/christian/ - christian

I think similar threads have been made... but anyways; The navarre bible and the bible of jerusalem. People who study theology use these ones for a reason.

1746064786163259.jpg
[Hide] (193.7KB, 1200x1200)

>>27952
>The Navarre Bible
Based. Too bad it doesn't have an imprimatur AFAIK...

>>27953
It does have a printed version on english, but it's on several volumes and a bit expensive. For 21 bucks you get the physical spanish version, and that's what cost a single volume of the english one. For english, the jerusalem bible is better for physical, because the price of the navarre one is a scam.... For 20 dollars you get the 1696 pages jerusalem bible.

>>27954
You can get the digital version of the Navarre Bible with all of the commentary for $3 in Spanish. It's better than the printed Popular Edition, but the original printed edition also has the Latin Vulgate while the digital one does not.

>>27950 (OP) 
The KJV. I like it because it's the standard in English, so I can memorize verses and when I recite them, it gives me common ground with total strangers. While other versions may be easier to read, it's very unlikely that a stranger will be using the same less-popular translation, so there's more bickering over what the proper translation is of any given verse. 

And if you're debating with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, they tolerate it because that was all their cult leaders had and used back in the 1800s. JWs, for example, use their own New World Translation since the 1950s, but they'll still debate with me if I'm quoting the KJV (because that's what they had to use before their cultist translation existed).

>>27958
Has anybody really been bothered with you for quoting other translations? Seems like an unfounded assumption.

>>27960
Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses I've spoken with were quick to dismiss "modern translations" which these particular Witnesses said were "not true translations". One scowled when I mentioned the NIV. While I don't have a complete list of which translations they like or dislike, when I asked them what they thought of the KJV, they told me that it's a good translation but their organization produced the NWT because the KJV was too archaic for modern English readers. I know this is anecdotal, but 5+ JWs I've spoken with have all had a similar take. I mostly relied on their NWT while speaking with them, as they accept that it's perfect. It just has removed every Trinitarian thing they could find (they still couldn't remove it all, though).

I'll admit, sometimes I can sense the terms and phrasing are not landing with new believers, so I'm paraphrasing for them immediately after reciting the text. So, use what you think is correct.

>>27955
It really is the best Catholic study Bible. And the digital version costing $3 while the physical volumes cost hundreds (there's 17 of them) makes it a steal.

1763268249014990.png
[Hide] (1.7MB, 6144x2328)

>>27950 (OP) 
The King James Version.

>>27950 (OP) 
Either Douay or Knox. Unfortunately, neither of them managed to achieve the role of being of being a common scriptural language recognized by all English-speaking Catholics—though the former probably comes closer amongst so-called "Traditionalist" Catholics.

Whichever ones produce the fruits of hearing all of the word, and of doing the word, and of Godly charity.