>>23175 Thanks for posting this, this is awesome news! There needs to be more Majority Text translations out there. Up until now, at least in terms of Bibles with both the Old and New Testments, the WEB translation was the only game in town (not counting Majority translations of the New Testament alone.)

>>23175 Thanks Anon. Nice way to start the new week!

>>23175 >>23178 After posting OP I also found out about another Majority Text (New Testament) translation that came out in the past two years: https://archive.org/details/tcent

>>23182 Neat, thanks Anon.

Guy goes out and buys a new dead sea scroll from the some israelis, makes a new translation. One day you'll find a "translation" from a "scroll" that fits your belief. Biblegateway has over 60 English Bibles to choose from.

>>23182 Aye, there are a few translations of the Majority Text New Testament by itself out there, like the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (EOB): https://www.amazon.com/EOB-Orthodox-Testament-Patriarchal-extensive/dp/148191765X But complete Bible translations that have both the Old and New Testaments together, with the NT based on the Majority Text, are few and far between. Until this MSB was announced, the WEB was the only Bible translation like this. So it's really exciting that for those who prefer the Majority Text, they not only have a highly literal translation in the vein of the NKJV and NASB to use (i.e. the WEB,) but they now also have an NIV/CSB equivalent based on the Majority Text now (i.e. the MSB.)

>>23196 its insane, new bible translation into English is last thing we need

>>23196 It is a potential issue in the future but I see few signs of it today for the most part. I think if you swallow your own pill and check the verses, you'll see they are quite coherent statistically across translations. Nuance and shade of meaning come out more clearly across different ones. This is a good thing at this stage, IMO. But again, granted. The Bible itself claims that false teachers will arise. >"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires." [1] That's easily seen already. And conceivably this phenomenon could even extend to future, so-called, 'translations'. We've already seen some inkling of this in attempts at elevating extra-Biblical texts alongside the scriptural canon. >tl;dr Pray for wisdom from the third Man of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit for wisdom and discernment. We're going to need it! :^) >>23245 Heh, why's that friend. We certainly don't understand all the Truth to be found in scripture yet. This is (and always has been) an ongoing process. There's always more to know from the one-and-only living book, the Christian Bible. 1. https://www.biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm (BSB)

King James ONLY

>Heh, why's that friend. any translation will be grasping at the wind. There are already many adequate translations but if you really want to understand the bible you're better off learning the original languages than having a gazillion translations to cross reference which probably exist, especially the modern ones, to make money or justify a sects doctrine than as any act of devotion to God's scripture.

>>23260 >any translation will be grasping at the wind. Hardly. Are you one of those "Latin-only!" types who would have coordinated and approved of William Tyndale's martyrdom at the stake? >you're better off learning the original languages Perhaps. But the fact is that I don't speak or read either Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic, nor Biblical Greek. Few do. And in fact during my process of beginning to learn those languages has caused me to relish having literally dozens of translations in my mother tongue English.

>>23258 Just like Paul the Apostle used?

>>23261 >Hardly. Are you one of those "Latin-only!" types who would have coordinated and approved of William Tyndale's martyrdom at the stake? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale#Betrayal_and_death Reminder that William Tyndale was killed for political reasons by King Henry VIII, the founder and leader of the Anglican Church. Perhaps you meant "English-only!"??

>>23263 >Reminder that William Tyndale was killed for political reasons by King Henry VIII, the founder and leader of the Anglican Church. Your own link suggests otherwise. And no, "Latin-only!" was my intent.

>>23264 "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes." Seems to be a reference to the King of England...

>>23267 His eyes were opened showing that God answered Tyndale's prayer.

>>23270 He knew King Hank set him up to be killed.

With these six million Bible translations why don't you invest your time and money and just learn Latin, Koine Greek, Aramaic or Old Church Slavonic? You will never rely on a translation again.

>>23354 There are multiple Latin, Greek, and Hebrew manuscripts with different text. It doesn't solve the problem.

>>23354 Catholics believe by Papal encyclical that the Latin Vulgate is the Bible. That has been affirmed by various Church counsels, the earliest being the Council of Toledo 400 & 447 AD. "The Bible" by definition, includes the new and old testaments and the original cannon of books. Anyone who says otherwise is an anathema. The Douay-Rheims is a English translation that bears the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1899 If you want to read the Bible, all you need to learn is Latin.

>>23357 >Council of Toledo Not ecumenical, not binding.

>>23360 Every Bishop was invited. I think you're wrong. It went out to the whole church. But I only gave the Earliest. Here's two more. Council of Trent, Session IV, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Cannons of the Catholic faith Pope Pius IX "if anyone shall not accept the entire books of Sacred Scripture with all their divisions, just as the sacred Synod of Trent has enumerated them as canonical and sacred, or denies that they have been inspired by God, let him be an anathema. '' The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible For Catholics and the and the Douay-Rheims is the approved English translation in America. Knox, NAB, and others made after Vatican II and not based on the Vulgate not so much.

>>23366 >The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible For Catholics Which Latin Vulgate? The Nova Vulgata of 1979? The Benedictine Vulgate commissioned by Pius X? The Clementine Vulgate of 1592? The Sixtine Vulgate of 1590? The 1547 Leuven Vulgate, published immediately as a response to Trent? The Codex Amiatinus of the 8th century, the best preserved early medieval Vulgate manuscript? The Stuttgart Vulgate reconstruction of Jerome's earliest text? Jerome himself made three editions of the Psalter: the Romana based on the Old Latin Psalter, the Gallicana based on the Greek Psalter, and the juxta Hebraicum based on the Hebrew Psalter, each with different content. Which one of these is authoritative? There is no one Vulgate: it is a text that has been adulterated. Which is the pure Vulgate? >and the Douay-Rheims is the approved English translation in America And there are two authorized Douay-Rheims versions. The original version of 1582-1610, which was accosted for sticking too close to the Vulgate, and the revision by Challoner of 1750. However, Challoner's version wasn't a revision at all, but an adaptation of the KING JAMES VERSION to conform to Vulgate renderings. Yet nobody uses the original Douay-Rheims over an embellished Protestant text, not even the foremost of conservatives: https://originaldouayrheims.com/ >Knox, NAB, and others made after Vatican II and not based on the Vulgate not so much. The Knox Bible was published in 1945, years before Vatican II.

>>23374 >Which Latin Vulgate? Please see the post to which you've responded under Council of Trent, Session IV. They mention various "Latin editions" but name only one; the one they've been using for a long time. The rest of your post is kinda, irrelevant. The Latin Vulgate is the Christian bible. BTW, even if, all you would have done is a fallacy fallacy. Hope this helps. There is only one Catholic Bible per the council of Trent and Pope Pius iX

>>23375  >They mention various "Latin editions" but name only one; the one they've been using for a long time.  They didn't have one standard edition, that's why the Leuven Vulgate and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate were produced.  >In 1546, the Council of Trent had decreed that the Vulgate was authoritative and authentic, and ordered that the Vugate be printed as correctly as possible. No standard edition of the Vulgate officially approved by the Catholic Church existed at the time. Twenty years later, work to produce an official edition of the Vulgate began: Pius V appointed a commission to produce an official edition of the Vulgate. However, his successor, Gregory XIII, did not continue the work.  >The Leuven Vulgate or Hentenian Bible (Latin: Biblia Vulgata lovaniensis) is an edition of the Vulgate which was edited by Hentenius (1499–1566) and published in Louvain in 1547. This edition was republished several times, and in 1574 a revised edition was published.  >On 8 April 1546, at the Council of Trent, a decision was made to prepare an authorized version of the Vulgate.[3] No direct action was taken for the next forty years, and many scholars continued to publish their own editions. Among these editions, the edition prepared by Hentenius served almost as the standard text of the Catholic Church.[4]  >The first edition of Hentenius was entitled Biblia ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc recens castigata and was published by the printer Bartholomaeus Gravius [nl] in November 1547.[5] Hentenius used 30 Vulgate manuscripts to make his edition.[6] Hentenius' edition is similar to the 1532 and 1540 editions of the Vulgate produced by Robert Estienne.[7]  >After the death of Hentenius in 1566, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis continued his critical work and prepared his own edition; the edition was published in 1574[8] in Antwerp by Plantin, under the title: Biblia Sacra: Qui in hac editione, a Theologis Lovanienibus prestitum sit, paulo post indicatur.[9][10][11]   >In 1586, Sixtus V appointed a commission to produce an official edition of the Vulgate. However, he was dissatisfied with the work of the commission. Considering himself a very competent editor, he edited the Vulgate with the help of a few people he trusted. In 1590, this edition was published and was preceded by a bull of Sixtus V saying this edition was the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it.  >Three months later, in August, Sixtus V died. Nine days after the death of Sixtus V, the College of Cardinals suspended the sale of the Sixtine Vulgate and later ordered the destruction of the copies. In 1592, Clement VIII, arguing printing errors in the Sixtine Vulgate, recalled all copies of the Sixtine Vulgate still in circulation; some suspect his decision was in fact due to the influence of the Jesuits. In November of the same year, a revised version of the Sixtine, known as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate or Clementine Vulgate, was issued by Clement VIII to replace the Sixtine Vulgate.  >In January 1592, Clement VIII became pope. Clement VIII resumed work on the revision to produce a final edition;[18] he appointed Francisco de Toledo, Agostino Valier and Federico Borromeo as editors, with Robert Bellarmine, Antonius Agellius, Petrus Morinus and two others to assist them.[19] "Under Clement VIII's leadership, the commission's work was continued and drastically revised, with the Jesuist scholar Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1624) bringing to the task his lifelong research on the Vulgate text."[20]  >The Clementine Vulgate was printed on 9 November 1592,[29] in folio format,[30] with an anonymous preface written by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.[d][29][19] It was issued containing the Papal bull Cum Sacrorum of 9 November 1592,[32] which asserted that every subsequent edition must be assimilated to this one, that no word of the text may be changed and that variant readings may not be printed in the margin.[33]  >This new official version of the Vulgate, known as the Clementine Vulgate,[29][35] or Sixto-Clementine Vulgate,[35][14] became the official Bible of the Catholic Church.[29][36]  >The text of the Clementine Vulgate was close to the Hentenian edition of the Bible, which is the Leuven Vulgate;[21][23] this is a difference from the Sixtine edition,[21] which had "a text more nearly resembling that of Robertus Stephanus than that of John Hentenius".[2][21] The Clementine Vulgate used the verse enumeration system of Stephanus and the Leuven Vulgate.[43]  >The Clementine edition of the Vulgate differs from the Sixtine edition in about 3,000 places according to Carlo Vercellone,[33] James Hastings,[21] Eberhard Nestle,[47] F. G. Kenyon,[49] the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,[50] and Bruce M. Metzger;[29] 4,900 according to Michael Hetzenauer,[17] and Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman in their co-written book;[51] and "roughly five thousand" according to Kurt and Barbara Aland.[52]  >The Benedictine Vulgate, Vatican Vulgate[1] or Roman Vulgate[2] (full title: Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem, tr. Holy Bible following the Latin vulgate version faithfully to the manuscripts) is a critical edition of the Vulgate version of the Old Testament, Catholic deuterocanonical books included. The edition was supported by and begun at the instigation of the Catholic Church, and was done by the Benedictine monks of the pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City.   >In 1907, Pope Pius X commissioned the Benedictine Order to produce as pure a version as possible of Jerome's original text after conducting an extensive search for as-yet-unstudied manuscripts, particularly in Spain.[3] This text was originally planned as the basis of a revised complete official Bible for the Catholic church to replace the Clementine edition.[4]  >In 1933, Pope Pius XI established the Pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City to complete the work.[8]  >By the 1970s, as a result of liturgical changes that had spurred the Vatican to produce a new translation of the Latin Bible, the Nova Vulgata, the Benedictine edition was no longer required for official purposes,[9] and the abbey was suppressed in 1984.[10] Five monks were nonetheless allowed to complete the final two volumes of the Old Testament, which were published under the abbey's name in 1987 and 1995.[11]  >The Stuttgart Vulgate or Weber-Gryson Vulgate (full title: Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem) is a manual critical edition of the Vulgate first published in 1969. >The Stuttgart Vulgate is based on the Oxford Vulgate and the Benedictine Vulgate.[3] The Württembergische Bibelanstalt, later the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), based in Stuttgart, first published the critical edition of the complete Vulgate in 1969. The work has since continued to be updated, with a fifth edition appearing in 2007.[1] The project was originally directed by Robert Weber, OSB (a monk of the same Benedictine abbey responsible for the Rome edition), with collaborators Bonifatius Fischer, Jean Gribomont, Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks (also responsible for the completion of the Oxford edition), and Walter Thiele. >The Nova Vulgata (complete title: Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio, transl. The New Vulgate Edition of the Holy Bible; abr. NV), also called the Neo-Vulgate, is the official Classical Latin translation of the original-language texts of the Bible published by the Holy See. It was completed in 1979, and was promulgated the same year by John Paul II in Scripturarum thesaurus. A second, revised edition was published in 1986. It is the official Latin text of the Bible of the Catholic Church.   >The Nova Vulgata is not a critical edition of the historical Vulgate. Rather, it is a text intended to accord with modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek Bible texts, and to produce a style closer to Classical Latin.[4]  So would it be fine to use the Vatican II Vulgate?

>>23354 Learning a language is a substantial investment, excessively so just to access a particular kind of media. The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language. >>23374 Correction, D-R and KJV both influenced each other; the original D-R influenced KJV, which then influenced the Challoner revision. You could debate the particulars (eg D-R NT obviously had far more influence than the OT, given the time-frames), but it was an exchange going both ways. >>23366 >The Latin Vulgate is the only Bible For Catholics and the Douay-Rheims is the approved English translation in America. would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision.

>>23374 >And there are two authorized Douay-Rheims versions. The original version of 1582-1610, ... Since The United States of America didn't exist in 1582-1610, then to answer the question of which Douay-Rheims is the approved English Translation in America must be the American edition of 1899. Not sure what your point is. Yes, your knowledge is impressive, but the point is there is one Latin Vulgate approved at the Council of Trent.

>>23392 >>They mention various "Latin editions" but name only one; the one they've been using for a long time.  >They didn't have one standard edition, that's why the Leuven Vulgate and the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate were produced.  The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. >So would it be fine to use the Vatican II Vulgate? If you're not Catholic, no one cares. If you are Catholic, you use the one from the Council of Trent. Seems easy.

>>23396 >would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision. I have no idea about the Confraternity Bible. Father made me toss out this one Bible I had because I bought it before I learned the faith and it was a protestant Bible. It was really kewl, leather cover but the best part was that it had maps and stuff in the back so I could see what they were talking about. If your priest says it has to go, say that it's not the Bible to you, but a family heirloom. I'm guessing he'd be merciful and let you keep it, especially if you say it would seem a sinful dishonor to your grandparents to part with it. To be accepted even by the Novus Ordo/FSSP, it has to have a Bishop's imprimatur, which is found in the front. Anon 252fd8 said mentioned that my Knox Version should be acceptable to me because the Knox version came out before Vatican II, in 1945. While 252fd8's knowlege of Catholic and Quasi-catholic bibles is impressive, this Knox version bears the Nihil Obstate of Father Cowan and Imprimatur of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who was born in 1945 and couldn't have anything to do with a pre-war Knox version. I don't really care about the history of various Latin Vulgate versions. I just get the right one and I'm done. Once I've made sure I got the divinely inspired Bible, what remains is to read and study it.

>>23399 this makes sense, thanks. it's a fine book, hardcover with gold-edged pages, illustrations, and has family records, so it's definitely an heirloom. I just checked, and it has a nihil obstat from a censor librorum, and an imprimatur from an abbot-ordinary. I wonder how well that measures up? Also, Confraternity text is Genesis-Ruth, Psalms, and NT, while the rest of the OT is Douay-Challoner. My understanding is that the Confraternity Bible is the last traditional Catholic version before Vatican II, so that's why I asked. My version is from 1960.

>>23398 >The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. They declared that the Vulgate was the authentic and authoritative text, which is not the critical point of controversy. Rather, the question is over the fulfillment of their intention to disseminate an edition that was free from errors: >Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. >And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm Several editions were subsequently approved. Since the latest edition by the Vatican II church is a counterfeit that doesn't deserve the name, and the previous traditionalist revision was never fully completed, is Clement's the de facto optimal edition? Was the idea of attempting to revise it at all defective?

>>23245 True, there are still 350 million people with their language untranslated

>>23396 >The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language. My friend, you cannot compare weeabooism with dedicating your time by understanding the mysteries of God better. You think that Latin and other ancient languages are dead while you could not be further from the truth. These languages are alive eternally because they are tied to a past we do not know, to a time and to a class of people that understood and were closer to God. As God never changes, so never do liturgical languages, while vernacular languages die and born again every once in a while.