV and not the RSV. Interesting to listen to the good Dr here. The first RC priest I had met in the uk used the JB all his life. The first Pentecostal pastor I met used the KJB and the first Anglican, the NIV. What version does Matt use? I discovered an old medieval book called the 'Cloud of Unknowing' which nourished me greatly. I never heard of it. Grace, mercy and peace to all
Douay has some fun phrases like “after they had passed the water” and “he that sitteth upon the face of the whole world.” KJV does better for beauty. I like the quirky Ronald Knox translation sometimes.
@@Ishonomercy_ - "Beautiful" is a wild overstatement. It's pretty clunky, owing in part to all the Latinisms. The KJV always read better. There's a reason it remains such a popular choice.
@@michaelciolek8367 The Douay-Rheims has a place in the history of the Catholic Church in the English speaking world. The problem is not with the translation, as such, but because the English language has changed. Take an obvious example, the prayer “prevent us O Lord in all our doings”. Now, in the English of the day, this meant “Go before us, O Lord and smooth the way for us.” Now, it means “Stop us, O Lord, from what we want to do.” For someone familiar with the way in which the English language has changed, this is not a problem. For many of the younger generation who have never read Shakespeare or the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer this archaic English does present a problem. It no longer communicates the proper sense. As to the Latin Vulgate, we have St. Jerome’s original translation, the Clementine Revision and, now, the New Vulgate, which is the official translation of the Catholic Church. As a better translation of the Vulgate, from a more recent revision and in more modern English, the Knox translation is far better. I have Monsignor Knox’s three volume translation, with all of the translator’s notes, and find it the best reference when reading difficult passages. He translated the whole Bible himself, single handed, so the English style reads much better than a translation put together by a committee as most translations are. His style of English is, perhaps, now already becoming a little dated. The Jerusalem Bible (in its original 1966 translation with full translators’ notes) is an adequate version in more modern English. The later revisions (The New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible may safely be discarded as poor attempts to improve upon something, resulting in making it very much worse). Finally, it is worth noting that all translations, however old, which have been approved by the Church as being free from theological error, remain so. That is to say, reading them will not mislead the reader in matters of faith and morals. That does not mean that each translation is free from “critical error”. That is a different matter.
Erm..cardinal Newman stated that when the revision of the douay was completed by bishop chanlor..you may as well have a new translation ..it was changed hugely from original
@@Good_gnat have you looked at the RSVCE 2. I'm not aware of their needing another revision. The rsvce 2 remove the arcane language and inserted the scriptures that the RSV translators have removed and then put in footnotes the RSVCE has the full text end the text did not in footnotes RSV CE2 placed the traditional meanings of Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 128 back in their contexts. 🔥🤟
The KJV is a monument of English literature. Even though much of the language is archaic and biblical scholarship has improved over the past 400 years, it's still hard to top the beautiful prose of the King James.
@@3ggshe11s shall we discus the political agenda of the kjv? Quakers v puritants? And how many words king James scholars were told to get rid of associated with Catholicism.
I'm kind of surprised that they mentioned the KJV without clarifying that it removed books. I realize this is common knowledge to many people but to others it is not. Someone else posted, if you're going to go with the KJV, at least get the 1769 Standardized Revision of the 1611 King James Version that was updated by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford (before the deuterocanonicals were removed).
There are still variants of the KJV in-print that are accompanied with the deutro/apocrypha e.g. Oxford World's Classics, etc. But what is a big mystery to me is why subsequent editions of the Douay-Rheims beyond 1610 decided to leave out the 3 appendix books (3, 4 Esdras and Prayer of the Manasseh). Of course I am aware that these are not considered canon by Catholics but they still can be useful to read from the perspective of the vulgate based text. The only convenient way to read them is on a pdf facsimile of the 1610 ed. Though the baronius press have a Challoner revision text paralleled with the clementine vulgate, which somehow contains the mentioned appendix books. I have no idea what the translation source for these books are due to the fact that Challoner never revised these from the 1610 (or anyone other published revision to my knowledge). If anyone by some miracle has any extended knowledge about that then I would be very appreciative. But yes, I have a KJV for a high Anglican perspective ( and semi Orthodox(though a Septuagint would be a more suitable resource for the OT)) , D-R for a Catholic perspective, RSV (expanded apocrypha) for a critical and academic perspective (NRSV is too liberal), and the ESV study bible for an Evangelical perspective. The CSB looks interesting, though I'm not aware of many British/Anglicised translations beyond the KJV, any of those would be cool.
I wouldn’t fault them for not mentioning that most publishers of KJV today do not include the deutero-canon. When the KJV began it included it and you can still buy KJV bibles with the “apocrypha” as they call it. I recently bought a KJV cameo with apocrypha and it is gorgeous. I’m a recent candidate planning to go through RCIA with my wife this fall (Glory to Jesus Christ) and I was stunned by lack of premium, heirloom quality catholic bibles on the market. I couldn’t find any if I’m being honest. I will use this KJV + apocrypha until it falls apart and hopefully that never happens.
@@SeanzGarage It’s surprising that they even recommend the KJV as it isn’t approved right for Catholics? You may as well take it a step further and get a Geneva Bible at that point haha.
Honestly, the ESV-CE is probably my 2nd favorite translation, I just wish it were more widely published!! I *have* found a few out there but it's a shame that a leather/faux leather copy is ~6-8x more expensive than it's non-catholic counterpart :/
Greetings from England, I've got a few bibles, kjv, catholic bible anglicized nrsv with grail psalms and mass readings, catholic good news bible, holy bible new international version, the new Jerusalem bible, and the gideon new testament bible, plus the catechism of the catholic church, aswell as the penny catechism, and other small books on different catholic topics including prayer books,
I can abosolutely recommend the 1941 Confraternity New Testament, which I think is an excellent translation. It uses as a base text the Clementine Vulgate, but in a few places departs from the text by using a critical Latin Vulgate text. What I appreciate about the translation is that it updates the ''clunky'' or highly-Latinized Douay Rheims with more KJV -like poetic English. In some cases, it reads far more like the RSV than the Douay-Rheims. More importantly, in my opinion, it retains the you singular and you plural distinction. I wish modern translations did not do away with this, because it can really aid a reader's understanding of the biblical text.
I think many Catholics in the English speaking world, myself included, have grown up with and cherish the KJV. It's a mild annoyance to have to "go get the Douay" when I want read Tobit, etc. I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants are very attached to their KJV. I have only found one Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur.
@@DK-nq9wv The "KJV with apocryphal books" is readily available, but they do not have the books in the proper sequence nor do they follow the Catholic translations for certain critical words or phrases. Linguistically, the KJV is my favorite English version. But its translation of some key texts represents an attempt to downplay Catholic teaching. For example they change "full of grace" to "highly favored". So, the "KJV with apocryphal books" is still a Protestant Bible. It would be nice to have an approved Catholic KJV version which preserves both the literary quality and Catholic orthodoxy.
There is a Bible published called King James Version for Catholics, which places the deuterocanon in the correct order and updates some of the translation choices of the Protestant KJV to reflect Catholic teachings more accurately. I believe it is the translation used by the Anglican Ordinariate, but I could be wrong.
@@andrewferg8737 If we're being honest about Luke 1:28, go take a look at how the NAB, the NABRE, the JB, the NJB, and the RNJB render it. I refuse to mention the NRSV in ANY of its "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" editions.
@@manfredcaranci6234 I really like the RNJB, especially the nuanced rendering in Luke 8:38 I believe, where it renders “the deep” to better reflect the connection to both the lake that the pigs go into as well as connecting to the chaotic waters of Genesis 1
I’ll never understand why the USCCB adopted the NABRE for standard use, it’s just not good. The Douay Rheims and the RSV are the top choices for me, with the Ronald Knox version being great for devotional reading
To some extent, it depends upon what language you speak. The two most “English” translations are the Knox and the Jerusalem. They avoid “Americanisms”. Now, of course, if you are American, then you want “Americanisms”. You want the NASB (the American version of the RSV) or the NAB which is a thoroughly American translation. What about accuracy? Not a problem. Buy the full study edition of your favourite translation. That will resolve all difficulties. For example, while the Jerusalem Bible is not always a direct, literal, translation, whenever the translators depart from the literal translation, they explain that they have done so in a footnote, and why they have done so. The most “international” translation is the ESV (although even this comes in a special “Anglicised” version for use in England). It is used in India, for example. It will shortly replace the Jerusalem translation in the English Lectionary. Finally, none of the translations approved by the Church in the past have been “banned”. In our private devotions we may use the Douay-Rheims, the Knox, the Jerusalem - or even the Vulgate (in our Latin is good enough). I like the Knox translation, since that was my first Bible - the one we were given to read by the nuns at school. I also like the RSV.
@@Mark3ABE The RSVCE seems like the best standard besides the NRSVCE; on the other hand the most liturgically advanced translation would be the RNJB. The rest just seem weird to me like they are either over-hyped or in limbo with revisions.
@@Good_gnat The norms for Scriptural translation were set out by Cardinal Bea in 1943, in an Encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu. This required a direct, literal, translation from the best and most reliable of the original texts into the modern language. Unfortunately, the 1966 edition of the Jerusalem Bible failed to meet these requirements, the Revised Jerusalem Bible was worse and the New Revised Jerusalem Bible was even worse than that. These translations are to be discretely set aside. The NRSV also fails to comply with the 1943 norms since it uses gender neutral language. The strange thing is that, while the ESV does comply with the norms, when preparing the new Lectionary based on the ESV, the English Church decided to tediously go through the correct text and introduce gender neutral language. The Lectionary is therefore neither one thing nor the other. It would have been better to have simply used the NRSV if the Bishops wanted gender neutral language, since that is a far better translation than the “bowdlerised” version of the ESV. For some reason, the English Bishops always seem to have great difficulty in ever getting it quite right.
@@Mark3ABE That’s a keen observation, I do like the NJB and it’s more formal than the JB while RNJB is a formal-tilt-dynamic translation but less formal than the NRSV or RSV (CEs). Gender inclusivity makes sense to an extent but yes it can mess up the authenticity of the translation. For me it’s not so much the translational philosophy but the merit and substance of the publisher behind it, so for me I have great respect for the RSVCE and the NJB-RNJB.
@@Good_gnat The Church, of course, is bound by the norms set out in 1943, which remain the current approach to the approach to be adopted in respect of the translation of the Sacred Scriptures.
Totally agree. My favorite translations are also the KJV ( Especially the 1611 version ) , the Douay Reims, and the Revised standard Version. I also have only a couple of devotionals - The Rosary ( of course ) and the 7 prayers of Saint Bridget of Sweden 12 year devotion; ( I have completed the 15 prayers of Saint Bridget of Sweden one year devotion last year ). I also read the The lost books of the Bible - eg story of Adam and Eve, etc,,,, and The Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden books 1-5. Highly recommended. And also when I can - The Imitation of Christ.
English Standard Version (which is a cousin or the RSV) is also good and preserves quite well the literary quality of the KJV but benefits from modern textual criticism and it follows a formal equivalence translation method so is quite accurate to the original languages.
@@TankforGod3 if you’re thinking of 1 John 5:7 that has no textual support hence new scholarship not including it in the Greek Testaments and translations.
The 1941 Confraternity New Testament is the best NT out there, in my opinion. I wish it were more popular. It retains the you singular and you plural distinction, is far more literary than the Douay-Rheims and uses the Clementine Vulgate as the base text, which as I understand is not a particularly good scholarly text. Nevertheless, it does hold a certain important place in the Church's liturgy and tradition since it was the official Latin bible of the Church for almost four hundred years.
@@ussconductor5433 with thou and you (singular and plural subject pronouns) and thee and you (singular and plural object pronouns). You might read in the Confraternity NT ''I say to thee, Peter''. Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. Peter is the singular object. Or when Jesus says: ''when thou givest alms'', he is addressing you individually. He is not simply addressing his audience at the Sermon on the Mount. When you realize that Jesus is addressing you individually, you realize just how important these words are.
@@chrischlela5071 I don’t seem to understand your position. Because it isn’t in one codex it isn’t proofed with others? The Orthodox and the Catholics are trinitarian so neither would have an issue with this. The textus receptus absolutely belongs to a trinitarian Church and is the basis for the KJV New Testament. Are you mistaking issues with Old Testament manuscripts maybe. We do differ there
If you like the KJV give some thanks for William Tyndale who was hung and burned for having translated the New Testament that is almost word for word in the KJV
I think you’re mistaking the Geneva Bible with the DR-the Geneva Bible preceded the KJV and has a strong influence. The D-R was mostly based on the Vulgate while the KJV was less attuned to it.
@@Good_gnat 1 Corinthians 13 is a clear example of the D-R's influence on the KJV. The word "charity" is found in both translations and is an adaptation of the Latin word "caratas" which the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "agabē". Even then, as now, the English word "love" has the default definition of romance, which clearly is not the meaning of the word "agabē".
I like the NRSV(Catholic Edition). I noticed the protestant updated edition of it seems to have altered by accident or design anything that sounded too Catholic, 1Corinthians4:15 being just one example.
@@Silvia_Arienti - There are no plans to release a Catholic version of this updated edition any time soon as far as I am aware. The NRSVUE also extends the use of gender inclusive wording, which the NRSV also uses in some instances. The NRSVUE is also vague in it's translation of, 'arsenokoitai,' as, 'men who engage in illicit sex,' in 1Corinthians6:9. Whereas other translations generally translate it as homosexual acts between men. I hope these changes weren't included for political correctness. I'll be sticking with my NRSV anyway.
@@Sean-lv6fx I never got why people have problems with gender inclusive language. In many languages, like mine (Italian), male words are used when speaking about groups composed of males and females: this is also the case in Hebrew and Greek. If I rememeber correctly it was translated that way because we are still not sure what arsenokotai means exactly, so they decided to leave the interpretation of what "illicit sex" means up to the exegetes.
@@Silvia_Arienti - I don't have any problems with gender inclusive language as long as the sources they are using to translate merits it. The NRSV already does this in some instances, the Greek word in question is, 'adelphoi.'
@@gregeichhold8562 Jerome is fallible, he is not the ‘grand arbiter’ of translations; the Church acknowledges sound Catholic biblical scholarship and accepts alternate renderings, liturgically speaking it’s a matter of tradition not accuracy to render certain passages a particular way, niether of which jeopardizes the Word of God as translations are not meant to be verbatim but mediums by which the Word of God is apprehended.
@@Livefire7 Incredibly false. The Douay-Rheims came out BEFORE the KJV! @terrysbookandbiblereviews - A publisher released a 2 volume set of KJ Catholic Edition somewhat recently. Check it out!
I agree with Dr Kreeft. I also grew up with the KJV this was always the biblical prose that was written on my heart as a little child. I use a Cambridge KJV with "Apocrypha" [Deuterocanon] as my primary/edc Bible, and occasionally consult my the Douay, Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV/Septuagint) my NOAB RSV for references.
"I also grew up with the KJV this was always the biblical prose that was written on my heart as a little child."---- Same here. I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants can be very attached to their KJV and are suspicious of "catholic bibles". Statistically most Catholics don't speak English, so maybe the Church or Catholic publishers haven't given the issue much consideration. There is a recently published Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur., and it only comes in a two volume set which seems rather inconvenient to me.
Well done "Pints with Aquinas"! It seems the degree to which both Catholic & Protestant English speakers cherish the KJV is not often recognized or discussed. I think an approved KJV Catholic version would certainly help encourage ecumenism.
@@Mysticceruleanthe RSVCE still retains the thees and thous in the Psalms and it still renders Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” (which the RSV2CE corrects to “virgin”)
You should check out the analytical literal translation of the old and new testament by Gary f zeolla its a 9 book set that contains a concordance and a companion book I set the deuterocanical and apostolic fathers book aside untill further research. Also I would like to know what you think of the third testament spirit of truth.
This is my understanding, since many books published by Ignatius Press were wont to use the RSV-CE of 1966. Of late, everyone seems to be fawning over the RSV-2CE which removes the thee/thou/thine pronouns in the Psalms and elsewhere. And it changes the more formal "brethren" to "brothers". Yeah, the 2CE DOES improve on SOME radings from the earlier CE, but not enough, in my estimation.
Well, this is ironic! I've just gotten off ebay after purchasing an RSV bible published in 1959! The reason being, with all the various translations that I have, which are many, this one I did not have. But it's on the way now!!
@@doktorenko I do tend to address several different translations when researching a particular topic, along with some literal ones as well. But recently, having found out that the old ones, Geneva and KJV, have a quality as to how they use their pronouns, I have come to a great fondness for the 1599 Geneva Bible. I feel it is a better translation even than the KJV. Did you know, that in those two bibles, the word "you" is always plural without exceptions? That is a very useful thing to know. In all of the later bibles that is not the case. Because in modern English, we use that word either plural or singular. But not in the olden days. It was always plural. I find that helpful when reading some of the tests.
@@makarov138 This strongly suggests the work a bible scholar would undertake. Good for you! For my part, I mainly read from the Jerusalem Bible (1966 study edition) and La Nouvelle Jérusalem. I find these fresh translations very fluent while retaining the original significance of the texts, and which would provide a layperson such as myself with an expansive commentary and introductions, enough to satiate my hunger for knowledge in many areas.
yes, there is an RSV Second Catholic Edition used by many Catholics. Actually the Adventure Bible by Ascension Press is RSV. So if you have the ascension app, they use RSV. RSV is really nice, the language is very poetic compared to the cut and dry NABRE version we use in mass.
For those who admire KJV. Luke 3:14 KJV And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, (Do violence to no man,) neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. Actual translation: Do not extort money from anyone, nor [a](A)harass (blackmail) anyone, and (B)be content with your wages.” Exodus 20:13 KJV - “Thou shalt not kill” Modern translations - Thou shalt not murder. BIG difference for small discrepancies. We ought not to read the Bible for the interest of poetry, but that of reality first and foremost. We need not perpetuate beauty in poetry where there already is, not to mention in exchange for a sound doctrine and that which is infallible. Stick to the closest actual translation.
I use the Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition. I don't disagree the original KJV Bible is beautiful, I just don't like that King James had verses taken out. It is said that anyone who changes the word Of God will pay a very heavy price.
Stick with a solid Catholic bible like the RSV-CE or the NAB. Stay away from Protestant versions like the KJV, which does not contain the full canon of Scripture.
"Stay away" haha What are you, the Bible traffic cop? "The full canon" haha The church fathers pointed out what the apocrypha was not canonical but read it anyways. Same with the King James. The King James Version included the apocrypha even tho not canonical.
Although they are quite hard to find my favorites are the English Stardard Version - Catholic Edition, and the 1769 Standardized Revision of the 1611 King James Version that was updated by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford (before the deuterocanonicals were removed). In fact, I love the 1769 Oxford Revised and Standardized KJV so much that I have a (perhaps foolish) dream of convincing a publisher to make some with the deuterocanonicals (and corresponding concordance/notes) again. It isn't very likely but I know that there's a market amongst Catholics and Anglicans, and honestly I wouldn't be at all surprised if a fair number from other denominations would be interested as well. (maybe if I advocated the idea for the sake of ecumenism? 🤔 Just might work! 💡)
" if I advocated the idea for the sake of ecumenism?" ---- I agree. I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants can be very attached to their KJV and are suspicious of "catholic bibles". Statistically most Catholics don't speak English, so maybe the Church or Catholic publishers haven't given the issue much consideration. There is a recently published Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur., and it only comes in a two volume set which seems rather inconvenient to me.
I agree to an extent. But english has a right way of getting across, and a sterile way of getting across. Eloquence and authority are relevant for being fully impacted by the Bible. We live for the faith, we need the Bible, and we need good Bibles. l think all Bibles are good; but is our language good? Shouldn't our language only service scripture as accurate translation does. It makes the difference in devotion to reading ones Bible. To love the origins of it from beginning, to it's making in our language. Just like how we don't want crappy bibles that fall apart. Serve the scripture.
Ok, then never ask any of your family or friends to pray for you. And if your family or friends ask for your intercession, tell them “sorry, no can do , just pray to God yourself.”
@@Matthew-307 But those in heaven are more alive than those on earth. Our God is not a God of the dead but of the living. The Bible states that there is rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents, therefore those in heaven are greatly aware of what is happening on earth. And the prayers of the righteous are more efficacious. Jesus stated that there is no one greater on earth than John the Baptist, yet the least in heaven is greater than he. So why would we not ask those in heaven to intercede to the Father on our behalf? And what does the word pray mean exactly? It simply means to ask. When you think we pray to Mary or the saints, your idea is that we are worshipping Mary or the saints. That is incorrect. We are simply asking “praying” them to intercede on our behalf. If you were asking someone on earth to pray for you, you are not worshipping them.
And always good to see protestants reading the can of scripture given to the world by the Catholic Church. Except you conveniently left out a few books.
Maybe you’re not aware, there is a Catholic edition of the King James, the Doay-Reims is a Catholic Bible, and the RSV-CE is the Catholic edition of the RSV. 🤦🏻
Isnt the King James Bible known to have a lot of error and words were deliberately translated wrong following king James’ guidelines because they painted the monarchy in a bad light. It also uses words like unicorn and other English mythology, instead of the word bull, idk I’ve heard it’s one of the worst translations for accuracy. Also the interpreters didn’t know the type of Greek the original manuscripts were, koine Greek, they were familiar with another type that wasn’t that. This is a bad take haha
Very misleading to talk about translations of the original Greek as if we have the original manuscripts or even copies. Most Christians would be surprised to find out how the NT was put together.
Good luck convincing anyone of that here. These two Catholics just recommended Protestant Bibles. If they can’t be bothered to care about what books are present it’s doubtful they’ll care how they were constructed.
@@CheddarBayBaby Know what you mean. I bet most of the faithful believe the gospels are eyewitness accounts.........written by Hebrew fishermen..........in Greek.
@@kevinkelly2162 the way most Christians approach it, they act like the Gospels were written by Billy Graham or something. Some trustworthy respected guy they know who’d never tell a lie. They don’t want to look into the circumstances and motives of their creation cause there might be something ordinary or ugly there. Apologists and intellectuals like Kreeft have filled in as a proxy for that role ever since. He sits here and confirms what everyone wants to believe, if a Bible has the word ‘New’ in it don’t trust it. Old is good, even if it’s Protestant. Trust him, he’s looked into it… for a couple hours on a Sunday probably. Nothing else to see here. I can’t blame people for wanting to believe something easy like that. Otherwise who the heck do you trust? Do you need to learn Ancient Greek now? It’s all very confusing, so the simpler they can make it the better. Why read the whole Bible… just randomly flip to a page and that’s God speaking to you.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love intelligent conversations like these. I wish I had a group of friends to have these conceptual and big thinking discussions every night over a drink next to a warm fire 👍
I agree! That would be lovely:)
Could start with a highly curated internet group. "Don't let your dreams be dreams."
Same
I so wish for the same. My best friends are unbelievers but oh how I long to have Christian best friends. 🥲
A rare but splendid moment.
Douay Rheims reader here. I started off with the KJV, and it reads just fine. But since going to the DA, I haven't looked back. I wish there was less end fighting with us all with translations, Catholic vs. Protestant, ect. We're all brothers in arms fighting for and with Jesus Christ ✝️Peace be with you all 🙏
I like to think of the Rosary as music. As a former guitarist I like to think of the prayers as the chords and the meditation on the Mysteries as the solo.
I loved this and will watch more of their conversations. Thank you. When doing theology we were told to use NRSV and not the RSV. Interesting to listen to the good Dr here. The first RC priest I had met in the uk used the JB all his life. The first Pentecostal pastor I met used the KJB and the first Anglican, the NIV. What version does Matt use?
I discovered an old medieval book called the 'Cloud of Unknowing' which nourished me greatly. I never heard of it.
Grace, mercy and peace to all
Douay has some fun phrases like “after they had passed the water” and “he that sitteth upon the face of the whole world.” KJV does better for beauty. I like the quirky Ronald Knox translation sometimes.
Also the DR calls "burnt offerings" "holocaust offerings." I thought that was funny, even though I know it means "an immense conflagration."
Thanks!
The Douay-Rheims is our heritage, we should go back to using it
Based on that shoddy Latin translation by Jerome.
@@hexahexametermeter
Saint Jerome fluently spoke Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It's a beautiful translation.
@@Ishonomercy_ - "Beautiful" is a wild overstatement. It's pretty clunky, owing in part to all the Latinisms. The KJV always read better. There's a reason it remains such a popular choice.
@@michaelciolek8367 The Douay-Rheims has a place in the history of the Catholic Church in the English speaking world. The problem is not with the translation, as such, but because the English language has changed. Take an obvious example, the prayer “prevent us O Lord in all our doings”. Now, in the English of the day, this meant “Go before us, O Lord and smooth the way for us.” Now, it means “Stop us, O Lord, from what we want to do.” For someone familiar with the way in which the English language has changed, this is not a problem. For many of the younger generation who have never read Shakespeare or the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer this archaic English does present a problem. It no longer communicates the proper sense. As to the Latin Vulgate, we have St. Jerome’s original translation, the Clementine Revision and, now, the New Vulgate, which is the official translation of the Catholic Church. As a better translation of the Vulgate, from a more recent revision and in more modern English, the Knox translation is far better. I have Monsignor Knox’s three volume translation, with all of the translator’s notes, and find it the best reference when reading difficult passages. He translated the whole Bible himself, single handed, so the English style reads much better than a translation put together by a committee as most translations are. His style of English is, perhaps, now already becoming a little dated. The Jerusalem Bible (in its original 1966 translation with full translators’ notes) is an adequate version in more modern English. The later revisions (The New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible may safely be discarded as poor attempts to improve upon something, resulting in making it very much worse). Finally, it is worth noting that all translations, however old, which have been approved by the Church as being free from theological error, remain so. That is to say, reading them will not mislead the reader in matters of faith and morals. That does not mean that each translation is free from “critical error”. That is a different matter.
Erm..cardinal Newman stated that when the revision of the douay was completed by bishop chanlor..you may as well have a new translation ..it was changed hugely from original
Beautiful little clip.
God bless Dr. Kreeft and Matt for having him on.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I believe the Bible translation used in the U.S. liturgy should be changed from the NABRE to the RSV-2CE.
I would support that if the Bishops allowed it.
❤ ❤ ❤
@@Charlesltingler1991And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28, RSV-2CE)
Perhaps if only there was a great shift in implementing the RSVCE as a legacy translation there could be a true Catholic revision and make an RSV3CE
@@Good_gnat have you looked at the RSVCE 2. I'm not aware of their needing another revision. The rsvce 2 remove the arcane language and inserted the scriptures that the RSV translators have removed and then put in footnotes the RSVCE has the full text end the text did not in footnotes RSV CE2 placed the traditional meanings of Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 128 back in their contexts. 🔥🤟
Douay Rhemis version, kjv is a Protestant bible
You can get King James Bible with “Apocrypha” for a catholic canon Bible
The KJV is a monument of English literature. Even though much of the language is archaic and biblical scholarship has improved over the past 400 years, it's still hard to top the beautiful prose of the King James.
@@3ggshe11s shall we discus the political agenda of the kjv? Quakers v puritants? And how many words king James scholars were told to get rid of associated with Catholicism.
Talking about St Josemaría Escrivá... When are you going to have an interview about Opus Dei Matt?
I'm kind of surprised that they mentioned the KJV without clarifying that it removed books. I realize this is common knowledge to many people but to others it is not. Someone else posted, if you're going to go with the KJV, at least get the 1769 Standardized Revision of the 1611 King James Version that was updated by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford (before the deuterocanonicals were removed).
There are still variants of the KJV in-print that are accompanied with the deutro/apocrypha e.g. Oxford World's Classics, etc. But what is a big mystery to me is why subsequent editions of the Douay-Rheims beyond 1610 decided to leave out the 3 appendix books (3, 4 Esdras and Prayer of the Manasseh). Of course I am aware that these are not considered canon by Catholics but they still can be useful to read from the perspective of the vulgate based text. The only convenient way to read them is on a pdf facsimile of the 1610 ed. Though the baronius press have a Challoner revision text paralleled with the clementine vulgate, which somehow contains the mentioned appendix books. I have no idea what the translation source for these books are due to the fact that Challoner never revised these from the 1610 (or anyone other published revision to my knowledge).
If anyone by some miracle has any extended knowledge about that then I would be very appreciative.
But yes, I have a KJV for a high Anglican perspective ( and semi Orthodox(though a Septuagint would be a more suitable resource for the OT)) , D-R for a Catholic perspective, RSV (expanded apocrypha) for a critical and academic perspective (NRSV is too liberal), and the ESV study bible for an Evangelical perspective. The CSB looks interesting, though I'm not aware of many British/Anglicised translations beyond the KJV, any of those would be cool.
I wouldn’t fault them for not mentioning that most publishers of KJV today do not include the deutero-canon. When the KJV began it included it and you can still buy KJV bibles with the “apocrypha” as they call it.
I recently bought a KJV cameo with apocrypha and it is gorgeous. I’m a recent candidate planning to go through RCIA with my wife this fall (Glory to Jesus Christ) and I was stunned by lack of premium, heirloom quality catholic bibles on the market. I couldn’t find any if I’m being honest. I will use this KJV + apocrypha until it falls apart and hopefully that never happens.
@@SeanzGarage It’s surprising that they even recommend the KJV as it isn’t approved right for Catholics? You may as well take it a step further and get a Geneva Bible at that point haha.
@Nick-wn1xw The King James Version was never approved for Catholic private or liturgical use.
The Message is my friends favorite translation
I always liked the old Confraternity Bible.
I'm reading through the Catholic edition of ESV; I wonder what he would think of that version.
He probably would of liked it since it’s a conservative, modern language, non gender inclusive revision of the RSV.
Honestly, the ESV-CE is probably my 2nd favorite translation, I just wish it were more widely published!! I *have* found a few out there but it's a shame that a leather/faux leather copy is ~6-8x more expensive than it's non-catholic counterpart :/
@@-GodIsMyJudge- And such small font
Greetings from England, I've got a few bibles, kjv, catholic bible anglicized nrsv with grail psalms and mass readings, catholic good news bible, holy bible new international version, the new Jerusalem bible, and the gideon new testament bible, plus the catechism of the catholic church, aswell as the penny catechism, and other small books on different catholic topics including prayer books,
1:50 ? Ok but it’s missing 7 books
OH MY GOSH!!! THIS GUY WROTE MY FREAKING LOGIC TEXTBOOK!!!
I can abosolutely recommend the 1941 Confraternity New Testament, which I think is an excellent translation. It uses as a base text the Clementine Vulgate, but in a few places departs from the text by using a critical Latin Vulgate text. What I appreciate about the translation is that it updates the ''clunky'' or highly-Latinized Douay Rheims with more KJV -like poetic English. In some cases, it reads far more like the RSV than the Douay-Rheims. More importantly, in my opinion, it retains the you singular and you plural distinction. I wish modern translations did not do away with this, because it can really aid a reader's understanding of the biblical text.
YES! Finally some love for this vastly underrated translations.
@Nick-wn1xw Mine has the OT.
I think many Catholics in the English speaking world, myself included, have grown up with and cherish the KJV. It's a mild annoyance to have to "go get the Douay" when I want read Tobit, etc. I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants are very attached to their KJV. I have only found one Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur.
@@DK-nq9wv The "KJV with apocryphal books" is readily available, but they do not have the books in the proper sequence nor do they follow the Catholic translations for certain critical words or phrases.
Linguistically, the KJV is my favorite English version. But its translation of some key texts represents an attempt to downplay Catholic teaching. For example they change "full of grace" to "highly favored".
So, the "KJV with apocryphal books" is still a Protestant Bible. It would be nice to have an approved Catholic KJV version which preserves both the literary quality and Catholic orthodoxy.
There is a Bible published called King James Version for Catholics, which places the deuterocanon in the correct order and updates some of the translation choices of the Protestant KJV to reflect Catholic teachings more accurately. I believe it is the translation used by the Anglican Ordinariate, but I could be wrong.
Your best bet is the RSVCE (NOT the 2nd CE) it retains that more KJV literary style.
@@andrewferg8737 If we're being honest about Luke 1:28, go take a look at how the NAB, the NABRE, the JB, the NJB, and the RNJB render it. I refuse to mention the NRSV in ANY of its "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" editions.
@@manfredcaranci6234 I really like the RNJB, especially the nuanced rendering in Luke 8:38 I believe, where it renders “the deep” to better reflect the connection to both the lake that the pigs go into as well as connecting to the chaotic waters of Genesis 1
I’m a little offended that Knox wasn’t mentioned.
Hey that's my question!
Matt, You need to have on Timothy Flanders to discuss this topic.
I’ll never understand why the USCCB adopted the NABRE for standard use, it’s just not good. The Douay Rheims and the RSV are the top choices for me, with the Ronald Knox version being great for devotional reading
The USCCB sponsored and derives revenue from sales of the NAB(RE). 'Nuff said.
To some extent, it depends upon what language you speak. The two most “English” translations are the Knox and the Jerusalem. They avoid “Americanisms”. Now, of course, if you are American, then you want “Americanisms”. You want the NASB (the American version of the RSV) or the NAB which is a thoroughly American translation. What about accuracy? Not a problem. Buy the full study edition of your favourite translation. That will resolve all difficulties. For example, while the Jerusalem Bible is not always a direct, literal, translation, whenever the translators depart from the literal translation, they explain that they have done so in a footnote, and why they have done so. The most “international” translation is the ESV (although even this comes in a special “Anglicised” version for use in England). It is used in India, for example. It will shortly replace the Jerusalem translation in the English Lectionary. Finally, none of the translations approved by the Church in the past have been “banned”. In our private devotions we may use the Douay-Rheims, the Knox, the Jerusalem - or even the Vulgate (in our Latin is good enough). I like the Knox translation, since that was my first Bible - the one we were given to read by the nuns at school. I also like the RSV.
@@Mark3ABE The RSVCE seems like the best standard besides the NRSVCE; on the other hand the most liturgically advanced translation would be the RNJB. The rest just seem weird to me like they are either over-hyped or in limbo with revisions.
@@Good_gnat The norms for Scriptural translation were set out by Cardinal Bea in 1943, in an Encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu. This required a direct, literal, translation from the best and most reliable of the original texts into the modern language. Unfortunately, the 1966 edition of the Jerusalem Bible failed to meet these requirements, the Revised Jerusalem Bible was worse and the New Revised Jerusalem Bible was even worse than that. These translations are to be discretely set aside. The NRSV also fails to comply with the 1943 norms since it uses gender neutral language. The strange thing is that, while the ESV does comply with the norms, when preparing the new Lectionary based on the ESV, the English Church decided to tediously go through the correct text and introduce gender neutral language. The Lectionary is therefore neither one thing nor the other. It would have been better to have simply used the NRSV if the Bishops wanted gender neutral language, since that is a far better translation than the “bowdlerised” version of the ESV. For some reason, the English Bishops always seem to have great difficulty in ever getting it quite right.
@@Mark3ABE That’s a keen observation, I do like the NJB and it’s more formal than the JB while RNJB is a formal-tilt-dynamic translation but less formal than the NRSV or RSV (CEs). Gender inclusivity makes sense to an extent but yes it can mess up the authenticity of the translation. For me it’s not so much the translational philosophy but the merit and substance of the publisher behind it, so for me I have great respect for the RSVCE and the NJB-RNJB.
@@Good_gnat The Church, of course, is bound by the norms set out in 1943, which remain the current approach to the approach to be adopted in respect of the translation of the Sacred Scriptures.
@@Mark3ABE
I would pay more attention to: The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation-Dei Verbum.
Totally agree. My favorite translations are also the KJV ( Especially the 1611 version ) , the Douay Reims, and the Revised standard Version. I also have only a couple of devotionals - The Rosary ( of course ) and the 7 prayers of Saint Bridget of Sweden 12 year devotion;
( I have completed the 15 prayers of Saint Bridget of Sweden one year devotion last year ). I also read the The lost books of the Bible - eg story of Adam and Eve, etc,,,, and The Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden books 1-5. Highly recommended. And also when I can - The Imitation of Christ.
1611..how can you read it...
Can anyone help me understand why he said not to view the rosary prayers as theology?
He also got music wrong. Music is not a celebration of repetition. --Unless you're a fan of Praise and Worship bands.
English Standard Version (which is a cousin or the RSV) is also good and preserves quite well the literary quality of the KJV but benefits from modern textual criticism and it follows a formal equivalence translation method so is quite accurate to the original languages.
its also missing verses
@@TankforGod3 if you’re thinking of 1 John 5:7 that has no textual support hence new scholarship not including it in the Greek Testaments and translations.
The 1941 Confraternity New Testament is the best NT out there, in my opinion. I wish it were more popular. It retains the you singular and you plural distinction, is far more literary than the Douay-Rheims and uses the Clementine Vulgate as the base text, which as I understand is not a particularly good scholarly text. Nevertheless, it does hold a certain important place in the Church's liturgy and tradition since it was the official Latin bible of the Church for almost four hundred years.
@@bos567564 I own the NT 1941 Confraternity. How does it make the you singular/plural distinction?
@@ussconductor5433 with thou and you (singular and plural subject pronouns) and thee and you (singular and plural object pronouns). You might read in the Confraternity NT ''I say to thee, Peter''. Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. Peter is the singular object. Or when Jesus says: ''when thou givest alms'', he is addressing you individually. He is not simply addressing his audience at the Sermon on the Mount. When you realize that Jesus is addressing you individually, you realize just how important these words are.
King James Version isn’t a Catholic Bible gents…
I’m Orthodox and we seem to love the KJV New Testament
Lol. Another catholic hater. KJV translators was headed by a catholic priest desiderius erasmus. The very first kjv is 73 books.
@@chrischlela5071 I don’t seem to understand your position. Because it isn’t in one codex it isn’t proofed with others? The Orthodox and the Catholics are trinitarian so neither would have an issue with this. The textus receptus absolutely belongs to a trinitarian Church and is the basis for the KJV New Testament. Are you mistaking issues with Old Testament manuscripts maybe. We do differ there
The original KJV had the deuterocanon. And it's more Catholic than any modern translation.
Doesn’t really matter, it’s beautiful
If you like the KJV give some thanks for William Tyndale who was hung and burned for having translated the New Testament that is almost word for word in the KJV
Its my understanding that the Douay Rheims influenced the KJV
I think you’re mistaking the Geneva Bible with the DR-the Geneva Bible preceded the KJV and has a strong influence. The D-R was mostly based on the Vulgate while the KJV was less attuned to it.
@@Good_gnat 1 Corinthians 13 is a clear example of the D-R's influence on the KJV. The word "charity" is found in both translations and is an adaptation of the Latin word "caratas" which the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "agabē". Even then, as now, the English word "love" has the default definition of romance, which clearly is not the meaning of the word "agabē".
@@nathanjohnwade2289 Oh in terms of that kind of influence yes, but from the standpoint of the KJV’ predecessor it would be the Geneva Bible.
Other way around. The Challoner revision drew very heavily from the KJV.
@@3ggshe11s EXACTLY
Douay Rheims....don't tell Taylor Marshall
ST Ignatius RSV 2nd Edition
I like the NRSV(Catholic Edition). I noticed the protestant updated edition of it seems to have altered by accident or design anything that sounded too Catholic, 1Corinthians4:15 being just one example.
I do not see how. Plus, the NRSVue was also made by Catholic scholars, so I doubt they would make it biased towards Protestantism.
@@Silvia_Arienti - There are no plans to release a Catholic version of this updated edition any time soon as far as I am aware.
The NRSVUE also extends the use of gender inclusive wording, which the NRSV also uses in some instances.
The NRSVUE is also vague in it's translation of, 'arsenokoitai,' as, 'men who engage in illicit sex,' in 1Corinthians6:9. Whereas other translations generally translate it as homosexual acts between men. I hope these changes weren't included for political correctness. I'll be sticking with my NRSV anyway.
@@Sean-lv6fx I never got why people have problems with gender inclusive language. In many languages, like mine (Italian), male words are used when speaking about groups composed of males and females: this is also the case in Hebrew and Greek.
If I rememeber correctly it was translated that way because we are still not sure what arsenokotai means exactly, so they decided to leave the interpretation of what "illicit sex" means up to the exegetes.
@@Silvia_Arienti - I don't have any problems with gender inclusive language as long as the sources they are using to translate merits it. The NRSV already does this in some instances, the Greek word in question is, 'adelphoi.'
“Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you”.
Deal breaker.
Too bad because that's what it means and in no way detracts from Mary's special position. No one else is referred to in that way.
@@flintymcduff5417 Take it up with St. Jerome.
I agree with you, Greg.
@@flintymcduff5417 "Ave Maria, Gratia Plena..."
@@gregeichhold8562 Jerome is fallible, he is not the ‘grand arbiter’ of translations; the Church acknowledges sound Catholic biblical scholarship and accepts alternate renderings, liturgically speaking it’s a matter of tradition not accuracy to render certain passages a particular way, niether of which jeopardizes the Word of God as translations are not meant to be verbatim but mediums by which the Word of God is apprehended.
Matt, have you read the JB Phillips translation?
I thought for sure he would say the Ronald Knox version
It's very interpretive. He seems to prefer the literal.
It would be nice if there could be Catholic edition of the KJV.
Never lol the catholic church tried to kill King James for making the Bible available to protestants.
@@Livefire7where do you learn this history from? The dumpsters? This info is so inaccurate.
@@Livefire7 Incredibly false. The Douay-Rheims came out BEFORE the KJV!
@terrysbookandbiblereviews - A publisher released a 2 volume set of KJ Catholic Edition somewhat recently. Check it out!
There is. Someone in the Anglican Ordinariate put the deuterocanon back in the proper order and released the KJV for Catholics.
@@3ggshe11s it looks interesting 🤔
Which King James?
I agree with Dr Kreeft. I also grew up with the KJV this was always the biblical prose that was written on my heart as a little child. I use a Cambridge KJV with "Apocrypha" [Deuterocanon] as my primary/edc Bible, and occasionally consult my the Douay, Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV/Septuagint) my NOAB RSV for references.
"I also grew up with the KJV this was always the biblical prose that was written on my heart as a little child."----
Same here.
I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants can be very attached to their KJV and are suspicious of "catholic bibles". Statistically most Catholics don't speak English, so maybe the Church or Catholic publishers haven't given the issue much consideration.
There is a recently published Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur., and it only comes in a two volume set which seems rather inconvenient to me.
I went from catholic to regular Christian and the first bible I ever read was the Revised Standard (1953) and read it for ten years and still love it.
Orchard?
Awesome! Thank you!
What is the best Catholic Gospel commentary?
Well done "Pints with Aquinas"! It seems the degree to which both Catholic & Protestant English speakers cherish the KJV is not often recognized or discussed. I think an approved KJV Catholic version would certainly help encourage ecumenism.
RSV CE is what I am reading currently for my bible study
@@Mysticceruleanthe RSVCE still retains the thees and thous in the Psalms and it still renders Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” (which the RSV2CE corrects to “virgin”)
You should check out the analytical literal translation of the old and new testament by Gary f zeolla its a 9 book set that contains a concordance and a companion book I set the deuterocanical and apostolic fathers book aside untill further research. Also I would like to know what you think of the third testament spirit of truth.
Hmm?
Does the king James version have all 73 books?
I think not
The 1611 does
It does. Most publishers don't print it, to save on paper.
I do have a copy of KJV with all 73 books. Thanks.
What is the "old Revised Standard Version" versus the "new one"?
Essentially he means “RSV” vs “NRSV.”
I thought he was referring to the RSV Catholic Bible and the RSV Catholic Bible 2nd Edition.
This is my understanding, since many books published by Ignatius Press were wont to use the RSV-CE of 1966. Of late, everyone seems to be fawning over the RSV-2CE which removes the thee/thou/thine pronouns in the Psalms and elsewhere. And it changes the more formal "brethren" to "brothers". Yeah, the 2CE DOES improve on SOME radings from the earlier CE, but not enough, in my estimation.
He's referring to the RSV-CE from the 60's which keeps the "thee's and thou's"
vs the
NRSV-CE from the 90's that made it more modern.
in my opinion: Word for Word- New American Standard Bible. Thought for Thought- New Living Translation.
Well, this is ironic! I've just gotten off ebay after purchasing an RSV bible published in 1959! The reason being, with all the various translations that I have, which are many, this one I did not have. But it's on the way now!!
No need to reply but I was curious if you read them all?
@@doktorenko I do tend to address several different translations when researching a particular topic, along with some literal ones as well. But recently, having found out that the old ones, Geneva and KJV, have a quality as to how they use their pronouns, I have come to a great fondness for the 1599 Geneva Bible. I feel it is a better translation even than the KJV. Did you know, that in those two bibles, the word "you" is always plural without exceptions? That is a very useful thing to know. In all of the later bibles that is not the case. Because in modern English, we use that word either plural or singular. But not in the olden days. It was always plural. I find that helpful when reading some of the tests.
@@makarov138 This strongly suggests the work a bible scholar would undertake. Good for you! For my part, I mainly read from the Jerusalem Bible (1966 study edition) and La Nouvelle Jérusalem. I find these fresh translations very fluent while retaining the original significance of the texts, and which would provide a layperson such as myself with an expansive commentary and introductions, enough to satiate my hunger for knowledge in many areas.
kjv is pure from God
No
@@d.j.p.g.b.9662 Why not?
@@marstickk no
Is rsv for catholics?
yes, there is an RSV Second Catholic Edition used by many Catholics. Actually the Adventure Bible by Ascension Press is RSV. So if you have the ascension app, they use RSV. RSV is really nice, the language is very poetic compared to the cut and dry NABRE version we use in mass.
@@ratatoskr9366 Yes, there’s 3 Catholic RSV Bibles. The RSV-CE, the RSV-2CE, and the NRSV.
For those who admire KJV.
Luke 3:14 KJV
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, (Do violence to no man,) neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Actual translation:
Do not extort money from anyone, nor [a](A)harass (blackmail) anyone, and (B)be content with your wages.”
Exodus 20:13 KJV - “Thou shalt not kill”
Modern translations - Thou shalt not murder.
BIG difference for small discrepancies. We ought not to read the Bible for the interest of poetry, but that of reality first and foremost. We need not perpetuate beauty in poetry where there already is, not to mention in exchange for a sound doctrine and that which is infallible.
Stick to the closest actual translation.
The KJV is not wrong when it says kill. The meaning of “kill” specifically referred to murder during the time when the KJV was produced.
Why don't you just make the perfect translation for us?
@@gch8810You just made the OP’s point, how many people would know that tid-bit in order to read that accurately?
"Actual translation" HAHAHA Do you even know what a translation is? A translation is something made and creative. There is no "Actual translation".
I use the Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition. I don't disagree the original KJV Bible is beautiful, I just don't like that King James had verses taken out. It is said that anyone who changes the word Of God will pay a very heavy price.
I wonder if KJV only Baptists think Catholics can be saved if they are Catholics that read the KJV Bible.
Douy Rheims is best and safe
Absolutely
KJV is accurate? I thought it was pretty well known many words like "tyrant" were changed.
Fascinating that beauty is searched for even though it is stripped away in Protestanism.
I love the KJV because it sounds Biblical.
That’s the most honest comment I’ve seen in here.
KJV 1611🔥😡 2 Tim2:15😡🔥🩸⚓️
Choose the translation that comes closest to the one used in liturgy in your region. For the U.S., that would be NABRE.
I will use the one I prefer. There are so many better choices than the NABRE.
The NABRE should be replaced with a better translation
Stick with a solid Catholic bible like the RSV-CE or the NAB. Stay away from Protestant versions like the KJV, which does not contain the full canon of Scripture.
You can get KJV with the Deutercanonicals (Apocrypha) from Cambridge. The original KJV came with the Deutercanonicals (Apocrypha).
"Stay away" haha What are you, the Bible traffic cop?
"The full canon" haha
The church fathers pointed out what the apocrypha was not canonical but read it anyways. Same with the King James. The King James Version included the apocrypha even tho not canonical.
Dr PK obviously has issues with the Rosary.
Although they are quite hard to find my favorites are the English Stardard Version - Catholic Edition, and the 1769 Standardized Revision of the 1611 King James Version that was updated by Benjamin Blayney of Oxford (before the deuterocanonicals were removed).
In fact, I love the 1769 Oxford Revised and Standardized KJV so much that I have a (perhaps foolish) dream of convincing a publisher to make some with the deuterocanonicals (and corresponding concordance/notes) again. It isn't very likely but I know that there's a market amongst Catholics and Anglicans, and honestly I wouldn't be at all surprised if a fair number from other denominations would be interested as well. (maybe if I advocated the idea for the sake of ecumenism? 🤔 Just might work! 💡)
" if I advocated the idea for the sake of ecumenism?" ----
I agree.
I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants can be very attached to their KJV and are suspicious of "catholic bibles". Statistically most Catholics don't speak English, so maybe the Church or Catholic publishers haven't given the issue much consideration.
There is a recently published Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur., and it only comes in a two volume set which seems rather inconvenient to me.
Regardless of which version you are using, I find it surprising that any Christian would call the Bible "boring" 😬
I agree to an extent. But english has a right way of getting across, and a sterile way of getting across. Eloquence and authority are relevant for being fully impacted by the Bible. We live for the faith, we need the Bible, and we need good Bibles. l think all Bibles are good; but is our language good? Shouldn't our language only service scripture as accurate translation does. It makes the difference in devotion to reading ones Bible. To love the origins of it from beginning, to it's making in our language. Just like how we don't want crappy bibles that fall apart. Serve the scripture.
We are never to pray to Mary or any other human. We are to pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus, through the power of the Spirit. Amen.
Ok, then never ask any of your family or friends to pray for you. And if your family or friends ask for your intercession, tell them “sorry, no can do , just pray to God yourself.”
@@justincarrillo226 Category error. Alive humans are not the same as ones who have already entered eternity.
@@Matthew-307 But those in heaven are more alive than those on earth. Our God is not a God of the dead but of the living. The Bible states that there is rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents, therefore those in heaven are greatly aware of what is happening on earth. And the prayers of the righteous are more efficacious. Jesus stated that there is no one greater on earth than John the Baptist, yet the least in heaven is greater than he. So why would we not ask those in heaven to intercede to the Father on our behalf? And what does the word pray mean exactly? It simply means to ask. When you think we pray to Mary or the saints, your idea is that we are worshipping Mary or the saints. That is incorrect. We are simply asking “praying” them to intercede on our behalf. If you were asking someone on earth to pray for you, you are not worshipping them.
Go away troll.
Go away troll.
Glad to see Catholics recommending Protestant Bibles 😂😂😂
And always good to see protestants reading the can of scripture given to the world by the Catholic Church. Except you conveniently left out a few books.
@@flintymcduff5417 yeah, not a Protestant, just someone happy to see how dumb you can all be
Yeah, as if we Catholics had so many more appealing choices of our own!
Maybe you’re not aware, there is a Catholic edition of the King James, the Doay-Reims is a Catholic Bible, and the RSV-CE is the Catholic edition of the RSV. 🤦🏻
And Catholics killed people for writing the bible in English.
KJV IS PROTESTANT
Isnt the King James Bible known to have a lot of error and words were deliberately translated wrong following king James’ guidelines because they painted the monarchy in a bad light. It also uses words like unicorn and other English mythology, instead of the word bull, idk I’ve heard it’s one of the worst translations for accuracy. Also the interpreters didn’t know the type of Greek the original manuscripts were, koine Greek, they were familiar with another type that wasn’t that. This is a bad take haha
You know Unicorn is Latin for a Rhinoceros, right? What's mythological about that?
Very misleading to talk about translations of the original Greek as if we have the original manuscripts or even copies. Most Christians would be surprised to find out how the NT was put together.
Good luck convincing anyone of that here. These two Catholics just recommended Protestant Bibles. If they can’t be bothered to care about what books are present it’s doubtful they’ll care how they were constructed.
@@CheddarBayBaby Know what you mean. I bet most of the faithful believe the gospels are eyewitness accounts.........written by Hebrew fishermen..........in Greek.
@@kevinkelly2162 the way most Christians approach it, they act like the Gospels were written by Billy Graham or something. Some trustworthy respected guy they know who’d never tell a lie. They don’t want to look into the circumstances and motives of their creation cause there might be something ordinary or ugly there. Apologists and intellectuals like Kreeft have filled in as a proxy for that role ever since. He sits here and confirms what everyone wants to believe, if a Bible has the word ‘New’ in it don’t trust it. Old is good, even if it’s Protestant. Trust him, he’s looked into it… for a couple hours on a Sunday probably. Nothing else to see here. I can’t blame people for wanting to believe something easy like that. Otherwise who the heck do you trust? Do you need to learn Ancient Greek now? It’s all very confusing, so the simpler they can make it the better. Why read the whole Bible… just randomly flip to a page and that’s God speaking to you.
@@kevinkelly2162 Greek was the universal language at the time. John flat states he was an eyewitness. You calling him a liar?
Boohoo
That old man has lost his marbles🥶