Which bible translation do you use?

[Veloman]

As a recent Catholic convert, I still am using my KJV bible plus an app on my phone for the Apocrypha. I have read a plethora of information concerning the NABRE, NRSV, Knox, and Douay-Rheims versions. I like the Douay a lot, but parishes around me seem to vary greatly in what they use. More liberal parishes like the gender-inclusive versions wheras the more conservative parishes use the NABRE or RSV2CE version. I find this bewildering that there is no set standard translation in Catholicism. IMHO, the best version would be one that translates the closest to the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek texts, but transliterates it accurately as well, so as to be understood with the proper english vernacular per the original context. Phew! I hope some of y'all have Catholic theology/literary degrees.

 

[Saint JOHN]

King James (old English, close to original text) ,though I'm looking into a Weymouth version also.

 

[Bob Crowley]

This is from an Australian point of view, but the the New Jerusalem Bible is the same in the USA, and that comment applies to any of the others.

I think if you choose any of the following, you should be able to use it, although the Good News was actually compiled for people for whom English was a second language, so the committee kept the language simple.

Becoming Catholic

www.catholicenquiry.com

In May 1990, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference approved a number of scriptural translations for use in the liturgy in Australia, in addition to the Jerusalem Bible in the 1981 Lectionary. These include the following:

• the New Jerusalem Bible
• the New Revised Standard Version
• the New American Bible
• the Good News Bible.

The American Bishops's list is shown at the following link -

Approved Translations of the Bible

USCCB Approved Translations of the Sacred Scriptures for Private Use and Study by Catholics 1983 - PresentThe 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostoli...

www.usccb.org

I'm currenlty wading through the Douay Rheims. As far as I'm concerned it says pretty much the same stuff as the other versions, although some of the language is a bit archaic, and the names of books and characters can be different to modern versions.

PS - I haven't got qualifications in anything, but I know how to find stuff on the internt....

 

[Joined2krist]

I use New Jerusalem, Good news and Amplified

 

[Chesster]

I figure that since the Holy Spirit gave His stamp of approval on the Vulgate I use the English version Douay Rheims.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The New American Bible NAB, is what is used at Mass in dioceses of the USA.

It's what I use and what the Liturgy of the Hours, by the Catholic Book Publishing
Company uses.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

NKJV, NIV, NRSV & Amplified...

 

[chevyontheriver]

As a recent Catholic convert, I still am using my KJV bible plus an app on my phone for the Apocrypha. I have read a plethora of information concerning the NABRE, NRSV, Knox, and Douay-Rheims versions. I like the Douay a lot, but parishes around me seem to vary greatly in what they use. More liberal parishes like the gender-inclusive versions wheras the more conservative parishes use the NABRE or RSV2CE version. I find this bewildering that there is no set standard translation in Catholicism. IMHO, the best version would be one that translates the closest to the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek texts, but transliterates it accurately as well, so as to be understood with the proper english vernacular per the original context. Phew! I hope some of y'all have Catholic theology/literary degrees.

Just started using the ESVCE. Liking it. Good modern English. Based on the RSV but with newer textual understandings since the 1950’s RSV came out. A complete Catholic Bible with small changes from the original ESV. I DO recommend it. I also recommend the RSVCE2 published by Ignatius Press, particularly the study version. I have used a lot of different Bibles over the years and these are my winner picks.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As a recent Catholic convert, I still am using my KJV bible plus an app on my phone for the Apocrypha. I have read a plethora of information concerning the NABRE, NRSV, Knox, and Douay-Rheims versions. I like the Douay a lot, but parishes around me seem to vary greatly in what they use. More liberal parishes like the gender-inclusive versions wheras the more conservative parishes use the NABRE or RSV2CE version. I find this bewildering that there is no set standard translation in Catholicism. IMHO, the best version would be one that translates the closest to the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek texts, but transliterates it accurately as well, so as to be understood with the proper english vernacular per the original context. Phew! I hope some of y'all have Catholic theology/literary degrees.

Another Bible, a bit older, is the Knox Bible. Not bad. Some great perspectives. I’d still go ESVCE or RSVCE2 for a main Bible. ESVCE does not yet have a study Bible.

 

[Veloman]

Good points, everyone....keep the info coming!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Good points, everyone....keep the info coming!

You may have picked up that there is a difference between Bibles approved for Mass readings and Bibles acceptable for reading.

For reading any complete Bible without anti-Catholic notes will suffice. A further positive is the presence of an imprimatur inside the front cover.

Versions for Mass readings are less varied. They must meet the minimum requirements of ‘Liturgicam authenticam’ AND be approved for Mass reading by the national conference of bishops.

My new ESVCE is approved in India but not (yet) in the USA. It meets the standards of Liturgicam Authenticam and has an imprimatur. But it’s not the only one that does.

 

[Gnarwhal]

As a recent Catholic convert, I still am using my KJV bible plus an app on my phone for the Apocrypha. I have read a plethora of information concerning the NABRE, NRSV, Knox, and Douay-Rheims versions. I like the Douay a lot, but parishes around me seem to vary greatly in what they use. More liberal parishes like the gender-inclusive versions wheras the more conservative parishes use the NABRE or RSV2CE version. I find this bewildering that there is no set standard translation in Catholicism. IMHO, the best version would be one that translates the closest to the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek texts, but transliterates it accurately as well, so as to be understood with the proper english vernacular per the original context. Phew! I hope some of y'all have Catholic theology/literary degrees.

My physical copy is the RSV-CE, if I'm looking a passage up quickly online I default to the NRSV-CE. I also like the Douay-Rheims for it's more ornate language like the KJV.

When I was an evangelical I was literally raised on the NIV (that was the recommended version at my old church's K-6 school that I went to and I had to memorize scripture from it every week) but I wouldn't go near those translations now.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

A RSV-CE Men's Edition Psalms and New Testament, a NLT, and the Orthodox Study Bible are my staples.

 

[Erose]

Like someone else said in the US the NAB is the translation used (with some modifications) in the liturgy. The official Bible of the Latin Catholic Church is the Nova Vulgata, which is in Latin, but there has not been any English translations of that Bible as of yet.

But the is can also be very complicated as well, concerning modern Bibles the Catholic Church has pretty much following the Protestants in using as their source manuscripts with some alterations: The Received Text for the NT and the Masoretic Text (for the writings not found in this text, I'm assuming the LXX) for the OT. You KJV Bible for example uses the Majority Text and Masoretic Text for its NT and OT respectively.

Here is the funny thing: For the first 600 years the Western Church used either various Greek manuscripts of the NT and OT that was translated eventually into Latin becoming known as the Old Latin texts (there was more than one translation of these); then for pretty much the next 1300 to 1400 years the Bible of the Church was the Latin Vulgate, and all vernacular bibles in the West were based upon this translation. Oddly enough that even included the Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale Bible, the Great Bible, and Luther's Bible, with some revisions of course.

For the Catholic Church it wasn't until VII that we started to get Bible translations not based upon the Latin Vulgate, which is pretty much every modern translation with Catholic on it.

The reason why I'm saying this is that even though the textual traditions especially of the NT is fairly close to each other, there are differences and in the case of the LXX and Masoretic text (which is not the Hebrew bible circulating in the first century), some of those differences are pretty significant.

Oddly enough most of the Latin Vulgate's OT is a Latin translation of the Hebrew texts at that time, and those Hebrew texts used by St. Jerome predate the Masoretic text by at least 400 years if not more.

Anyway my point beings as a Catholic who wants to study their faith, and learn from the Church Fathers, and the Medieval Theology Greats, etc. You need more than one Bible in my opinion. You need a copy of a translation of the LXX, a translation of the Vulgate (which at this time is only the DR-C version) and a modern Bible such as a RVS or NAB for liturgical purposes.

 

[Erose]

The New American Bible NAB, is what is used at Mass in dioceses of the USA.

It's what I use and what the Liturgy of the Hours, by the Catholic Book Publishing
Company uses.

It need to be pointed out that the Liturgy uses the NAB with some revisions where the original Latin reading disagree with the NAB.

Also the Liturgy of the Hours psalms are not from the NAB but rather the Grail Psalms.

 

[BAChristian]

The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is the NRSV with Apocrypha. But I primarily bought it for the footnotes that explain the verses from theological scholars. It's been extremely helpful for me in order to understand context (and various original Greek translations)

For example, when Christ instructed us to eat of his flesh. When Jesus said, "eat", the Greek is trogo which refers to eating as herbivores do. That's why his Apostles were completely surprised and didn't know what to think when He said that. They're like, "What?! You want us to eat your flesh"... thus, it was not symbolic and thus real within the Holy Eucharist.

Hope that helps.

 

[Gnarwhal]

the Greek is trogo which refers to eating as herbivores do

Do you mean carnivores?

 

[Wolseley]

I usually read from my New American Bible because of the notes; but I have a New Jerusalem Bible at my desk and a New English Bible on my bedside stand that I read from, as well. I also have a small Easy To Read Version (ERV) New Testament, which I use for reading the Pauline Epistles, since it's the only version I have ever encountered that breaks down Paul's windy, run-on sentences in a manner makes them comprehensible to me.

I like Paul, but he tends to say things like "Greetings to you from God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit in Whom we have everlasting salvation and all good things in the heavens and the earth, glory be to His Name now and forevermore," when he just as easily could have said, "Hello!", and gone on with his missive. But that's just me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It need to be pointed out that the Liturgy uses the NAB with some revisions where the original Latin reading disagree with the NAB.

Also the Liturgy of the Hours psalms are not from the NAB but rather the Grail Psalms.

The Novus Ordo is the ordinary and uses the NAB in most diocese across the US, in particular, my own.
A new translation of the responses in the Mass was done recently, per St John Paul II, but the readings are the same.
In my opinion and the Bishops who answered the survey, the latest translation was poorly done as the translation was
slavishly translated to reflect the Latin literally, which was not what was taking place spiritually at Mass.

I pray the LOTH's every day and he Breviary readings are from the NAB as the Catholic Book Publishing Company
states.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The New Oxford Annotated Bible which is the NRSV with Apocrypha. But I primarily bought it for the footnotes that explain the verses from theological scholars. It's been extremely helpful for me in order to understand context (and various original Greek translations)

For example, when Christ instructed us to eat of his flesh. When Jesus said, "eat", the Greek is trogo which refers to eating as herbivores do. That's why his Apostles were completely surprised and didn't know what to think when He said that. They're like, "What?! You want us to eat your flesh"... thus, it was not symbolic and thus real within the Holy Eucharist.

Hope that helps.

I agree but want to point out that Jesus didn't speak Greek, but Aramaic, as did the Apostles. Achol is Aramaic.

Here's the definition for Achol;
In Aramaic the word for eating is ‘achol which in its Semitic root means to consume and absorbing.

Either way, when Jesus said it, it confused them and many just walked away believing he was crazy.