Bible in the trash

[Hiskid1973]

I left it open on the desk at that chapter and left the maid a tip and note expressing my gratitude for the extra effort that enabled me to continue to grow in my faith. .

Good call Sis, we as believers/followers of Christ should be the most generous/gracious people on earth…My our Lord overwhelm you with His blessings as you live according to His word…May His peace surround you and may the fragrance of Christ radiate from you…

 

[CarolinNC]

If you are concerned about it not being the true word of God, why not just replace it with a Catholic edition. That would be better than trashing it. That was uncharitable, if you ask me.

God bless

 

[promethius]

Berean2 made no reference to Nazism. Heinrich Heine was a German Jew, but he was living in the early 19th century and was not commenting on German ultranationalism. Of course, his words gained an ironic and tragic significance when his works were consigned to the 'anti-German' bonfire in the '30s.

I stand corrected, thank you for the information!

Anyway, references to Nazism are not all fallacious, and are often relevant. It’s just silly to dismiss arguments out of hand, regardless of individual merit, when they make such references.

Here I disagree. Hitler is the quite possibly the most prominent form of ad hominem (a real logical fallacy) used in any form of political or religious debate. If I were to lend a shred of validity to the claims of “just like Hitler” I’ve seen bandied about, then the pope, President Obama, former President Bush, former vice President Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Hitchens, Sarah Palin, and half of Arizona are all on the suspect list of the next genocidal leaders.

The truth of the matter is that at least 99% of the time the “Hitler” comment is thrown at someone it is purely ad hominem and far detached from reality. Even the Heine quote is misapplied here, as it applies to societal application and not one person disposing of one copy of a book they own.

Remember, Mr Godwin’s only authority on the matter is that he is/was an editor on Wikipedia. ‘Godwin’s Law’ and ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ sound grand, but are actually an Internet in-joke and not part of formal logic.

That is correct. I forgot about Poe’s law, regarding the lack of winky face with a parody. I sincerely hope there aren’t people out there who take a statement about Godwins Law or “Reducto ad Hitlerum” seriously. However, as I noted above, the vast majority of Hitler references in a debate are still ad hominems, which ARE in fact a real logical fallacy.

 

[rben20]

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.

Well to be honest…it’s just a book. You can throw it away like any other book. I don’t believe there is any sin committed here. If a bible is blessed however, then there are certain ways of disposing of it…burying it is the correct way. You shouldn’t feel anger over a protestant bible though so just watch your emotions! I understand where your coming from. I personally have received protestant bibles before and they never suit me as a Catholic as they are: incomplete and do not contain all books of the bible, certain words have been touched up to reflect protestant theology, and to make matters worse contain heretical commentary. For these reasons I usually throw them away myself or I give them to my protestant friends. Invest in a complete bible using either the Douay-Rheims version, or RSV-Catholic edition. Highly recommend getting both to compare and read:thumbsup:

 

[zdon011]

Here I disagree. Hitler is the quite possibly the most prominent form of ad hominem (a real logical fallacy) used in any form of political or religious debate. If I were to lend a shred of validity to the claims of “just like Hitler” I’ve seen bandied about, then the pope, President Obama, former President Bush, former vice President Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Hitchens, Sarah Palin, and half of Arizona are all on the suspect list of the next genocidal leaders.

The truth of the matter is that at least 99% of the time the “Hitler” comment is thrown at someone it is purely ad hominem and far detached from reality. Even the Heine quote is misapplied here, as it applies to societal application and not one person disposing of one copy of a book they own.

Thanks Promethius,

I accept that I was too impatient with your identification of an ‘ad hominem’.
You’re right, most rhetorical comparisons with Hitler are excessive and irrelevant, and trivialize whatever debate they appear in. They tend to be made by those of, let us say ‘socially liberal’ views, to shut down arguments from anyone with more conservative opinions. And if the latter happens to be a traditional Christian and/or light-skinned Caucasian, the Hitler comparison is almost bound to come out.

I’m getting off topic now,
Cheerio

 

[Zooey]

While traveling recently to a casino of all places, I looked for the gideon Bible in our room as a stopgap way to do my daily scripture reading and found it to be missing. When we left our room the next morning to go to a nearby town for Mass, I left a note for the maid, asking if one could be found and provided. Later, we returned to our room to change clothes and there was the Gideon Bible! I was so happy to be able to do my daily reading, even though I realized that this is not the complete Bible. It served the purpose and I recall very clearly that I read the Gospel of John, Chapter 6. I left it open on the desk at that chapter and left the maid a tip and note expressing my gratitude for the extra effort that enabled me to continue to grow in my faith. A Lutheran friend of mine recently found a Catholic New Testament in a dumpster (I did not ask!!) and she rescued it and presented it to me with a big smile as she knows how much I value the Word. It is a leather bound Challoner-Rheims Version translated from the Latin Vulgate published in 1941 and I am enjoying reading the scriptures in the beautiful flowery old English.

You made a mistake but God forgives, just ask! Don’t make the mistake of trying to justify what happened after the fact.

:hug1:

If you are concerned about it not being the true word of God, why not just replace it with a Catholic edition. That would be better than trashing it. That was uncharitable, if you ask me.

God bless

:hug1:

:flowers:…with from Zooey, who is praying for the day when all who name the Name above all names may gather before His throne, and bow together in eternal harmony.

 

[Hiskid1973]

:hug1:from Zooey, who is praying for the day when all who name the Name above all names may gather before His throne, and bow together in eternal harmony.

And to that I offer a hearty AMEN !

 

[Mike5575]

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.

Yes you where wrong. despite the fact that Catholic Bibles have more books is no excuse to throw away the Bible. It still has the Gospels, and the difference between both Catholic and Protestant NT’s is negligable. The only Protestant Bibles I have a problem with are the ones that totally change the meaning of the texts. Bibles such as ones written by John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther, and King Henry VIII. Corruptions of Sacred texts such as “The Word was a god” would make me want to throw out the bible, or maybe even burn it. This is where the rumors of the CC burning bibles actually came from. Wycliffe’s bible had at least 30 errors per page.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I would not be concerned about discarding a KJV. The original autographs in the sacred authors’ own handwriting are the “Word of God.” We have no originals. All that survived antiquity are copies, made by Catholic hands. Copies and translations are not inerrant.

The KJV (King James Version) is one of the worst translations of the Bible in circulation today.

The highly esteemed translators of the Revised Standard Version were commissioned by the Church of England to make a translation to replace the KJV, which, in the seventeenth century. was also commissioned by the head of the C of E, King James of ill repute, have this to say:

QUOTE

*Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation.

. . .

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.*

END QUOTE

Preface to the Revised Standard Version, p. xi, xiv.

It is unlikely that the KJV had been blessed. Mention it in confession. And be at peace.

Jim Dandy

 

[porthos11]

Although the KJV is no longer a reliable version because of the defective manuscripts from which it was translated, it is nonetheless not a Bible that was twisted to conform with false doctrine such as the New World translation. If you had to dispose of it, you may have done so respectfully by burning it.

 

[Cashue]

It is unlikely that the KJV had been blessed. Mention it in confession. And be at peace.

Jim Dandy

Very good point - I think than anyone reading an unauthorised bible should burn it, have their home blessed by a priest and go to confession… you shouldn’t take any chances.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I don’t think that throwing out or destroying a worn or an unwanted Bible is at all the right thing to do. So long as a Bible is one that is one that is allowed really to be the Bible, through the work of the translators and the justifiable editorial aspects of it, to destroy a Bible is sacrilege at worst, lack of heed to proper values in other cases. However a Bible looks too worn for you to use, someone might be quite pleased to have it free. I have left surplus Bibles on the benches where subway riders may fine them, hopefully to make some use of them, if only to pique their curiosity or to leaf through it to see if they would like to buy a better copy.

As for the Jehovah’s Witnesses perversion of Scripture, the New World Translation, that is the kind of thing, deceitful and genuinely perverted, that one might let self-destruct or for which you might want to hasten its disappearance from existence! Even then, it might be good for a Catholic who does apologetic study and work to retain it as a specimen.

And by no means soever should one abuse or destroy a copy, even one without that version’s “Apocryphra” (deuterocanonical writings) of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Holy Bible! No way, José! That version has done more to convert the world than any other Bible published and merits some respect, even if you prefer, with good cause, the best Catholic rival to the A.V. Bible, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. You can convert a Protestant or sectary to the Catholic faith when using the A.V. Bible, so why should you abuse it? Atop that, remember that the American bishops have sanctioned the use of the A.V. Bible, so why should it be an object of Catholic wrath?

Have care for those old and/or unwanted Bibles. You may not be able to use it, but somebody else, maybe even the Holy Ghost, very well could be able to use it profitably in evangelism or otherwise draw other spiritually worthy use of it.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[zdon011]

And by no means soever should one abuse or destroy a copy, even one without that version’s “Apocryphra” (deuterocanonical writings) of the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.) of the Holy Bible! No way, José! That version has done more to convert the world than any other Bible published and merits some respect, even if you prefer, with good cause, the best Catholic rival to the A.V. Bible, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. You can convert a Protestant or sectary to the Catholic faith when using the A.V. Bible, so why should you abuse it? Atop that, remember that the American bishops have sanctioned the use of the A.V. Bible, so why should it be an object of Catholic wrath?

I wish I could get one those A.V. Bibles with the deuterocanon. The only one I’ve seen is the Cambridge Paragraph, and that one’s really hard to find and rather dear, too. Though the Vulgate (Clementine) would beat it any day.

When Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims Bible, he used the Authorized Version to help render the former in more natural English.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Zdon,

**You wrote: ** *I wish I could get one those A.V. Bibles with the deuterocanon. The only one I’ve seen is the Cambridge Paragraph, and that one’s really hard to find and rather dear, too. Though the Vulgate (Clementine) would beat it any day.

When Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims Bible, he used the Authorized Version to help render the former in more natural English. *​

It is true that laying hands on an A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible with its deuterocanonical writings (“Apocrypha”) is rather hard to do in most bookstores. Anglican (Protestant Episcopal) bookstores often have it or can special-order it readily. It is not hard at all to order a copy of the A.V. Bible with the full Catholic/Orthodox O.T. text. Penguin Books has published it in paperback and there are a few other relatively inexpensive editions of it currently in print, inexpensive, and available through the Amazon.com, Amazon.ca WWW sites. Then there are the out-of-print editions sometimes available at very reduced prices.

Happy hunting!

Pax, Jerry

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I wish I could get one those A.V. Bibles with the deuterocanon. The only one I’ve seen is the Cambridge Paragraph, and that one’s really hard to find and rather dear, too. Though the Vulgate (Clementine) would beat it any day.

When Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims Bible, he used the Authorized Version to help render the former in more natural English.

It would be interesting if someone were to do a study on exactly how much Bishop Challoner relied on the AV for some of his renderings. I suspect it is not as heavily as sometimes reported. It would be a difficult task that’s for sure.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Ambrose S.J.,

**You wrote: ** *It would be interesting if someone were to do a study on exactly how much Bishop Challoner relied on the AV for some of his renderings. I suspect it is not as heavily as sometimes reported. It would be a difficult task that’s for sure. *​

Ambrose, it’s good to encounter you again, after having interacted with your worthy self numerous times on other C.A. fora! I don’t know just what that percentage is, either. However, having the New Testament Octapla (Nelson) at my disposal at home, I can tell from what I see there for the original text of the version in the Octapla’s Douay-Rheims column, that the divergence of the earlier Douay-Rheims Version from the Authorised Version (A.V./K.J.V.) is quite considerable, much, much more different from the later Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

Bp. Challoner’s stylistic overhaul was so thorough-going that it seems to me that one could justify calling Challoner’s text really a different version, rather than a revision of the original Douay-Rheims. The result of Challoner’s worthy labours made for a far greater resemblance to the A.V. of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version than before the changes that Challoner introduced. I know, of course, that there are different texts of Challoner’s version (and I have some of these different texts in copies of the Challoner Bible that I own), but the divergences of one from another within Challoner’s own version(s) essentially do make for great difference.

Anyway, there is nothing to fault Challoner in using such a noble example of biblical style as the A.V. in modelling his wording of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, so long as the result clearly enough reflects what the Latin Vulgate says. As to whether the Clementine Vulgate itself (to which Challoner conformed the Douay-Rheims Version) differs in a way from the priorly accepted Vulgate text (on which the original Douay-Rheims Version had been based) in a way that makes the Clementine Vulgate closer to the A.V.'s underlying Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek text, I do not know that, either, though it seems unlikely. It would be a daunting task to account for all of these differences!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Jerry Parker:

Anyway, there is nothing to fault Challoner in using such a noble example of biblical style as the A.V. in modelling his wording of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, so long as the result clearly enough reflects what the Latin Vulgate says.

Exactly my thinking. IOW, Bishop Challoner had no reason to eschew using some AV renderings that were particularly felicitous, memorable, or accurate, but I strongly doubt that he had a mind to conform his version to the AV whenever possible, as some seem to suggest. It stands to reason in any event, since the AV translates from the Greek where the D/R translates from the Vulgate.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Ambrose,

You wrote: Exactly my thinking. IOW, Bishop Challoner had no reason to eschew using some AV renderings that were particularly felicitous, memorable, or accurate, but I strongly doubt that he had a mind to conform his version to the AV whenever possible, as some seem to suggest. It stands to reason in any event, since the AV translates from the Greek where the D/R translates from the Vulgate.​

Exactly! There was a grave danger, from what I have learned in my reading, that the Authorised Version (A.V./K.J.V.), was displacing the original, unrevised Douay-Rheims Version in favour among Catholics, due to the A.V.‘s greater readability and memorably elegant style. If anyone doubts that there was a need for this revision for the readers’ sake, just take a look at the unrevised Douay-Rheims Version, with all of its jarringly clunky readings and excessive resort to Latin neologisms rather than to plain English. Bp. Richard Challoner wisely decided to borrow from the A.V. renderings that were particularly felicitous **but only if **they could convey the meaning of the Clementine Latin Vulgate without compromise. Thus, he used the A.V. as a tool in improving the Douay-Rheims Version, but not as a model to follow as closely as possible for the A.V.'s own sake.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Cashue]

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.

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.

God bless.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

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*