Does the Catholic Church have one translation of the bible that is used by the whole church. Are other translations accepted such as NIV, KJV, ESV, etc.

I will probably be buying a Catholic Bible soon, so I want to make sure I get the right one.

The New American Bible is the translation used at Mass (with slight modifications) throughout the United States.

Also, if you like older English, the KJV is not the way to go. It was deliberately translated to not be Catholic. The Douay-Rheims Bible would be the Church's equivalent.

Any translation of the Bible that has been approved by the proper authorities (i.e. been given an Imprimatur by a bishop) is a "Catholic Bible", though.

Actually the imprimatur is usually for the footnotes, not for the translation itself.

the most common Catholic English translations are:

the New American Bible
the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
the Douay-Rheims Bible
the New Jerusalem Bible
the Jerusalem Bible (out of print, so far as I know)

(of those, I'd recommend the RSV or the DRB, although the NAB is most similar to what you hear at Mass ... the Jerusalem Bible is okay. From what I understand, you want to avoid the New Jerusalem.)

If you get another translation, make sure it has the deuterocanonical books in it (they're absent from most Protestant Bibles).

The Jerusalem Bible is still in print....in the 1968 'Reader's Edition' which strips 90% of the notes...not in the original two volume edition.

The New Jerusalem Bible is vastly superior to the original....vastly....in every single respect...it is more readable, more literal, its language is more natural and less awkward, it uses fewer 'abnormal' words that you have to look up in a dictionary to understand, it sounds better when read aloud, its diction is more natural and fluid....with the original Jerusalem Bible is it obvious in places that it was actually translated from the French, rather the Greek or Hebrew as it uses French diction and sometimes even French word order, the New Jerusalem is what the Jerusalem Bible should have been if not for the fact that it was a rushed production assembled in than 8 years....the original Jerusalem Bible is rather sloppy and lazy frankly, as I said, it is obvious in places that the translators took the shortcut of translation from the French rather than from the original languages....all of these problems are fixed in the New Jerusalem...in fact, the New Jerusalem is so superior that I am wondering why the original is still in print...it really shouldn't be....it has been superseded....

For the record, the New American Bible Revised Edition is the most recent, it is the translation on the USCCB website, etc.

And just yesterday the bishop's authorized a revision of the New Testament...which won't be ready for a while I'm sure....I'm not sure if the New Testament translation committee is even in place...since the New Testament was last revised in 1986, 25 years ago, there probably isn't even a translation committee right now....first they will have to assemble a team to produce the translation....and that will likely take a few years....

Really? Is that the best you can do? Have you ever actually READ the New Jerusalem Bible? I would not hesitate to say that it handles gender translation issues better than any translation in print today.....certainly better than either the RSV or the NAB....

Finding one issue on which it is not better than the Jerusalem Bible is sufficient to prove that it is not better in every respect. I would think as a mathematician you would understand that.

I see Protestants are not the only ones that can't agree on a translation.

Oh, thank you for pointing that out. Didn't know that, and I'd hate to mislead anyone.

I'm a Confraternity man myself. I love it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_Bible

Traduttore, traditore. That's Italian for "To translate is to betray," and while the saying is on the cynical side, there's some truth to it. There really is no such thing as a completely literal translation because words in every language carry all sorts of overtones, connotations, etc., and there is never, ever a word in one language that is an exact perfect match for a word in a different language. The translator always has to choose the one he thinks works best. That's why you get arguments over literal vs. dynamic translations: all translations are dynamic, and the only question is how dynamic you're willing to go.

I prefer less dynamic and in general think that's the better choice, but that's what drives part of the argument. A more dynamic translation can be much more readable.

And then there are the passages where the underlying original itself is ambiguous (e.g. John 3:7, which can be "born anew" or "born from above"). A good translation will footnote these so you're at least aware of both choices.

But the main thing to notice here is that since Father Kenobi posted directly under me and did not express disagreement, he has implicitly agreed with me.

I use the NRSV I've found in instances when comparing it to other translations that I liked it.

Are other translations translated by multiple translators from different faiths, try saying that quick.

In the notes to my NRSV it tells my that it's translators included Jews, Orthodox and Catholic/Protestants I believe.

preach it brotha!!!

I disagree with this argument.

I think the original Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome is the official Bible of the Church. Too bad we don't have a copy.