Conservative Anglican. Moving soon. Don't know where to attend anymore.

Considering that both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have declared full fellowship with the ELCA/ELCIC; it is implicit that Anglicans also accept the "Lutheran/Catholic" version. If such is not the case, it should preclude such full fellowship.

 

Commandment version is much ado about nothing. The intent is the same. Idol worship and coveting are sins.

 

Also worth pointing out the Provo Communion.

 

The Catholic Church lists the entire text of the Ten Commandments in the Catholic Catechism, using a shortened Traditional version for reference. The charge that Catholics omit any of God's Commandments is absolutely false, I have provided a link to relevant portion of the Catechism: Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

I'm a Lutheran so I know these things. But the Lutheran Church is the only Church that has numbered the 10 Commandments like this. Its really one of the only things that bothers me about the Lutheran Church - that is having the ESV as the pulpit Bible.

 

Lutherans and Catholics actually both number this way.

What version of the Bible do you prefer? What do you dislike about the ESV? I personally like the way that our previous version reads a bit better (RSV, not the NRSV), I also love the language of the KJV. We went back to the RSV (we are free to do so) because of the the more traditional Language, but soon learned that the congregation likes the simpler, easy to read language of the ESV.

Interesting to note that world wide, the ESV is now the most widely used as an officially authorized translation world wide. LCMS and LCC are leading the pack in North America. Likewise, we also used the ESV translation of the Apocrypha, Lutheran edition with notes. for The Apocrypha, English Standard Version

Many of us are starting to use the Augustine Bible, Catholic Edition, rather than carry two books. Pastor gave me his Paperback when he upgraded to Leather-bound.

 

Friendly reminder: You are in an Anglican forum. You are welcome to prayer and fellowship, but cannot debate against anyone here.

God bless

 

To be fair, I don't think Anglicans have ever thought you had to go through Canterbury, either.

But it is good to be clear about the relationships (or lack thereof) between various bodies claiming an Anglican identity.

 

I would love to see a modified spelling and grammar version of the 1537 Matthew's Bible as a pulpit Bible in a Church. Apart from that, not all Bibles are good pulpit Bibles. The ESV is a decent translation but not the best. The NKJV and MEV make for better choices. But as a translation for home reading I like the ESV and RSV (hate the NRSV and NAB).

The main reason I don't like the ESV as a pulpit Bible is that everyone who reads from it during service sounds dull. But the KJV sounds much more expressive being read out loud (considering the person knows how to properly read and express the KJV).

 

Who does not love the KJV, and for a time in the 80's, we did use the NKJV (there is a copy sitting right in front of me), however the KJV and NKJV do not take into consideration more recently discovered texts that were unknown at the time of those translations.

The other consideration is that the younger people are unfamiliar with the language. (Heck, members of the congregation rebel when we read from the RSV.)

Being understood is the most important part of reading Scripture.

 

Are you familiar with the New Matthew's Bible? It is the work of a Canadian named Ruth Magnusson Davis with a background in law and both Lutheranism and Anglicanism. She has released the NT but is still completing the OT.

 

Yes. I'm friends with Ruth. I'm hoping she will be able to complete the OT. I like what she did to the NT.

 

I prefer the trusted Textus Receptus.

 

Well, many Biblical Scholars do not discount the TR, but it is no longer "trusted" as it once was.