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

Oh yes! The Jerusalem Bible reads SO well!

Isn't that used for the Mass in England?

Thanks for the kind comment!

Deserved way more than 10th place!

Hold on to that for dear life. Thats an heirloom to hand on.

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

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

@@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.

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).

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.

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").

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

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.

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

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

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

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

@@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."

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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

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

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.

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

@@gilbertculloden87 As a catholic I agree with you on all your points. With regards to point 1, it's not that there is a merely a preference for latin out of some blind loyalty (not saying thats your claim either).... but that the vulgate was compiled between 382 A.D. and 405 A.D., and it used Hebrew, Greek and old latin manuscripts that were ancient even at St. Jeromes time, that have since been lost. The Masoretic text is from 1000 A.D., the septuagint as we have today is from around 350 A.D. Nothing wrong with the septuagint, but St. Jerome had even older greek texts during his time. Greek is a better more exact language than hebrew (which is why the Hebrew israelites compiled the original septuagint), and latin is a more exact language than Greek (it's why scientific terms is based on latin and not english). This is why I can never understand the claims by other bible researches who dismiss the vulgate (I'm not claiming to dismiss greek or hebrew), I haven't seen any proof that they have found older manuscripts? They have the dead sea scrolls, which mostly conform to the septuagints from the 350s A.D. They presume that just by going back to "originals languages" no matter the age, is some kind of buffer against corruption. It's not a criticism of those languages, but there's assumptions that are made. There's also the uncertainty that later greek texts could have used latin texts... and later masoretic text relied on greek and latin... People didn't have the internet or easy of travel and communication that we have today.

@@ACF1901 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!

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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.

@@RGrantJones thank you!🙂

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

@@RGrantJones it only goes back 6 months.

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

@@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.

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

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.

@@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?

​@@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.

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

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?

@@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.

@@ggarza In this, thou hast answered rightly.

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.

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

@@RGrantJones I'm catholic

@@420kayoe420 - Then, if I were you, I would start with this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtKaeZB1t9fLZas.html . Later, if you need more detail, you may want to get a copy of this New Testament: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f994iMSHq9e-d6M.html . As far as I know, the Old Testament isn't available in single volume yet.

@@RGrantJones thank you!!!!!!

I'm not sure what you're asking, Cristiano96. I reviewed the Companion Bible here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r8iVgqVlqrGZn40.html .

NCB St Joseph is a good one to get

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

@@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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

Thank you for that encouraging comment, Larrym.!

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

@@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

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".

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

I am fairly certain that that is correct.

True. An oversight on my part.

"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.

@@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.

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

Of course we should feel compelled to adhere to our faith, as the bible is a catholic book. Buying a catholic bible means money goes back into the church, instead of going to someone who is an enemy of the faith.

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.

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.

The RSV leaves me flat as well.

@@HAL9000-su1mz RSV2CE is much better

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

5 minutes in

@@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.

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.

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.

The poll was about Catholic bibles, not protestant bibles...

@@ACF1901 yes, but Catholics need to get saved too. So they need the true Word of God.

@@jswhosoever4533 No where did God say that the KJV is required to save ones soul.

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

Catholic bible is the true bible

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

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

@@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?

@@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.

@@lizamay3703, Silence