I agree! That would be lovely:)

Could start with a highly curated internet group. "Don't let your dreams be dreams."

Same

I so wish for the same. My best friends are unbelievers but oh how I long to have Christian best friends. 🥲

I would support that if the Bishops allowed it.

There are still variants of the KJV in-print that are accompanied with the deutro/apocrypha e.g. Oxford World's Classics, etc. But what is a big mystery to me is why subsequent editions of the Douay-Rheims beyond 1610 decided to leave out the 3 appendix books (3, 4 Esdras and Prayer of the Manasseh). Of course I am aware that these are not considered canon by Catholics but they still can be useful to read from the perspective of the vulgate based text. The only convenient way to read them is on a pdf facsimile of the 1610 ed. Though the baronius press have a Challoner revision text paralleled with the clementine vulgate, which somehow contains the mentioned appendix books. I have no idea what the translation source for these books are due to the fact that Challoner never revised these from the 1610 (or anyone other published revision to my knowledge). If anyone by some miracle has any extended knowledge about that then I would be very appreciative. But yes, I have a KJV for a high Anglican perspective ( and semi Orthodox(though a Septuagint would be a more suitable resource for the OT)) , D-R for a Catholic perspective, RSV (expanded apocrypha) for a critical and academic perspective (NRSV is too liberal), and the ESV study bible for an Evangelical perspective. The CSB looks interesting, though I'm not aware of many British/Anglicised translations beyond the KJV, any of those would be cool.

I wouldn’t fault them for not mentioning that most publishers of KJV today do not include the deutero-canon. When the KJV began it included it and you can still buy KJV bibles with the “apocrypha” as they call it. I recently bought a KJV cameo with apocrypha and it is gorgeous. I’m a recent candidate planning to go through RCIA with my wife this fall (Glory to Jesus Christ) and I was stunned by lack of premium, heirloom quality catholic bibles on the market. I couldn’t find any if I’m being honest. I will use this KJV + apocrypha until it falls apart and hopefully that never happens.

Also the DR calls "burnt offerings" "holocaust offerings." I thought that was funny, even though I know it means "an immense conflagration."

Based on that shoddy Latin translation by Jerome.

​@@hexahexametermeter Saint Jerome fluently spoke Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It's a beautiful translation.

1611..how can you read it...

You can get King James Bible with “Apocrypha” for a catholic canon Bible

Too bad because that's what it means and in no way detracts from Mary's special position. No one else is referred to in that way.

@@flintymcduff5417 Take it up with St. Jerome.

I agree with you, Greg.

@@flintymcduff5417 "Ave Maria, Gratia Plena..."

It's very interpretive. He seems to prefer the literal.

"I also grew up with the KJV this was always the biblical prose that was written on my heart as a little child."---- Same here. I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants can be very attached to their KJV and are suspicious of "catholic bibles". Statistically most Catholics don't speak English, so maybe the Church or Catholic publishers haven't given the issue much consideration. There is a recently published Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur., and it only comes in a two volume set which seems rather inconvenient to me.

He probably would of liked it since it’s a conservative, modern language, non gender inclusive revision of the RSV.

Honestly, the ESV-CE is probably my 2nd favorite translation, I just wish it were more widely published!! I *have* found a few out there but it's a shame that a leather/faux leather copy is ~6-8x more expensive than it's non-catholic counterpart :/

He also got music wrong. Music is not a celebration of repetition. --Unless you're a fan of Praise and Worship bands.

I’m Orthodox and we seem to love the KJV New Testament

Lol. Another catholic hater. KJV translators was headed by a catholic priest desiderius erasmus. The very first kjv is 73 books.

@@chrischlela5071 I don’t seem to understand your position. Because it isn’t in one codex it isn’t proofed with others? The Orthodox and the Catholics are trinitarian so neither would have an issue with this. The textus receptus absolutely belongs to a trinitarian Church and is the basis for the KJV New Testament. Are you mistaking issues with Old Testament manuscripts maybe. We do differ there

The original KJV had the deuterocanon. And it's more Catholic than any modern translation.

Doesn’t really matter, it’s beautiful

@@DK-nq9wv The "KJV with apocryphal books" is readily available, but they do not have the books in the proper sequence nor do they follow the Catholic translations for certain critical words or phrases. Linguistically, the KJV is my favorite English version. But its translation of some key texts represents an attempt to downplay Catholic teaching. For example they change "full of grace" to "highly favored". So, the "KJV with apocryphal books" is still a Protestant Bible. It would be nice to have an approved Catholic KJV version which preserves both the literary quality and Catholic orthodoxy.

There is a Bible published called King James Version for Catholics, which places the deuterocanon in the correct order and updates some of the translation choices of the Protestant KJV to reflect Catholic teachings more accurately. I believe it is the translation used by the Anglican Ordinariate, but I could be wrong.

Essentially he means “RSV” vs “NRSV.”

I thought he was referring to the RSV Catholic Bible and the RSV Catholic Bible 2nd Edition.

This is my understanding, since many books published by Ignatius Press were wont to use the RSV-CE of 1966. Of late, everyone seems to be fawning over the RSV-2CE which removes the thee/thou/thine pronouns in the Psalms and elsewhere. And it changes the more formal "brethren" to "brothers". Yeah, the 2CE DOES improve on SOME radings from the earlier CE, but not enough, in my estimation.

He's referring to the RSV-CE from the 60's which keeps the "thee's and thou's" vs the NRSV-CE from the 90's that made it more modern.

its also missing verses

@@TankforGod3 if you’re thinking of 1 John 5:7 that has no textual support hence new scholarship not including it in the Greek Testaments and translations.

The 1941 Confraternity New Testament is the best NT out there, in my opinion. I wish it were more popular. It retains the you singular and you plural distinction, is far more literary than the Douay-Rheims and uses the Clementine Vulgate as the base text, which as I understand is not a particularly good scholarly text. Nevertheless, it does hold a certain important place in the Church's liturgy and tradition since it was the official Latin bible of the Church for almost four hundred years.

@@bos567564 I own the NT 1941 Confraternity. How does it make the you singular/plural distinction?

@@ussconductor5433 with thou and you (singular and plural subject pronouns) and thee and you (singular and plural object pronouns). You might read in the Confraternity NT ''I say to thee, Peter''. Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. Peter is the singular object. Or when Jesus says: ''when thou givest alms'', he is addressing you individually. He is not simply addressing his audience at the Sermon on the Mount. When you realize that Jesus is addressing you individually, you realize just how important these words are.

No need to reply but I was curious if you read them all?

@@doktorenko I do tend to address several different translations when researching a particular topic, along with some literal ones as well. But recently, having found out that the old ones, Geneva and KJV, have a quality as to how they use their pronouns, I have come to a great fondness for the 1599 Geneva Bible. I feel it is a better translation even than the KJV. Did you know, that in those two bibles, the word "you" is always plural without exceptions? That is a very useful thing to know. In all of the later bibles that is not the case. Because in modern English, we use that word either plural or singular. But not in the olden days. It was always plural. I find that helpful when reading some of the tests.

@@makarov138 This strongly suggests the work a bible scholar would undertake. Good for you! For my part, I mainly read from the Jerusalem Bible (1966 study edition) and La Nouvelle Jérusalem. I find these fresh translations very fluent while retaining the original significance of the texts, and which would provide a layperson such as myself with an expansive commentary and introductions, enough to satiate my hunger for knowledge in many areas.

No

@@d.j.p.g.b.9662 Why not?

Never lol the catholic church tried to kill King James for making the Bible available to protestants.

@@Livefire7where do you learn this history from? The dumpsters? This info is so inaccurate.

@@Livefire7 Incredibly false. The Douay-Rheims came out BEFORE the KJV! @terrysbookandbiblereviews - A publisher released a 2 volume set of KJ Catholic Edition somewhat recently. Check it out!

@@Mysticceruleanthe RSVCE still retains the thees and thous in the Psalms and it still renders Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” (which the RSV2CE corrects to “virgin”)

yes, there is an RSV Second Catholic Edition used by many Catholics. Actually the Adventure Bible by Ascension Press is RSV. So if you have the ascension app, they use RSV. RSV is really nice, the language is very poetic compared to the cut and dry NABRE version we use in mass.

I do not see how. Plus, the NRSVue was also made by Catholic scholars, so I doubt they would make it biased towards Protestantism.

@@Silvia_Arienti - There are no plans to release a Catholic version of this updated edition any time soon as far as I am aware. The NRSVUE also extends the use of gender inclusive wording, which the NRSV also uses in some instances. The NRSVUE is also vague in it's translation of, 'arsenokoitai,' as, 'men who engage in illicit sex,' in 1Corinthians6:9. Whereas other translations generally translate it as homosexual acts between men. I hope these changes weren't included for political correctness. I'll be sticking with my NRSV anyway.

@@Sean-lv6fx I never got why people have problems with gender inclusive language. In many languages, like mine (Italian), male words are used when speaking about groups composed of males and females: this is also the case in Hebrew and Greek. If I rememeber correctly it was translated that way because we are still not sure what arsenokotai means exactly, so they decided to leave the interpretation of what "illicit sex" means up to the exegetes.

@@Silvia_Arienti - I don't have any problems with gender inclusive language as long as the sources they are using to translate merits it. The NRSV already does this in some instances, the Greek word in question is, 'adelphoi.'

That’s the most honest comment I’ve seen in here.

" if I advocated the idea for the sake of ecumenism?" ---- I agree. I think an approved KJV Catholic version might help bring some of our Protestant brothers back into full communion with the Church. English speaking Protestants can be very attached to their KJV and are suspicious of "catholic bibles". Statistically most Catholics don't speak English, so maybe the Church or Catholic publishers haven't given the issue much consideration. There is a recently published Catholic version of the KJV but it does not bear the imprimatur., and it only comes in a two volume set which seems rather inconvenient to me.

The 1611 does

It does. Most publishers don't print it, to save on paper.

I do have a copy of KJV with all 73 books. Thanks.

The KJV is not wrong when it says kill. The meaning of “kill” specifically referred to murder during the time when the KJV was produced.

Why don't you just make the perfect translation for us?

@@gch8810You just made the OP’s point, how many people would know that tid-bit in order to read that accurately?

"Actual translation" HAHAHA Do you even know what a translation is? A translation is something made and creative. There is no "Actual translation".

I will use the one I prefer. There are so many better choices than the NABRE.

The NABRE should be replaced with a better translation

You can get KJV with the Deutercanonicals (Apocrypha) from Cambridge. The original KJV came with the Deutercanonicals (Apocrypha).

"Stay away" haha What are you, the Bible traffic cop? "The full canon" haha The church fathers pointed out what the apocrypha was not canonical but read it anyways. Same with the King James. The King James Version included the apocrypha even tho not canonical.

I agree to an extent. But english has a right way of getting across, and a sterile way of getting across. Eloquence and authority are relevant for being fully impacted by the Bible. We live for the faith, we need the Bible, and we need good Bibles. l think all Bibles are good; but is our language good? Shouldn't our language only service scripture as accurate translation does. It makes the difference in devotion to reading ones Bible. To love the origins of it from beginning, to it's making in our language. Just like how we don't want crappy bibles that fall apart. Serve the scripture.

And always good to see protestants reading the can of scripture given to the world by the Catholic Church. Except you conveniently left out a few books.

@@flintymcduff5417 yeah, not a Protestant, just someone happy to see how dumb you can all be

Yeah, as if we Catholics had so many more appealing choices of our own!

Maybe you’re not aware, there is a Catholic edition of the King James, the Doay-Reims is a Catholic Bible, and the RSV-CE is the Catholic edition of the RSV. 🤦🏻

And Catholics killed people for writing the bible in English.

Good luck convincing anyone of that here. These two Catholics just recommended Protestant Bibles. If they can’t be bothered to care about what books are present it’s doubtful they’ll care how they were constructed.

@@CheddarBayBaby Know what you mean. I bet most of the faithful believe the gospels are eyewitness accounts.........written by Hebrew fishermen..........in Greek.

@@kevinkelly2162 the way most Christians approach it, they act like the Gospels were written by Billy Graham or something. Some trustworthy respected guy they know who’d never tell a lie. They don’t want to look into the circumstances and motives of their creation cause there might be something ordinary or ugly there. Apologists and intellectuals like Kreeft have filled in as a proxy for that role ever since. He sits here and confirms what everyone wants to believe, if a Bible has the word ‘New’ in it don’t trust it. Old is good, even if it’s Protestant. Trust him, he’s looked into it… for a couple hours on a Sunday probably. Nothing else to see here. I can’t blame people for wanting to believe something easy like that. Otherwise who the heck do you trust? Do you need to learn Ancient Greek now? It’s all very confusing, so the simpler they can make it the better. Why read the whole Bible… just randomly flip to a page and that’s God speaking to you.

@@kevinkelly2162 Greek was the universal language at the time. John flat states he was an eyewitness. You calling him a liar?

Boohoo

You know Unicorn is Latin for a Rhinoceros, right? What's mythological about that?