The Top 10 English Translations for Catholics

[@bernie4268]

My favourite is the original Jerusalem Bible. It’s word choice is poetic and beautiful. I keep going to Ephesians 3:14: This then is what I pray, kneeling before the father…

[@RGrantJones]

I agree with you, Bernie - it is poetic and beautiful. Thanks for commenting!

[@johnflorio3576]

Oh yes! The Jerusalem Bible reads SO well!

[@seppe1701]

Isn't that used for the Mass in England?

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@@seppe1701 Yes.

[@jamescaley8142]

I agree too im not catholic, but JB Is easy to memorise. For instance i memorised psalm 119. Very poetic

[@DF_UniatePapist]

If more Catholics were familiar with the ESVCE in the way that they are familiar with the RSV, I think the ESVCE could easily have leapt into a strong second-place showing. In my opinion, it is a better, more faithful, and more conservative translation than the RSV, and I think that conservatism and orthodoxy are the prevailing mindset among Catholic viewers of this channel.

[@Antjammat]

I quite agree. I made the switch to the ESV-CE a couple years ago, and I've never looked back, honestly.

[@DF_UniatePapist]

@@Antjammat It’s a great translation. It has its fair share of problematic passages (most notably 1 Timothy 3:15), but they are few and far between. In fact, it has far less than any other translation I have examined, even the Douay-Rheims.

[@Athanasius81]

I love the ESV-CE. I cannot comment on its relative merits as a translation, other than that I understand it is a fairly accurate translation and is very beautiful. But in addition to those factors, I appreciate its absence of footnotes, not even having minimal footnotes (perhaps I'm odd, but I find footnote markers in the text very distracting when I'm reading, even when I agree with the footnotes, which is not always the case- another problem I have with a lot of translations....In any case, I do not have to deal with those problems with the ESV-CE, so I am using it for reading the Bible through in a year).

[@krjohnson29]

For me, the RSV-2CE and ESV-CE are very similar, but I prefer the RSV-2CE because I feel like it has a little bit smoother reading. Wouldn't say anyone would go wrong with either one though.

[@justinharnett]

Although I do agree that there are many upgrades, the English is still poor and when I was a protestor I tried the ESV several times (they have a great website - Crossway - that you can pick precisely what you're looking for), but always got frustrated reading it (like how many times in the NT it reads "reclined at table").

[@philipguzman9321]

I still have the Confraternity Bible given to me in high school (1965) and use it as my primary bible (after a rebind). . . Beautiful translations. . and, for me, great "staying power."

[@ma-mo]

Deserved way more than 10th place!

[@johnkusske7535]

Itis my number one. Easier to read than the Douay but yet as traditional.

[@pastorforthemaster8816]

Although I’m not Catholic, I find your reviews of Catholic bibles to be the ones that are the most intriguing to me. Have you done a video of your favorite Catholic bibles? Love your bibles reviews! Keep up the great work!!

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the kind comment, PastorForTheMaster! No, I haven't done a specific video like that. I like the RSVCE and RSV2CE, but I don't have a specific edition of the Bible in either translation that stands out. I very much like the old Jerusalem Bible, even though the translation is very loose and the notes are often written from a skeptical perspective. I read it alongside a more literal translation, and the notes often provide very useful summaries on a variety of topics, keyed to specific passages in the Bible.

[@Anthony10472]

Could you do a review of the baronius press pocket douay Rheims Bible

[@Charles-jj2su]

I’m a big of the NCB (New Catholic Bible) as it’s explicit in it’s intentions of being by and for Catholics. The footnotes are quite good and the translation itself is a great word for word translation more in line with something like the RSV, in that it still cares about poetic flow. It’s however not based on anything previous and is an entirely new translation!

[@TyranadeP]

Same. Love the NCB and it got the “Hail Mary” as well. ❤

[@PeccatorSpePlenus]

It's probably one of the most overlooked Bibles we have.

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

I think it's actually a revision of the Jerusalem Bible, isn't it?

[@louisrharmony]

@@Hospody-Pomylui No, don’t know why you would think that.

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

@@louisrharmony Here's a quote from a website to explain why I thought that. LOL "The New Catholic Bible is the same name under which the Catholic Truth Society of Great Britain publishes their edition of the Jerusalem Bible with Grail Psalms, which is the Scripture version currently used in the Lectionaries of England, Wales, Ireland, and elsewhere."

[@rhwinner]

I really enjoy my New American Study Bible. It's the version I came into the church with, and it holds a lot of sentimental value to me. Next on the list would be the old Douay Rheims. I think it's a translation of the the vulgate, but I still enjoy it immensely. I also own a Jerusalem bible but I don't get to it much. I intend to in the future, but can't say whether or not I enjoy it. I would also like to try the Knox one of these days. I guess the Best bible is the one you'll read regularly, and for me that's the NAB! 😀

[@z853c7]

If your Bible absolutely has to have 'she' crushing the head of the serpent; Isaias prophesizing a 'virgin' to be with child; and Gabriel greeting Mary with 'hail' and 'full of grace' - then your only choice is the Douay. Knox is close, but he has maid instead of virgin, which seems like a nod to the ambivalent Hebrew text.

[@Mauser_.]

Great video, and I learned a lot. God bless you 🙏

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the kind comment!

[@sorenpx]

I'm not Catholic but I have had an interest in the Douay for some time, being that it is translated from the Latin, and if I WERE Catholic I'm sure it is what I would use as my primary translation. As it stands, I am a KJV guy.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

A sleeper bible: The Oxford-Cambridge "Revised English Bible" w/Deuterocanon (aka Apocrypha). Designed to be bias-free, it was revised with input from the Catholic Hierarchy in the various UK nations. I find it an excellent daily reader.

[@cherylstevens4302]

Thank you for you top ten countdown. That was very interesting. I do agree with the first place. Will you be reviewing the Divine Mercy Catholic Bible. I bought one recently and love it. It doesn't have guilt edging which l like as it's easily damaged. I find it a very comfortable read and quite robust for a black leatheret cover. Thank you again for your top ten.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Cheryl! No, I don't plan to review that particular Bible.

[@albertritchot7181]

A much appreciated summary of Catholic Bibles. I do wonder why the Douay Rheims has maintained its status in position 1 or 2 in these recent years.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Albert! Perhaps some of those who prefer it will explain why here in the comments.

[@gilbertculloden87]

While I am not catholic, there are three reasons I have seen for the continued popularity of the douay rheims: 1. It's based on the Vulgate. There are some catholic traditionalists who will argue for the superiority of the Latin vulgate over the greek and Hebrew texts, and the douay rheims is the only widely available English translation of the Vulgate. 2. Traditional catholic use of the douay rheims. I believe the douay rheims was the only English bible authorized for use by catholics until the the appearance of the knox Bible in 1950. Just as some Protestants have continued loyalty to the KJV due to its historic usage, many catholics feel the same towards the douay rheims. 3. Absence of skeptical footnotes/intros. Contemporary Catholic bibles have the strange tendency to include surprisingly skeptical notes. The Rsv2ce is targeted at Catholic conservatives but still includes notes claiming the second half of Isaiah was written a century after the chapters 1-39. The footnote to Daniel claims the second half was written in the Maccabeean era, etc. The NABRE notes are even worse, suggesting for instance that the infamous passage in 1 corinthians that women keep silent in churches is an interpolation, despite no textual evidence to support the claim. Those are reasons I have seen but a catholic viewer may have a different perspective.

[@RGrantJones]

@@gilbertculloden87 - Thanks very much for your comment, Gilbert! It's very informative, as always.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus You have made more than a lion's share of excellent points that most people just ignore or whose importance and sense they minimize. Thank you!

[@ayetizzo]

Im a protestant, but i read the 1560 Geneva, 1611 King James Bible (With Apocrypha), 1966 RSVCE, 1995 NASB, and NIV. Im also interested in the Knox, DR, and NJB (or JB). i just prefer bibles that include the Deuterocanonical books despite my protestant background.

[@GodGunsGutsandNRA]

Douay-Rheims would be my No. 1, my 2nd is the RSV2-CE, and 3rd is the ESV-CE. So I guess that makes me pretty average. However, the D. R. Is the one I read daily.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

We are brothers in more aspects than you know... ;-)

[@michaelhaywood8262]

I use the CTS Translation. I think it is the same as the NJB. It is the version used at Mass in England and Wales, and I think, Scotland and Ireland.

[@Jonathan-iw5ic]

I also use the CTS for my study bible. I have recently become aware of a verse that has raised a question. Philippians 2 ch 2 v 12... 'work for your salvation in 'in fear and trembling'........ All other translations read 'work out your salvation......' It caused a bit of a debate with protestants (mostly free church) as to the meaning. I'm trying to investigate why only the Jurusalem text abd I think the Good News bible read 'work for'. Also I spoke to CTS on the phone and he told me that in the next couple of years the Catholic Church might be switching to the English Standard Version. Just a heads up.

[@Mark3ABE]

The CTS “New Catholic Bible” uses the 1966 translation of the Jerusalem Bible, with one or two changes to bring it exactly into line with the Lectionary.

[@speedygonzales9993]

Tks!, I use the DR.

[@ericmadsen7470]

I have the Ignatius RSV-CE and the New American Version.

[@Birdwatcher8071]

Hi Grant, thank you for this review! Here are the bibles used in Catholic Masses: >> In the USA - the New American Bible (NAB). Though there is a newer version of the NAB (called the NAB-RE), the American Lectionary still uses a modified version of the NAB. >> In Canada - the New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE). Canada is the only country whose Lectionary uses a modified version of this translation. >> In the rest of the English-speaking world - the Jerusalem Bible (JB), with the Grail Translation of the Psalms.

[@JoisonRaj_Joicy]

Could you make a video on the Christian Community Bible (Catholic) Pastoral Edition? Thank you.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the recommendation, Joison Raj! I'll look into it.

[@420kayoe420]

Hi everyone can someone plz help direct me to which Bible u think I should start off 1st I'm a little confused I haven't been to church since I was a kid and want to start understanding I'm afraid I won't understand some words

[@RGrantJones]

420kayoe420 - are you a Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox? Knowing that would help narrow down the recommendations.

[@420kayoe420]

@@RGrantJones I'm catholic

[@RGrantJones]

@@420kayoe420 - Then, if I were you, I would start with this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp3Nd2B6h9aaa9k . Later, if you need more detail, you may want to get a copy of this New Testament: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6qrhpSMe9aNfdE . As far as I know, the Old Testament isn't available in single volume yet.

[@420kayoe420]

@@RGrantJones thank you!!!!!!

[@Samuel-r2r7e]

THANK YOU

[@tonyn2101]

Do you have a video with your favorite translations? 🙂. I appreciate your opinions on translation and it would be great to see what your own opinions are. Thanks for the great videos. God bless

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, Tony! No, I haven't done a video on that topic. I tend to prefer translations in the Tyndale family, but I don't have a single favorite. When I'm listening to a sermon, I try to follow along in the speaker's translation. If I'm studying on my own, I often use a literal translation (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, LSB, RV, ASV) alongside a more interpretive one. For devotional reading, I find myself using the KJV or the RSV most often.

[@tonyn2101]

@@RGrantJones thank you!🙂

[@jimmu2008]

Thank you for this video. One Bible I do not have is the NRSV-CE. I do have the NRSV with the Apocrypha. Other than the canonical order and the omission of books not in the Catholic canon, are there any differences, especially in the translation itself?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the comment and question, James! I haven't compared the two (NRSV with Apocrypha and NRSV-CE). The preface to the NRSV Catholic Edition mentions the order of the books, and it includes a paragraph about the material in Esther, but I see nothing about other alterations. (The particular copy I showed here is an Anglicized Edition, so it differs from the U.S. English edition in multiple ways, of course.) Perhaps someone reading these comments will provide a detailed response to your question.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@@RGrantJones AFAIK, the NRSV w/Apocrypha contains more books than are in the Catholic Deuterocanon. But from all I've gathered, no changes to the text were made to the NRSV-CE, which differs from what is the case with the RSV-(2)CE.

[@mb9484]

@@manfredcaranci6234 Yep, the NRSV is fully ecumenical in that different editions contain different books but the text of common books is the same in all versions.

[@MR-wn6ln]

Does anyone know if the hard cover ESV-CE is smyth sewn?

[@NnifWald]

I have one and it is sewn and lies flat in Genesis and Revelation.

[@mehmeh217]

I love your videos! Btw have you seen the New Catholic Bible (NCB) translation from Catholic Book Publishing? It is a newer translation that is a bit under the radar but it is on Bible Gateway and it seems to combine the best elements of many solid translations and has some lovely print editions. I would love to hear your thoughts.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the kind words, mehmehmeh. I've been asked about that translation before. I'd like to review it, but the last time I looked all the editions had very large print and red letters.

[@louisrharmony]

@@RGrantJones The version I have is about a 9 point font which is the sweetspot for me. I believe they indeed are all red letter editions, but I have to say that the red letters (at least in mine) are exceptionally well done, and maybe even as good as the Cambridge cameo red letters.

[@RGrantJones]

@@louisrharmony - Thanks for that information. Can you tell me the ISBN for the copy you own?

[@manfredcaranci6234]

Despite the otherwise good intentions of Pius XII's "Divino Afflante Spiritu", which encouraged Catholic biblical translations be made from the "original" language texts, it would appear that there's little to show for it. Behold: the NAB/RNAB/NABRE, the JB/NJB/RNJB. With each "new" revision, either the translation got dippier (read, "more inclusive"), and/or the notes leaned more towards borderline heretical. So the best Catholics can do is modify slightly selected passages in the OT/NT of the Protestant RSV, thus yielding the RSV-CE/RSV-2CE. The RSV is FAR MORE literal than any of the other Catholic bibles I mentioned earlier, but it has its own oddities that (rightfully) ticked off more conservative Protestants. Yet those controversial passages, especially in the OT, were left unaltered, even in the RSV-2CE. Yea, I trust the D-R, but do also read the RSV-CE (not the RSV-2CE) and the NJB. I suppose I'm grateful these three made Dr Jones' Top Ten. But I'm still scratching my head as to how in /Sheol/Gehenna/Hades the NRSV-CE or the ESV-CE made the list. I'm especially disgruntled that the NRSV-CE and the NABRE beat out the NJB, whose use of inclusive language is quite restrained compared to the NABRE and the NRSV-CE.

[@vincenzoaiello7998]

I was under the impression that the RSV-2CE restored the more tradional renderings from the RSV-CE. I've compared them both and the "hot spots" fall in line with the conservative view in the RSV-2CE. Perhaps there are others that I'm unaware of?

[@peterpascone6942]

I wish I knew what was the most premium version of the Douay Rheims version Bible to buy, that is not family size?

[@RGrantJones]

It's certainly not premium, but I've heard good things about the quality of the Baronius Press edition: 9780954563110. It is said to be 8.5 x 6 x 1.875 inches in dimensions.

[@peterpascone6942]

@@RGrantJones thank you, I'll check it out. I come from a non-practicing Catholic background, and have a lot of family who are Catholic, so I think it would be great to be able to use the Douay Rheims when talking about the Gospel. One thing I find interesting is that the phrase burnt offering in the Douay Rheims is called Holocaust Offering. I don't know if there is any connection to the word holocaust used in reference to events transpiring after the Douay Rheims was translated?

[@PadraigTomas]

​@@peterpascone6942 The word holocaust simply means burnt offering. It is because of this that there are a sizable number of people that prefer the word "shoah," which, as I understand, means disaster to refer to the targeted persecution and murder which occurred during the war. The popular understanding of apocalypse is erroneous for similar reasons. Apocalypse meaning revelation rather than the mayhem prophesied to occur during the end times. My two cents on the subject.

[@Mark3ABE]

In 1966 the Catholic Church in England and Wales decided to make use of the Jerusalem Bible for the Lectionary and the RSV for teaching and study purposes. There were good reasons for this. The RSV is a direct, literal, word for word translation from the original texts. Where the sense is unclear, or ambiguous, or where words or phrases seem to be missing in the original text, this is dealt with in foot notes. The RSV is, essentially, a Protestant translation and this translation style is the only one which will work in assemblies where every individual is his own Pope! A paraphrase translation style is not acceptable, since who is to assess whether the interpretation of the translator is the right one? However, the Catholic Church has a Magisterium. The Jerusalem Bible does involve some degree of paraphrase, or interpretation. However, the translators were able to draw upon the Magisterium to ensure that doubtful texts were interpreted in a proper Catholic sense. The resulting translation was examined and given the “imprimatur” by the Bishops. So, clearly, for use in the Lectionary, a translation which incorporates translators’ notes into the text itself is much to be preferred. Pastors are relieved from the task of interpreting doubtful or ambiguous texts themselves in their homilies. The sense to be given to the text is a correct Catholic sense, as approved by the Bishops. Replacing the Jerusalem translation with the ESV is therefore less than ideal. It is true that the Lectionary will use the Catholic version of the ESV, however, that does not solve very much, because the explanation of doubtful texts is still in the foot notes (even if these are foot notes amended in some cases by the Church to ensure a proper Catholic sense) not in the text itself, thereby putting a responsibility on the Pastor to add in the sense from the foot notes in his homily.

[@IndianChristian19]

Can you do comparison of the paraphrases of the Bible such the Message and the Living Bible?

[@seppe1701]

Would you be able to explain why people voted for certain bible translations? What was there main reasons? What is so special about the RSV-CE ones that you combined at the end? Why are they so important? Douay-Rheims is significant cos it was used for centuries & was one of the original ones. JB & NAB are currently used and replaced the D-R for Mass, thus I can understand they are important. Would greatly appreciate your reply and explanation. Thanks for this video...very interesting. It just needs more information so I can appreciate the need to use certain translations over others. ❤

[@RGrantJones]

Sorry, but I didn't attempt to summarize the reasons people gave for their preferences, nor do I remember the specific comments people made. I posted the polls about translation preferences a few years ago in the channel's "Community" section. With patience, you could scroll back to those results and read the comments.

[@seppe1701]

@@RGrantJones wow, how do I find that in the community section? What date or title am I searching for?

[@seppe1701]

@@RGrantJones it only goes back 6 months.

[@RGrantJones]

@@seppe1701 - For me, it goes back to my first Community post.

[@seppe1701]

@@RGrantJones the oldest community post is 6 months ago. I am using a youtube app. No other posts will come up beyond 6 months. That one does not relate to this topic.

[@jmodz7392]

Is the King James Version also has pages of verses of when your sad or jealous or mad that will guide you . I notice some books have them and some don’t I want all 73 books in one.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Any Catholic bible will have 73 books. For old English, the Douay-Rheims will serve. For Anglophiles, the Knox is a master work. For newer, the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition or Second Catholic Edition are fine. The Jerusalem Bible is also good.

[@icxcnikalastname3317]

Hi Mr. Jones, I've been watching your channel for quite some time. I always wondered, how many Bibles do you have have and how do you organize them so you can put your finger on a particular translation?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question. I don't know how many Bibles I own. I they aren't actually organized very well. The ones I consult often, I keep near my desk. Others are stacked on bookshelves elsewhere in the house. Sometimes it takes me quite a while to find a particular edition.

[@263sparky3]

As a convert I come from a KJV only tradition (which never worked for me) I do love the D-R but the KJV although it’s missing books is an easier read. I think it’s important to have a few different translations on hand

[@RGrantJones]

You can find copies of the KJV that have _more_ books than the Douay-Rheims. Thanks for commenting!

[@tillo1981]

What's the best "Premium" Catholic Bible?

[@kawakamihitoshi]

a douay rheims Bible bound in goatskin would be the perfect bible

[@None.oooo1]

The companion Bible from Bullinger?

[@RGrantJones]

I'm not sure what you're asking, Cristiano96. I reviewed the Companion Bible here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5PIgHVqerBopbs .

[@djpodesta]

While I do not like embellished bible covers, I did like the 6th placed NRSV-CE; both the cover and the internal typesetting layout with the images. I can imagine me colouring the pictures if I had that bible as a child.

[@pattimoose1]

I love the Jerusalem bible the best!

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, pattimoose1! I've always enjoyed reading the Jerusalem Bible.

[@mikkis668]

What about the Peshitta Bible, anyone reading that?

[@manfredcaranci6234]

The Peshitta is from the Syriac; not by any means a mainstream translation into English.

[@mikkis668]

@@manfredcaranci6234 Yes, I know. (And there are several English translations.) I was just wondering if anyone uses it, as it's one of the oldest scripts we have.

[@Worldfriends218]

Hi i looking for a catholic bible try to fined what one to get

[@Triniforchrist]

NCB St Joseph is a good one to get

[@nathanmagnuson2589]

This video is a real banger

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Nathan! I hope that's a good thing!

[@bstring3967]

@@RGrantJones lol definitely is. Thanks for the videos brother

[@johnpeji7736]

There is King James Version which has Apocrypha or Deutercanonical Books and I know for a fact that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxes believe in Deuterocanonical Books aside from Old Testament and New Testament Books and it is approved for them(members and authorities of the Roman Catholic Church) and it can be found on Biblia Catholica website and on You Version. Please correct me if I am misinformed or not. Thanks

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

"Apocrypha" is a term used only by Protestant denominations after the reformers rejected the 7 books for theological reasons. They were written, copied, preserved and read by faithful Jews since before Christ. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox ever questioned them. Jerome initially did, but he was later convicted of their inspiration. The discovery of them among the Dead Sea scrolls (and carbon dating) is consistent with their religious use before Christ.

[@johnpeji7736]

@@HAL9000-su1mz I agree with what you said, but the Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxes called them "Deuterocanonical." Why? Because etymologically speaking, the word "deutero" means second, then it was connected by a word "canonical" and it implies that those 7 or more new books which were recently added in the Bible were canonised in the second place, but not in the place and personally, every time I read some verses of the Catholic, Protestant and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible Translations, I never read some verses from some Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal Books, but from both Old Testament Books and New Testament Books, I believe that the Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxes also believed in Old Testament and New Testament Books and also, there is no difference between "Apocrypha" and "Deuterocanonical," because according to my research that both of them are similar, they are referring to either 7 or 17 more new books added in the Bible, but the only difference is the translation.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@johnpeji7736 Your research is incorrect and done from a Protestant bias. You have not arrived at truth.

[@ggarza]

Thank you for posting the poll that you conducted on the Bible translation preferences for English speaking Catholics! It’s fascinating and very reassuring! It is unfortunate that English speaking Catholics can’t buy the translation of the Bible that they hear at most churches on Sunday so that they can follow along and start bringing their Bibles to Mass with them, the NAB! According to the US bishops’ website: “The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis.)” This edition of the New American hasn’t been in print since the New Testament was revised in 1986. It was again revised in 1991 when the Psalms were addressed. Of course the entire text was revised again in 2010 with the publication of the Revised edition of the revised NAB. Each revision has been copyrighted by the CCD which is wholly owned by the US Bishops.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Gil! Do you happen to know why the bishops don't update the readings to correspond with the latest revision? I'm curious. Perhaps the cost to revise and purchase new copies of liturgical books deters them?

[@ggarza]

@@RGrantJones Excellent question! A big part of the answer lies in the complex process that is required for final approval of lectionaries. The rest of the answer lies in the complex process that translations go through in order to be used in public worship. I attempted to describe it to you, however the explanation was much too long. In summary, translations and lectionaries go through several layers of approvals before they are sent to Rome for final approval. If there is a 3rd party copyright owner, the process becomes even more complex. It was attempted by the bishops several times over the years but ultimately rejected at some point in the process. My personal opinion is that the RSV-CE or RSV-CE2 both provide an excellent translation for worship far exceeding the NAB. Unfortunately, the US bishops make a tidy source of revenue from the NAB. I predict they keep it for the foreseeable future.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@@ggarza In this, thou hast answered rightly.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

With each passing week that I attend Mass, I realize more and more there is no reason on earth why I would ever want to purchase an edition of the NABRE that corresponds to our Lectionary. There are much better translations that our esteemed bishops just refuse to allow in the Liturgy. What a truly sad state of affairs.

[@Jain-vn9to]

​@@ggarza❤ ❤ ❤

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

#1 Bible is OVER 400 YEARS OLD?

[@SaltyPalamite]

This is missing the New Catholic Bible.

[@RGrantJones]

True. An oversight on my part.

[@larrym.johnson9219]

Catholic here: My go to Bibles are the RSVCE and the RSVCE 2, used in the English language of the catechism of the English speaking world both versions of the rsvce are non-inclusive language, except for the new revised standard version which is thoroughly inclusive. The English Standard Version I was intrigued by but there's a few verses that give me pause, because they take a unique approach to translation which is not traditional at all, also I am not a big fan of Bibles where they constantly revise and change things from year to year. I thank you Dr Grant for your selection and review of Catholic Bibles, I have had or have most if not all of the versions you covered with the exception of the Knox version and the revised Jerusalem bible, thank you again your reviews are most precise and you are a go-to source when I want to find out the details.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for that encouraging comment, Larrym.!

[@AveChristusRex789]

As someone who is inquiring into Catholicism, why is it recommended that we read Catholic versions of the Bible? Surely reading any other version gives us the same message?

[@jebbush2527]

Catholic editions have the complete canon with 7 more books, Protestant bibles usually lack them. There is nothing wrong with reading Protestant bibles, too, though, and using the Catholic ones for the deuterocanon.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Know the faith first. Catholic bibles have no agenda except the Gospel. Once division entered in in the 1500s, bias also entered in. The Deuterocanon books are a wealth of information and inspiration. Their content helps to understand Christian doctrine.

[@jimmu2008]

Is the CTS New Catholic Bible actually a Jerusalem Bible with LORD instead of Yahweh, and the Grail Psalms instead of the JB Psalms?

[@manfredcaranci6234]

I am fairly certain that that is correct.

[@bstring3967]

Interesting, I always found the nab or nabre to have some very interesting translational choices but it seems nobody likes it.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

They do have "interesting translational choices", which may explain why "nobody" (myself included) likes them. Even worse are the ultra-liberal footnotes in each.

[@bstring3967]

@@manfredcaranci6234 yea I have no idea, I have one I got for free and haven’t cracked into it really yet. But you make me even more curious to look into more now, seems like a heretics treasure chest

[@gungho1284]

The Church in the US still seems to use the NAB instead of the NABRE for the daily readings. It's the translation that has "One evening David rose from his siesta and strolled about on the roof of the palace." from 2 Sm 11. That one just cracks me up, using a Spanish word in an English translation. NABRE has "David rose from his bed".

[@bstring3967]

@@gungho1284 lolol dang, it’s gender inclusive and language inclusive....what more can you ask for??

[@jimmu2008]

I think a good follow-up poll would be about whether your Catholic audience feels compelled to read only translations and study Bibles that have been approved by the bishops.

[@freakylocz14]

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.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

I find the NAB and /RE to be rather horrid - consistent with the malaise in the Church. The notes and intros should. not be in any bible.

[@freakylocz14]

@@HAL9000-su1mz Amen! And replacing it with another liberal translation like the NRSV-CE won't help either. I also presume the Middle English of the Douay-Rheims is too archaic for the liturgy, hence my suggestion to replace the NAB/NABRE with the RSV-2CE.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@freakylocz14 At least the same as used in the English Catechism! The largest, oldest organization on earth MUST do better as to the scriptures. I love the Vulgate and a faithful 21st century rendering of the Vulgate is all we need.

[@freakylocz14]

@@HAL9000-su1mz What are your thoughts on the Catholic Public Domain Version? And I agree. Parishes should be able to give away such Bibles free of charge to their parishioners. That would both help increase the number of Catholics who regularly read Sacred Scripture, as well as ensure we have a faithful Catholic Bible in modern English that isn't just a revised Protestant Bible.

[@Shlomayo]

No. 1 is rightfully the DRB. No. 2 should be the Confraternity edition. :-) RSV-CE was disappointing: not an accurate translation at all (example: Luke 1:34).

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

The RSV leaves me flat as well.

[@Shlomayo]

@@HAL9000-su1mz RSV2CE is much better

[@markwiygul6356]

I like the Douay Rheims translation, before they started introducing all this modern terminology

[@eternalhalloween1]

DOUAY RHEIMS (1582/1610) is a good. ✝ The 1966 CATHOLIC RSV is arguably the best. ✝ The 1966 JERUSALEM is usable. Just not my favorite. The 1970 NEW AMERICAN is decent. Just not my favorite. I avoid the NRSV like the plague. The gender inclusive language is annoying. The 2006 2nd edition of the RSV is GREAT! ✝

[@timotheospetros]

Doubtless the Revised New Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV would have fared rather better if their editors hadn't contracted a rather nasty case of gender-inclusivitis.

[@RGrantJones]

You may be right, Timotheos! I just don't have a good sense for the relative numbers of Bible readers who prefer/dislike modern gender inclusive language.

[@RGrantJones]

I posted a poll at the channel's Community tab today (21 Feb 2022) to gauge the popularity of modern gender inclusive language in Bible translations.

[@Jonathan-iw5ic]

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure the Ignatius Press NRSVCE bible you show is real leather. I have a copy. Smell it. 🙂

[@RGrantJones]

At what point in the video do I show an Ignatius Press NRSV-CE?

[@Jonathan-iw5ic]

5 minutes in

[@RGrantJones]

@@Jonathan-iw5ic - that's an RSV-CE, not an NRSV-CE. I probably shouldn't have called the cover imitation leather, since it has a bonded leather cover. _Your_ copy may be covered in genuine leather, but mine isn't.

[@binyamin3716]

Except latin jerome vulgate nothing is catholic bible!! Duoay rheims is the reader version of latinvulgate ..that's it..end of discussion!!!

[@jswhosoever4533]

King James Bible. That's all anyone needs.

[@jswhosoever4533]

@Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus yes, but Catholics need to get saved too. So they need the true Word of God.

[@michaelhaywood8262]

@@jswhosoever4533 Then they will not find it in the KJB. It is probably the second worst translation in print [after the JW version].

[@tasiaflynn3549]

Catholic bible is the true bible

[@jswhosoever4533]

@@michaelhaywood8262 why would you say that? What is wrong with it?

[@lizamay3703]

WHY catholic??????? SHOULD NOT BE ONLY ONE BIBLE ??????? So every church will have their own translations??? THAT IS WRONG!!!!!!

[@mb9484]

Protestants and Catholics disagree about which books should be included in the Old Testament, so they have different editions.

[@lizamay3703]

@@mb9484 HM????? something is wrong here, I feel that people know better than God himself

[@jimmu2008]

@@lizamay3703 I gather from all the capital letters that you are shocked, maybe even scandalized, by the fact that different churches and denominations have different scripture canons and translations. There are a variety of reasons for this. I would like to try to explain it to you, but first, let me ask a question. When, how, and to whom, do you think God revealed to us Christians which books belong in our Bibles?

[@lizamay3703]

@@jimmu2008 HM??????? somehow I think if people had true faith in God than God would reveal them what to accept and what not to accept but people would need to have real true faith in GOD. Since on this planet there is no MAN OF TRUE FAITH and God does not chooses anyone to talk to like HE did to Mosses or Elijah than all is left to human speculation and that is what I am scared off. Jesus was a JEW and He did based all His teachings on Laws given to Israel by God not by humans. Jesus said - I did not come to change the law at all but to fulfill it. So let's get back to God's written laws and follow Jesus. There can not be any differences in this way.

[@paynedv]

@@lizamay3703, Silence

[@EJ160E]

ESV-CE ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️