Let's be honest, if someone misunderstands this it means they should not be reading the bible anyway.

Oh I will definitely check that out, thank you!

Thank you Richard!

There is an anglican esv with apocrypha which has hardcover

Glad you enjoy it!

Yeah save yourself some money! (Now if they could just come out with one as beautiful as the Orthodox Study Bible.... ;)

Yes with few exceptions, the ESV is a worthy successor to the RSV.

Glad it was helpful!

Glad it was helpful!

Are you aware there are two Douay Rhiems translations. Bishop Challoner made revisions to harmonise passages with the later King James version.

Thanks for sharing!

Yeah ironically Protestants steal a Catholic tradition and put it in their Bibles as Scripture!

The Didache is my #1 choice for Catholics. :)

Daniel is laid out with the DC portions integrated into the book / chapters. Intra-chapter material is dual-versified to avoid citation confusion (like the Ester example I showed at 17:36). It's great!

You're welcome!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Great! and Thank you!

Glad it was helpful!

Agreed 100%!

9/4/2023: You may not think that “Favored One” is wrong, but it sure isn’t right, either. The Angel Gabriel recognized Mary’s Queenship and said, “HAIL”!

Thanks!

Good to hear!

I used the NASB for eyars in seminary, I always liked it. It's literal enough for good study but I haven't investigated it for bias.

The only problem is literal translation of the DR is not the Greek. :/

i'm catholic dr is really the most accurate catholic bible?

@@hestia598It’s not because it’s a translation of the Latin Vulgate, so it’s a translation of a translation. Most accurate would be something like the RSVCE which is very literal and like reviewer said, it’s used by most biblical scholars.

Glad to be of service!

Yeah, after a year of Greek I gave up because even the experts don't agree haha - best to play the field.

I do not know of any revisions to the ESV, even the CE version simply includes the deuterocanonical books Protestant publishers usually leave out.

SPCK's hardback ESV-CE is very nice and thick given the price.

Agreed 100%!

The day after I read your review I went to the local Catholic bookstore and bought two Augustine Bible’s. One for myself and one for my daughter who loves to read the Bible. From what I have been able to tell if this translation is very similar to the Bible that we had before the American version of the Bible. There are of course two Discrepancies that I found one is the annunciation and the second is when the woman steps on the head of the serpent. Even though it is lacking footnotes towards agree I think it is a better Bible for studying for you get the actual words and not what someone thinks. Thank you so very much for giving us this information I look forward to reading this Bible on a fairly regular basis have a great holiday or I should say holy day amen

At which verse?

Possible, I havent done much study of this passage.

I have not, sorry!

This is a brand new publication - if it does well, they will likely introduce more versions.

I'm still partial to the RSV but I am glad we're not trapped by the NABRE anymore! ;)

All modern DRs are revisions of Jerome's original as it has been modified several times throughout history. The DR is already a translation of a translation, and its quality should not be judged by its faithfulness to Catholic theology but to the original writings. For more information, you might want to read this: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/uncomfortable-facts-about-the-douay-rheims

@@DouglasBeaumont "The original translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. However, it was revised from 1749-1752 by Bishop Richard Challoner, who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (published by Clement VIII in 1592, after the Rheims New Testament) and the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts." The DR we read from is NOT a direct translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Why can't they just give us a translate straight from the original Latin Vulgate? So what Latin is not the original language. Jerome knew the faith and had the oldest manuscripts. He knew what best fit. He knew whether "repent" or "penance" was more appropriate, for example. Who cares about giving us a translation from the original languages if those manuscripts are 1000 years older than Jerome's and THEY are a translation of a translation of a translation?

I do not have the Oxford edition and it out of print - but as far as I can tell from others, there are two main differences. Oxford places the deuterocanonical books (which it refers to as "Apocrypha") in the back of the Bible after the NT, and it also includes books outside the Catholic canon (such as Psalm 151 and 3-4 Maccabees). The ESV-CE includes only the historic Catholic canon and places the books/chapters in their proper places in the OT.

I don't necessarily see 2 as an advantage, but 1 & 3 are strong plusses. I like the ESV as a reader but for study I'll stick with the RSVII. Thanks!

It's unsettling when publishers make those kinds of decisions!

I later had a look in a "Study Bible" edition of the ESV, and found a footnote.

Nope. :) Most of the notes are translational, and that's about it. Pretty basic.

@@DouglasBeaumont I see. Thank you for replying! I think the main reason our Bishops commissioned this translation was for use in the lectionary (I remember reading this but I could be wrong). We've been using the new lectionary based on the ESV-CE since Palm Sunday this year. From this perspective, I guess there wouldn't be a need for working on cross references.

@@ashwith It's a good reader in my opinion - but maybe they can re-do The Catholic Study Bible in the ESV and without all the heretical notes. :)

​@@DouglasBeaumontYep 🔥🤟

Yeah I think I misspoke in the video. :) Thanks for watching!

LOL! . . . OH wait, was this serious? ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont God bless you, brother, have a wonderful day!

The quality of Bible translations is a sliding scale for sure - one that never reaches perfection it seems. I'm not sure what our disagreement is on regarding 1 Tim. 3:15 though - I called it out myself. Do you think I did not communicate the problem clearly?

@@DouglasBeaumont Doug, you communicated the issue with the article in 1 Tim 3:15 perfectly. In fact, that was a very early objection by Catholic scholars to the ESV. I agree with westsidewarrior1972: WHY would the Indian bishops approve this version, and also why was Luke 1:28 not done as we Catholics expect to see it?

It does seem like it would be an easy revision to use the catholic translation for those verses and leave the original ESV interpretation in the notes

They have very low cost books, but the shipping is over $30 from India, so that has to be taken into account.

@@DouglasBeaumont hi Douglas. Thanks for replying. Yes I was surprised about the shipping price. I'm in Australia, so all things considered it worked out cheaper for me and got a better quality bible.

@@ACF1901 Great!

I hope it does!

It is available now in hard and leather Google it , i believe its catholic market that sells them

@@coondogbob Great!

I hope you enjoy it!

"He" - just like the RSV before it.

@@DouglasBeaumont Thank you very much. I love your videos and your very logical approach is very appealing to me. Do you believe “He” is correct? I was taught Traditional Catholic and I was told that pretty much all Hebrew scholars agreed that the pronoun used in that passage can be translated He, She, They and that the reason why the DR Bible translators decided for “She” was due to context. I’ll try to explain it the best I can, but please correct me if you understand this differently. Genesis 3:15 I (He God) will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: He (It should be I) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Genesis 3:15 I (He God) will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: She (He God can’t be due to context) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. I was told this translation (using She) was accepted since the times of Jerome and that at the time they also struggled to pin the gender to it but went for this since it was the most logical and fitting to them. I was also taught, that the theology behind it was that Jesus (God) would technically never go to “punches” with Satan and he would never come in contact (physical contact) with the unholy one as suggested in 1 Samuel 17:40 I was told that God (Jesus) would always use a tool or weapon to defeat the devil so in that sense “She” would be the appropriate noun; she would be the pebble used by David to defeat Goliath. Many Trad Cats complain this was a standard teaching before Vatican II and that even the RCC is not longer teaching due to pressure from Protestant groups and their desire to bring them in to the faith but Marian devotion being huge road block for their conversion. Thank you!

It was approved in India but the translation itself was headed by Americans and is itself a modification of the earlier Revised Standard Version which was published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.

That's one theory.

Hopefully they'll come out with a larger print!

It's an ambiguous pronoun, that's all.

They all seem to blow it here or there. :)

Haha - I understand. I believe it is just because the Augustine Institute published it.

@@DouglasBeaumont Which is hardly a sufficient reason to call it an Augustine Bible. I think it's a sales strategy like: The MacArthur Bible, the Jim and Tami Faye Bible ??? the Ravi Bible ??? the Jimmy Swaggert Bible ??? Well some names may be a little less "lustrous" than others ... say what? Marketing strategies within Christendom always irritate me. It stood behind the whole Church Growth Movement of the 90s, then the Church Planting Movement. I think God sees all such "movements" as bowel movements. Other than that, I think it's all just fine.

@@johnritter5951 Understood!

Ha! I remember freaking out the first time someone told me to turn to Matthew 18:11 and it was missing. :)

I remember reading that! I found a copy of their "translation" in a used book store for $1 (still overpriced) and it was changed to the much more elegant "With oil you have greased my head". About on a par with the rest of their theology.

The copy of the ESV I have open in front of me at the moment, doesn't even have a footnote for Matthew 17:21! This deficit appears to have been corrected in the ESV Study Bible.

The Gk. (entos) means within, inside, or among - so it's the translator's call. Here is the BDAG entry concerning that passage: Lk 17:21 ἐ. ὑμῶν is probably patterned after ἐν σοί (=[God] is among you) Is 45:14, but with Lk preferring ἐντός in the sense among you, in your midst, either now or suddenly in the near future.

@@DouglasBeaumont Thanks for the reply. I’m not a Scripture or linguistics scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I prefer “within.” It was so translated in the Douay-Rheims, as well as in the King James Version. I also have a “Confraternity” version published in the ‘50s that renders the preposition as “within.” (In my reading of St. John of the Cross, I find that the Mystical Doctor also translated it into the Spanish equivalent of “within.”) I can’t help suspecting that at least one of the reasons that so many translations nowadays, both Catholic and Protestant, render it “among” relates to a mistrust of mysticism. I have a friend who’s a Russian Orthodox priest, and the Orthodox also tend to translate it as “within.”

@@Kjt853 Yeah I don't have a strong opinion either way - both translations have interesting applications. :) The Latin behind the DR (which itself is a translation of the Greek) is "intra" means "to enter" (a prefix we typically use to mean "inside").

That's a very good point, but the term has basically come to mean someone held against their will to perform hard labor but thay is not what was going on with these people. For them it was more of a contractual agreement and I think they want to make sure people know that.

No, it isn't. douglasbeaumont.com/2015/05/26/the-lords-prayer-adding-to-or-subtracting-from-scripture/

It's worth having! :)

It depends on what you mean by better. The DR is a translation of the Latin Vulgate which is itself a translation from the original languages. A Bible translation's faithfulness to the original writings is what makes it good, not it's age or "catholicity."

If you trust a Bible based on late manuscripts with known errors translated (by a Catholic priest!) into an archaic form of English with hundreds of words that no longer mean the same thing, then go for it! ;)

I believe Catholic bible I'm been blessed by the word of God Almighty thank you

The claim about "removed verses" can just as easily be made of the DR and KJV ADDING verses! And why any Catholic would choose an obvious anti-Catholic translation like the KJV is puzzling.

Well, the Septuagint predates the church and the Vulgate is itself a translation of Hebrew, so . . . I'm not sure what the issue is. The Church does not claim to have special translational powers and words mean what they mean. A translation should seek to be as true to the original as possible, interpretation is thr second step.

@@DouglasBeaumont The point I was trying to make is that the Masoretic rescension of the Hebrew text is significantly different than the ancient Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated. So a Bible translated from the Septuagint or Vulgate will thus vary significantly from a Bible that's translated from the later Masoretic text. The text of the Septuagint forms the basis of the Church's Tradition, while the Masoretic text was created by non-Christians whose "corrections" often had the explicit goal of removing references to Christ.

@@Prismatic_Truth In this, thou hast spoken rightly.

I'm not following how it is inconsistent to report how each translation handled the verse and then state my opinion of the best way.

To each his own! Those are all good translations.

“Can” is appropriate because she is a Virgin not yet married.

Actually it isn't, it's almost always uh- gus- tin, unless you're talking about the city in Florida.

@@adamhovey407 I know. I was playing off of the Young Frankenstein movie. Hence the drawn out "-eeeeen."

LOL - Yeeee haw!

@@adamhovey407 Mark was being sarcastic. ;)

"Baptism now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21) Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (cf. 3:3: “unless a man is born again …”) Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (cf. 9:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:13: both associate the Holy Spirit with baptism) Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (cf. 9:17-18) Romans 6:3-4 “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” 1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Titus 3:5 “He sav us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit"

@@DouglasBeaumont Jesus to Nicodemus: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"(John 3:12) In a sense, John the Baptist in his discourse with the religious leaders, the "priests and Levites" ("sent [by] the Pharisees"] in the first chapter of John, was saying the exact same thing to them.(John 1:19;24) "I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."(v.31) = earthly things Heavenly things --->> "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”(vs.33-34) The water that Jesus spoke about in John 3 is not physical water. It's the same water in John 4: "Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water....Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this [well] water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."(vs. 10;13-14)

I understand. In all honesty I think the basic issue is the market. Catholics have historically been big Bible shoppers whereas the average Evangelical buys a Bible or two a year. The Bible Publishers are not necessarily Christian organizations or at least their big sellers (Christian Book Distributors for example) are not. So they follow the market. It's very expensive to produce something that is not going to be bought in mass quantity.

Yes, this is how Luke 1:28 should be translated. The rsv2ce is the closest thing we have today to a perfect translation.

@@legacyandlegend That's why it's my main Bible translation. The RSV-2CE is also already very similar to the ESV anyway.