A non-Catholic Bible is a false Bible

[USMC_Convert]

I hear what you’re saying, but it seems like nowadays Catholics are so focused on ecumenicalism that the truth takes a back seat. The fact is we all know the Bible was changed. During the Council of Trent it was treated with such disdain as to call those that opposed the 73 inspired book Bible anathema. Yet today, we need to walk on egg shells as it relates to this topic because it causes division.

I just think there is a way to respectfully yet forcefully proclaim the truth. May I ask you what Bible you are quoting from? Are you aware that the true Bible contains 73 inspired books? Such questions and others asked in a charitable way will enable you to have a fruitful conversation based on truth. I’m certainly not advocating that we go up to all Protestants and yell, “your Bible is false!”. But, we need to acknowledge that it is so we can have truthful dialogue.

I just don’t think we should ever be afraid to proclaim the truth. The manner in which the message is conveyed is definitely a worthy discussion.

Thanks for your thoughts!

-Ernie-

Totally agree with you on all points!

 

[Bonnie]

as Catholics we owe it to all Christians to stand up for the truth and that truth is that any non-Catholic Bible is false.

Non-Catholic versions are 100% false? No way. I suspect that most people read the Bible the way I do, for inspiration, not as scholars. I haven’t found anything false in the NIV or KJV.

At any rate, a Bible that is read is way better than a Bible that sits on a shelf. And the Catholic Bible is usually on the shelf here, the NIV New Testament is always at hand. And it’s not missing any books.

 

[Ernie07]

Firstly I utterly reject your premise and wonder if you have ever read a significant part of a “non-Catholic” Bible. Clearly, for both Catholic and non-Catholic Bibles, some translations are better than others, some are more dignified in their language than others, some have footnotes that are unhelpful (a good reason not to have footnotes in Bibles at all), but at the end of the day the Bible is the word of God. At lot of folk are fond of saying that Christ only founded one Church. Well God only inspired one Bible.

I can totally appreciate where you’re coming from, but my point isn’t about translations (although that’s a worthy discussion). It’s about what books are considered the inspired Word of God. And I agree with you completely that there is just one bible. It’s the key to my point that that one Bible has a certain number of books…not 30 or 50 or 66, but 73. All bibles that are thought to be complete with anything less than 73 inspired books are inaccurate, wrong, or false.

What about a non-Catholic Bible that includes the Apocrypha? These certainly exist. What if they are published in a separate accompanying volume? And I don’t agree that not presenting the entire Bible means what you have is false. There are many publications of just one of the Gospels to encourage people to read some of the Bible for instance. That is incomplete too by your reckoning…

Simply including the text doesn’t cut it. To call any of God’s books anything but what they are, “the inspired Word of God” is an abomination. What if someone produced a “bible” that added Nahum, Habakkak, and Zephaniah to an apocryphal status because they felt like it. Would that be OK? Who dare has the right to call any books in the Word of God as fictitious or uninspired? And those other publications you refer to I’ll assume that they are not classifying themselves as the complete Word of God. I’m only challenging those instances when a publication declares that what they have between their covers is the entire Word of God.

The word “Apocrypha” may literally mean “false teachings” but is in reality how most people refer to these books. Many non-Catholics have historically held them in some sort of regard without affording them the same status as the rest og the Bible. The 39 Articles of the Anglican Faith for instance state that “the Church doth read [them] for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”.

You’re making my point again. Because Catholics are so wishy-washy when it comes to what constitutes the real Bible it emboldens non-Catholics to believe as you say. If in fact most people refer to the 7 books in question as apocryphal then most people are wrong. And how tragic that so many are not reading a true bible complete with the entire Word of God (as truly inspired and not classified as fictitious) and creating belief systems based on the false belief that they are reading the entire Word of God.

False interpretation of Bibles leads to false beliefs, and the passage you cite is open to many interpretations. I can think of aspects that are missing from some Catholic Bibles by their attempts to be “more relevant”. The Jerusalem Bible for instance translates the Beatitudes as “Happy are…” rather than “Blessed are”, which as my priest has pointed out missed the point about someone who is blessed ultimately enjoying the beatific vision and reduces it to merely a positive emotional state. There are other examples. Quality of translation is therefore the most important quality of a particular Bible.

There are no false Bibles.

Again, in this thread I’m not focusing on translations, but rather the inclusion of every inspired book in the Word of God. I’m not going to disagree at all in your contention of the importance of translations, but 2 + 2 = 4. If you tell me that 2 + 2 equals anything other than 4 I will say that you are wrong, inaccurate, or false. Similarly, those people or bibles that state that the inspired Word of God is anything other than 73 books is wrong, inaccurate, or false.

Thanks for the dialogue.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

A problem I see with your position is it would make the Book of Gospels or the Lectionary a false Bible as both are incomplete. That is neither has all of Sacred Scripture. But neither is intended to have all of Sacred Scripture. If a person claims that a Protestant Bible contains all of Sacred Scripture then that statement is false. But that alone doesn’t make the book false.

Point three is true but especially if you adhere to Sola Scriptura, at least as popularly practiced. Practically speaking the biggest problem for a non Catholic isn’t an incomplete Bible or bad translation but vesting authority in himself. Even if a non Catholic used a Catholic Bible he isn’t going to become Catholic unless he accepts the Church’s authority.

I have to agree.

Hi Exnihilo,

The Book of Gospels or the Lectionary are not false bibles because they don’t claim to be the entire Word of God. They are publications that comprise divinely inspired books never claiming to be a compilation of the entire Word of God. My issue are with those “bibles” that claim that what they have between the covers is the entire Word of God…and do not include all 73 books as divinely inspired.

What I’m not saying is that the books of Genesis, Isaiah, the gospel of John, 1 Peter, etc. in a non-Catholic Bible are false. The individual books are not the issue, it’s the claim that a particular bible contains the entirety of the Word of God. I’m not questioning the individual books, but the whole. Hopefully that makes sense.

Totally agree with you on your point of the biggest problem a non-Catholic has with the Catholic Church. I’m just saying that once you start poking holes in a few core tenets of a belief system it is easier to bring the whole thing down. And if done in a charitable manner then the Kingdom of God is advanced.

Thanks for your thoughts.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I really doubt if the Church spends much time splitting hairs on this one. The Ignatius Bible Study program has separate books for the New Testament Books. Are suggesting that these are false as well?

Hi HelenRose,

My contention is that any “bible” that includes anything other than a 73 inspired book Word of God **and calls it complete **is false. I don’t believe that the Ignatius Bible Study program states or believes that.

I hope this clears up my point. Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I’ll take you to task here. What man calls the books is immaterial. Christ, via His Church, has long ago declared them to be inspired. In my collection I have several “Protestant” bibles, but specifically seek out those which contain the Deuterocanon. IMO, nearly all of them are superior, in some way, to the “official” US Catholic bibles (NAB, NAB/RE).

You are a strong Catholic who understands their faith. You know what constitutes the full Word of God so to read Protestant bibles personally maybe isn’t an issue for you…unless you start questioning the validity of the books listed as apocryphal.

False beliefs were out there, are out there, and always will be out there. Still, a Catholic needs all of the books for three reasons: 1. they are scripture and thus worth reading, 2. they reinforce revealed truth as contained in doctrine and 3. they are used in the liturgy.

I agree about your contention regarding false beliefs, but I totally disagree that a Catholic needs what I term false bibles. Your first 2 points can be obtained by reading a Catholic bible and your last point can’t be true. There is no way that a Protestant bible is used during the liturgy. I would think that would be in violation of the decrees at the Council of Trent.

I think that “misleading” would be a better term than “false”, but misleading is easily applied to each and every founding principle of Protestantism. After all, Protestantism is not founded on Christ - He founded His Church 1,500 years earlier.

Protestantism is founded on controversy relating to Christ.

It’s ironic that you use the term “mislead” because that is exactly what I believe Catholics are doing who know the truth but who condone falsehood. Because we don’t call out their bible as false (not including the entire 73 books as the inspired Word of God) we are misleading them to think that a 66 inspired book bible is accurate, acceptable or at least not that big of an issue.

And I don’t believe misleading is a good term to use for the bibles I’m questioning. To mislead is to deceive and that’s not what is going on (maybe you feel Luther did deceive, but I don’t think most are today). I believe they actually believe that the entirety of the Word of God is within those 66 books and Catholics are the ones who perverted the bible by adding 7 books. As a non-Catholic how can I even consider a faith that messed with the Word of God? The irony!! We’re actually hurting our cause when we don’t proclaim the truth that the foundation of their belief system is built on a lie. Hurting those that won’t consider converting to Catholicism and those that leave the faith believing in a false belief system.

Again, all of this can be done in a very respectful, charitable manner seeking to educate. We just can’t shy away from the facts and the truth.

Thanks for your thoughts…taking me to task is a good thing as iron sharpens iron!!

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

I’m no fan of ecumenism that gives the impression we are lukewarm about the truth of the Catholic Faith. You certainly can and should point out the inferiority of a Bible with less than 73 books. In fact I think it is great to start out by challenging Protestantism on their canon because they don’t have a good justification. And yet they largely base their faith on that Bible.

You’ve captured the essence of what I’m trying to say! Catholics spend much time on defending against all sorts of anti-Catholic sentiments (of which we should), but oddly without ever challenging the validity of the bible that is being quoted and used against them. We vehemently defend those that question the Real Presence of the Eucharist, Mary as ever-virgin, the pope’s infallibility, our definition of justification…and yet we take a “let’s all just get along” attitude when it comes to the use of a different bible. Makes no sense to me.

Every time a Protestant has challenged my faith it is based on their interpretation (misinterpretation) of a scripture passage. I’ve used the old, “by whose authority do you provide that interpretation” strategy and what generally what comes out of that is a “agree to disagree” type conclusion. Rather now, after they recite a passage of the bible with their interpretation I say, “I totally understand how you could interpret that particular passage in that way, but if I may ask, what version of the bible are you quoting from?” Generally, this will elicit a confused look with a “I use The Bible” response or some may say, “I use the KJV, ESV, etc. version”. Then I’ll state, “OK, thanks because it’s important to note that we use different bibles. I’m not sure if you were aware of that. Mine has 7 additional inspired books with a critical passage in one of them that is very important in our salvation process. How do you know you’re using the correct bible?”

The above questioning is done in a very respectful way and changes the course of the discussion. It is also very important to know the history of the bible when you bring this up (Hebrew vs. Alexandrian Jews, one Christian church, sided with Alexandrian Jews, Vulgate included all 73 books as inspired (not apocryphal), the 73 inspired book bible was used by the Church for 1000 years…). Even if the person you’re speaking to doesn’t agree with your rationale the seeds of truth have been planted. No need to worry about convincing them at that point. You have spread the truth and now let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts. Then, by all means get into a “my interpretation is better than yours” type discussion. I’m just saying don’t be afraid to spread the truth about the true bible!

From the title of this thread it may sound like I’m saying that we must directly say to a Protestant that their bible is false, but as the above hypothetical exchange goes that is not what I’m saying. All I’m saying is that we as Catholics need to know it to be false in order to spread that truth in a charitable manner. We should defend the entirety of the Word of God as fervently as we defend any other Catholic truth. If we are lukewarm on any aspect of the truth then those we are trying to convince will see through that and our evangelization efforts will be that much harder.

Thanks!

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Non-Catholic versions are 100% false? No way. I suspect that most people read the Bible the way I do, for inspiration, not as scholars. I haven’t found anything false in the NIV or KJV.

At any rate, a Bible that is read is way better than a Bible that sits on a shelf. And the Catholic Bible is usually on the shelf here, the NIV New Testament is always at hand. And it’s not missing any books.

Hi Bonnie,

I apologize that I’m not being very clear on the point I’m trying to make. I am not saying that non-Catholic bibles are 100% false…because the individual books they do include are the Word of God. What I’m saying is that all “bibles” that claim that the entirety of the Word of God is contained in their book is a false bible. Let me provide an analogy to make my point.

Let’s say I start to recite the names of the states. I stop at 45 and claim that there are 45 states in the union. I would be wrong since there are really 50 states. It doesn’t mean I was 100% wrong because I got 45 correct, but once I declared 45 to be true I’m wrong. It can be proven that my claim is false. Same is true for non-73 inspired book bibles. There is individual truth, but the whole is false…making it a false bible because it claims something to be true that is false. Not individually, but as a whole. I hope that helps.

On your statement that a bible read is way better than a bible on the shelf, I definitely agree. Why that bible you read can’t be a Catholic bible I have no idea. Are you saying the only bible worthy of being read is the NIV version? If you don’t mind me asking what about the Catholic version of the RSV don’t you like?

Thanks.

-Ernie-