Which Bible do you use?
#31
Big Grin 
I use NAB revised edition
and 1962 Jerusalem Bible
Reply
#32
I use mostly the Bible I purchased recently from my local Catholic bookstore. It’s a pocket bible St . Joseph edition. Pope said to get one of those. I still have mine!
Reply
#33
Douay Rheims
Reply
#34
I usually use whatever is at my elbow but I was tickled to learn JRR Tolkien helped out on the Jerusalem Bible which was released on the heels of Vatican 2. 

Quote "The Jerusalem Bible was the first widely accepted Roman Catholic English translation of the Bible since the Douay-Rheims Version of the 17th century. It carries the Church's imprimatur as being correct in all matters of faith and doctrine. This means it is an official Roman Catholic Bible. The Jerusalem Bible was considered such a high quality advanced English translation of the Bible that the Holy See used it in the European liturgy and the Mass. It has also been widely praised for an overall very high level of scholarship, and is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants. The overall text seems to have somewhat of a "Mid-Atlantic" nature, neither overwhelmingly British nor particularly American, making it acceptable to both groups in most instances. Overall, it has come to be considered as one of the better English translations of the Bible made in the 20th century."

They wanted JRR to take on much more then he was willing to claiming he had much work of his own to complete yet methinks maybe he wasn't to fond of the French (translation was from French to English) or V2, and being a bit of a reluctant prophet hisself, Jonah may have held a certain appeal for him.

Quote "A very interesting letter by Tolkien to his grandson Michael on 24 April 1957 said:
"Incidentally, if you look at Jonah you'll find that the 'whale' - it is not really said to be a whale, but a big fish - is quite unimportant. The real point is that God is much more merciful than 'prophets', is easily moved by penitence, and won't be dictated to even by high ecclesiastics whom he has himself appointed."

http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/888-...olkien.php


Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Blind Horus's post:
  • TraditionalistThomas
Reply
#35
I use the King James, but also own a Douay-Vulgate. Due to the latter's size I rarely if ever use it.
My hope is in Christ, who strengthens the weakest by His Divine help. I can do all in Him who strengthens me. His Power is infinite, and if I lean on him, it will be mine. His Wisdom is infinite, and if I look to Him for counsel, I shall not be deceived. His Goodness is infinite, and if my trust is stayed in Him, I shall not be abandoned.

-- Pope Saint Pius X

For those born after Pius XII, a strong, good Pope is a history lesson and a hope for the future, not a reality we've ever lived. - Gerard
Reply
#36
(05-08-2019, 03:48 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: I use the King James, but also own a Douay-Vulgate. Due to the latter's size I rarely if ever use it.

Why would you use a Bible translated by heretics?
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • In His Love, jovan66102
Reply
#37
(05-08-2019, 03:48 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: I use the King James, but also own a Douay-Vulgate. Due to the latter's size I rarely if ever use it.
Catechism of Saint Pius X.

.
29 Q: May any translation of the Bible, in the vernacular, be read?

A: We can read those translations of the Bible in the vernacular which have been acknowledged as faithful by the Catholic Church and which have explanations also approved by the Church.

30 Q: Why may we only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church?
A: We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.

32 Q: What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A: A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian, In His Love
Reply
#38
Before everyone continues to get their panties bunched up over the Protestant KJV:

1. My Byzantine Catholic parish (yes, Eastern Catholics in communion who recognize the Bishop of Rome) use the NKJV in the English translation of the liturgical readings. My priest also recommends the NKJV as a suitable English translation-as well as the Douay-Rheims, RSV-CE, 1966 Jerusalem Bible, etc.-for personal/devotional reading.

2. Even though our Orthodox brethren are schismatics, many of them also use the KJV or NKJV in the English translation of their own liturgies. The Orthodox Study Bible also uses some of the NKJV text. And my guess is, many faithful Orthodox brethren are just as “traditionalist” in their faith as “Traditionalist” Catholics are to theirs. And no, I’m not advocating schism.

3. Some Anglo-Catholics and Ordinariate Catholics still use the KJV in their own private devotional reading. Even the Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham-although the KJV is not “used” per se-it uses the traditional English translation of the Psalms done by Miles Coverdale (a heretic). Coverdale was a heretic, but his English prose is not.

4. King James VI was not a Catholic by a long stretch obviously but he was also one of strong dislike (or perhaps, of annoyance) towards the Puritans. While the KJV is a translation done by heretics, it is more in line with Anglo-Catholic understanding than it is to English Puritanism.

5. There are several English translations that are done in modern “Catholic” editions-even worse they really dumb down the understanding of scripture and are downright heretical in some places. I’m talking of such translations as: NLT, the Message, the Good News Bible/Translation; even the NIV Psalms are “approved” for personal use by the USCCB! And then we also have that “approved” New American Bible-supposedly a Catholic Bible-which should be the go-to for all American Catholics. No thanks!

6. The Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition was originally a modern Protestant translation of the Scriptures into English. The RSV is from the same family as the KJV. Yet we have actively taken an otherwise Protestant translation and inserted our own Catholic nomenclature to it to make it a very popular Bible among English-speaking Catholics!

7. I love the Douay-Rheims but it still has some odd English in places to reflect the Latin-which doesn’t make good reading English for me. Reading 1 John using Douay-Rheims English was almost incomprehensible to me whereas reading 1 John in KJV English was much easier for me to understand. Both translations however can still be hard to read in some places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"The problem with you sir, is that your intelligence enables you to evaluate people critically and when you evaluate people critically, you bring danger upon yourself."   -Lao Tzu

"And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: [...] creeping things [...] of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so." -Genesis 1:24 (RSV:CE)

"And what do we say to the god of death?" "...not today."


Vive les Catholiques de la Vendée!
Reply
#39
(05-11-2019, 08:21 AM)Sequentia Wrote: Before everyone continues to get their panties bunched up over the Protestant KJV:

"The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X's catechism always retains its value, … " - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
#40
(02-19-2018, 03:07 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I use a variety of versions.

Generally when looking for study purposes I use the Vulgate or Septuagint (for the Old Testament), but occasionally use other classical language versions.

When it is for general reading purposes, I tend to like to read Knox, as it's a very nice literary version. He's looking to give you the idea in beautiful language, rather than an exact translation of the words. I find he makes St Paul a lot easier to read. The problem with such a translation is that often the translator is contributing a bit of his own interpretation.

When for checking what the Vulgate says (since I'm no expert in Latin), I'll often use the Douay or Confraternity (a 1940s updated Douay) version. This is a very good version for a literal translation. It goes word for word and phrase for phrase from the Vulgate, slavishly. That, however, can be a problem when trying to understand what is being said, since it does not translate idiom, but words.

For instance, in Ps 76 in the Vulgate you see the phrase "vox tonitrui tui in rota inluxerunt coruscationes tuæ orbi terræ commota est et contremuit terra" and the Douay translates this slavishly "The voice of thy thunder in a wheel; Thy lightnings enlightened the world: the earth shook and trembled."

The idiom is clear, the psalmist is describing the storms that brought the wind which pushed the waters out of the way allowing the Israelites to pass through. It is the crackling and rolling sound of thunder across the Red Sea. It's a perfect literal translation, but hardly a meaningful one. In fact it's almost incomprehensible if taken apart from the rest of the phrase. But those translating the Vulgate to produce the Douay were doing so in a Protestant environment, so did not want to add any kind of interpretation at all, even if it was to make the English make sense.

Quite honestly the RSV:CE is perfectly fine, too.

There is no one exclusive English edition to use. The only necessary thing is that the edition by approved by Ecclesiastical authorities.

That said, I would seriously avoid the New American Bible, which is an approved edition, but has horrific errors in it.



I think MagisterMusicae answering is one of the best for your question here.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)