The Holy Bible... Which version do you like/own and why? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discuss literary and artistic creations, or post your own poetry, essays etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14893494
The Version: Douay-Rheims Bishop Challoner Revision

Denomination: Roman Catholic(72 Books version, Order of Books and Psalms based on Latin Vulgate order)

The Edition: 2005 Baronius Press Leatherbound Hardcover Edition

Price: $110 bought brand new

Why:
It's a classical-style Study/family Bible with extensive notations from Bishop Challoner, three full Papal Bulls on the importance of reading and studying holy scripture are included as a lengthy introduction. These are from Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII

I found it simply to be the most interesting version of the Holy Bible to own, the most informative and the most spiritually inspiring version I have ever read(I've read several translations both classical and modern).

The Bible looks and feels classical with a black leatherbound cover, silkish book markers and If I didn't tell you I bought it brand new in 2006/7 you'd think it was a fair age(looks very late 19th century or early 20th century) plus I added wear and tear to it myself carrying it around in my backpack reading it. The translation is of cause "The Catholic King James Version" significantly updated to the 18th century English of Challoner's time. The Bible as it's sources uses the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint and as some have noted takes heavy inspiration for it's poetic style of English from the KJV. It purports primarily to be a translation of the Saint Jerome Latin Vulgate but in fact uses most of the sources available to it at the time including the copy of the ancient Hebrew scriptures that was available.

The Bible uses the Hellenic Jewish names(from the Septuagint) for the books, which means the titles of the OT are the Greek version and several books of the NT have the untranslated Greek title.... "The Apocalypse" is naturally left untranslated.... Let's face it, it sounds more poetic ending with "The Apocalypse" rather than Revelations.

It has beautiful reprinted woodcut illustration inserts placed between the two testaments, family tree pages. Several illustrations depict scenes from the Old and New testaments in beautiful woodcut. Probably taken from an earlier 19th century edition of this Bible.

The books are significantly annotated with each having a lengthy blurb explaining it's history(especially traditional authorship), why it was written(including theological importance), the meaning behind it's title both English(/Greek) and Hebrew and why it is included. Frankly I've never understood why most standard Bibles don't include this basic information.

Unlike modernized study Bibles, there is no "alternative translation notes"(why would you need this anyway? You can just have more than one Bible, I do) and the study notes from Bishop Challoner are strictly Roman Catholic. The Bible lengthily annotates internal biblical scriptural references(such as if the author quotes or alludes to another book, it will indicate exactly where that can be found) which frankly is extremely helpful. It is a very classical study version featuring maps of Israel, timelines of events, timelines of the writing of the Biblical Books, etc.

This is my Bible that I still open up and read everyday. Currently reading 1 Machabees and getting lost in the days of the Hebrew Revolt and the rebuilding if the Temple.

The Jewish Braveheart! Make Israel Great Again!

Ironic that Catholics and Orthodox read more about the Hanukkah story than Protestants and most modern Jews.
#14893557
I use the New Jerusalem Bible standard edition. Although a vehicle of Papist propaganda, it has pretty good notes including the four source attributions. The Old Testament begins with a late Priestly source creation story, followed by a contradicting early J source creation story.
#14893587
Heisenberg wrote:The KJV, because practically every other version is either prosaic bollocks, overly-Latinate Papist drivel, or both.

Also, anyone caught using the NIV should be burned at the stake.


Full Version (OT, NT + Apocrypha.... As it was originally published)? Or the more widely available lite version with less in it?

Get the full version at least. Then you get to read about the Jews bashing up the Babylonian invaders and restoring "The glory of Israel".... Quite inspirational stuff. Plus when we talk about 1 Tobit at least you'll have a copy of that.

The NIV sucks, the reason is because it is hyper-protestant(deliberately translates several passages to downplay the Catholic-Orthodox Interpretation) and hyper-modernised to the point where some passages are outright mistranslated just because the translators felt "we have to do something completely different to the KJV(and other classical translations like mine)". The English leaves alot to be desired and I'm not a fan of translating words that already can be understood, such as that version insisting on translating Rabbi, which just plain doesn't need to be translated(and helps the reader understand quick "these people i'm reading about are Jewish").

It's also one of the few Protestant Bibles that still delibrately doesn't have a Catholic Edition of its translation. The KJV originally came out with all the Catholic and Orthodox OT books inside it even if relegated to a different section. The RSV comes in Catholic edition and the Good News version has a Catholic edition. Only mainstream protestant bible not to have a Catholic version is the NIV.

The Vulgate, as an early translation, should be considered a fairly contemporaneous translation and should be respected as evidence of how certain hebrew passages were interpreted by early Christians when translated to Latin. The KJV uses it fairly well(and applies a thin protestant lens).

As an alternative translation I've always preferred the easy reading Good News Edition instead with it's simple illustrations and Simple English(at least this translation has a reason for it's low level English unlike the NIV, it's for the kids and ESL Adults to read!). May as well keep as a secondary copy the version I read fully as a kid.
#14894739
I like Aramaic to English translations.

For example:
Aramaic, Psalm 4 wrote:
When I called you, you answered me, my God, and the Savior of my righteousness; in my sufferings you inspired me; show mercy upon me and hear my prayer.

Sons of men, how long will you obscure my honor, love emptiness and seek lies - forever?

Know that Lord Jehovah has set apart The Chosen One for himself with wonders; Lord Jehovah will hear when I call him.

*Tremble in awe and you will not sin; speak in your hearts and meditate upon your beds. Offer the sacrifices of righteousness and hope in Lord Jehovah.

There are many who say, "Who will show us good and will shed upon us the light of his face?" Lord Jehovah, you have given your joy into my heart more than the time that their grain and their wine and their oil increased in peace together.

And I shall lie down and sleep, because you, Lord Jehovah, make me dwell alone in stillness.

Compared to:
Standard English, Psalm 4 wrote:
Answer Me When I Call

To the choirmaster: with stringed instruments. A Psalm of David.

Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness!
You have given me relief when I was in distress.
Be gracious to me and hear my prayer!

O men, how long shall my honor be turned into shame?
How long will you love vain words and seek after lies? Selah
But know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself;
the LORD hears when I call to him.

Be angry, and do not sin;
ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent. Selah
Offer right sacrifices,
and put your trust in the LORD.

There are many who say, “Who will show us some good?
Lift up the light of your face upon us, O LORD!”
You have put more joy in my heart
than they have when their grain and wine abound.

In peace I will both lie down and sleep;
for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.


http://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/psalms/4.htm
http://biblehub.com/esv/psalms/4.htm
#14894742
My issue with that translation is that Jehovah is a Latin/Greek word.

It is way too often mispronounced in English leading to unnessecery confusion over the Tetragrammaton. It's actually spelt Iehovah in the original language and correctly it is pronounced Yeh-Vah. This is almost identical sounding to the updated English Transliteration of Yah-Weh. IN OTHER WORDS BOTH JEHOVAH AND YAHWEH ARE CORRECT. That Latin word was the Latin transliteration of it which has subsequently itself been anglicized, while Yahweh is the direct to English Transliteration.

In Latin there is no actual J, and similar to Spanish pronunciation of the letter J, I is pronounced with a 'y' sound. The 'o' is of cause silent.

Jesus(and even Julius Caesar as well as most other I beginning Latin names translated into English with a J) is usually "misspronounced" in English in the same manner, although there is less theological issue with it. The Spanish pronounce Jesus correctly as Ye-sus, which is the same as the original Greek and Latin pronunciation.

In Aramaic his name was of cause Yeshua.
#14894753
Heisenberg wrote:Also, anyone caught using the NIV should be burned at the stake.

Naff off! :D

My NIV is resplendent in US Army camouflage and stamped on the cover 'US Army - Fort Carson' and the US Army Chaplaincy capbadge. A gift from a US Army Chaplain when I was stationed with the Yanks in Iraq.

I also have a copy of The Bible Book: A User's Guide, by Nick Page and a copy of the Apocrypha.

Whilst I find them fascinating and I'm a churchgoing Christian, I do not believe that scripture is, 'the Word of God'. I believe that all religion has been contaminated and corrupted by Man.

Image
#14894845
Cartertonian wrote:My NIV is resplendent in US Army camouflage and stamped on the cover 'US Army - Fort Carson' and the US Army Chaplaincy capbadge. A gift from a US Army Chaplain when I was stationed with the Yanks in Iraq.

As long as you don't read the damned thing, I'm sure it makes for a lovely keepsake. :lol:

Cartertonian wrote:Whilst I find them fascinating and I'm a churchgoing Christian, I do not believe that scripture is, 'the Word of God'. I believe that all religion has been contaminated and corrupted by Man.

Until American (and some English) fundies went crazy with Biblical literalism in the 19th century, most Christians saw the Bible as something along the lines of "The Word of God, in the words of man," which I think is quite a reasonable way of putting it. I know that's the way the Orthodox, the Papists *spits* and the C of E interpret the Bible. This Southern Baptist move to make the Bible a Christian Qur'an is historically and biblically illiterate.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]