Bible translations and bible translation question

[Ernie07]

Recently I was reading Monsignor Ronald Knox’s “The Belief of Catholics.” In the preface, he wrote something that struck home with me. Relating that, in the book’s previous editions, “Protestant controversialists” had twisted his words, he lamented the fact that he was compelled to write a clarification regarding two pages in particular.

What I was struck with is that Protestantism is not founded on Christ - our Lord founded His Church 1,500 years earlier. Protestantism is founded on controversy surrounding Christ.

That is a huge difference and explains why it is degenerating into obsolescence.

Thanks for that information. I guess I just see Catholics, including leadership, being so darn accommodating to error and falsehoods and it frustrates me greatly. Whether it’s an indifference to a false Bible or the acquiescence and even promotion of a Protestant based evangelization program, we’re not defending the truth hard enough and the impacts of that are great.

Because we are so accommodating non Catholics don’t respect us and feel emboldened to attack our beliefs. On the other hand Catholics are confused what is the truth and if there even is objective truth. Granted, I’m over generalizing, but not taking the appropriate strong stand for the truth doesn’t help anyone in the long run.

Anyway, I’ll get off my soap box and get some sleep!!

-Ernie-

 

[porthos11]

Two things… First, I downloaded the Bible app from bible.com, which includes the ESV version. The version they provide doesn’t include the 7 deuterocanonical books. It sounds like there are multiple versions of the ESV version. Crazy sounding, but true!

Secondly, I have to admit that I take offense in your ESV reference as it relates to their use of the term “apocrypha”. Apocrypha is defined as, “related writings not forming part of the accepted Canon”. That should be an offensive definition to every Catholic. Those 7 books are every bit a part of the real Bible as any of the other books.

We need to stop being so ecumenical that it stops us from voicing the truth or being so accepting of falsehoods. It’s as if we act like we need to apologize for believing in truth and that we’re responsible for any divisiveness. It’s just frustrating to me so I apologize if I’m coming on too strong.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

So an evangelical translation uses the term apocrypha. Big deal. They are evangelicals and the ESV makes no pretenses about being anything but Evangelical.

I am just pointing out that your claim that the ESV does not have the deuterocanonicals is wrong and you would simply do well to accept the correction of fact rather than rant over it.

 

[drac16]

Hello,

I truly don’t mean to offend, but the English Standard Version is a false bible as it doesn’t include the 7 books that the Church has always used. I’ll explain my reasoning.

The Church in 400 A.D. decreed that there were 27 books in the NT and 46 books in the OT that were divinely inspired. And remember this timeframe was way before the multiple Christian denominations that we see today so this isn’t a Catholic thing per se. There was just 1 Church at that time. No others claimed to be that one Church. And that one Church said that there were 73 books that were divinely inspired.

To further the history, the bible was then translated into Latin by Jerome, who personally felt that there should be 39 books in the OT, but submitted to the authority of The Church by translating all 73 books into the Latin Vulgate. This version of the bible became the bible of The Church for the next 1000 years.

I’ve heard some Catholics tell me to chill out when it comes to the 66 book bible because rather than it being false they say it is simply “incomplete”. The problem I have with this line of thinking is that Protestants believe they are correct when they assert that the 7 additional books aren’t inspired. It’s as if I tell you that there were only 45 states or 9 Commandments and assert them to be true. Would you say that I’m “incomplete” or wrong? What if in a spelling test I spell the word “believe” as “believ”? Would the teacher tell me that I’m “incomplete” or wrong? In a similar vein, the 66 book bible is wrong.

Obviously, I’m a little passionate about this topic. My main reason is that I firmly believe the Protestant faith is built on error. An erroneous bible, which leads to erroneous belief systems. One can’t read 2 Macc 12:46 and believe in “faith alone” or “once saved always saved” (why pray for someone who has died if they’re already saved or damned?). These core tenets of the Protestant belief system come crashing down as a result of the truths within the real 73 book bible.

I’m very passionate about the truth and I truly apologize if this offends. You may even be thinking, “geez, I didn’t expect to get lectured just by saying what bible I read from!” and if that’s the case I’m sorry. You just gave me an opportunity to preach a little! I’d welcome any and all feedback and thoughts.

-Ernie-

You don’t have to apologize, Ernie. It’s all good. I actually have a Bible with the Deuterocanonical books (like the books of Maccabees). It’s a NRSV (New revised standard version). I don’t read it often, but I bought it for the sole purpose of reading the apocryphal books, as they are often called. I don’t know the history of the canon, so thank you for letting me know.

The ESV is the main one I use, though. The reason I use a protestant Bible is because I’m more or less a protestant. I don’t think the reformers were entirely right, though. For example, I disagree with Limited Atonement, which was taught by John Calvin.

 

[Ernie07]

So an evangelical translation uses the term apocrypha. Big deal. They are evangelicals and the ESV makes no pretenses about being anything but Evangelical…

I see where you’re coming from…because the books are physically present in the version you reference, regardless of their characterization of not being part of the canon, it satisfies the definition of “included”. I guess I’m going more to the spirit of the definition of “included”. Labeling those books as Apocrypha (not divinely inspired) means not included for me…and a big deal. They believe those books are no more inspired as any historical writing. If you want to call that “included” in the real sense of the word then we’ll agree to disagree.

Quick question…if there was a group of Christians that espoused the belief that the first 7 books of the OT were Apocrypha would you also think that not to be a big deal? As you contemplate that answer think about who are we to say which divinely inspired books are more important? And consensus has no bearing on what is the Word of God. The Church has made a definitive statement regarding the canon and the truth has already been decreed.

I am just pointing out that your claim that the ESV does not have the deuterocanonicals is wrong and you would simply do well to accept the correction of fact rather than rant over it.

Like I said in my previous post you found an ESV version that physically placed the 7 books in their version, but there are other ESV versions that don’t even include the 7 books at all. Here are a few:

esv.org/
biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-Version-ESV-Bible/#booklist
bible.com/bible/59/JHN.1.esv

Look it up for yourself. My point is that there are multiple versions of the ESV bible and many do not include the 7 books at all including the mobile app I downloaded. If my facts are inaccurate please point it out…it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong!!

Thanks for the dialogue.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

You don’t have to apologize, Ernie. It’s all good. I actually have a Bible with the Deuterocanonical books (like the books of Maccabees). It’s a NRSV (New revised standard version). I don’t read it often, but I bought it for the sole purpose of reading the apocryphal books, as they are often called. I don’t know the history of the canon, so thank you for letting me know.

The ESV is the main one I use, though. The reason I use a protestant Bible is because I’m more or less a protestant. I don’t think the reformers were entirely right, though. For example, I disagree with Limited Atonement, which was taught by John Calvin.

Thank you so much for taking my post in the spirit that you did. I’ve been told by a few people (OK, maybe more than a few!) that I can be overbearing at times when it comes to my faith. I like to call it passion, but many would disagree!! Haha! In that spirit I will not badger you on the bible you use or your beliefs. God bless you on your faith journey!

-Ernie-

 

[porthos11]

Like I said in my previous post you found an ESV version that physically placed the 7 books in their version, but there are other ESV versions that don’t even include the 7 books at all. Here are a few:

esv.org/
biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-Version-ESV-Bible/#booklist
bible.com/bible/59/JHN.1.esv

Look it up for yourself. My point is that there are multiple versions of the ESV bible and many do not include the 7 books at all including the mobile app I downloaded. If my facts are inaccurate please point it out…it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong!!

Thanks for the dialogue.

-Ernie-

That’s hardly surprising. So what? That’s true of the RSV and NRSV as well. They come in Protestant (66 books), Ecumenical (“sandwiched”) and Catholic (“Vulgate order”) editions. Why that’s a surprise or a big deal for you is beyond me. As for calling the books Apocrypha, again so what? The term is wrong and misused, but it’s an Evangelical translation for Evangelical use, does not pretend to have Catholic approval and does not sell itself to the Catholic market. The RSV and NRSV Catholic editions DO have ecclesiastical approval, and they too come in Protestant and Common editions. It’s not a problem for anyone.

All you said was “the ESV is a false Bible because it doesn’t have the deuterocanonicals”. I have shown you that, name notwithstanding, that is not true. The deuterocanonicals, even if misnamed “apocrypha” do exist in the ESV, proving your point false. That there are multiple editions with and without the deuterocanonicals is beside the point. Unless you’re confusing the words “translation” (ESV) with “edition” (“thinline red letter wide margin with Apocrypha”).

The ESV has problems that make it unsuitable for Catholic use. The lack of Deuterocanonicals is not one of them.

 

[Ernie07]

That’s hardly surprising. So what? That’s true of the RSV and NRSV as well. They come in Protestant (66 books), Ecumenical (“sandwiched”) and Catholic (“Vulgate order”) editions. Why that’s a surprise or a big deal for you is beyond me. As for calling the books Apocrypha, again so what? The term is wrong and misused, but it’s an Evangelical translation for Evangelical use, does not pretend to have Catholic approval and does not sell itself to the Catholic market. The RSV and NRSV Catholic editions DO have ecclesiastical approval, and they too come in Protestant and Common editions. It’s not a problem for anyone.

All you said was “the ESV is a false Bible because it doesn’t have the deuterocanonicals”. I have shown you that, name notwithstanding, that is not true. The deuterocanonicals, even if misnamed “apocrypha” do exist in the ESV, proving your point false. That there are multiple editions with and without the deuterocanonicals is beside the point. Unless you’re confusing the words “translation” (ESV) with “edition” (“thinline red letter wide margin with Apocrypha”).

The ESV has problems that make it unsuitable for Catholic use. The lack of Deuterocanonicals is not one of them.

After reading your latest reply it does appear that I mistakenly referenced the term “translation”, but should have used the term “edition”. I guess I got confused when you previously stated “of course it does” without adding the stipulation that you were referring to an “edition”. It sounded like you were making a blanket statement, but now I know you weren’t. Thanks for that clarification.

Let me now rephrase my original claim to make it more accurate. “The ESV is a false bible because it doesn’t include the Deuterocanonical books as divinely inspired”. That’s actually what I meant, but I appreciate you pointing out how what I originally said was inaccurate.

Just out of curiosity you don’t seem to be that bothered by the term “Apocrypha”. If I’m mischaracterizing your views I apologize. But, if so why is that? Is it a “let’s all just get along” kind of attitude or something else? I ask because I’m finding over and over again that Catholics just don’t seem that bothered that the Word of God has been altered. What was once (and still is) anathema seems to elicit little to no response from Catholics. I’m trying to figure out if it’s a PC thing, laziness, or something else.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[porthos11]

After reading your latest reply it does appear that I mistakenly referenced the term “translation”, but should have used the term “edition”. I guess I got confused when you previously stated “of course it does” without adding the stipulation that you were referring to an “edition”. It sounded like you were making a blanket statement, but now I know you weren’t. Thanks for that clarification.

Let me now rephrase my original claim to make it more accurate. “The ESV is a false bible because it doesn’t include the Deuterocanonical books as divinely inspired”. That’s actually what I meant, but I appreciate you pointing out how what I originally said was inaccurate.

Just out of curiosity you don’t seem to be that bothered by the term “Apocrypha”. If I’m mischaracterizing your views I apologize. But, if so why is that? Is it a “let’s all just get along” kind of attitude or something else? I ask because I’m finding over and over again that Catholics just don’t seem that bothered that the Word of God has been altered. What was once (and still is) anathema seems to elicit little to no response from Catholics. I’m trying to figure out if it’s a PC thing, laziness, or something else.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

The use of the term “Apocrypha” to refer to deuterocanonicals is a misnomer, but for an Evangelical Bible, what you do about it? Nothing at all. They are Protestants simply using a term according to their views as wrong as it is. I can do nothing about it.

As for whether or not the ESV team considers the “apocrypha” inspired, who cares? Not us; the ESV is not a Catholic Bible. What it DOES show is that they do attach value to these books to have taken the effort to translate them, for those do DO consider the “apocrypha” inspired or at least, useful for divine worship, such as in the Anglican communion. But that’s THEIR business. We have nothing to do with the ESV, so why SHOULD it bother me?

Even the RSV translators used the term “apocrypha” where we say “deuterocanonicals” but despite the misnomer, they did a good job translating them. Using the misnomer “apocrypha” does not alter the Word of God if the translation team actually did their translation job well. That’s why the Catholic Church had no issue attaching its imprimatur to the RSV-Catholic Edition, which includes the RSV deuterocanonicals unaltered, outside of arranging them in the traditional Vulgate, rather than “common” order.

I have other issues that deserve my attention. This is not a hill I choose to die on.

 

[Crusader13]

Hey everyone, it’s been a while for me here.
Please pray for me.

What bible does everyone use? I decided to start reading the NKJV-CE for the sake of ease since I have an app w it on my phone and it’s not a bad translation. It’s from Ignatius press.
The early church used the LXX bible tho, so sometimes I feel like I’m missing out on something by reading this translation.

The books in the various English catholic translations which have missing parts in the Hebrew where there are parts in greek, how do those translations deal with that? Translate the Hebrew and not the Greek unless the Hebrew isn’t present?

For years I’ve looked for a single translation/edition which I could use as my one and only bible for study and for every day reading; I’ve yet to find one that fits the bill for me.

I do have my favorites though, which are my Douay-Confraternity, Jerusalem Bible and my Knox translation. Lately I have been reading my New English Bible and I’ve come to really enjoy it at times. Sadly, the one that I’ve tried to read and just can’t get behind is my NAB. It’s not merely the notes that I find bothersome, but something about the translation itself that just feels boring to me!

I do find it troubling that when it comes to modern Catholic bible translations, we don’t seem to have any that can reflect our Catholic faith the way the Douay Rheims once did and I guess technically still does. Even though there are a lot of people who use and truly love the NAB, I think it says something when most Catholic theologians and authors don’t recommend it or even use it in their own books for that matter. In fact it’s ironic that out of all the current catholic bibles on the shelves today, the one that is pushed the most for study and it’s accuracy is the RSVCE, which was protestant in origin!

I personally don’t have a problem with the RSVCE, I do like it and prefer it at times for translating certain passages, but I’ve always wondered why, as Catholics, the best we can do for a modern Catholic bible is to take an older protestant bible and simply alter it to reflect Catholic translation guidelines. :newidea:

 

[Ernie07]

The use of the term “Apocrypha” to refer to deuterocanonicals is a misnomer, but for an Evangelical Bible, what you do about it? Nothing at all. They are Protestants simply using a term according to their views as wrong as it is. I can do nothing about it.

As for whether or not the ESV team considers the “apocrypha” inspired, who cares? Not us; the ESV is not a Catholic Bible. What it DOES show is that they do attach value to these books to have taken the effort to translate them, for those do DO consider the “apocrypha” inspired or at least, useful for divine worship, such as in the Anglican communion. But that’s THEIR business. We have nothing to do with the ESV, so why SHOULD it bother me?

Even the RSV translators used the term “apocrypha” where we say “deuterocanonicals” but despite the misnomer, they did a good job translating them. Using the misnomer “apocrypha” does not alter the Word of God if the translation team actually did their translation job well. That’s why the Catholic Church had no issue attaching its imprimatur to the RSV-Catholic Edition, which includes the RSV deuterocanonicals unaltered, outside of arranging them in the traditional Vulgate, rather than “common” order.

I have other issues that deserve my attention. This is not a hill I choose to die on.

OK, we’ve been going back and forth a bit on this topic and yet I think you’re still not quite seeing my point and I believe it’s because I’m not doing a good job conveying my thoughts. The bottom line for me is that I would be OK if a translation simply translated the words without taking a stand. Just translate the words and leave it up to Catholics or Protestants or whoever to call the books what they want. To translate and call portions of the Word of God as Apocrypha is taking a stand…a stand against truth. And that’s what Catholics should be bothered by. The translation itself is not offensive; it’s the false categorization that is offensive.

You should care because THEIR business is leading many people down a false truth including many fallen-away Catholics. The fact that there is ANY translation that either doesn’t include the deuterocanonicals at all or calls them by their false name apocryphals should bother you as a Catholic. The fact that we have nothing to do with the ESV is beside the point. I assume Catholics don’t have anything to do with Pro-choice groups either and would you say we shouldn’t be bothered by THEIR business also? Is the spiritual well-being and truth mean that little to not be bothered?

You continue to miss the point about what defines being included. You are viewing things from a purely physical presence and thus missing the point. I’ll use an analogy to try to help. There are a people allowed to live in a country. However, they are not allowed to vote, to drive a car, to eat where “the others” eat, to dress like “the others” dress, to leave their house without receiving proper permission. I think most people (especially those who are the ones being oppressed) would say that they are not really included in society because they do not receive the same rights and privileges of “the others”. Physical presence alone doesn’t constitute true inclusion. Same for the deuterocanonicals. The ESV allows for inclusion of the 7 books, but without “the rights and privileges” of being sacred canon. They are “allowed” to be physically present, but not truly worthy to receive the same standing as “the others” (that being the inspired Word of God). Therefore, they aren’t really included.

If we aren’t bothered then we won’t take a stand. If we don’t take a stand we make it look like we condone or at the minimum that it’s not that big of a deal. Why do we speak out against abortion? Because it’s wrong and innocent lives are lost. Why are we not bothered by the altering of the Word of God as potentially souls are being led astray? We were bothered enough to declare at the Council of Trent that if anyone knowingly and deliberately receives not the sacred books as canonical is anathema. Yet, we’re not bothered by translations that do just that. How sad that the times have changed over the course of a few hundred years. And what a slap in the face to include portions of the Word of God but call them uninspired or non-divine (apocryphal). I have more respect for those translations or bibles that don’t even include the books at all. At least they’re not faking it.

I’m bothered by any translation or bible that doesn’t include all 73 books as the inspired Word of God as I believe all Catholics should be. The fact that it’s done is not just their business because it doesn’t just effect “them”. Some of our brothers and sisters in Christ are negatively affected as well and that should bother each and every Catholic.

-Ernie-

 

[x1980x]

…What bible does everyone use? I decided to start reading the NKJV-CE for the sake of ease since I have an app w it on my phone and it’s not a bad translation. It’s from Ignatius press.
The early church used the LXX bible tho, so sometimes I feel like I’m missing out on something by reading this translation…

My standard bible for reading and study is the KJV. I have a Life Application Study Bible KJV and also a “sandwich” KJV with Apocrypha (that is, the “extra” books are in a separate section in the middle). I also use the “King James Bible PRO” app on my phone which has the entire KJV Apocrypha.

With the KJV with Apocrypha, I can imagine that someday, a Catholic will tell me, ignorantly, that there are books missing from my bible, and I can respond, “No there are not! Take a look!”

I also own a New Catholic Edition from the Catholic Book Publishing Company (New York) from 1957, which includes as much of the Confraternity Version as was completed at that time with the rest of the books being from the Douay-Challoner version.

Versions that I don’t like are the Non-Inspired Version, the Living-dead Bible, the New Living-dead Translation, and more or less any version that wants to do the thinking for me. Don’t tell me what you think it means. Tell me what it says. I am not dumb or illiterate.

 

[po18guy]

…also a “sandwich” KJV with Apocrypha (that is, the “extra” books are in a separate section in the middle).

Actually, I have no problem with the Deuterocanon being placed between the testaments, as I consider those books to be anticipatory of Christ. Each points to Christ in some way, with Wisdom chapter 2 being perhaps the most clear prophecy of Christ in all of the scriptures - written, it is believed, about 50 years before the Incarnation.

 

[Ernie07]

My standard bible for reading and study is the KJV. I have a Life Application Study Bible KJV and also a “sandwich” KJV with Apocrypha (that is, the “extra” books are in a separate section in the middle). I also use the “King James Bible PRO” app on my phone which has the entire KJV Apocrypha.

With the KJV with Apocrypha, I can imagine that someday, a Catholic will tell me, ignorantly, that there are books missing from my bible, and I can respond, “No there are not! Take a look!”.

You might catch an “ignorant” Catholic who would use the word “missing”. But how would you react to a Catholic telling you that you are using a false bible because it doesn’t include the full 73 inspired books? How do you know that the Bible you use is the right one? A 66 book and a 73 book Bible can’t both be true. One is truth and the other is false. What do you use as your proof that the Bible you use is the true one?

-Ernie-

 

[po18guy]

You might catch an “ignorant” Catholic who would use the word “missing”. But how would you react to a Catholic telling you that you are using a false bible because it doesn’t include the full 73 inspired books? How do you know that the Bible you use is the right one? A 66 book and a 73 book Bible can’t both be true. One is truth and the other is false. What do you use as your proof that the Bible you use is the true one?

-Ernie-

“False canon” is a more descriptive term. And, from the closed thread, I was speaking of the Deuterocanonical books being used in the liturgy, not Protestant bibles!

 

[x1980x]

You might catch an “ignorant” Catholic who would use the word “missing”. But how would you react to a Catholic telling you that you are using a false bible because it doesn’t include the full 73 inspired books? How do you know that the Bible you use is the right one? A 66 book and a 73 book Bible can’t both be true. One is truth and the other is false. What do you use as your proof that the Bible you use is the true one?

-Ernie-

I think there’s a false dichotomy here, as was mentioned in the other thread you started (and that was closed). If an unbelieving, Bible-hating thief rips out 2 John from a Catholic Bible because he is out of tissue, does that make that Bible into a “false Bible”? Of course, you might be thinking, “No, it just turns it into a Bible that someone tore 2 John out of and oh, maybe it would be good to find a copy of that somewhere else.” Similarly, editorial decisions to include or exclude a particular book do not change the underlying truthes of Biblical canonicity, and those editorial decisions can be considered similar to study notes and chapter headings - features that are often (or at least sometimes) useful but that form no part of the actual Bible and are nothing more than the editor or commentator’s opinion. If someone published a “Bible” that included all 73 books plus an additional “Epistle of Darth Vader to the My Little Ponies”, would you not just ignore that extra book as some sort of badly written fanfiction? Its presence wouldn’t “taint” the rest of the books.

 

[Ernie07]

“False canon” is a more descriptive term. And, from the closed thread, I was speaking of the Deuterocanonical books being used in the liturgy, not Protestant bibles!

Thank you for that clarification about the Deuterocanonicals! You are correct in stating that those bibles that have less than 73 inspired books are using a false canon. To me though, false canon equals false bible. That doesn’t take anything away from the 66 books that are included and divinely inspired, but to take a position that those 66 books constitute the entirety of the Word of God is just simply false. Therefore, any bible that takes this position is a false one. It’s pretty simple and I’m not sure why we feel the need to tippy toe around this issue.

If each book was copied into its own pamphlet each one would still constitute a portion of God’s Word. Each book doesn’t have to be compiled with each other in order to give it divine inspiration. However, my issue is when a compilation is made (a “bible”) and is purported to be God’s Word in its entirety. It is at that time where that particular compilation is making a false claim. It has nothing to do with each individual book, but the claim made by the particular compilation (bible).

Let me provide an example. I publish a book that proclaims that there are 45 states in the union. I would be guilty of disseminating false information because we know there are 50 states. I got 45 of the states correct, but the fact that I declared something to be true that wasn’t makes my book false and erroneous. It’s not the individual parts that make it false (for they are actually true), but the whole is compromised because I left out the 5 additional states. My book is untrustworthy and therefore false for the purposes of knowing what states comprise the United States. In a similar manner, for the purposes of presenting God’s Word in its entirety there are those bibles that present the truth (73 inspired books) and others that present erroneous information as truth (anything other than 73 inspired books).

Catholics need to point this out and stop being afraid to “divide”. The fact that my other thread was closed is a testament (no pun intended) to this fear unfortunately.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[po18guy]

Ernie, we are dealing with truth. But, truth must be governed by charity, 1 Peter 3:15. Thus, we can bash people over the head with truth and know that we used truth as a weapon, or we can use truth charitably, due to its inherent attractiveness. Even though we have truth on our side, polemics beget polemics and we are back to 1500s Europe.

The Church has erred on the side of caution and caution means delays in decision-making. The forces of ego and of this world exploit that delay to their supposed advantage. In Peter’s lifetime, the delay of Christ’s return was exploited by many to demonstrate that Christ was not the Messiah 2 Peter 3:3-10. Falsity is at enmity with the truth.

The 66 books in the various Protestant and pseudo-Christian (LDS, JWs) bibles are not at enmity with the truth. They are 100% true but not 100% of revealed truth. I see that as a huge difference.

 

[Ernie07]

I think there’s a false dichotomy here, as was mentioned in the other thread you started (and that was closed). If an unbelieving, Bible-hating thief rips out 2 John from a Catholic Bible because he is out of tissue, does that make that Bible into a “false Bible”? Of course, you might be thinking, “No, it just turns it into a Bible that someone tore 2 John out of and oh, maybe it would be good to find a copy of that somewhere else.”.

Agreed

Similarly, editorial decisions to include or exclude a particular book do not change the underlying truthes of Biblical canonicity, and those editorial decisions can be considered similar to study notes and chapter headings - features that are often (or at least sometimes) useful but that form no part of the actual Bible and are nothing more than the editor or commentator’s opinion.

The truth has nothing to do with editorial positions and it’s actually what I’m arguing against. The “editorial decisions” of those that state the truth is something less than a 73 inspired book bible are just plain wrong and are promoting a false bible. Providing one’s opinions via study notes or commentary is vastly different than calling portions of the Word of God fictitious or apocrypha. Translations and commentaries are worthy considerations, but only after ensuring that the entirety of the Word of God is first present.

If someone published a “Bible” that included all 73 books plus an additional “Epistle of Darth Vader to the My Little Ponies”, would you not just ignore that extra book as some sort of badly written fanfiction? Its presence wouldn’t “taint” the rest of the books.

If the compiler of that “74 book bible” professed its entirety to be the truth based on new revelation then I would state that that “bible” is false. I agree that the additional book doesn’t taint the rest of the books, but it is (in my example) redefining truth as a whole. If it is possible for someone to read this false bible and come to untruthful conclusions about the Christian faith then it is false and should be dealt with as such. A 66 book inspired bible has the potential to lead people to believe a false concept of salvation. So much changes when purgatory is admitted as truth (as propped up by 2 Macc 12:46) and Luther knew this. And it undermines the authority of the Church. And yet today for the sake of a twisted view on unity many Catholics choose to take part in a “let’s all just get along” attitude toward the Word of God.

What would we stand up against…if 66 books doesn’t elicit a strong rebuke would a 64 book bible? 55? 40? At what point do we say that a certain version of “the bible” has been altered enough to make it false? And who are we to make that determination of any number that isn’t 73?

I’m truly not trying to be a pain in the rear end. I’m just baffled why the truth regarding the Word of God isn’t defended with utmost gusto.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Ernie, we are dealing with truth. But, truth must be governed by charity, 1 Peter 3:15. Thus, we can bash people over the head with truth and know that we used truth as a weapon, or we can use truth charitably, due to its inherent attractiveness. Even though we have truth on our side, polemics beget polemics and we are back to 1500s Europe.

The Church has erred on the side of caution and caution means delays in decision-making. The forces of ego and of this world exploit that delay to their supposed advantage. In Peter’s lifetime, the delay of Christ’s return was exploited by many to demonstrate that Christ was not the Messiah 2 Peter 3:3-10. Falsity is at enmity with the truth.

The 66 books in the various Protestant and pseudo-Christian (LDS, JWs) bibles are not at enmity with the truth. They are 100% true but not 100% of revealed truth. I see that as a huge difference.

Hi po18guy,

Thanks for your reply and I completely agree with your last paragraph…100% true but not 100% of revealed truth. But, the main point I’m making is that a non-Catholic bible believes and promotes that it is 100% revealed truth…and it’s not. That’s the key. You understand this, but there are so many unsuspecting souls that don’t and base their beliefs on this falsehood…and Catholics take this way too casually.

And I’m not suggesting in any way that we bash people over the head with this truth. There are ways to have this type of discussion in a very respectful and charitable way by simply changing the course of a discussion with someone questioning our faith. Rather than addressing their questions head on we can simply initially 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?” After they answer follow it up with, “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 true bible?”

That simple respectful exchange changes the course of the discussion. It’s also important that we can answer our own question by knowing the history of the bible (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 who has questioned your Catholic beliefs in a particular area is disagreeable to bible history the seeds have been planted. You have spread the truth and now let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts. What we can’t do though is be afraid of speaking this truth.

We think we’re being charitable by not confronting them on this topic when in reality we’re hurting them. I can’t find a single time where someone in the bible evangelized with a “let’s all just get along” type attitude. The truth was always paramount…as it should be today.

Thanks.

-Ernie-