I have borrowed two versions. The new revised catholic edition, and the New International Version. Is there a significant difference between the two?
2007-11-25 17:40:45 · 21 answers · asked by charliel 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I apologize for the poor grammar. It is the result of sleep deprivation.
2007-11-25 17:41:57 · update #1
Please stop using abbreviations. I am new to religion.
2007-11-25 17:44:43 · update #2
The way you phrased the question suggests that you haven't read the bible before. If this is the case, then I would recommend even lighter reading than either of the choices you mentioned.
A traditional Catholic bible has more books than the NIV or King James Version...and from what I can remember it isn't an easy read (think English Lit classes in high school...though I suppose they could have a modern language version too).
NIV is a modern language version...it has 66 books and is a much easier read than the King James Version though the King James Version is generally accepted as a more precise translation.
However, if the point is for you to find out what the bible is about AND if you aren't already a believer, then I would recommend you read "The Message" instead of the bible. The Message is a paraphrase of the bible...it isn't a literal translation, instead, it goes through every verse in the bible putting it in modern language focused on delivering the essential messages of the word of God.
...and if you want to make it really easy, why not get a children's story bible *smile*!
2007-11-25 18:02:17 · answer #1 · answered by KAL 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To some answerers, so you know the Catholic edition would be the NASB with the deuterocanonical books..
The difference would be the Catholic edition has more books called the deuterocanonical books, which were translated at the same time by St. Jerome from the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) but were not a part of the Hebrew Canon (although widely used by the Jews at the time). They were included in the bible at Jerome's time (regardless of what people say about them being added later but Jerome described them as scriptural but Hebrew historians disagreed they were scriptural but still thought them useful reading for the Jews, so they were asterisked.
SDW is not correct the Deuterocanonical books are not the Apocrypha. The Apocyphal (hidden) books are not included in any canon of the Bible. Which would include the Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls,The First Book of Adam and Eve, The Second Book of Adam and Eve,The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, The Psalms of Solomon, The Letter of Aristeas, Fourth Book of Maccabees, The Story of Ahikar,
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph, Benjamin, Gospel of Mary, etc.
And if Luther had had his way Protestants would also be referring to Hebres, James, Jude, and Revelation as "Aprocryphal" since Luther lodged complaints against them and wanted them removed too.
2007-11-25 18:03:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic edition will have some additional books, being the apocryphal ones written after the Old Testament but before Jesus (ie before the New Testament). I don't know anything else about the Catholic edition, but the NIV is pretty good. It's in fairly easy language, but a criticism is that it's not gender neutral. If that doesn't bother you, NIV's great. If it does both you, try the TNIV (Today's New International Version).
If you're younger or don't have English as a first language, go with the CEV (Contemporary English Version). It's in easier language and gets rid of a lot of "religious" terms like justification and sanctification and explains them in normal words instead.
2007-11-25 17:47:15 · answer #3 · answered by Suzie R 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I haven't read the New revised Catholic edition.
In terms of good translations,
the King James Version (KJV) is good, although it's English is not modern.
the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is also good.
the New International Version (NIV) is good
If you are going to read a Catholic version, I'm not Roman Catholic but I've heard that the New American Bible (different from New American Standard Bible)) is a good translation)
The Catholic version probably has apocryphal books (means hidden or secret), which are not considered scripture.
2007-11-25 17:53:59 · answer #4 · answered by LearningGuy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The revised Catholic edition is longer--several books in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Protestant Bible.
Can't go wrong with the NIV, to be honest.
EDIT:
The books that exist in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bible are called the Apocrypha. These are books that were translated from Hebrew into Greek about 200 BC by a group called the Septuagint, but were not considered by the Israelites part of the Tanach (Old Testament).
When Christianity sprung up, they took this whole Septuagint collection of Jewish writings--including the Apocrypha--as the Old Testament, but the Jewish Tanach still did not include them. When the Protestants separated from the Catholic church, one of the things they did was accept the Hebrew Tanach rather the Septuagint Old Testament--they felt that the Jews had a better grasp on what quantified Old Testament scripture better than the early Christian church did.
The books of the Apocrypha contain some history that is not in the Old Testament, but do not have any theology that isn't duplicated elsewhere in the Bible. They were not considered holy scriptures by the Israelites.
2007-11-25 17:45:10 · answer #5 · answered by SDW 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would suggest the New International Version (NIV). The Catholic bible has extra books added to manipulate people into tithing and such. The original New Testament (all written within 100 years of Christ death) is in the NIV. If you read the Catholic bible you will find a lot of works based "religion" in it. The NIV has the true Gospel in it. (i.e. The only thing needed to get to heaven is the believe that Christ died for all the wrong you have ever done.)
2007-11-25 17:49:50 · answer #6 · answered by Michael R. 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
May I recommend that you get a study guide, as just "reading the Bible" is a daunting task and you will miss out on a great deal. Max Lucado's workbook on knowing the heart of Jesus is a wonderful way to study that aspect. And there are others at Christian bookstores.
The New International Version specifically the Life Application Bible is great as it gives a lot of annotation along the way.
2007-11-25 18:06:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anna P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read the New International Version, or King James, or you can go to my Bible groups where we are taking on 10 to 15 verses a day, and if you have questions about them, you can ask, instead of just reading the Bible straight through, There is alot more to reading, we have to understand it too. If you would like to join, e-mail me through this, or go to my yahoo 360 page. WE are in Matthew in one group, and Isaiah in the other and not too far along to catch up.
2007-11-25 17:50:52 · answer #8 · answered by Lynn C 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Catholic Bible has more books in it.
The NIV is a good bible and is the Word of God. My two favorite translations are: New Century Version and the New Living Translation.
May I suggest...reading the book of John (4th book of the New Testament) first.
Then read the book of Jude (book before Revelation) and then read each book back to Matthew.
It's unconventional...but it will bless you.
2007-11-25 17:45:11 · answer #9 · answered by Salvation is a gift, Eph 2:8-9 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
From what I have learned about translations, the NIV would be the better one. KIV, New KIV, and NASB are also reliable along with the NIV.
Ignore the Bible-bashers who'll probably chime in.
Please email me if you ever have questions because many important points only are discovered after a lot of reading (the Bible is a big book) and I'd be happy to help simplify it for you.
2007-11-25 17:46:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋