Great video! I prefer the ESV-CE over the RSV-2CE. While it isn't as accurate in the Catholic verses mentioned in the video, it is usually more accurate throughout the rest of the Bible. The ESV-CE also makes use of more recent scholarship, since it is a revision of the 1971 RSV, whereas the RSV-2CE is a revision of the 1946 RSV. For instance, the ESV-CE uses the longer version of Tobit, just as the Nova Vulgata does. The RSV-2CE is still using the shorter version of Tobit. Mark Giszczak wrote a great article compiring the two translations on his Catholic Bible Student Blog called "What is the Difference Between the RSV-2CE and the ESV Catholic Edition? Statistics Included"
Back in the day elders = bishops and/or priests. The words were used interchangeably by the early Church/Fathers and in the Bible: Titus 1:5 "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, 6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless..."
Here, here, Bravo! This point - the difference between the use of "penance" and "repent" in English translations is one of seminal significance. Where is a through exegesis on this theological conundrum?
@@top8305 Bishop Hay in his book “the sincere Christian” discusses this. It was the Tyndale and other heretics who began to introduce the notion of repent over penance in order to emphasize a change of heart only
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad It can mean both in my opinion But most people separate both , one describes the change of heart the other it has its total meaning because once you do penance you most likely had already repented . Very deceptive if the translators had intentions to confuse or kill the meaning of the verse.
@@r.c4914 I believe they did have the intention to confuse or kill the meaning of the verse. Certainly that is why the Protestants use repentance since it ONLY implies a change of heart. The modern “Catholic” bibles, which don’t use the word “penance” are all translated in collaboration with Protestants. To call a bible Catholic, but use Protestant terminology is deceptive and confusing in my opinion
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTradThe charge that St. Jerome mistranslated "repent" as "penance" is incorrect as. The D-R has Christ saying to "repent and believe in the gospel" in Mark 1:15, which is correct regarding initial justification.
I had a very sweet friend who would post Bible verses on Facebook, and I would read them and think, “This doesn’t sound like anyone I would have heard from the Bible,” and then I’d look it up and find out it was from “The Message.”
Re: that Church Latin edition of the Biblia Sacra, I've never been able to get a good look at the construction from photos and videos about it, despite having seen it around quite a bit, though never in person. Does it have a sewn binding?
Dear Timothy. Thank you for your ministry. I have read your book (actually listened in audiobook form) and enjoyed it very much. I found a CCD paperback copy of the OT copyright 1962. The NT CCD was published in 1941 and I found a copy online. I don’t think the OT was ever finished except in parts before the NAB was published in 1970. It seems the stopped the CCD OT translation dead in its tracks and completely abandoned the Latin Vulgate in the 1970 NAB publication. After finding the OT CCD in paperback with Introduction and annotations by Rev. Joseph Grispino SM SSL. Apparently his publication of the CCD Bible were only in paperback I found a copy of his CCD NT with his Introduction and commentary online to have both his OT and NT. Since you said in this video that you were not familiar with the CCD Bible. This from the title page of the CCD NT annotated by Rev. Grispino: “The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Introduction and annotations by Rev. Joseph A. Grispino, SM, S.S.L., The Biblical Text is translated from the Latin Vulgate A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of The Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.
Correct. Right in the middle of the gathering storm, the CCD adopted what is the second worst Catholic bible ever printed. The Confraternity Bible was finished, as I understand it, but was published in sections. I pray that some publisher can license the completed text so as to introduce the bible that coulda' been a contender.
Which printing / edition of original Douay Rheims do you recommend? I have the one from Lulu of the 1635 Old testament and 1582 New testament. The printing quality is really poor. Is the 1610 version preferable or worth having in addition? With caveats I'd recommend on Lulu Dr William von Peters' transcription of the original DR into modern font and spelling. It has all the commentary. However, his differs from my 1635 in that in Genesis he changes the years of lifespan of certain ancient patriarchs matching the Septuagint numbers. It would be nice if there is another transcription as well as facsimile, but for now I think these are essential.
My DR Isaias 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a so, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. 🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️
@@T_dog1 it’s quite likely that the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch retain older aspects of some passages than even the Hebrew texts Jerome used. I am not saying the LXX is perfect or better, just that there some passages (especially Genesis 10&11) are rendered better in it.
Hello brother! The Catholic Church canonised the Bible, but people couldn't read for centuries so it is important to understand oral tradition, which is the context of the Holy Bible. You might like my book: www.amazon.com/Introduction-Holy-Bible-Traditional-Catholics-ebook/dp/B08GPZ82JM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25AMMGF1DZ4NY&keywords=introduction+holy+bible+flanders&qid=1695661151&sprefix=introduction+holy+bibile+flanders%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1
I was Protestant for 55 years and an ordained elder. It was through the studying of the Bible that i became Catholic. I couldn't believe how wrong I was as a Protestant.
I wish that there was more than one version of it in print! As it stands the one I can find is a bit out of my price range (and I've heard there are some quality issues which seems kinda crazy for a $120+ Bible), but at least I can still read it for free online 😅 My only gripe with it is there are some modernist interpretations/commentaries in certain areas of the Old Testament. One example is they interpret the flood in Genesis as being local and not global. But ultimately I can look past things like that because of how faithful and valuable the rest is. Anyways I hope you are well; may God bless you and your loved ones! 🙏✝️🕊️
The problem with most modern Bible is that they use dynamic equivalence and can imply meaning. They also remove a number of versus which unless you have notes you would t realize Personally I find the Old Confraterniry Catholic Bible from 1962 and prior the best. They use old language words like Douey Rheims but not as archaic and they are modern enough to more easily read.
I have a 1959 confraternity family Bible and it is by far one of my favorites that I use alongside the rsv-ce and Haydock-Challoner Douay-Rheims. Huge fan.
Here is an example of how fine nuances in translation can severely impact its meaning: Acts 15:6 (NTE) The apostles and elders gathered together to see *what to do* about this matter. -This implies they all met in submission to Peter because *they all knew* that Peter was divinely ordained in the seat (Holy Seat) on which rules infallibly for the Church. see verse below: Acts 15:7 (EXB) After *a long debate,* Peter stood up and said to them, “Men, Brothers, *you know* that.. *God chose me* from among you -Peter sat on a seat of authority listening, and after he felt there was sufficient discussion, he stood up and gave his ruling. (Notice he said Men and Brothers - not Women and Sisters) Anyhow, these translations can be used to prove there was *never any dispute* of Peter's authority, and that *they even had foreknowledge* that Peter himself would be ruling on a matter for the whole Church.
Im not a fan of the NAB-RE. Idk if its been revised so many time but one would think a atheist translated it. My opinion🤷♂️ Anyone have any experience with the NCB? I haven't checked it out yet. Thanks 😊
I haven't gotten deep into the Knox Bible, but non-formal equivalent isn't always bad. John 1:1 is a great example, A- At the beginning of time the Word already was; - That is a beautiful expounding of the meaning of John 1:1a... B- and God had the Word abiding with him, - Again, a great translation expressing the deeper meaning of Pros Ton Theon.... C- and the Word was God. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦♀️ MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSLATE 1:1c AS "and the Word was as to its nature Deity", IS ALL I'M SAYING. If Knox had translated John 1:1c the way I would have, and make it fit in with parts a and b, More people might have not fallen for Jehovah's witness understanding of John 1:1.
I use the confraternity and I'm a huge proponent for it being the best Bible in a more contemporary English. I own both it and a Haydock Bible for the sake of comparison and repetition during Lectio Divina.
Interesting. I looked it up, and as far as I can tell, the Hebrew word is “hê·lêl,” meaning “shining one,” but I thought “Lucifer” meant “light bearer” in Latin and was used because Satan fell “like lightning” in Luke 10:18.
@@EpoRose1 Lucifer was used for anything for bearing light. It also was used as a title for Christ. Ironically, there was once a bishop named Lucifer, who ended up trying to start a schism and fell in line with the Arians.
I would like a Bible that doesn't have inclusive PC language. Which Catholic Bible that doesn't have inclusive language? I think it could be either the Latin Volgate or the Jerusalem Bible a favorite of Mother Angelica.
There's a few options but I would recommend two most of all: the Douay-Rheims Challoner and the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. See my book for more details why: Introduction to the Holy Bible. -Flanders
@@TheMeaningofCatholicI would suggest a translation based on the Vulgate, but one must also take into account understandability to the modern ear. What is your opinion of the KJV for Catholics?
It seems like metanoia is another one of those words that might have been better left transliterated. I don't get the sense that the Latin nor any of the English translations capture its full meaning. Personally, I switched from the DR to the RSV2CE after reading Divino Afflante Spiritu, choosing that one for a few reasons. One, it passed the "full of grace" test, i.e. it interprets the text according to the Vulgate tradition, at least to some degree; two, it seems to have the most currency among respectable living writers, theologians, etc; three, its usage of formal equivalence, as you mentioned.
In my experience there is no great English translation. The KJV has always been used by 'American Bible Pagans' because their heresies rely on their errors of translation. I will say that sometimes the Douay Rheims gets important verses correct where all other versions fail.
So it is important to learn the original languages, but only read them through the interpretive lens of the Latin? What is the point of wasting time on studying the original languages; being the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic; as per your original statement, if Latin interpretation over rides the literal Greek? Why not simply concede that the church knows best, so I can rely upon what I am told, rather than studying the scriptures for myself?
You do not need to read the Scriptues for yourself and you CAN trust the Church. Reading the original language is essential for a deeper meditation on that Scripture however. TSF
@@TheMeaningofCatholic Thanks Tim. I tried studying the bible and walked away with a totally different picture of Christianity than what we are taught through the Church. I then read all the Church Fathers and found an evolution of thought away from the basic bible itself, with conflicting opinion across the spectrum. Next came Church History. Totally horrid and enough to make me want to become a Protestant in my own right, because the actual Protestants are just as confused as us Catholics and the Orthodox seem to be. Is it any wonder that the faith is declining in the Western World? Now I see all these ex-Protestants sprouting Catholic teaching but trying to express it through their own views of the Bible. Interpretations all over the place. I find it funny that they deny this concept called Sola Scriptura, but they are appealing to the Holy Scriptures to make their case on all Magisterial pronouncements. Weird. Then I tried to listen to some of our own scholars, but they seemed to be talking only to others who are versed in scholastic language. I couldn’t quite understand what they were saying at all. I have tried to reconcile all this inconsistency over the past few years, but have come to the conclusion that the ex-Protestants are only pushing their own literature, while the cradle Catholics need us to just follow what we are told without question. Maybe we all need to stop the apologetic and theological charades and start praying to the Almighty. Thanks for clarifying Tim.
I looked at the divinum officium daily matina readings and while the same books are read your list doesn't match the exact readings from Matins. Perhaps that wasn't really the intention of the compiler of the reading list you posted.
I have a question ? when you check Stephens Martyrdom bibles like NiV 🔎 Acts 6, 8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Compare to kjv Acts 6,8 “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” Is this wrong? I thought Mary and Jesus was the only ones full of grace 😀 In their respected verses of scripture
Great question! The phrase in Greek (πλήρης χάριτος) is different than it is for the Holy Virgin (κεχαριτωμένη). The former refers to being full of grace but the latter has a deeper notion of being “perfected in grace in the past which continues to the present.” So it is significantly different, yet also similar. TSF
Christianity has no single liturgical language , unlike Islam and Judaism. So Latin and Greek Bibles are no more accurate and Holy than vernacular translations.
Wow. That’s so predictable. Either way, the DRB does not represent the Byzantine Rite version of the Bible. Yes, there are many bad modern versions. But saying they are all bad is going to far. What about the RSV-2CE?
If by your statement you mean that the Catholic Church has let down its English-speaking members with sub-standard translations of the Bible, then I have to agree with you. To wit, while the DR is probably THE most literal of the bunch, it needs some serious correcting in several passages that Jerome himself got wrong. The much-ballyhooed RSV-(2)CE is less than trustworthy in both the OT and the NT. It "smoothed out" a lot of verses so as not to sound "offensive" when read publicly, which was the original Protestant translators' philosophy. E.g., use of "immorality" instead of "fornication". But at least the DR and the RSV-(2)CE do not contain gender-neutral language! The JB is so smooth and easy to read, and comes with awesome notes and book introductions and cross-references, but is extremely paraphrastic. Also, no gender-neutral language, but too far from literal. Yet used in the liturgy to this day in the UK and other Commonwealth nations. The NJB is more literal than the JB, and includes notes (some questionable), lengthy and informative book intros, and extensive cross-references. Its textual accuracy is superior to the NABRE, but it went the route of gender-neutral language, though to a far lesser extent than the NABRE or NRSV. And yet, no English-speaking hierarchy has allowed this to be used for liturgical purposes. The NABRE has EVERYTHING wrong with it: heavy on gender-neutral language, way less literal and traditional than the RSV-(2)CE family, notes which border on the heretical, BUT - wait for it - it's allowed in the liturgy in the USA (albeit with some serious intervention from the days when Cardinal Ratzinger had something to say about it!)! The NRSV-CE: not even worth mentioning; wouldn't accept it if you gave me a free gilt-edged copy! The ESV-CE: yeah, sure it is; "Catholic" in name only. More properly called the "Evangelical Standard Version". I sometimes envy our Protestant brethren since they have a couple of decent translations: the NKJV and the NASB (1977 ed.)
Liturgical Annual Bible Reading Plan: www.scribd.com/document/603585325/Liturgical-Annual-Bible-Reader
EXCELLENT VULGATE EDITION: www.churchlatin.com/
Awesome work - so happy I learned from you: Latin text gives us the interpretive key to how the saints of the centuries understood Scripture
Who ever mentions that catena app is saving my soul right now thank you so much
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge! God bless!
Great video! I prefer the ESV-CE over the RSV-2CE. While it isn't as accurate in the Catholic verses mentioned in the video, it is usually more accurate throughout the rest of the Bible. The ESV-CE also makes use of more recent scholarship, since it is a revision of the 1971 RSV, whereas the RSV-2CE is a revision of the 1946 RSV. For instance, the ESV-CE uses the longer version of Tobit, just as the Nova Vulgata does. The RSV-2CE is still using the shorter version of Tobit.
Mark Giszczak wrote a great article compiring the two translations on his Catholic Bible Student Blog called "What is the Difference Between the RSV-2CE and the ESV Catholic Edition? Statistics Included"
Genesis 3:16 in the ESV is literally the opposite of every single translation ever made for the last 2,000 years.
@@cartesian_doubt6230 Wow! I just looked this up because of your comment. Mind BLOWN!
Back in the day elders = bishops and/or priests. The words were used interchangeably by the early Church/Fathers and in the Bible: Titus 1:5 "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, 6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless..."
One of my problems with the new translations is the lack of the word “penance” in the translation.
Here, here, Bravo! This point - the difference between the use of "penance" and "repent" in English translations is one of seminal significance. Where is a through exegesis on this theological conundrum?
@@top8305 Bishop Hay in his book “the sincere Christian” discusses this. It was the Tyndale and other heretics who began to introduce the notion of repent over penance in order to emphasize a change of heart only
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
It can mean both in my opinion
But most people separate both ,
one describes the change of heart the other it has its total meaning because once you do penance you most likely had already repented .
Very deceptive if the translators had intentions to confuse or kill the meaning of the verse.
@@r.c4914 I believe they did have the intention to confuse or kill the meaning of the verse.
Certainly that is why the Protestants use repentance since it ONLY implies a change of heart.
The modern “Catholic” bibles, which don’t use the word “penance” are all translated in collaboration with Protestants.
To call a bible Catholic, but use Protestant terminology is deceptive and confusing in my opinion
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTradThe charge that St. Jerome mistranslated "repent" as "penance" is incorrect as. The D-R has Christ saying to "repent and believe in the gospel" in Mark 1:15, which is correct regarding initial justification.
I had a very sweet friend who would post Bible verses on Facebook, and I would read them and think, “This doesn’t sound like anyone I would have heard from the Bible,” and then I’d look it up and find out it was from “The Message.”
At least it's accessible and gets people to understand somewhat.
More bibles to add to my collection
@YAJUN YUAN fr fr
Re: that Church Latin edition of the Biblia Sacra, I've never been able to get a good look at the construction from photos and videos about it, despite having seen it around quite a bit, though never in person. Does it have a sewn binding?
Dear Timothy. Thank you for your ministry. I have read your book (actually listened in audiobook form) and enjoyed it very much. I found a CCD paperback copy of the OT copyright 1962. The NT CCD was published in 1941 and I found a copy online. I don’t think the OT was ever finished except in parts before the NAB was published in 1970. It seems the stopped the CCD OT translation dead in its tracks and completely abandoned the Latin Vulgate in the 1970 NAB publication.
After finding the OT CCD in paperback with Introduction and annotations by Rev. Joseph Grispino SM SSL. Apparently his publication of the CCD Bible were only in paperback I found a copy of his CCD NT with his Introduction and commentary online to have both his OT and NT.
Since you said in this video that you were not familiar with the CCD Bible. This from the title page of the CCD NT annotated by Rev. Grispino:
“The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Introduction and annotations by Rev. Joseph A. Grispino, SM, S.S.L.,
The Biblical Text is translated from the Latin Vulgate
A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version
Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of
The Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.
Correct. Right in the middle of the gathering storm, the CCD adopted what is the second worst Catholic bible ever printed. The Confraternity Bible was finished, as I understand it, but was published in sections. I pray that some publisher can license the completed text so as to introduce the bible that coulda' been a contender.
I have the Saint Benedict Press Douay Rheims
As do I. I love the red letters! ✝️
Chech out the St. Joseph NCB Bible corrects many problems with the NABRE, many of the things you list are maintained in this version
Wish they do a audio version of this
Which printing / edition of original Douay Rheims do you recommend? I have the one from Lulu of the 1635 Old testament and 1582 New testament. The printing quality is really poor. Is the 1610 version preferable or worth having in addition? With caveats I'd recommend on Lulu Dr William von Peters' transcription of the original DR into modern font and spelling. It has all the commentary. However, his differs from my 1635 in that in Genesis he changes the years of lifespan of certain ancient patriarchs matching the Septuagint numbers. It would be nice if there is another transcription as well as facsimile, but for now I think these are essential.
👍I use the Baronius Press DR, compact Ed.
My DR Isaias 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a so, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️
In the end, it's best to learn Latin, in order to read St. Jerome's Vulgate. Then, there is no ambiguity.
Yeah good luck
Douay Rheims was written in middle English. The diction and language usage is similar to Shakesperean English.
Would love a Septuagint based OT + DR NT Bible. There are a couple of LXX verses that are very important which are different from the Vulgate
The Vulgate translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew into Latin.
@@T_dog1 it’s quite likely that the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch retain older aspects of some passages than even the Hebrew texts Jerome used. I am not saying the LXX is perfect or better, just that there some passages (especially Genesis 10&11) are rendered better in it.
I think the Masoretic Text used today comes from around 1000 AD. Jerome used older Hebrew texts, because he translated in the late 300s.
Are you familiar with the Navarre Bible study series?
As a Protestant it's nice to see Roman Catholics who seriously concern themselves with reading the Bible.
Hello brother! The Catholic Church canonised the Bible, but people couldn't read for centuries so it is important to understand oral tradition, which is the context of the Holy Bible. You might like my book: www.amazon.com/Introduction-Holy-Bible-Traditional-Catholics-ebook/dp/B08GPZ82JM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25AMMGF1DZ4NY&keywords=introduction+holy+bible+flanders&qid=1695661151&sprefix=introduction+holy+bibile+flanders%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1
Maybe it's time to come back to Wisdom's House,
Proverbs 9:1. Wisdom's House on 7 Pillars.
Numbers 6:24-26. 🙏🏻
I was Protestant for 55 years and an ordained elder. It was through the studying of the Bible that i became Catholic. I couldn't believe how wrong I was as a Protestant.
Duay Rheims Haydock Bible
Is there a audiobook version of the Douay-Rheims Bible that good?
Nothing better than the Douay-Rheims with Haydock's notes.
I wish that there was more than one version of it in print! As it stands the one I can find is a bit out of my price range (and I've heard there are some quality issues which seems kinda crazy for a $120+ Bible), but at least I can still read it for free online 😅
My only gripe with it is there are some modernist interpretations/commentaries in certain areas of the Old Testament. One example is they interpret the flood in Genesis as being local and not global. But ultimately I can look past things like that because of how faithful and valuable the rest is.
Anyways I hope you are well; may God bless you and your loved ones! 🙏✝️🕊️
My current everyday Bible is the Divine Mercy Catholic Bible (RSV-2CE).
What do you think about the commentary in the Navarre Bible by Josemaria Escriva?
I’m not familiar with that version sorry. -Flanders
Anent the closing chant: Who had died? (That was the chant "In Paradisum deducant te Angeli" from the funeral Mass' rite of final commendation.)
All of us.
It would've been nice were you able to show us the INSIDE of those editions of the Bible you were holding up for us to admire!
The problem with most modern Bible is that they use dynamic equivalence and can imply meaning. They also remove a number of versus which unless you have notes you would t realize
Personally I find the Old Confraterniry Catholic Bible from 1962 and prior the best. They use old language words like Douey Rheims but not as archaic and they are modern enough to more easily read.
I have a 1959 confraternity family Bible and it is by far one of my favorites that I use alongside the rsv-ce and Haydock-Challoner Douay-Rheims. Huge fan.
Could you recommend a scripture commentary Bible or a study bible other than Ignatius study bible?
Here is an example of how fine nuances in translation can severely impact its meaning:
Acts 15:6 (NTE) The apostles and elders gathered together to see *what to do* about this matter.
-This implies they all met in submission to Peter because *they all knew* that Peter was divinely ordained in the seat (Holy Seat) on which rules infallibly for the Church. see verse below:
Acts 15:7 (EXB) After *a long debate,* Peter stood up and said to them, “Men, Brothers, *you know* that.. *God chose me* from among you
-Peter sat on a seat of authority listening, and after he felt there was sufficient discussion, he stood up and gave his ruling. (Notice he said Men and Brothers - not Women and Sisters)
Anyhow, these translations can be used to prove there was *never any dispute* of Peter's authority, and that *they even had foreknowledge* that Peter himself would be ruling on a matter for the whole Church.
St. Josephs edition and the Baltimore Catechism.
Im not a fan of the NAB-RE. Idk if its been revised so many time but one would think a atheist translated it. My opinion🤷♂️ Anyone have any experience with the NCB? I haven't checked it out yet. Thanks 😊
I haven't gotten deep into the Knox Bible, but non-formal equivalent isn't always bad. John 1:1 is a great example,
A- At the beginning of time the Word already was;
- That is a beautiful expounding of the meaning of John 1:1a...
B- and God had the Word abiding with him,
- Again, a great translation expressing the deeper meaning of Pros Ton Theon....
C- and the Word was God. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦♀️
MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSLATE 1:1c AS "and the Word was as to its nature Deity", IS ALL I'M SAYING.
If Knox had translated John 1:1c the way I would have, and make it fit in with parts a and b, More people might have not fallen for Jehovah's witness understanding of John 1:1.
How many is there?
Besides the DR, what about the Confraternity? It's the predecessor for the NAB.
I use the confraternity and I'm a huge proponent for it being the best Bible in a more contemporary English. I own both it and a Haydock Bible for the sake of comparison and repetition during Lectio Divina.
Confraternity isn't terrible, but I'm not a fan, as it isn't as literal, and there is only the New Testament
@@ShoelessJoeChristiancan you give an example as to how it isn't as literal?
One day I will learn latin.
A lot of the modern versions are deceptive because they replace "Lucifer" with "morning star".
Interesting. I looked it up, and as far as I can tell, the Hebrew word is “hê·lêl,” meaning “shining one,” but I thought “Lucifer” meant “light bearer” in Latin and was used because Satan fell “like lightning” in Luke 10:18.
@@EpoRose1 Lucifer was used for anything for bearing light. It also was used as a title for Christ. Ironically, there was once a bishop named Lucifer, who ended up trying to start a schism and fell in line with the Arians.
Lucifer is not a proper noun. It means "light bearer". If you want to say Lucifer, why not use the entire Latin Vulgate?
@@RyanGill86 I mean I just gave an example of a person that was literally named Lucifer, but yeah I agree with your point. It’s a descriptive term.
I would like a Bible that doesn't have inclusive PC language. Which Catholic Bible that doesn't have inclusive language? I think it could be either the Latin Volgate or the Jerusalem Bible a favorite of Mother Angelica.
There's a few options but I would recommend two most of all: the Douay-Rheims Challoner and the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. See my book for more details why: Introduction to the Holy Bible. -Flanders
what do you mean?
I like The Great Adventure Bible
Jesus has four popes in Nunawading
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.
Agreed
@@TheMeaningofCatholicI would suggest a translation based on the Vulgate, but one must also take into account understandability to the modern ear.
What is your opinion of the KJV for Catholics?
It seems like metanoia is another one of those words that might have been better left transliterated. I don't get the sense that the Latin nor any of the English translations capture its full meaning.
Personally, I switched from the DR to the RSV2CE after reading Divino Afflante Spiritu, choosing that one for a few reasons. One, it passed the "full of grace" test, i.e. it interprets the text according to the Vulgate tradition, at least to some degree; two, it seems to have the most currency among respectable living writers, theologians, etc; three, its usage of formal equivalence, as you mentioned.
Douay Rheims, duh
In my experience there is no great English translation. The KJV has always been used by 'American Bible Pagans' because their heresies rely on their errors of translation.
I will say that sometimes the Douay Rheims gets important verses correct where all other versions fail.
So it is important to learn the original languages, but only read them through the interpretive lens of the Latin?
What is the point of wasting time on studying the original languages; being the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic; as per your original statement, if Latin interpretation over rides the literal Greek?
Why not simply concede that the church knows best, so I can rely upon what I am told, rather than studying the scriptures for myself?
You do not need to read the Scriptues for yourself and you CAN trust the Church. Reading the original language is essential for a deeper meditation on that Scripture however. TSF
@@TheMeaningofCatholic Thanks Tim.
I tried studying the bible and walked away with a totally different picture of Christianity than what we are taught through the Church.
I then read all the Church Fathers and found an evolution of thought away from the basic bible itself, with conflicting opinion across the spectrum.
Next came Church History. Totally horrid and enough to make me want to become a Protestant in my own right, because the actual Protestants are just as confused as us Catholics and the Orthodox seem to be. Is it any wonder that the faith is declining in the Western World?
Now I see all these ex-Protestants sprouting Catholic teaching but trying to express it through their own views of the Bible. Interpretations all over the place. I find it funny that they deny this concept called Sola Scriptura, but they are appealing to the Holy Scriptures to make their case on all Magisterial pronouncements. Weird. Then I tried to listen to some of our own scholars, but they seemed to be talking only to others who are versed in scholastic language. I couldn’t quite understand what they were saying at all.
I have tried to reconcile all this inconsistency over the past few years, but have come to the conclusion that the ex-Protestants are only pushing their own literature, while the cradle Catholics need us to just follow what we are told without question.
Maybe we all need to stop the apologetic and theological charades and start praying to the Almighty.
Thanks for clarifying Tim.
The liturgical Bible reading plan doesn't really line up well with the Breviary matins readings.
It's the old Matins, prior to the LOTH. Which Matins are you looking at? -Flanders
I looked at the divinum officium daily matina readings and while the same books are read your list doesn't match the exact readings from Matins. Perhaps that wasn't really the intention of the compiler of the reading list you posted.
You had me at “heretical KJV”.
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION is the NEW ENGLISH VULGATE
Go Bible thrifting and pick up as many translations as you can and compare them. Always go back to the DR and get yourself a latin/english dictionary.
I have a question ?
when you check Stephens Martyrdom
bibles like NiV
🔎 Acts 6, 8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people.
Compare to kjv
Acts 6,8 “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.”
Is this wrong?
I thought Mary and Jesus was the only ones full of grace 😀
In their respected verses of scripture
Great question! The phrase in Greek (πλήρης χάριτος) is different than it is for the Holy Virgin (κεχαριτωμένη). The former refers to being full of grace but the latter has a deeper notion of being “perfected in grace in the past which continues to the present.” So it is significantly different, yet also similar. TSF
Nun.
Christianity has no single liturgical language , unlike Islam and Judaism. So Latin and Greek Bibles are no more accurate and Holy than vernacular translations.
The modern translations are garbage. The original Douay Rheims is probably best, with the Haydock version in second.
Wow. That’s so predictable. Either way, the DRB does not represent the Byzantine Rite version of the Bible. Yes, there are many bad modern versions. But saying they are all bad is going to far. What about the RSV-2CE?
Behold a virgin will conceive is a bad transition. It’s actually a young woman shall conceive.
Are you denying the virginity of Mary?
there is no such thing as a good catholic bible
If by your statement you mean that the Catholic Church has let down its English-speaking members with sub-standard translations of the Bible, then I have to agree with you.
To wit, while the DR is probably THE most literal of the bunch, it needs some serious correcting in several passages that Jerome himself got wrong.
The much-ballyhooed RSV-(2)CE is less than trustworthy in both the OT and the NT. It "smoothed out" a lot of verses so as not to sound "offensive" when read publicly, which was the original Protestant translators' philosophy. E.g., use of "immorality" instead of "fornication".
But at least the DR and the RSV-(2)CE do not contain gender-neutral language!
The JB is so smooth and easy to read, and comes with awesome notes and book introductions and cross-references, but is extremely paraphrastic. Also, no gender-neutral language, but too far from literal. Yet used in the liturgy to this day in the UK and other Commonwealth nations.
The NJB is more literal than the JB, and includes notes (some questionable), lengthy and informative book intros, and extensive cross-references. Its textual accuracy is superior to the NABRE, but it went the route of gender-neutral language, though to a far lesser extent than the NABRE or NRSV. And yet, no English-speaking hierarchy has allowed this to be used for liturgical purposes.
The NABRE has EVERYTHING wrong with it: heavy on gender-neutral language, way less literal and traditional than the RSV-(2)CE family, notes which border on the heretical, BUT - wait for it - it's allowed in the liturgy in the USA (albeit with some serious intervention from the days when Cardinal Ratzinger had something to say about it!)!
The NRSV-CE: not even worth mentioning; wouldn't accept it if you gave me a free gilt-edged copy!
The ESV-CE: yeah, sure it is; "Catholic" in name only. More properly called the "Evangelical Standard Version".
I sometimes envy our Protestant brethren since they have a couple of decent translations: the NKJV and the NASB (1977 ed.)