Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[irenaeuslyons]

Thanks JimG.

This quote is from your link. I never would have guessed that it would’ve cost that much.
Wow!

I am guessing that the difference between the Gospels is based on word count. Does anyone have The word count for each Gospel ?

the Gospels would have cost the following in today’s dollars. :

• Matthew: $2238
• Mark: $1379
• Luke: $2377
• John: $1909

There are roughly ~327,000 words in the DRB after removing common stop words like definite articles, conjunctions etc.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that the Jews had established a formal canon of scripture before the time of Christ. The closest thing to a canon at that time would have been the Septuagint.

Another thing which probably should be mentioned is that it is the original authors of scripture who were inspired under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Translators are not inspired. And all we have are translations.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

It looks like a good book and the last line of the article pretty much sums it up:

We have a Bible today because of the Catholic Church and everyone, regardless of Christian affiliation, should be grateful for that. Indeed, the Bible is a Catholic book!

 

[vern_humphrey]

The fact that most of the scriptures OT and NT are “Jewish” does not separate them from Christ in any way.

I never said it did – I merely pointed out that what we call the Old Testament was already in existence before the time of Christ.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

As was said there you can profess it all you want but it doesn’t make it truth and your primes is misguided. There is a deeper historical aspect you are missing.

Except that nothing I wrote contradicted anything historical from the first century, nor did I impute “my primes” since I stuck to arguments about how a particular writing can be objectively recognized as an inspired writing, which said criteria Catholics, Protestants, EO, and other groups under Christendom would all agree with. I simply did not use circular reasoning in my argument.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I don’t think that the Jews had established a formal canon of scripture before the time of Christ.

They didn’t, but according to Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers, the Pharisees did. And the Protestant argument from the words of Jesus (from the POV of Protestants) is that Jesus acknowledged the OT canon of the Pharisees, which excluded the Deuterocanon (Luke 16:14-16,29). And the Septuagint was originally just the Greek translation of “the Law,” not the rest of the OT. According to Trent Horn from Catholic Answers, the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible (the same books in Protestant Bibles, but not the Deuterocanon). This, among other reasons, is why Protestants don’t believe the Septuagint in Jesus’ day included the Deuterocanon, but just the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[JimG]

The Council That Wasn't | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[De_Maria]

The Assembly of God. SDA. Baptist. Pentecostal. And others are Catholics. They are not Roman Catholic.

They aren’t Catholic at all. Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church is in every country in the world. None of the Protestant denominations come close.

For one thing, none of them are big enough.

The Assembly of God is a small part of the Pentecostal movement. The Pentecostal movement, which encompasses many denominations, is 25% of the Protestant movement. Baptists make up 30% of Protestants.

But the Catholic Church doubles the size of all Protestants put together. In other words, put all the Protestant denominations together and double it.

A big difference is the Roman Catholic denomination has removed the 2nd . commandment

No, it hasn’t.

not making idols that that we worship.

We don’t worship idols.

And split the 9th into 2 commandment.

We don’t consider women, possessions.

So you can believe differently. On some issue’s.

The Catholic arrangement of the Ten Commandments makes more sense.

 

[adf417]

The Council That Wasn't | Catholic Answers

Two great quotes from this article, and one from a famous protestant…

The canon of the Old Testament was not closed at Jabneh, nor were the deuterocanonicals excluded from the Old Testament there. Who has the authority from God to determine and close the canon of Scripture? Simply put, the Church.

Isn’t it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture (note 5, sidebar, page 25) when he wrote, “We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

 

[C.Longinus]

This, among other reasons, is why Protestants don’t believe the Septuagint in Jesus’ day included the Deuterocanon, but just the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

Explain the “Go and say to this people” quote in Isaiah then, because it’s different from the Hebrew.

 

[C.Longinus]

in order to have 10 Commandments, you have to separate the 10th Commandment (“You shall not covet”) into 2 different kinds of “coveting” (“not coveting neighbor’s wife” & “not coveting neighbor’s good”).

Expect in Deuteronomy, coveting a neighbor’s wife is listed before goods. So they are two separate statements altogether.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Expect in Deuteronomy, coveting a neighbor’s wife is listed before goods. So they are two separate statements altogether.

Just because the order is different doesn’t equate with them being separate. They both forbid coveting, and when Paul references it, he simply cites the “you will not covet” commandment, not “you will not covet your neighbor’s good” & “you will not covet your neighbor’s wife.” The fact they are in a different between Exodus & Deuteronomy order demonstrates they aren’t separate commandments, because which one would be “nine” & which one would be “ten”?

Explain the “Go and say to this people” quote in Isaiah then, because it’s different from the Hebrew.

What does this passage from Isaiah have to do with the Deuterocanon?

 

[C.Longinus]

What does this passage from Isaiah have to do with the Deuterocanon?

The Isaiah quote in Matthew and Acts differs from the Hebraic text we use.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

What I understand, the Catholic Churches teaching in the first commandment is if you have no other gods, that would include not worshipping any idols, which we can make a lot of things idols. As far as graven images, later the Israelites were told to create certain images in Exodus, 1 Chronicles and Ezekial. So it is easy to understand that God was referring to worshipping created idols and that would coincide with not having any other gods, so it would not need to be separated.

Also, some non Catholics have taken the image to extremes and do not allow photos and then at the same time, Christmas comes around and a huge majority of non Catholics bring out the nativity scene and then there is also a statue of Martin Luther in Germany.
That pretty much excludes the statues as graven images argument.

The last two commandments being put together in the protestant version, makes a wife a property, whereas that would have been the case in the OT, could it be that the NT Catholic church saw the value and dignity in women and that they shouldn’t be lumped together with oxes and donkeys.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

What does this passage from Isaiah have to do with the Deuterocanon?

Yes, but, again, what does that have to do with the Deuterocanon - specifically? Are you saying since the Isaiah quote in Matthew & Acts quotes the Septuagint, and since the Septuagint in the early church included the Deuterocanon, then are you saying the NT writers believed the Deuterocanon was part of the OT?

Keep in mind, Matthew deviated from the Septuagint when he quoted Hosea. So did John deviate from it when he quoted Zechariah, in both his gospel & Revelation…and the same way. They both used their own Greek translations from the OT which were different from the Septuagint.

Also, the Septuagint originally was limited to “the Law,” not the rest of the OT. As Trent Horn from Catholic Answers pointed out, the first canon to be translated into the Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible, which would exclude the Deuterocanon. This was added much later, as other books both Catholics & Protestants agree are “Apocrypha” like 3 & 4 Maccabees. And some of these books were part of the later versions of the Septuagint too.

These, among other reasons, are reasons why Protestants reject the Deuterocanon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So it is easy to understand that God was referring to worshipping created idols and that would coincide with not having any other gods, so it would not need to be separated.

Yet, when the Israelites created the golden calf (a graven image), they said “THIS is the God that brought us out of Israel.” They weren’t creating a “god” that was representative of a different god. The golden calf was a graven image of the God of Israel. And God ordered for them to be killed, because they violated the Second Commandment.

The last two commandments being put together in the protestant version, makes a wife a property,

Not sure where you get this, but the Protestant argument is from Song of Solomon where both the husband and the wife state “I am his” and “he is mine.” In the Hebrew, it means the husband & the wife are cleaved to one another (Genesis Ch.2). The wife belongs to her husband, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with ownership. So coveting another man’s wife is just as sinful as coveting his property, because all of it belongs to him. This is why Protestants understand when the apostle Paul refers back to the 10 Commandments, he only says “Do not covet,” rather than “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” AND “Do not covet your neighbor’s property.” Protestants understand Paul is viewing “Do not covet” as a single commandment, not two. Otherwise, by separating the two “do not covets” as different commandments, you end up with 11 Commandments, instead of 10 (since the Protestant POV views “You shall not have any other gods before me” and “You shall not create a graven image” as two separate commandments.)

Again, from the Protestant POV.

 

[JimG]

“Which translation did the first Christians use?
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.”

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[RaisedCatholic]

the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books”

"with varying degrees of recognition - meaning, they were not “universal” in agreeing they were God-breathed Scripture. This is why St. Jerome stated the church in his day “did not base doctrine on them,” but were still “edifying” to the church to read.

J.N.D. Kelly also stated the Deuterocanon was read in the church, but to a lesser degree than the books in the Hebrew Bible, & therefore “does not belong in the canon proper.”

The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.”

But when the quoted it, they only quoted books in the Septuagint which were from the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible, meaning not the Deuterocanon. Out of the 300 times a particular phrase is used to describe on OT book (like “it is written”) it only quotes books used in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible.

“Which translation did the first Christians use?
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint.

The Septuagint used in the second through fourth centuries of the church was not necessarily the same version used by “the first Christians” in the first century. The Septuagint was originally a Greek translation of “the Law,” not the rest of the OT. And as Trent Horn from Catholic Answers stated, “the first canon to be translated into Septuagint was the Hebrew Bible,” which would exclude the Deuterocanon, which was translated much later.

 

[JimG]

I’m not a scripture expert, but my understanding is that the Septuagint used by the apostles and the early Church included both the Law and the Prophets including what is now known as the deuterocanonicals. The Hebrew was translated first and the rest later. After all, the Septuagint was completed several hundred years BC. The Church didn’t write the Old Testament, but it made a decision as to what to include. What the various sects of the Jews decided to use is immaterial. Only the Church had the authority to decide on Christian scripture.

 

[Minks]

MagdalenaRita:

So it is easy to understand that God was referring to worshipping created idols and that would coincide with not having any other gods, so it would not need to be separated.

Yet, when the Israelites created the golden calf (a graven image), they said “THIS is the God that brought us out of Israel.” They weren’t creating a “god” that was representative of a different god. The golden calf was a graven image of the God of Israel. And God ordered for them to be killed, because they violated the Second Commandment.

The last two commandments being put together in the protestant version, makes a wife a property,

Not sure where you get this, but the Protestant argument is from Song of Solomon where both the husband and the wife state “I am his” and “he is mine.” In the Hebrew, it means the husband & the wife are cleaved to one another (Genesis Ch.2). The wife belongs to her husband, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with ownership. So coveting another man’s wife is just as sinful as coveting his property, because all of it belongs to him. This is why Protestants understand when the apostle Paul refers back to the 10 Commandments, he only says “Do not covet,” rather than “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” AND “Do not covet your neighbor’s property.” Protestants understand Paul is viewing “Do not covet” as a single commandment, not two. Otherwise, by separating the two “do not covets” as different commandments, you end up with 11 Commandments, instead of 10 (since the Protestant POV views “You shall not have any other gods before me” and “You shall not create a graven image” as two separate commandments.)

Again, from the Protestant POV.

@RaisedCatholic

“Again, from the Protestant POV.”

Is that the same POV that started around 1500 years after Christ walked the earth?