Genesis 3:16 in the ESV is literally the opposite of every single translation ever made for the last 2,000 years.

@@cartesian_doubt6230 Wow! I just looked this up because of your comment. Mind BLOWN!

Here, here, Bravo! This point - the difference between the use of "penance" and "repent" in English translations is one of seminal significance. Where is a through exegesis on this theological conundrum?

@@top8305 Bishop Hay in his book “the sincere Christian” discusses this. It was the Tyndale and other heretics who began to introduce the notion of repent over penance in order to emphasize a change of heart only

@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad It can mean both in my opinion But most people separate both , one describes the change of heart the other it has its total meaning because once you do penance you most likely had already repented . Very deceptive if the translators had intentions to confuse or kill the meaning of the verse.

@@r.c4914 I believe they did have the intention to confuse or kill the meaning of the verse. Certainly that is why the Protestants use repentance since it ONLY implies a change of heart. The modern “Catholic” bibles, which don’t use the word “penance” are all translated in collaboration with Protestants. To call a bible Catholic, but use Protestant terminology is deceptive and confusing in my opinion

​@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTradThe charge that St. Jerome mistranslated "repent" as "penance" is incorrect as. The D-R has Christ saying to "repent and believe in the gospel" in Mark 1:15, which is correct regarding initial justification.

At least it's accessible and gets people to understand somewhat.

@YAJUN YUAN fr fr

Correct. Right in the middle of the gathering storm, the CCD adopted what is the second worst Catholic bible ever printed. The Confraternity Bible was finished, as I understand it, but was published in sections. I pray that some publisher can license the completed text so as to introduce the bible that coulda' been a contender.

As do I. I love the red letters! ✝️

Wish they do a audio version of this

Yeah good luck

The Vulgate translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew into Latin.

@@T_dog1 it’s quite likely that the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch retain older aspects of some passages than even the Hebrew texts Jerome used. I am not saying the LXX is perfect or better, just that there some passages (especially Genesis 10&11) are rendered better in it.

I think the Masoretic Text used today comes from around 1000 AD. Jerome used older Hebrew texts, because he translated in the late 300s.

Hello brother! The Catholic Church canonised the Bible, but people couldn't read for centuries so it is important to understand oral tradition, which is the context of the Holy Bible. You might like my book: www.amazon.com/Introduction-Holy-Bible-Traditional-Catholics-ebook/dp/B08GPZ82JM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25AMMGF1DZ4NY&keywords=introduction+holy+bible+flanders&qid=1695661151&sprefix=introduction+holy+bibile+flanders%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1

Maybe it's time to come back to Wisdom's House, Proverbs 9:1. Wisdom's House on 7 Pillars. Numbers 6:24-26. 🙏🏻

I was Protestant for 55 years and an ordained elder. It was through the studying of the Bible that i became Catholic. I couldn't believe how wrong I was as a Protestant.

I wish that there was more than one version of it in print! As it stands the one I can find is a bit out of my price range (and I've heard there are some quality issues which seems kinda crazy for a $120+ Bible), but at least I can still read it for free online 😅 My only gripe with it is there are some modernist interpretations/commentaries in certain areas of the Old Testament. One example is they interpret the flood in Genesis as being local and not global. But ultimately I can look past things like that because of how faithful and valuable the rest is. Anyways I hope you are well; may God bless you and your loved ones! 🙏✝️🕊️

My current everyday Bible is the Divine Mercy Catholic Bible (RSV-2CE).

I’m not familiar with that version sorry. -Flanders

All of us.

I have a 1959 confraternity family Bible and it is by far one of my favorites that I use alongside the rsv-ce and Haydock-Challoner Douay-Rheims. Huge fan.

I use the confraternity and I'm a huge proponent for it being the best Bible in a more contemporary English. I own both it and a Haydock Bible for the sake of comparison and repetition during Lectio Divina.

Confraternity isn't terrible, but I'm not a fan, as it isn't as literal, and there is only the New Testament

​@@ShoelessJoeChristiancan you give an example as to how it isn't as literal?

Interesting. I looked it up, and as far as I can tell, the Hebrew word is “hê·lêl,” meaning “shining one,” but I thought “Lucifer” meant “light bearer” in Latin and was used because Satan fell “like lightning” in Luke 10:18.

@@EpoRose1 Lucifer was used for anything for bearing light. It also was used as a title for Christ. Ironically, there was once a bishop named Lucifer, who ended up trying to start a schism and fell in line with the Arians.

Lucifer is not a proper noun. It means "light bearer". If you want to say Lucifer, why not use the entire Latin Vulgate?

@@RyanGill86 I mean I just gave an example of a person that was literally named Lucifer, but yeah I agree with your point. It’s a descriptive term.

There's a few options but I would recommend two most of all: the Douay-Rheims Challoner and the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition. See my book for more details why: Introduction to the Holy Bible. -Flanders

what do you mean?

Agreed

​@@TheMeaningofCatholicI would suggest a translation based on the Vulgate, but one must also take into account understandability to the modern ear. What is your opinion of the KJV for Catholics?

You do not need to read the Scriptues for yourself and you CAN trust the Church. Reading the original language is essential for a deeper meditation on that Scripture however. TSF

@@TheMeaningofCatholic Thanks Tim. I tried studying the bible and walked away with a totally different picture of Christianity than what we are taught through the Church. I then read all the Church Fathers and found an evolution of thought away from the basic bible itself, with conflicting opinion across the spectrum. Next came Church History. Totally horrid and enough to make me want to become a Protestant in my own right, because the actual Protestants are just as confused as us Catholics and the Orthodox seem to be. Is it any wonder that the faith is declining in the Western World? Now I see all these ex-Protestants sprouting Catholic teaching but trying to express it through their own views of the Bible. Interpretations all over the place. I find it funny that they deny this concept called Sola Scriptura, but they are appealing to the Holy Scriptures to make their case on all Magisterial pronouncements. Weird. Then I tried to listen to some of our own scholars, but they seemed to be talking only to others who are versed in scholastic language. I couldn’t quite understand what they were saying at all. I have tried to reconcile all this inconsistency over the past few years, but have come to the conclusion that the ex-Protestants are only pushing their own literature, while the cradle Catholics need us to just follow what we are told without question. Maybe we all need to stop the apologetic and theological charades and start praying to the Almighty. Thanks for clarifying Tim.

It's the old Matins, prior to the LOTH. Which Matins are you looking at? -Flanders

I looked at the divinum officium daily matina readings and while the same books are read your list doesn't match the exact readings from Matins. Perhaps that wasn't really the intention of the compiler of the reading list you posted.

Great question! The phrase in Greek (πλήρης χάριτος) is different than it is for the Holy Virgin (κεχαριτωμένη). The former refers to being full of grace but the latter has a deeper notion of being “perfected in grace in the past which continues to the present.” So it is significantly different, yet also similar. TSF

Wow. That’s so predictable. Either way, the DRB does not represent the Byzantine Rite version of the Bible. Yes, there are many bad modern versions. But saying they are all bad is going to far. What about the RSV-2CE?

Are you denying the virginity of Mary?

If by your statement you mean that the Catholic Church has let down its English-speaking members with sub-standard translations of the Bible, then I have to agree with you. To wit, while the DR is probably THE most literal of the bunch, it needs some serious correcting in several passages that Jerome himself got wrong. The much-ballyhooed RSV-(2)CE is less than trustworthy in both the OT and the NT. It "smoothed out" a lot of verses so as not to sound "offensive" when read publicly, which was the original Protestant translators' philosophy. E.g., use of "immorality" instead of "fornication". But at least the DR and the RSV-(2)CE do not contain gender-neutral language! The JB is so smooth and easy to read, and comes with awesome notes and book introductions and cross-references, but is extremely paraphrastic. Also, no gender-neutral language, but too far from literal. Yet used in the liturgy to this day in the UK and other Commonwealth nations. The NJB is more literal than the JB, and includes notes (some questionable), lengthy and informative book intros, and extensive cross-references. Its textual accuracy is superior to the NABRE, but it went the route of gender-neutral language, though to a far lesser extent than the NABRE or NRSV. And yet, no English-speaking hierarchy has allowed this to be used for liturgical purposes. The NABRE has EVERYTHING wrong with it: heavy on gender-neutral language, way less literal and traditional than the RSV-(2)CE family, notes which border on the heretical, BUT - wait for it - it's allowed in the liturgy in the USA (albeit with some serious intervention from the days when Cardinal Ratzinger had something to say about it!)! The NRSV-CE: not even worth mentioning; wouldn't accept it if you gave me a free gilt-edged copy! The ESV-CE: yeah, sure it is; "Catholic" in name only. More properly called the "Evangelical Standard Version". I sometimes envy our Protestant brethren since they have a couple of decent translations: the NKJV and the NASB (1977 ed.)