Answering Different Bible Translation Objections

[learninginfbg]

Since there are obviously many different Bible translations used by Catholics and Protestants (including the apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bibles), how are we to answer such an objection:

“Well, the theme/verse/lesson/etc that you are referencing is not in my/our church’s bible, therefore it’s not a question or issue that I am concerned about.”

Basically, since we Catholics believe that we have the true faith established by Jesus and that our Bible includes the teachings of God the Father and God the Son, how do we convey that to our Protestant brethren?

I’m sorry for not having any specific examples; this is just a possible objection that I’ve pondered lately.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Tom]

learninginfbg:

Since there are obviously many different Bible translations used by Catholics and Protestants (including the apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bibles),

One brief point, there are no “apocryphal books included in the Catholic Bibles”. Apocrypha refers to non Scriptural works, the books you are referring to are called the Deuterocanonical Books of the OLD Testament. They include seven books (plus parts of others) used extensively by Jesus and the Apostles in their teaching. The deuterocanonical books of the New Testament are normally included in protestant bibles even though some have them removed. Some protestants use the term “apocrypha” to refer to these books to imply they are not Scripture, which is incorrect.
As to the question:

“Well, the theme/verse/lesson/etc that you are referencing is not in my/our church’s bible, therefore it’s not a question or issue that I am concerned about."

If the discussion is about the differences between the Catholic Church and their church, many of the differences are from teachings contained in those books, for a brief example the teachings of Jesus on the Sacrament of marriage are certainly not based on the book of Deuteronomy from the Old Testament, but are found in Tobit, one of those deuterocanonical books.

learninginfbg:

Basically, since we Catholics believe that we have the true faith established by Jesus and that our Bible includes the teachings of God the Father and God the Son, how do we convey that to our Protestant brethren?

One way is to read and study those deuterocanonical books to understand their importance. Then you can show the teachings of Jesus which come solely from those books. If Jesus used them why do their protestant bibles not contain them? I suggest you read these books, keep a pad of paper handy and write references to the teachings of Jesus, you’ll get writers cramps since there are so many, in fact, you’ll wonder if He used any other books in His teachings.

 

[YinYangMom]

Tom,

That was a most helpful response. Thank you!

Regarding the Deuterocanonical books…is this, then, where the argument arises that the Catholic church manipulated what constitutes the Bible?

That’s an argument I keep getting into and I just don’t know how to respond…people saying that there is no ONE bible, but a collection of writings which a council read then chose which writings would be included or left out, and that the people on that council weren’t in a position to make that decision, except by other men and with their own political agendas. I guess the argument being that Jesus/God didn’t tell us which books were really representative of God’s plan and Jesus’ life…so if a council of men could decide which books belong, another group of men could decide otherwise with as much authority???

I don’t really know if that’s the case, just that people keep throwing that back at me…that men decided what is in the bible, not God, therefore we are allowed to pick and choose which bible to consider authentic.

I like your suggestion about reading the books with a notebook available…I think it might work to get those who don’t include those books to at least question why they’ve been left out when Jesus Himself refers to the writings contained within them.

I look forward to taking on that assignment and hope it helps me with my debates.

 

[learninginfbg]

Thanks a ton, Tom.

Your correction of my misnomer of the Deuterocanonical books just shows how far I have to go in my apologetics learning and work.

Thank you again!

 

[Tom]

YinYangMom:

Catholic church manipulated what constitutes the Bible?

Interesting question. Would one therefore, doubt the validity of the Bible? Since the Catholic Church assembled, edited, and decided which books would be included and which would be rejected, you could say the Catholic Church “manipulated” the Bible

YinYangMom:

people saying that there is no ONE bible, but a collection of writings which a council read then chose which writings would be included or left out, and that the people on that council weren’t in a position to make that decision, except by other men and with their own political agendas. I guess the argument being that Jesus/God didn’t tell us which books were really representative of God’s plan and Jesus’ life…so if a council of men could decide which books belong, another group of men could decide otherwise with as much authority???

No, Jesus clearly establishes who has authority in His Church. Since it was the Church that Jesus says, He will send the Holy Spirit, and it (the Spirit) will guide the Church to all truth, and not to us individual Christians, we would be rejecting Jesus’ teachings to reject the teachings of His Catholic Church. Jesus gives the authority to His Apostles, and specifically to Peter as the leader of the Apostles. He also establishes Apostolic succession clearly in Scripture. Not many protestants reject the Bible, only a radical fringe group. Most have an overzealous reverence for the Bible.
The Deuterocanocal Books are absolutely beautiful, they are the teachings of Jesus, and anyone who reads them with an open heart will see that. Even the most hardhearted protestant who reads them would be amazed. One can see why the Jews decided to remove them from the Palestinian traditional canon. The protestant reformers followed the Palestinian tradition, rather surprising seeing the Jews would want to remove any hint of the teachings of Jesus, why did the protestors do the same? At any rate, these books contain the teachings of purgatory; marriage as a Sacrament and lasting for your entire life being a covenant with God Himself (quite different from Deuteronomy where the husband can just write a letter of dismissal); the teachings of the resurrection, found nowhere else as detailed and descriptive. There are so very many teachings you really need to read for yourself. In the end, a protestant who reads these books with an open heart would have to ask themselves, why are these books, which Jesus obviously taught from, are excluded from their Bible? You just really need to study them to understand.

YinYangMom:

That’s an argument I keep getting into and I just don’t know how to respond…

Use Scripture to respond, whom did He address at the last supper? His Apostles, read the Words He leaves us, He is establishing His Church, He is addressing His Church Leaders. When He gives the power to forgive sins, whom does He give this power to? When He instructs how to transform simple bread and wine into His body and blood, whom does He instruct? All of these are direct to the leaders of His
Church, not to you and I as individuals.

 

[Tom]

learninginfbg:

Thanks a ton, Tom.

Your correction of my misnomer of the Deuterocanonical books just shows how far I have to go in my apologetics learning and work.

Thank you again!

It wasn’t long ago I would have asked the exact same questions, we’ve heard from too many protestants and not enough Catholics. Their twisting of words really makes us question our Church. I couldn’t understand why there were different Bibles until I read the deuterocanonicals, then OMG, that’s why there’s such a difference between Catholic and Protestant theology!!! and once you see the teachings of Jesus in them you quickly understand which school is right!!! I sat down with a pad (which is why I recommend it) and started with Wisdom, then Sirach, then Tobit, what an eye opener.

 

[lsburk]

One huge argument by protestants is that the Catholics added the deuterocanonical book later. Of course this is a falsehood. The deuterocanonical books were included in the “Septuagint”. This is the bible that the apostles probably were acquainted with and used. The Pharisees had a collection of books that was different than the Septuagint. One of the ways that theologians can confidently believe that Jesus and his followers used the Septuagint is from the prohesy of Mary in Isaiah. The Isaiah of the Pharisees referred to the messiah being born of a “young woman” the Septuagint prophesies the messiah being born of a “virgin”. This is a telling difference in the two. The Jewish scholars of the early church tried to discredit the deuterocanonical books hoping that Christianity would go away. One more thing to remember is that the Bible is not technically a book in and of itself but a collection of books and writings.The rest, as they say, is history.

Scott

 

[YinYangMom]

Uh-oh, now I’m confused…but that’s a good thing because confusion is the first stage or learning…

Septuagint ? 'this is the bible the apostles probably were acquainted with…"

The apostles were acquainted with Jewish scripture, no?
'Cause I’ve always been told the “Bible” didn’t come to being until several hundred years after the death of Christ when all the different writings were compiled/collected into one book.

I’ve always figured Jewish scripture to be the “Torah”…
the Torah being what we refer to as the Old Testament…
or so I was taught eons ago…

So it looks like there were two versions of Jewish scripture floating around during Jesus’ time??? wow.

It is good to know one can distinguish which version Christ related himself to, though. Quite interesting.

lsburk:

One huge argument by protestants is that the Catholics added the deuterocanonical book later. Of course this is a falsehood. The deuterocanonical books were included in the “Septuagint”. This is the bible that the apostles probably were acquainted with and used. The Pharisees had a collection of books that was different than the Septuagint. One of the ways that theologians can confidently believe that Jesus and his followers used the Septuagint is from the prohesy of Mary in Isaiah. The Isaiah of the Pharisees referred to the messiah being born of a “young woman” the Septuagint prophesies the messiah being born of a “virgin”. This is a telling difference in the two. The Jewish scholars of the early church tried to discredit the deuterocanonical books hoping that Christianity would go away. One more thing to remember is that the Bible is not technically a book in and of itself but a collection of books and writings.The rest, as they say, is history.

Scott