Best Bibles in English

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],

NAB, JB, NJB, are Catholic funded translations in which protestant scholars played a role either as consultants or translators.

The Ignatius Bible is the RSV Catholic edition from 1966. It's a Protestant translation.

Douay Rheims Bible is a Catholic Translation from the late 16th and early 17th century.

Your claims are in error [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION].

I've never heard of The American Bible. There is a New American Bible

PS: The Confraternity Bible was the basis for the NAB. It was not complete when the Curia published a papal encyclical on bible translation which urged Catholic scholars to translate from Hebrew & Greek sources rather than from the Vulgate. The Confraternity Bible was based on the Vulgate. The NAB is based on Hebrew & Greek sources.

The American Bible (in all its many variations) also is Catholic.

I've never heard of a bible called The American Bible can you point to a book seller selling it or a web page describing it?

The Confraterinty Bible is also Catholic.

The Confraternity Bible was the basis for the NAB. It was not completed when the Curia published a papal encyclical in 1953 on bible translation principles which urged Catholic scholars to translate from Hebrew & Greek sources rather than from the Vulgate. The Confraternity Bible was based on the Vulgate. The NAB is based on Hebrew & Greek sources.

The Jerusalem Bible is also Catholic.

And of course, MANY more Catholic Denomination Bibles could be mentioned. Sectarian, DENOMINATIONAL Bibles.

So far you haven't mentioned any that were not previously mentioned in my posts as Catholic Editions or as Catholic Translations. What's are you aiming to establish by your posts?

 

[Josiah]

What's are you aiming to establish by your posts?

You seemed to denounce denominational/sectarian translations.... and I largely agree with you: you just seem to want to deny what everyone knows: no denomination has and has had more denominational/sectarian translations than yours. There are far more RCC Bibles than JW ones (the denomination you chose to pick on). Friend, you do that a LOT: condemn other denominations for what your denomination does FAR, FAR, FAR more. Pot calling kettle black. Pointing one figure at others and 3 back at yourself. Jesus' log/speck thing.


Of course, MY point is that it is no longer necessary for those of us not fluent in koine Greek and ancient Hebrew to depend soly on a translation (the JW's one or any of the many RC ones for example) - there are Bible programs, etc., that enable laity to know the original words and the meanings/implications of them.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],

A 66 book bible is sectarian in many more way than is a Catholic Edition. Only Protestants and their offspring have 66 books and no more.

 

[Josiah]

What's are you aiming to establish by your posts?


.

You seemed to denounce denominational/sectarian translations.... and I largely agree with you: you just seem to want to deny what everyone knows: no denomination has and has had more denominational/sectarian translations than yours. There are far more RCC Bibles than JW ones (the denomination you chose to pick on). Friend, you do that a LOT: condemn other denominations for what your denomination does FAR, FAR, FAR more. Pot calling kettle black. Pointing one figure at others and 3 back at yourself. Jesus' log/speck thing.


.

A 66 book bible is sectarian in many more way than is a Catholic Edition

.

Please don't hijack the thread: this thread is NOT about the RC Denomination's unique canon - a point on which it itself is in unity and agreement with NONE. It's about English translations. If you want to start a thread entitled, "Why Does the RC Denomination Agree with NO OTHER on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" then do. But that's not this thread. You admit now that there ARE distinctive/sectarian/denominational "Cathollic editions" - RC Denominational/sectarian translations (which you TRIED to deny earlier). Yup. More than in any other denomination. Certainly more than the JW denomination you chose to pick on for having a denominational translation. You seem to realize the fallacy of your position, your shooting yourself in the foot, and so TRIED to evade that admission by changing the subject.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION],

I started this thread. Your attempts to make the Catholic Church into the issue is hijacking the thread. I intended this thread to be about which bibles people in CH use. Not about how much [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] dislikes Catholic Editions of the bible.

 

[Josiah]

I started this thread. Your attempts to make the Catholic Church into the issue is hijacking the thread. I intended this thread to be about which bibles people in CH use. Not about how much [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] dislikes Catholic Editions of the bible.

This thread is about BEST BIBLES IN ENGLISH. Not "Why Does the Singular, Individual RC Denomination Now Have a Canon that NONE Agrees With?"



You denounced sectarian/denominational translations (choosing to pick on the JW Denomination which of course has one). TRYING to tell us that YOUR individual denomination had/has none of these - but you got caught, you had to admit your claim is false..... As we all know, your individual denomination has LOTS of sectarian/denominational translations..... indeed, more than ANY other denomination (including the JW one you chose to highlight for your mockery).

Rather than admitting your obvious fallacy, your pretty obvious "pot calling kettle back" you tried to hijack your own thread: To change it to why your denomination now has unity with NONE on the canon, a UNIQUE official number of books it itself alone now regards as Scripture and canonical. An evasion ploy.

And we all know, Josiah said NOTHING about the quality or worthiness of Catholic editions...... another attempt to divert the discussion (and a weak attempt to flame)..... YOU are the one who suggested denominational editions are wrong, that was YOU (Yup, I indicated I leaned in your direction on that), YOU who condemned the JW Denomination for having a sectarian translation - and then YOU who TRIED to tell us your denomination had none (until you had to admit it does - FAR more of them than the JW denomination). Again, YOU condemned denominations having sectarian translations..... I simply noted the absurdity and irony of YOU mentioning that since no denomination has more of these than yours. Pot calling kettle black (again).


Okay - your individual denomination has sectarian/denominational translations. LOTS of them. More than any other denomination. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. You perhaps erred in bringing that up (and certainly by trying to deny it). And you obviously TRIED to avoid this by attempting to change the subject (to the UNIQUE canon of just your one, singular, individual denomination - a position on which it agrees with NONE an is in disunity with ALL) but it didn't work.



Back to the subject at hand....



- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

STAFF NOTICE:

This thread has been moved to Ask a Christian forum since the OP has confirmed that it was meant for CH members to reveal which bible version they use so this forum is a better fit. If someone would prefer to start a theological thread to continue the discussion above then he may do so but until then let's keep to the topic.

 

[psalms 91]

KJV

 

[MoreCoffee]

KJV

66 books only?

 

[psalms 91]

66 books only?

Yes, although I have read what is called the Apocrphia

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, although I have read what is called the Apocrphia

I use the KJV sometimes, mainly on the internet.

 

[Josiah]

66 books only?

This thread is about BEST BIBLES IN ENGLISH. Not "Why Does the Singular, Individual RC Denomination Now Have a Canon that NONE Agrees With?"


BTW, Luther's German Translation, the KJV, the RSV, the ESV (even my own LUTHERAN study Bible) and more are all available in tomes that include the deuterocanonical books that are now in the UNIQUE, modern Bibles used only in the singular, individual RC Denomination - in fact, most of them offer editions with MORE books in them than the unique, modern Bible tome used exclusively in the individual RC Denomination. So this discussion has nothing to do with number of books for that reason, too.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The question was addressed to Psalms 91, not to you Josiah. But the differentiation between a KJV with 66 books and one with more is not a Catholic question but rather a translation & publishing question that that is in fact what this thread is about.

 

[psalms 91]

Thing is I have never seen a bible more than 66 books that isnt Catholic although I find the apocpraha enlightening so not opposed to it

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thing is I have never seen a bible more than 66 books that isnt Catholic although I find the apocpraha enlightening so not opposed to it

The Penguin Bible is one such bible. It has all the apocrypha from the old KJV but with normal readable print (not the funny 1611 print where s looks like an f and f looks the same and all the spelling is strange). Also some Cambridge and Oxford KJV editions have all the apocrypha.

 

[tango]

The Penguin Bible is one such bible. It has all the apocrypha from the old KJV but with normal readable print (not the funny 1611 print where s looks like an f and f looks the same and all the spelling is strange). Also some Cambridge and Oxford KJV editions have all the apocrypha.

The KJV-1611 twists spelling so far it's debatable whether it counts as an English Bible at all