Bible in the trash

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmagana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry_Parker said:
Cashue and Bmagana,

**You wrote: ** Bmagana: I … noticed [that] it * was a “Gideons New Testament” book. Realizing this was a Protestant Bible, I got upset and I threw it in the trash. Was I wrong for trashing the book? Did I commited a sin?

Cashue*: No you did the right thing but you really should have spat on it and turned three times. Then you should have burned it and called a priest to bless you home just in case your home was possed because of the devils that could have entered your home through it.

You didn’t sin but you should do the above and then go to confession.​

Cashue, surely you jest! (Your words, however, sound more ironic than prescriptive!) I know how disappointing it is to take a Gideons Bible or New Testament in hand, then to discover that it is not the venerable and trustworthy Authorised (“King James”) Version (A.V.), which the Gideons so long had been giving away, but rather one of the other versions that Gideons, more and more and for a long time now, has been distributing! Usually these Gideons Scriptures, for the last some decades, are the New American Standard Version (hopelessly sectarian in its bias) or, occasionally, the New Berkely Version. For the Gideons to have been trumpeting these two versions at the expense of the A.V. was a foolish decision, though the N.A.S.B. and N.B.V. translations are not so unreliable as to set on a level with the (fortunately flammable!) New World Translation of the J.W.s.

Still, however, trashing that N.T. seems excessive. Bmagana, you could have left it on a ledge in a public bathroom or on a shelf at the supermarket.

Pax, Jerry Parker

No I am not.

No approved “bibles” are the work of the devil. What should a true christian do if they had something of the devil in their home? Only the bibles approved by the church are free of corruption and should be read, all others can open us to demonic influences. They are filth and must be disposed of and avoided at all costs.
Click to expand...
 
Cashue,

You wrote: *No, approved “bibles” are the work of the devil. What should a true christian do if they had something of the devil in their home? Only the bibles approved by the church are free of corruption and should be read, all others can open us to demonic influences. They are filth and must be disposed of and avoided at all costs. *​

Well, for a Catholic to have a non-Church-approved translation of the Bible in his home is one thing, but “trashing” such a Bible is another. One can dispose of the unwanted and unauthorised Bible, getting it out of home or office, without destroying it.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
I respect your viewpoint of course but if you leave it for someone else its like giving them poison. If it is not good for us as Catholics it its not good for non-Catholics either. Would you give someone else something you think is corrupt?

No, there is nothing for it, they must be destroyed. Burning is best.
 
Cashue,

**You wrote: ** *I respect your viewpoint of course but if you leave it for someone else its like giving them poison. If it is not good for us as Catholics it its not good for non-Catholics either. Would you give someone else something you think is corrupt?

No, there is nothing for it, they must be destroyed. Burning is best*.​

Well, I respect your viewpoint, too, though to me it reeks of the Inquisition, which was Catholic enough, but rather lamentable! As a trained and practised librarian (now retired), I just have an ingrained horror of book-burning, :eek: the Bible included, and that reprehensible sort of thing.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Jerry_Parker said:
As a trained and practised librarian (now retired), I just have an ingrained horror of book-burning, :eek:
Click to expand...
Oh I agree.
Jerry_Parker said:
the (fortunately flammable!) New World Translation
Click to expand...
I also agree with you that some books (like the JW bible) SHOULD be burnt (and are fortunately flammable).

So, it’s just a matter of deciding which books we burn and which books we don’t. I personally let the Church decide like you I think its a good thing that books ARE flammable because some are not above burning.

Of course this is only for religious books, not educational ones - I’m against burning educational books of any kind only flammable trash ones like the JW bible.
 
I would not throw it in the garbage even though there are differences. It is good to keep it to compare or pass it on. If I know that something is not good, I would not pass it on but in this case, I would keep it. It is not a bad thing. I have bibles at home that protestants would read but I always stick to my Catholic bibles.

Happy reading! :signofcross:
 
Lorella,

*You wrote: ** * I would not throw it in the garbage even though there are differences. It is good to keep it to compare or pass it on. If I know that something is not good, I would not pass it on, but in this case, I would keep it. It is not a bad thing. I have Bibles at home that Protestants would read, but I always stick to my Catholic bibles.​

That’s my attitude, too. Since English is a language (the more since the precise Tudor grammatical inflexions have dropped from usage in more current English) that resists conveying the message of the Holy Scriptures with all of the nuances, other versions, even Protestant and sectarian ones, can be helpful at times in getting to the essence of what the Bible is saying. However, while they can be useful, I do still stick to my trusted Bible versions, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and the Authorised “King James” Version (with its “Apocrypha”), comparing them (but not overturning them) often with the old Confraternity Version (1941 N.T., the O.T. as of 1969), the Catholic editions of the Revised Standard Version, the Lamsa Version, and (a Protestant one), the English Standard Version with Apocrypha.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
=bmagana;6883263]Today, i wanted to find something on the Bible, in the drawer next to me was a new testament that i never really paid to much attention to, i just knew it was there, it was closer to me and i didn’t feel like going to the backroom and get my usual Bible, when i got to the passage i wanted to read, i found it to be completely different than what i was expecting to find, i then noticed it was a “Gideons New Testament” book, realizing this was a protestan bible i got upset and i threw it in the trash, was i wrong for trashing the book? did i commited a sin?
thank you and God Bless.
Click to expand...
NO SIN! Protecting the singular truth is not a sinful act.
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Lorella,

*You wrote: ** * I would not throw it in the garbage even though there are differences. It is good to keep it to compare or pass it on. If I know that something is not good, I would not pass it on, but in this case, I would keep it. It is not a bad thing. I have Bibles at home that Protestants would read, but I always stick to my Catholic bibles.​

That’s my attitude, too. Since English is a language (the more since the precise Tudor grammatical inflexions have dropped from usage in more current English) that resists conveying the message of the Holy Scriptures with all of the nuances, other versions, even Protestant and sectarian ones, can be helpful at times in getting to the essence of what the Bible is saying. However, while they can be useful, I do still stick to my trusted Bible versions, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and the Authorised “King James” Version (with its “Apocrypha”), comparing them (but not overturning them) often with the old Confraternity Version (1941 N.T., the O.T. as of 1969), the Catholic editions of the Revised Standard Version, the Lamsa Version, and (a Protestant one), the English Standard Version with Apocrypha.

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
Hi Jerry

thanks for your reply. Yes indeed, it can be helpful : ) I acknowledge we have our similarities too. We are all brothers and sisters. If I see anything that is anti-catholic, I don’t like but it is always good to have an open mind : )

Peace and God bless!
 
Lorella,

You wrote: *Thanks for your reply. Yes indeed, it can be helpful [to compare Bible versions]: ) I acknowledge we have our similarities too. We are all brothers and sisters. If I see anything that is anti-catholic, I don’t like but it is always good to have an open mind : ) Peace and God bless! *​

Thanks for those kind words! 😛 We ourselves are in a life-long process of reception of the truth, 👍 so it is not surprising that many others have received less of it, and integrated less of it into their minds, than we ourselves have done and yet shall do.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Lorella,

You wrote: *Thanks for your reply. Yes indeed, it can be helpful [to compare Bible versions]: ) I acknowledge we have our similarities too. We are all brothers and sisters. If I see anything that is anti-catholic, I don’t like but it is always good to have an open mind : ) Peace and God bless! *​

Thanks for those kind words! 😛 We ourselves are in a life-long process of reception of the truth, 👍 so it is not surprising that many others have received less of it, and integrated less of it into their minds, than we ourselves have done and yet shall do.

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
Or as John Henry Newman viewed it; Protestants are a bullwark against the infidelity of the Age. 😉
 
Ambrose,

**We wrote: Jerry: We ourselves are in a life-long process of reception of the truth, so it is not surprising that many others have received less of it, and integrated less of it into their minds, than we ourselves have done and yet shall do.

Ambrose: Or as John Henry Newman viewed it; Protestants are a bulwark against the infidelity of the Age.**​

I was so struck so forcibly by the quote attributed to John Henry Cdl. Newman, which you cite (but with the misspelling of “bulwark” as “bullwark” therewithin corrected above), that I “googled” it to find the context, since I was not sure what Newman meant. I found that Newman did not acknowledge quite that turn of phrase.

In a letter of 7 June 1863 Newman protested to his friend, Isaac Williams, that what he had written was: “The Anglican Church has been a most useful breakwater against scepticism” in the past, but that the Latitudinarianism of then contemporary Anglicanism, by contrast, was furthering the inroads of error on the minds of those within the Church of England. However, to the extent that what was being taught in the Church of England was true, to that extent Anglicanism furthered the retention of truth.

To Pusey he wrote, to similar affect, that “the Anglican Church was the great bulwark against infidelity in this land.”

The Methodists, Unitarians, and others might try to seduce folk into certain errors, but the relative orthodoxy of Anglicanism limited the impact and headway of such sects

Your point holds, though, especially since Newman expressed the idea in various ways and at different times. Protestantism can keep more serious error at bay, so long as it does not slip into diverse and more serious degrees of unbelief. Flannery O’Connor constantly was mentioning or implying in her works and letters how the Fundamentalism of Southern sectarian Christian culture protected the integrity of beliefs and doctrines that Catholics and sectaries alike shared.

Yes, we must keep that kind of thing in mind, even during urges (which we, at least usually, should resist) to do some book-burning!

Thanks for exposing us to Cardinal Newman’s profound wisdom! 👍

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Thanks Jerry for digging up the actual quotes (and I believe there are others as well, when you take into account his letters and diaries,) which when synthesized and absorbed as I have done, comes out somewhat close, but not exact. Just like Rick never said “play it again Sam,” or Captain Kirk never said “beam me up Scotty!” 😉
 
Ambrose,

**You wrote: ** *Thanks Jerry for digging up the actual quotes (and I believe there are others as well, when you take into account his letters and diaries,) which when synthesized and absorbed as I have done, comes out somewhat close, but not exact. Just like Rick never said “play it again, Sam,” or Captain Kirk never said “beam me up, Scotty!” *​

For sure, Ambrose! 👍 I never would question your expertise about Cardinal Newman; I have read his best-known works, with a detour here and there elsewhere among Newman’s writings, but you have read nearly all of them!

The only reason that I “Googled” the quote was because I was not sure what that great Doctor of the Church 😛 (and of the Anglican Church before that) really meant by those words. :confused: That’s when I found how approximate the quote was (through no fault of yours, to be sure!). What an aid to verifying quotes the Internet and its search engines are! One can check by exact words or by words within a presumed quote, depending on need, and usually, eventually, come across what one seeks.

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top