The Catholic "New Jerusalem Bible". Is it a good choice?

I own a New Jerusalem Bible, and I highly recommend it. I love the marginal references, the copious footnotes (they're my favorite), the chapter introductions, the index, maps, and conversions in the back, and of course the translation itself, which is beautiful. Additionally, whenever something is vague it always provides either alternative translations or the original word itself. It is a truly excellent Bible.

Yes it is a very excellent version using the latest findings of the scrolls from the past century.

Also, a little known fact is that J.R.R. Tolkien is one of the translators and he is one who insisted on the more accurate use of Yahweh for God in the Psalms.

The NAB though accurate is known for being confusing to read. The JB is one that i very much treasure and love.

Also, just FYI no English translation out there is free from affiliation with some general group that adds a little flavor of that group to their translation. The NIV Bible which i love, specifically left out the word "Tradition" in any positive places that it could have been translated. Which shows an anti-Catholic Bias.

NOTE: i see you added to this so i just want to say that i have the JB with all the great helps it is out of print but fantastic for its notes and references.

Also, i have a friend who can read Hebrew and in a Bible study where we were looking at the original Hebrew this translation had the best translation according to him, and he had never seen one before, is not Catholic, and was very impressed with the version.

In reality, there are only two bibles in English today. I say that because there are only two texts behind all of the translations we have today. The first text is referred to as the Textus Receptus, or received text. The only bible in English today translated from that text is the King James 1611. All other versions, regardless of their claims (and your own independent study could confirm this) came from the text of Wescott and Hort.

What's the difference? The Textus Receptus was made up of 5332 Greek Manuscripts and 65 Lectionaries from church fathers. The manuscript evidence agrees with Textus Receptus 95% of the time.

Wescott and Hort took two manuscripts, known to be flawed, and elivated them to the chair of authority. That means they took what these two manuscripts said and ignored all other evidence. They also clearly translated according to thier own doctrinal positions. These two documents disagree with each other 3000 times in the four gospels alone. One of them has obvioulsy been altered. You dont even need to read greek to see it. All bibles since the King James have come from this text.

Also, every new bible that comes out, must be materially different from previous versions to have a copyright given. This means that you have to continue to change the words, not to be true to the underlying text, but to make a profit. The King James bible is the most read book in the world. More copies have been sold than any other book in history. It also enjoys a perpetual protection outside of copyright, order by the king of England, and still in force today. Anyone in the world can print and reprint the King James Bible without worrying about copyright. No other english version can say that. Peter said in the last days they would make merchandise of us.

By the way, Yahweh is a misnomer. It came from a German translation. In German, the Y is pronounced like a "J", like Jager is pronounced Yager in English. W is a V, like Weinerschintzel is pronounced with a "V" sound. So in reality, Yahwah, is the German equlavent of Jehovah.

So my answer is NO, you should not. You cannot get the right message if you do not have the right text.

The 10,000 errors that some claim the KJV had was in spelling. There was no standardized spelling in 1611. When English spelling was standardized, so was the bible. That hardly amounts to a revision of the text.

The 1000's of errors some claim still exist are from a lack of study, or lack of doctrinal understanding, not mistranslations.

yes the New Jerusalem Bible is a good choice. So is the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

The New American Bible is the official English Language Catholic Bible in the US

I just bought the Jerusalem Bible Readers Edition (1966) which I like better than the New Jerusalem. But, yes, they are good. The Readers Edition does not give footnotes or interpretations like the NAB does.

I use several translations - very interesting

I generally use the NAB, but my wife's preference is for the New Jerusalem. She particularly likes the inclusion of the proper Hebrew names for God. The nuances of the names give great insight into the relationship between God and His people.

It is a Bible so it holds the truth but I much prefer the ` N.R.S.V` Catholic edition for it`s sheer accuracy and if you can get it there is none better than the Rheims-Douay version which is a direct translation straight from the original Greek.

If you want a Bible with all the books (The seven Apocrypha Martin Luther took out are not in the KJV or other protestant Bibles.) then go for it. God did say not to take stuff out/put stuff in it.

The words may be different but the Meaning is the same.

It's an excellent choice