F
Flounder
Guest
There’s a really nice breakdown of various bibles on the Catholic Answer page under scripture.
- Status
S
Shari
Guest
I couldn’t agree more
S
Shari
Guest
I have read this, and actually referred to it in previous posts. It is WONDERFUL!
I learned so much reading it It is in the library in scripture and tradition. I am so glad someone else read this.
R
Ric
Guest
Yes, one Bible - but thousands of translations and thousands of languages!
Well, the “Church” recognized all 66 books of the Bible as Scripture until the Roman Catholic church added the Apocrypha to the Bible as Scripture just after the Reformation!
M
mplamann
Guest
Ric, on this subject I believe you are incorrect, or at least misinterpreting the decrees of the Council of Trent.
The Council of Trent (which is what you are referring to, I assume, when you say “after the Reformation”) confirmed the fact that the Church held that there were 73 books recognized as inspired sacred scripture (during the 4th session in 1546). The Council stated something that had been part of Church Tradition since the Biblical cannon was formed by the Church in the 4th centrury. It’s not as if those books were not recognized as sacred scripture before the Council of Trent spoke on the subject. Confirming something that was already a common belief is much different than just making it up, which you seem to imply in your post.
B
badebop
Guest
I’m glad someone brought this up. I, too, find this a great bible for rec reading.
1
1962Missal
Guest
I’m sorry but that won’t wash. For the very simple reason that the Orthodox accept the deuterocanonicals…and NOT on the authority of Trent.
In fact, I think it would be interesting to see how you fared using the “added the apocrypha after the reformation” apologetic on an Orthodox message board.
Justin
M
mplamann
Guest
Justin brings up a good point – this means that the Christian cannon (all 73 books including the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament) was likely commonly accepted by the time the Orthodox church split from the RCC about 500 years before the Reformation.
I
Iohannes
Guest
Here is a good version:
Haydock Douay Rheims Study bible.
Haydock Douay Rheims Study bible.
A
Apologia100
Guest
“The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (St. Augustine - Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (St. Augustine - The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
I don’t know if you realize it, but 421 AD is about 1100 years BEFORE the reformation.
G
George_M
Guest
I know everybody here is right in what their saying and I’ll just keep trying. I tried some other churches and I feel like I’m really worshiping God when I enter the Catholic church. I went into a few protestant churches and it was loud and noisy and I didn’t like that. I was thought that church was the house of God and you come there to worship not to talk about your weekly happenings. I just have to keep trying. I’m thinking of going over to the diocease next week. Many thanks again and God Bless all of you. George
M
matthew1624
Guest
George,
May God bless you in your journey. Your recent reply brought to mind the Responsorial Psalm readings for today (6/3):
Responsorial Psalm
Ps 25:4-5ab, 8-9, 10 and 14
Teach me your ways, O Lord.
Your ways, O LORD, make known to me;
teach me your paths,
Guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my savior.
Good and upright is the LORD;
thus he shows sinners the way.
He guides the humble to justice,
he teaches the humble his way.
All the paths of the LORD are kindness and constancy
toward those who keep his covenant and his decrees.
The friendship of the LORD is with those who fear him,
and his covenant, for their instruction.
May the peace of Christ be with you always…
May God bless you in your journey. Your recent reply brought to mind the Responsorial Psalm readings for today (6/3):
Responsorial Psalm
Ps 25:4-5ab, 8-9, 10 and 14
Teach me your ways, O Lord.
Your ways, O LORD, make known to me;
teach me your paths,
Guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my savior.
Good and upright is the LORD;
thus he shows sinners the way.
He guides the humble to justice,
he teaches the humble his way.
All the paths of the LORD are kindness and constancy
toward those who keep his covenant and his decrees.
The friendship of the LORD is with those who fear him,
and his covenant, for their instruction.
May the peace of Christ be with you always…
O
Ontario
Guest
Ric,
I find many non-Catholics have difficulty with the fact that the Church ususally doesn’t define things until a controversy or contention arises. For instance the council of Nicea in 325 AD had to establish in an official capacity the nature of Christ in relation to the Father. They had to do so as a result of the popularity of the Arian heresy. That doesn’t mean Catholics invented the idea the Christ was “one in being (greek:homoousius) with the father” at that point. (Although I believe some Jehovah’s Witness would say we did).
There is a similar situation with the Bible.
I found the book Where We Got The Bible by Bishop Henry G. Graham very informative. If you haven’t read it I would urge you to read it. You’ll see that the books weren’t added suddenly just after the Reformation, but that there was a long tradition of there use.
From the Catholic point of view Martin Luther took out several books of the Bible. (Did you know that he once called the Book of James and epistle of Straw and doubted whether the Book of Revelation should be included.)
Let us know what you think of the Graham’s book if you decide to read it.
Cheers!
P
Pro_Iesu
Guest
I like the RSV CE printed by Ignatius a whole lot more so than my Catholic Study bible. I love Maccabees they are so inspiring especially when times are tough and it seems like there are overwhelming odds. Its grrrrrrreat.
And about authenticity the oldest complete Bibles (from 365 AD i believe) have all 73 books
God Bless
And about authenticity the oldest complete Bibles (from 365 AD i believe) have all 73 books
God Bless
M
Mystagogy
Guest
This thread looks fairly well hashed out (but that won’t keep me from throwing in a few thoughts.)
I like the RSV-CE. It’s source notes seem fairly comprehensive, noting differences in the various sources. I can’t wait for the Ignatius Study Bible to be completed.
I like the Ronald Knox translation, too. It’s got a LOT of stuff in there. I think he “included” most of the differences that he found in the original sources, rather than judging which was the “correct” version. For non Koine Greek reader, it gives interesting (and I think fairly valid) translations that are different from what you see in most. I like to read a few different versions to get an idea of the original sense. (Foreign languages often have other meanings to the same word that imply meanings that are not explicit – kind of like my wondering if the bark of Peter was floated in the See [sea] of Peter. Though, I DON’T think the pun was ever envisioned by the original authors of those terms.)
The NAB is very good in many ways. It has some excellent translations of the Septuagint. On the other hand it has a few glaringly – uh, – let’s say “weak translations” and the study notes are sometimes so fuzzy as to sound new agey or “spirit of Vatican II” at worst. *
I’m looking for an excellent Septuagint/English interlinear O.T. (I have the Koine/English N.T. RSV ). Any recommendations out there? (And more important, will I be able to find them when I come back?)
I’m really surprised how much the Septuagint is authentically Christian. Ask the average Christian whether Moses crossed the Red Sea or the Reed Sea, and they will tell you “Red”. That is from the Septuagint. The Hebrew text says “Reed.” Ask your average Protestant what the first 5 books of the Bible are, and you’ll get a bunch of Greek words. “Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy” [Numbers seems derived from Latin, i.e. Ancient Roman, so we better not go there.] I’m still wondering how that is (all of the preceding) if the Protestant argument is that the Hebrew is “the authentic” text.
My thought is that the argument that “the Hebrew is the authentic version,” is an idea that was thought up in the last couple of centuries, since the Protestants seem to mostly use the Masoretic text, which didn’t exist until 'round about the year 1000.*
I like the RSV-CE. It’s source notes seem fairly comprehensive, noting differences in the various sources. I can’t wait for the Ignatius Study Bible to be completed.
I like the Ronald Knox translation, too. It’s got a LOT of stuff in there. I think he “included” most of the differences that he found in the original sources, rather than judging which was the “correct” version. For non Koine Greek reader, it gives interesting (and I think fairly valid) translations that are different from what you see in most. I like to read a few different versions to get an idea of the original sense. (Foreign languages often have other meanings to the same word that imply meanings that are not explicit – kind of like my wondering if the bark of Peter was floated in the See [sea] of Peter. Though, I DON’T think the pun was ever envisioned by the original authors of those terms.)
The NAB is very good in many ways. It has some excellent translations of the Septuagint. On the other hand it has a few glaringly – uh, – let’s say “weak translations” and the study notes are sometimes so fuzzy as to sound new agey or “spirit of Vatican II” at worst. *
I’m looking for an excellent Septuagint/English interlinear O.T. (I have the Koine/English N.T. RSV ). Any recommendations out there? (And more important, will I be able to find them when I come back?)
I’m really surprised how much the Septuagint is authentically Christian. Ask the average Christian whether Moses crossed the Red Sea or the Reed Sea, and they will tell you “Red”. That is from the Septuagint. The Hebrew text says “Reed.” Ask your average Protestant what the first 5 books of the Bible are, and you’ll get a bunch of Greek words. “Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy” [Numbers seems derived from Latin, i.e. Ancient Roman, so we better not go there.] I’m still wondering how that is (all of the preceding) if the Protestant argument is that the Hebrew is “the authentic” text.
My thought is that the argument that “the Hebrew is the authentic version,” is an idea that was thought up in the last couple of centuries, since the Protestants seem to mostly use the Masoretic text, which didn’t exist until 'round about the year 1000.*
S
SueG
Guest
I have a 1978 bible given to me by an old ccd teacher, and I’m hoping that one of you can tell me if it’s an approved Catholic bible since the word Catholic appears NO WHERE on the cover or the opening pages, although I do see the words “God’s Word for a New Age”.
It’s called “GOOD NEWS BIBLE with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha”. (publ. by American Bible Society, New York) Based on an earlier posters reference to those two last words, I’m assuming that it’s a Catholic version, but these days, I look at everything with a skeptical eye.
Gee whiz, I had no idea until recently that we weren’t all just one big, happy Christian family, sharing the exact same bible and core beliefs.
It’s called “GOOD NEWS BIBLE with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha”. (publ. by American Bible Society, New York) Based on an earlier posters reference to those two last words, I’m assuming that it’s a Catholic version, but these days, I look at everything with a skeptical eye.
Gee whiz, I had no idea until recently that we weren’t all just one big, happy Christian family, sharing the exact same bible and core beliefs.
G
George_M
Guest
Hi SueG, yes that is a catholic version
F
felipe_crespi
Guest
Dear friend, hi, how can I get this bibles?, I would like to purchase one, not small as I have problems reading the small ones, thank you very much and God bless you.
A
AngelRose81
Guest
Just a little side note, the NASB is not a Catholic approved Bible (I see in your profile that you are Catholic). I would recommend the RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition) or the NAB (New American Bible, even though some of the footnotes are bad…). Or you could do a search for some Catholic approved Bibles. The NASB is a good translation, no doubt, but you won’t find one with the complete canon in it.
- Status