Bible translations?

Which Bible translation should I go with as a newly converted Catholic? Looking for a study bible and I want to avoid protestant doctrine if possible.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's no evidence the Bible is inspired by God nor is there any evidence of a personal God.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      NRSV or another bible that fufils the Catholic churches scripture requirements

      >OH NO THE GOYIM KEEP MAKING CHRISTIAN THREADS CHUT IT DOWN SHUT IT DOWN
      not to imply thats you, youre just the human embodyment of goyslop that thinks theyre an intellectual

      King James.

      extremely loud wrong buzzer

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can make a rational argument for an impersonal God or a hypothetical creator thingy. There's no real proof of that of course.

        There's no evidence any holy book has divine authority. There's no evidence God has anything to do with the existing religions.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          k bud

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        NRSV seems to be a protestant translation though. I see that there are Catholic editions, but for all I know those are just protestant bibles with the deuterocanonical books added back in. Can you confirm that these versions don't contain any minor details that would indicate protestant bias?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Catholic church approved, it got the "imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1991." and if you think youve a better theologian than like 500 preists youre moronic

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If voodoo priests endorsed a Bible, I wouldn't think much of that.

            an all powerful god chose 2000 years ago in the middle east to lay it all out. and that was that..
            india? north america? china? he didnt know about these (equivalent) places yet

            India is already mentioned in the Bible, see the description of Persia in the book of Esther, people knew about it even before Alexander the Great.

            Douay Rheims

            The DR Challoner version says king Saul was one year old when he began to reign. So does the original 1609/10 version which nobody reads.

            Orthodox study Bible not joking

            It follows the Hebrew text in several places, such as Genesis 5:25-26, where the OSB for some reason switches to the original Hebrew text ages (187, 782) instead of the Septuagint's own numerical values (167, 802). Most Septuagint translations say 167 and 802 years in Genesis 5:25-26, even though this means Methuselah lived 14 years past the year of the Flood. The OSB seems to avoid doing this by switching to the Hebrew numbers but only in Genesis 5:25-26 despite being a "Septuagint" translation.

            OP will want the King James, preferably Cambridge edition which is the standard.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            were those verses removed or were they apocrypha invented by the KJV?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They were removed

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >King James
            KJV is protestant. It looks like you can't read, moron.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The nrsv was translated to be used as a secular bible. Also why are you weirdly obsessed with "Protestant bibles" ? I've been a Catholic my whole life and never heard of this phenomenon

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Personal Bible study among the laity is literally the result of the prot schism. Even Bible study groups are something we just copied from the methodists

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible was originally written (and later translated) into languages that people were capable of understanding, not gatekept in a language that they didn't know. Even if a person was illiterate, it was normative in the ancient world for people to read texts aloud rather than silently, so it was common to have texts read to you. Nothing about the medieval Catholic practice of restricting the Bible from the laity and keeping it in Latin has anything to do with ancient Christianity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            nta but that was part of the logic of the Luther and the Protestant Reformation as well as the Roman Catholic reforms made post-Trent

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >maybe the real God was the metaphors we made along the way

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The extremely intimate and personal epiphany I had at the culmination of the 10+ year spiritual and philosophical journey I've been on, wherein I saw, for a moment, a connection between all the struggles and confusions and questions and answers I've had throughout that time, such that I knew without a doubt in my soul that God spoke directly to me through those experiences, is all the proof I'll ever need that Faith is the way and and God is the truth.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        but what if you did not eat breakfast this morning?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't, what of it?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Skeptics don't deny people have religious experiences... there's just no evidence it is divine in origin and not caused by your own brain.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It was caused by my own brain though, obviously. God works THROUGH the universe my guy, natural phenomenon are God's Will put into action.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no evidence of an incorporeal spirit or spirits.

            >the mind body schism fallacy

            Vade retro satana

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’d be what makes it incorporeal, yes. Even so, we can see the effects of things which we cannot yet physically explain, so you can’t rule it out either. Why are you wasting my time with these pseudo-intellectual high-school philosophy tier observations?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the mind body schism fallacy

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    King James.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      PROTESTANT BIBLE DUMB IDIOT!

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In English? King James Version. Every English discussion is based around that being the Western Canon

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In terms of explaining typical Catholic doctrine via notes, the Ignatius Bible or Didache Bible are what you want.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >In terms of explaining typical Catholic doctrine via notes, the Ignatius Bible or Didache Bible are what you want.
      What are the differences?

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I want to avoid protestant doctrine

    Then you dont' want to read the bible and draw your own conclusions, you want to be spoon-fed by The Church.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      reaching "your own conclusions" is how you get thousands of denominations

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    an all powerful god chose 2000 years ago in the middle east to lay it all out. and that was that..
    india? north america? china? he didnt know about these (equivalent) places yet

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, aren't you forgetting someone? Joseph Smith reveled the second testament of Jesus Christ. God did not forget the Americas.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s the heart of the world. If he was to reveal the word somewhere, that’s a good place to do it. You act like information doesn’t travel.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      God did not only visit the middle east but also the Americans and probably other continents, as proven by Joseph Smith

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Douay Rheims

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This, DR has been standard for centuries in Catholicism, you can find the revised American edition very easily in libraries. If you're looking to buy one consider the Haydock study Bible if you're willing to shell for it.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Https://drbo.org

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Douay-Rheims if TradCath
    Knox if based and redpilled
    NABRE if ModernistCath
    Catholic Public Domain Version printed out and punched into a 3-ring binder if DIY-oriented, allows for optional printed out Dore woodcuts to be added in too

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox study Bible not joking

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is absolutely terrible advice and that edition has already been disregarded by the actual church.
      You larpers only like it because it's the first thing that pops up on amazon

      http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bros, I don't want to STUDY the bible, just read it and get the general gist of it. Any good abridged editions?
    I tried reading the actual thing, but it's so fricking long, man. Maybe there's some books I can skip? I want to see what kind of guy Jesus was in the book, and learn about some of the bigger stories.
    I red this one
    https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Bible-Revised-Edition-NABRE-Bible/#booklist

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You have to read the whole bible

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do I really need to read the whole thing? It's so fricking vast, man, all these weird israeli names

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nta but if you truly want to understand the full religion you can’t really be skipping anything. There are a lot of verses that rely on other parts of the text to understand their full meaning

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have the time or energy to REALLY delve into it, just want to read stuff like Cain and Abel and understand what things like sacrifice, virtue and humility mean to Christians symbolically and spiritually so that I can understand other western works better
            I'm really not that into esoteric stuff, I'm more macro over micro

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just want to read stuff like Cain and Abel
            That's fine, the story is a single chapter in Genesis that you can read in a few minutes
            >and understand what things like sacrifice, virtue and humility mean to Christians symbolically
            You would have to read the entire old Testament + the Gospels at minimum to grasp the sacrifice

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I made a narrative reading list for the Bible a while ago so you can get the overall story from Creation to Jesus and St Paul. It avoids repetition and interleaving different books so some things are ommitted, e.g. the book of Jonah would be inserted somewhere in 2 Kings. You should read Jonah anyway because it's very short and a popular story.

            Genesis (skip: 36)
            Exodus 1-24, 32-34, 40
            Numbers 10-36
            Deuteronomy 34
            Joshua 1-13, 22-24
            Judges
            Ruth
            1 Samuel
            2 Samuel
            1 Kings
            2 Kings
            Daniel 1-6
            Ezra
            Nehemiah
            1 Maccabees - not in Protestant Canon
            Luke
            Acts

            Optionally, read all four gospels one after another but they obviously repeat a lot of stuff.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Message Bible is written in today's English. People look down on it for not "feeling" sufficiently hallow but it gets the point across

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    bible

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    RSV is good - nrsv mostly made changes to make certain passages gender-neutral.

    I like Robert Atler's Hebrew bible translation, it's also one of the few Bibles I've read that has an interesting commentary and not one that just summarizes what you just read or tried to make the story applicable to your life or w/e

    KJV has it's merits since it's really the only English translation used today that doesn't have lots of Protestant and post-Trent Catholic ways of thinking baked into the translation

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >newly converted Catholic
    Idk read some Roman pagan mythology crap or something

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    new jerusalem

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Duoay Rheims is very old Englishy and poetic but if you want to be able to actually understand the contents in a conventional modern English way than try the RSV (2nd catholic edition)

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This one OP

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      moronic "translation"

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You better be joking

      >Much criticism of the New World Translation involves the rendering of certain texts in the New Testament considered to be biased in favor of specific Witness practices and doctrines. These include:

      >the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" as the instrument of Jesus' crucifixion;

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Which Bible translation should I go with as a newly converted Catholic?
    The Douay-Rheims. This is the only correct answer.
    >I want to avoid protestant doctrine
    It's easy to avoid this if you stick with the Douay-Rheims. What makes something protestant is being eclectic. If you're picking and choosing what to agree/disagree with, treating the bible like it's the complete works of Plato or something, you're a protestant. If you accept it as truth, then you're not a protestant. The rest of the specifics, from a non-protestant perspective anyways, aren't relevant.

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >moron
    Why does every Christian debate on Oyish end up like this?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why does every Christian debate on Oyish end up like this?
      >debate
      ??
      >why are people calling other people "moron" on Oyish
      ??
      >being confused
      The lad asked a question. He wants to know which bible translation is for catholics. The answer is "Douay-Rheims" and every catholic would know this. He also wants to avoid protestant content. So, if someone is going to recommend KJV, which is one of the most known protestant translations, they're clearly moronic.
      Incidentally, I'm agnostic.

      why would you bother converting to catholicism when the Pope is such an unabashed heretic? Quite frankly there hasn't been a catholic church since the middle of last century.

      This points is only good for people who don't understand catholicism. You can just call the guy an antipope. He is a confirmed jesuit anyways, which is inherently anti-catholic. It's actually insane how few people are willing to think about this for a minute: There is an actual protestant pope in charge right now. lol

      >and I want to avoid protestant doctrine if possible.
      Like what? Pentecostal shit like speaking in tongues? Oh they do that in Catholicism now too sorry.

      The problem with protestant doctrine isn't "speaking in tongues" but rather their decision to arbitrarily keep/remove books/lore, or rather, they're eclectic.

      The nrsv was translated to be used as a secular bible. Also why are you weirdly obsessed with "Protestant bibles" ? I've been a Catholic my whole life and never heard of this phenomenon

      >never heard of this
      How is that even possible? He's just a new(er) convert, probably interested in trad cath, and wants to avoid sacrilege. It's honestly weird to me that he doesn't know that Douay-Rheims is the only one he should really be paying attention to. Everything else is like St. Augustine and all that.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >rather their decision to arbitrarily keep/remove books
        There's nothing arbitrary about the Protestant canon. It's a normal ancient canonical list, following that of Jerome and others, that had substantial agreement even up until the Reformation. You have Catholic theologians supporting it even during the Reformation era and the Catholic Church did not define a specific canon authoritatively until the Council of Trent in response to the Reformation.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >nothing arbitrary
          What upholds the decisions? Nothing. You can just make your own bible, adding/removing whatever you want to.
          >the Protestant canon
          This implies a central authority between all that is protestant, and that isn't true at all.
          >had substantial agreement even up until the Reformation
          The reformation is when the protestant movement started.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What upholds the decisions?
            Nothing needs to .
            >You can just make your own bible, adding/removing whatever you want to.
            And yet no one does this.
            >This implies a central authority between all that is protestant
            No it doesn't, it simply means it's the canon which all Protestants use. There is more disagreement on the canon between Orthodox Christians, who have multiple different regional canons, than between Protestants.
            >The reformation is when the protestant movement started.
            I am stating that you will find works from esteemed Catholic theologians even during the Reformation period which agree with the canon that would be supported by Protestants and exclude the Deuterocanonical texts. This was a normal, acceptable position prior to Trent. The idea that everyone included the Deuterocanon equally and then Protestants got rid of it is historically false.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, Superior General of the Dominicans and papal legate to Augsburg to oppose Martin Luther, from his "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament":

            "Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    why would you bother converting to catholicism when the Pope is such an unabashed heretic? Quite frankly there hasn't been a catholic church since the middle of last century.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are wrong. The only good thing about catholicism is Francis.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ask your priest

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >and I want to avoid protestant doctrine if possible.
    Like what? Pentecostal shit like speaking in tongues? Oh they do that in Catholicism now too sorry.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >he has never heard of the Charismatic catholic movements
      Yes they do it too

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    fricking idiot catholics aren't supposed to read the bible, they're supposed to listen to their priest.

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >We really care about the laity understanding the faith, so we read the Bible to them at every mass
    >We read it in language they can't understand though haha 😉
    >There's some pictures on the wall though, they can look at that

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not a scholar, I've been reading the big book for enjoyment and philosophy. Authenticity REALLY matters to me over anything else. Which books are considered canon? Which books are fanfiction? Revelation seems to be bullshit some random moron spouted.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Which books are considered canon?
      A Protestant Bible will have the whole Protestant Canon. A Catholic Bible will have the whole Catholic Canon. I don't understand the question.

      >Which books are fanfiction?
      Depends which scholar you ask. Some books are traditionally attributed to a certain author although the book itself doesn't claim authorship. For example, the book of Joshua is traditionally written by Joshua but the book itself doesn't say so. There are books which claim an author but most scholars doubt the authorship, for example 1 Timothy claims to be written by Paul but has a very different style to the undisputed letters of Paul. Others are accepted as genuine universally like Paul's letter to the Romans. Some are acceptes as mostly genuine with perhaps some later editing, like Ezekiel.

      This is the academic view, a conservative Christian or israelite will say that all the traditional attributions are correct.

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >CTRL + F
    >schlachter
    >0 results
    The eternal anglo strikes yet again.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *