Any Protestants read the Douy Rheims Bible instead of the King James Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1611 KJV

Psa 23:1 [A Psalme of Dauid.] The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.
Psa 23:2 He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.
Psa 23:3 He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake.
Psa 23:4 Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.
Psa 23:5 Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.
Psa 23:6 Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer.

DRB

Psa 23:1 A psalm for David. The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing.
Psa 23:2 He hath set me in a place of pasture. He hath brought me up, on the water of refreshment:
Psa 23:3 He hath converted my soul. He hath led me on the paths of justice, for his own name’s sake.
Psa 23:4 For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for thou art with me. Thy rod and thy staff, they have comforted me.
Psa 23:5 Thou hast prepared a table before me against them that afflict me. Thou hast anointed my head with oil; and my chalice which inebreateth me, how goodly is it!
Psa 23:6 And thy mercy will follow me all the days of my life. And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto length of days.
 
Reformed1 said:
Manny,

The deutero’s are not quoted ever in the NT…not even once.

I will concede that some of the deutero’s are alluded to, but this is an entirely different matter than quoting them.
Click to expand...
What is however quoted by an overwealming 300 to 50, is the Septuagint. This is argument enough for it’s particular canon considering it’s the bible the apostles used and the bible quoted from by Jesus Christ. The allusions to the deutrocanon are only supportive of this, which is the major argument for the usage of the Septuagint’s expanded canon.

Another argument is that the Hebrew Canon was only settled on in 92AD, not before or during the time of Jesus. The christians and apostles predominatly used the set canon of the Greek Septuagint because they generally did not believe revelation ended until John wrote his Apocalypse book, and passed away, and therefore the deutrocanon was the accepted primary scriptural canon because the OT to them did not end being written until Jesus was born. What most protestants don’t understand is that the Jews when they set the hebrew canon once and for all, settled it well after the time of Christ and a lot later than the Septuagint canon. Their views on their own books were tainted because of the existence of this new christian sect and the sack of Jerusalem by Rome(which caused the Jews to turn away from Roman-Greco influnences, including the Greek Septuagint).
 
colliric said:
What is however quoted by an overwealming 300 to 50, is the Septuagint. This is argument enough for it’s particular canon considering it’s the bible the apostles used and the bible quoted from by Jesus Christ. The allusions to the deutrocanon are only supportive of this, which is the major argument for the usage of the Septuagint’s expanded canon.

Another argument is that the Hebrew Canon was only settled on in 92AD, not before or during the time of Jesus. The christians and apostles predominatly used the set canon of the Greek Septuagint because they generally did not believe revelation ended until John wrote his Apocalypse book, and passed away, and therefore the deutrocanon was the accepted primary scriptural canon because the OT to them did not end being written until Jesus was born.
Click to expand...
Since the septuagint included books such as 3 Maccabees, why don’t you recognize these other books as part of your canon?
 
Reformed1 said:
Since the septuagint included books such as 3 Maccabees, why don’t you recognize these other books as part of your canon?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. Does anybody know why Catholics do not include all the books Orthodox include?
 
lak611 said:
I’m not sure. Does anybody know why Catholics do not include all the books Orthodox include?
Click to expand...
Good question. Apparently, either the Orthodox are wrong or the Catholic Church is operating with an incomplete canon.
 
Reformed1 said:
Since the septuagint included books such as 3 Maccabees, why don’t you recognize these other books as part of your canon?
Click to expand...
3 Maccabees is considered by most biblical scholars as a work of pure fiction, 4 Maccabees is an appendix for use by jewish scholar most likely written after christ and is therefore of no use at all because it was effectively written after the OT revelation was finished.

It directly contradicts the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and it was an addition to the Septuagint.

the Esdras books are in Roman Catholic bibles under the more popular names of Ezra and Nehemiah.
 
rr1213 said:
Good question. Apparently, either the Orthodox are wrong or the Catholic Church is operating with an incomplete canon.
Click to expand...
I started a new thread in Sacred Scripture asking if the Orthodox Church added those books or if the Catholic Church took them out. In other words, whose canon came first, Orthodox or Catholic?
 
lak611 said:
I started a new thread in Sacred Scripture asking if the Orthodox Church added those books or if the Catholic Church took them out. In other words, whose canon came first, Orthodox or Catholic?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church slowly made the decisions to remove them for the reasons stated in my last post. The evidence slowly amounted against these books being canon, but Maccabees 3 and 4 were ruled out at the very beginning, one is fiction the other was likely written after christ and has a statement that directly contradicts Christian belief.

this web site shows what the Cath Encyclopedia has to say:
newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#I3

oh ****, sorry to answer your new thread in this one.
 
colliric said:
3 Maccabees is considered by most biblical scholars as a work of pure fiction, 4 Maccabees is an appendix for use by jewish scholar most likely written after christ and is therefore of no use at all because it was effectively written after the OT revelation was finished.

It directly contradicts the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and it was an addition to the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
Does this not shoot your argument down? If 3 Maccabees is a work of pure fiction and it was in the septuagint along with the deutero’s, why do you argue that the deutero’s are canonical simply based on their inclusion in the septuagint?
 
Reformed1 said:
**Does this not shoot your argument down? **If 3 Maccabees is a work of pure fiction and it was in the septuagint along with the deutero’s, why do you argue that the deutero’s are canonical simply based on their inclusion in the septuagint?
Click to expand...
No, unless of cause you believe in Sola Scriptura… The bible was written by human authors, they actually made minor mistakes, I know that is hard to believe, but it’s true. This book was canon, but once we discovered it was fictionalized, it lost it priveledge to be considered fact like the other books of the bible.

3 Maccabees is a blatantly false, fictionalized book. That is why it is now excluded from the canon. This does not mean the other books have any less of a right to be Canon… unless the silly Sola Scriptura thing comes up, which to me it doesn’t.

The other books simply are not fictionalized, they therefore retain canon status and have a right to do so. I know it is hard for Protestants to accept, but when the church finds out a book is not valid because of such and such fact, it will immediatly take that book out of the biblical canon.
 
colliric said:
No, unless of cause you believe in Sola Scriptura… The bible was written by human authors, they actually made minor mistakes, I know that is hard to believe, but it’s true. This book was canon, but once we discovered it was fictionalized, it lost it priveledge to be considered fact like the other books of the bible.

3 Maccabees is a blatantly false, fictionalized book. That is why it is now excluded from the canon. This does not mean the other books have any less of a right to be Canon… unless the silly Sola Scriptura thing comes up, which to me it doesn’t.

The other books simply are not fictionalized, they therefore retain canon status and have a right to do so.
Click to expand...
Do I correctly understand you as saying that the Catholic Church canonized these books and then withdrew the canonization?
 
rr1213 said:
Do I correctly understand you as saying that the Catholic Church canonized these books and then withdrew the canonization?
Click to expand...
No,

These books were included in the bible on the basis of the catholic church not yet understanding weather or not these books were Canonitical. Their canon status was debatable and they weren’t declared so, but were included in the catholic canon on the basis of “innocent until proved wrong”.

These particular books were slowly purged from the bible, and finally the Council of Trent in the 15th century finalized the complete Catholic Canon. The books of the Septuagint which survived the process were there in the Holy bible canon from the start but their status was unresolved, they were removed from the bible by Luther because of his own prejudice. But their canonical status wasn’t understood for some time.

I don’t think I explained this well, I’m sure someone else understands the issue better.

But basically they were given canon status in the 15th century but were officially included in the bible in the 3rd century on the basis of the septuagint having them, and their canon status being “not particularily sure yet”.
 
colliric said:
No, unless of cause you believe in Sola Scriptura… The bible was written by human authors, they actually made minor mistakes, I know that is hard to believe, but it’s true. This book was canon, but once we discovered it was fictionalized, it lost it priveledge to be considered fact like the other books of the bible.

3 Maccabees is a blatantly false, fictionalized book. That is why it is now excluded from the canon. This does not mean the other books have any less of a right to be Canon… unless the silly Sola Scriptura thing comes up, which to me it doesn’t.

The other books simply are not fictionalized, they therefore retain canon status and have a right to do so. I know it is hard for Protestants to accept, but when the church finds out a book is not valid because of such and such fact, it will immediatly take that book out of the biblical canon.
Click to expand...
In your earlier post you said "What is however quoted by an overwealming 300 to 50, is the Septuagint. This is argument enough for it’s particular canon considering it’s the bible the apostles used and the bible quoted from by Jesus Christ."

Since 3 Maccabees is in the septuagint you need to modify your arugument a little.

Also, in one of your last posts it sound like you are saying that the catholic church will canonize a book and then if the book is later found to be non-canonical, it will pull it out of the canon. Is this what you are saying?
 
Reformed1 said:
In your earlier post you said "What is however quoted by an overwealming 300 to 50, is the Septuagint. This is argument enough for it’s particular canon considering it’s the bible the apostles used and the bible quoted from by Jesus Christ."

Since 3 Maccabees is in the septuagint you need to modify your arugument a little.

Also, in one of your last posts it sound like you are saying that the catholic church will canonize a book and then if the book is later found to be non-canonical, it will pull it out of the canon. Is this what you are saying?
Click to expand...
no, read my last post. And I do not believe in sola scriptura, if 3 maccabees is flawed this does not affect the canon status of the other books because 3 maccabees was never official canon. It was included in bibles because it’s status was unknown until the 15th century.

I therefore still argue that if the Septuagint is mentioned in the bible, it’s canon is the right one. Unless one of it’s books does not conform somehow, either it was fiction, was written after the time of christ, wasn’t definiably written by a jew, or some other deficiency which excludes it from being canonicals. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura, and I believe errors were made and these errors need to be sorted out.

The Septuagint canon is supported by the NT, but that doesn’t mean EVERY book of it is supported, and the erranious ones like Maccabees 4 need to be taken out. The ones which don’t make clear mistakes, including the Deutrocanon ones, must be considered Canonicalized.

Like I said, I don’t think I’m the best person to make my point if you know what I mean.
 
How do Catholics view the 1611 KJV rendering of The deutero’s?
 
I have a copy, but I rarely read it or use it…I use the Oxford Study Bible NRSV.
 
Frost said:
I read none of them! Instead, I read the Koiné-greek one (Novum testamentum) 😃
Apart from that, I (and the rest of the Christians in Norway - Lutherans as well as Catholics) read the Norwegian translations based on these Greek manuscripts. The bible-society in Norway is ecumenical to the core.

The KJV have no special position among Lutherans in my country.
Click to expand...
You read it IN Koine greek? I thought that language was kind of dead. Not as in Latin dead, but as in there isn’t very much documentation dead… I’m probably wrong though. In any case, quite an achievement.

Catholig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top