Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by coton boy, Aug 11, 2015.
Yes, definitely not the greatest.
For prayer I use the 1928 APB and the AV. Then I use the D-R and the NRSV
What do you like about the 28BCP?
What do I like about the ‘28 BCP? Beauty! And I only use it for morning and evening prayer so there is nothing in there objectionable to a Roman Catholic.
I've been reading the New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV for the last year and it is quite good. My second go to has been the Didache Bible which contains the Ignatius Bible text and notes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now, while I don't agree with all the notes, some of them are quite well written and I love the RSC-2CE version of the Bible. I am looking to purchase an Ancient Faith Bible from Holman and the Orthodox Study Bible as well.
I will admit I have far to many bibles on my shelf, being an avid collector. I just have the view of there can never be "to many bibles on my shelf".
The Ancient Faith Bible sounds interesting and very Anglican
I use the Authorized KJV for Mass, MP, and EP. I like to read from the KJV sometimes at leisure, but I use the ESV as my main study text. I'm currently reading through the Bible (ESV) with the M'Cheyne reading plan.
I've been reading the Good News Translation a lot lately. It's a good version to read to kids. It also has an excellent version of the Song of Songs, much earthier than any other version I can think of. Most translations have the unfortunate habit of sanitizing the book. It's actually full of innuendo. The GNT psalter is not the best though.
Try adding pepperer.
(I may need a back-porch conversation for that...)
I currently use the following English Translations of the Bible.
Authorized Bible (King James Version)
New Revised Standard Version
Common English Bible
Revised Standard Version
New English Bible
Revised English Bible
Good News Translation
New International Version
Im currently using the ESV (English Standard Version). Its a nice Word for Word translation that reads similiar to other Word for Word translations.
I must say, I wish I had the Jubilee 2000 translation. I love its translation of this verse:
“Jesus, the Christ, who is the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins with his own blood and has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” (Revelation 1:5-6).
I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I use the Authorised Version but I wanted a commentary. My Bible is just text and I use it for my Office. So I found on Amazon for kindle the Haydock Commentary published by Aeterna Press for 2 bucks! I am so happy! I use it during the meditatio portion of my Lectio Divina.
you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...
I love the KJV. I grew up with it.
Thank you for suggesting the Haydock Commentary (Kindle). To read this commentary, the Kindle version from Amazon, as you told us, is the way to go.
This wikipedia article on George Leo Haydock includes biographical information, as well as the history of the Haydock Bible. Also has some interesting notes and links at the end of the article.
The Haydock Bible continues to be in print since 1811. Here is a recent publishing from Refuge of Sinner's Publishing (2019).
It’s good to mention that Wikipedia bio, which gives all the reasons why not to have anything to do with Haydock or his commentary. Engaging with him risks getting contaminated with all kinds of RCC ideas. All conservative RCCs I’ve interacted with recommend Haydock as their main (perhaps only) recommended commentary. That’s how much weight this one work carries in the minds of traditionalist RCCs. And as we know, traditionalist RCCs are not our allies, good people, or even good Christians. Engaging with their key commentary bears the risk of falling for their apologetics/propaganda, ie. ideas that even most other Catholics think are silly and don’t accept any longer.
I don't understand why you don't think that Traditionalist Catholics are not our allies in this decrepit culture. I am not Catholic obviously but I do believe that they are Christians.
Let's consider the mindset of most Roman Catholics and compare it to that of Anglicans and other Christian groups. Most Christians understand that their Christian identity lies in Christ, not in the name over the doorway (the denomination they belong to). If they felt strongly enough that they should move from one denomination to another, they would do so and they'd remain secure in their confidence in God's grace by the blood our Savior shed for them.
The typical RC, on the other hand, would abhor the idea of switching to another denomination. They have been taught that leaving the RCC is tantamount to losing salvation. They trust their RC hierarchy and look to the reception of the (exclusive) RC sacraments to provide Jesus' saving grace. This is how my RC relatives feel and how I was raised to feel within the RCC, and my contact with other RCs leads me to believe that most of them have similar beliefs instilled in them. It is extremely difficult for a RC to leave the RCC; their influence is cult-like in this respect.
I didn't say they are not Christians. It is not within the Anglican tradition to deny to the RCs a general Christian brotherhood. All I'm talking about is the practice of Christianity, among the Traditionalist RCCs. What it is, what it looks like. The traditional RC spirituality is extremely toxic.
We can see them today (although there are very few left in the world): they are proud, vain, passive-aggressive. They will comfortably nod that you @bwallac2335 will be in hell, burning and screaming, because you didn't bend the head to their Papacy. They will worshipfully adore their rituals and objects and incantations. They do not sacrifice themselves, or love their neighbor, or go on missions, form missionary societies, and travel to the ends of the earth at the risk of their lives.
All other Christians do that, to one degree or another. That's why Christianity is growing, despite executions and persecutions. We cannot be stopped, because we don't value material possessions, or are encumbered by superstitions. You have haggard single men traveling to Saudi Arabia alone, to open a mission, at risk of arrest, torture, and beheadings. Only the traditionalist RCs don't do things like that. And there you see the deadly flaw of their spirituality, which works like the Haydock Commentary seek to instill in its readers.
Well, I purchased the Kindle version of the Haydock Commentary. I read a little last night.
I am not Catholic. I am Episcopal.
Sorry, Stalwart, but I do not think it is wrong to include Catholic Bibles, commentaries, literature, and music in my personal library.
Well, I agree that it's not wrong to have it. In fact I have a New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) and a Book of Mormon in my personal library. I have them for research, reference, and witnessing. But I know they contain significant errors, so they're not for devotional purposes. I suppose it boils down to whether you think or don't think that the Haydock contains errors that could undesirably influence you (I'm really not familiar with the commentary); it sounds like you feel it doesn't, and Stalwart feels it does.