Catholic bible and the Deuterocanon

[Anna_Scott]

Part 2 of 2 to CopticChristian:

Anna, Anna, Anna…I am directing this to you Anna…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

The changes that were made make a difference in understanding that. . . .the Holy Spirit is a person. . . .

What passages in the RSV differ from the RSV-CE regarding the Holy Spirit as a person?

The changes that were made make a difference in understanding . . . .Sola Scriptura. . .

I’m not quite sure what you are talking about regarding changes to the RSV-CE involving the concept of Sola Scriptura—since Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible and cannot be proven through Holy Scripture. Please clarify.

While you ask if Protestants have a right to translate the Bible…I say no…

If you believe Protestants have no right to translate the Bible; then wouldn’t you have to reject the RSV-CE/NRSV-CE, used in the CCC; since Protestants were among those involved in the translation (along with Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish Scholars)? Link: nrsv.net/about/faqs/

I appreciate your response. The problem as you recall started with unauthorized translation in English that were filled with error…

I agree that there were English translations that contained many errors. The KJV was an Anglican translation; but as I said in a previous post, even Anglicans know this translation is flawed. That is why we use the RSV/NRSV for the purposed of study.

Protestants are getting better at translating however I cannot say under what authority they translate, and it is the Church that is to say what is an authoritative or correct translation and they made corrections that cause what is written to be appropriately called Scripture after the translation was corrected. That is my opinion.

From what I have read in the RSV-CE, almost without exception, the changes the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain made to the RSV had nothing to do with translation corrections. IMHO, changing brothers to the synonym brethren doesn’t constitue a “translation correction.” Almost all changes involved what is placed in the footnotes and what is placed in the main body of text—in the case of variants among the more than 5,000 N.T. manuscripts known to be in existence today. When you start comparing multiple Bible translations, whether Catholic or Protestant; you will find significant differences regarding what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes. This is not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue.

So, specifically, to what “translation corrections” are you referring?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Calgar]

The reality is that because of the cost of printing the King James was printed without it. It was the decision of a Bible company to save on printing that they were taken out.

You mistakenly think that all protestants use the king james.

When I see one mistake I look for others.

 

[CopticChristian]

You mistakenly think that all protestants use the king james.

When I see one mistake I look for others.

Protestants spin that Catholics added the books to the Bible. The reality is that because of the cost of printing the King James was printed without it. It was the decision of a Bible company to save on printing that they were taken out.

This is what I said…forgive me for not elaborating…I shall do that.

Help me understand how it is you get the notion that I think that all Protestants use the King James Bible…all of the following Bibles had the Deuterocanonicals and are contemporary of the King James…whatever translation you read from came sometime after the Bible society removed them…Protestants just followed suit…

Tyndale
Matthew’s
Cloverdale’s
Great Bible
Geneva Bible
Bishop’s Bible
King James

The lack of the deuterocanonicals in whatever English Bible is read today is due to the Bible Society and the cost of printing.

May I ask what error you believe you found here and how you formulated your opinion…

youtube.com/watch?v=rjirhvSc7_c

The proper way to have handled this would have been to post the following.

Are you saying that you believe that all Protestants read the King James…?

Well of course I do, in which case your proposition would have been correct.

Instead I say, no however that is where the removal of the DC began as many other English translations had the DC and were removed later…too many Protestants teach and believe that the Catholic Church added the DC and that is a lie…you are correct…I too look for errors…This is an error and where there is one error there must be others…

youtube.com/watch?v=Gyu82WG_edM

Stay with me, I am told I play well with others…

 

[Calgar]

This is what I said…forgive me for not elaborating…I shall do that.

Help me understand how it is you get the notion that I think that all Protestants use the King James Bible…all of the following Bibles had the Deuterocanonicals and are contemporary of the King James…whatever translation you read from came sometime after the Bible society removed them…Protestants just followed suit…

Tyndale
Matthew’s
Cloverdale’s
Great Bible
Geneva Bible
Bishop’s Bible
King James

The lack of the deuterocanonicals in whatever English Bible is read today is due to the Bible Society and the cost of printing.

May I ask what error you believe you found here and how you formulated your opinion…

youtube.com/watch?v=rjirhvSc7_c

The proper way to have handled this would have been to post the following.

Are you saying that you believe that all Protestants read the King James…?

Well of course I do, in which case your proposition would have been correct.

Instead I say, no however that is where the removal of the DC began as many other English translations had the DC and were removed later…too many Protestants teach and believe that the Catholic Church added the DC and that is a lie…you are correct…I too look for errors…This is an error and where there is one error there must be others…

youtube.com/watch?v=Gyu82WG_edM

Stay with me, I am told I play well with others…

Here’s your post.

*The reason varies. In my experience it is a spin. The truth is that Protestants without any authority took and translated the Catholic Bible and disseminated it. The DC were part of that Bible.

Without authority you can see that the 1611 King James has the DC and later they were taken out. The 1611 is online to be found here…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti…PagePosition=1

You will find a more extensive discussion about the Protestant Bible here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

Protestants spin that Catholics added the books to the Bible. The reality is that because of the cost of printing the King James was printed without it. It was the decision of a Bible company to save on printing that they were taken out.

Protestants on the whole are ignorant of the source of the Bible and ignorant as to why they have an incomplete Bible. They spin it as if it were an addition. This is a lie. When I see one lie I look for others. *

I just wanted you to clarify. As to playing well with others? Time will tell.

 

[CopticChristian]

Here’s your post.

*The reason varies. In my experience it is a spin. The truth is that Protestants without any authority took and translated the Catholic Bible and disseminated it. The DC were part of that Bible.

Without authority you can see that the 1611 King James has the DC and later they were taken out. The 1611 is online to be found here…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti…PagePosition=1*

You will find a more extensive discussion about the Protestant Bible here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

Protestants spin that Catholics added the books to the Bible. The reality is that because of the cost of printing the King James was printed without it. It was the decision of a Bible company to save on printing that they were taken out.

Protestants on the whole are ignorant of the source of the Bible and ignorant as to why they have an incomplete Bible. They spin it as if it were an addition. This is a lie. When I see one lie I look for others.

I just wanted you to clarify. As to playing well with others? Time will tell.

youtube.com/watch?v=aEsMjB00oek&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLF44F753E8C0BF7BB

 

[BrianH]

Omar Gatskill;8806310:

Jesus Quotes and paraphrases some of the Deuterocanonicals over 20 times in the New Testament. Here is a link with most of the quotes that Jesus made :

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Quotes? No. I do not see any quotes. Can you give me just one from the list you consider a quote and we can discuss it?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Quotes? No. I do not see any quotes. Can you give me just one from the list you consider a quote and we can discuss it?

Your post #46 shows “Jesus Quotes and paraphrases some of the Deuterocanonicals over 20 times in the New Testament. Here is a link with most of the quotes that Jesus made : http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html” as “originally posted by Omar Gatskill.” But this isn’t Omar Gatskill’s quote.

This is Omar Gatskill’s quote:

Really? I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Post #46 attributes a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile.
Originally Posted by Wandile (not Omar Gatskill):

Jesus Quotes and paraphrases some of the Deuterocanonicals over 20 times in the New Testament. Here is a link with most of the quotes that Jesus made :
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Post #33 attributes a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile.
Originally Posted by Wandile (not Omar Gatskill):

Jesus Quotes and paraphrases some of the Deuterocanonicals over 20 times in the New Testament. Here is a link with most of the quotes that Jesus made :
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Post #32 attributes a quote to Anna Scott that belongs to Omar Gatskill.
Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill (not Anna Scott):

Really? I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?

Post #31 attributes a quote to Anna Scott that belongs to Omar Gatskill.
Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill (not Anna Scott):

Really? I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?

 

[BrianH]

Anyone can respond. I do not see any “quotes”. We can discuss one or two at a time.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anyone can respond. I do not see any “quotes”. We can discuss one or two at a time.

BrianH,

Original posts are messed up on a number of posts on this thread, probably because people are inserting replies inside other people’s quotes. It’s an easy mistake to make, but it results in quotes being attributed to the wrong person.

I was just trying to sort out who said what.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, Anna, Anna…

. . .Stay with me, I am told I play well with others…

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic you do play well with others: hence, the friendship request.

Peace,
Anna, Anna, Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Post #46 attributes a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile.
Originally Posted by Wandile (not Omar Gatskill):

Post #33 attributes a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile.
Originally Posted by Wandile (not Omar Gatskill):

Post #32 attributes a quote to Anna Scott that belongs to Omar Gatskill.
Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill (not Anna Scott):

Post #31 attributes a quote to Anna Scott that belongs to Omar Gatskill.
Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill (not Anna Scott):

So as you sorted it out Omar was not speaking when Wandile posted and neither was Wandile speaking when Omar posted and Anna is not Omar, nor Wandile and neither one of them is me. So Anna and Omar cannot be confused with Wandile because when Wandile speaks you cannot be hearing Omar or Anna and when you see Wandile you cannot see Omar or Anna for it is Wandile. Ok, I understand.

 

[Anna_Scott]

So as you sorted it out Omar was not speaking when Wandile posted and neither was Wandile speaking when Omar posted and Anna is not Omar, nor Wandile and neither one of them is me. So Anna and Omar cannot be confused with Wandile because when Wandile speaks you cannot be hearing Omar or Anna and when you see Wandile you cannot see Omar or Anna for it is Wandile. Ok, I understand.

:clapping:

 

[BrianH]

BrianH,

Original posts are messed up on a number of posts on this thread, probably because people are inserting replies inside other people’s quotes. It’s an easy mistake to make, but it results in quotes being attributed to the wrong person.

I was just trying to sort out who said what.

Peace,
Anna

Indeed. And when I say I do not see any quotes, I am referring to the content of the link provided. Someone said that Jesus “quotes” the Deuterocanonicals. He does not. No one quotes the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. That is an established fact.
The question, for those who have delved into this, is how many allusions, legitimate allusions, are there? I have been here long enough to have discussed every supposed quote from this website and I do not mind doing it again. But one or two at a time please.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Indeed. And when I say I do not see any quotes, I am referring to the content of the link provided. Someone said that Jesus “quotes” the Deuterocanonicals. He does not. No one quotes the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. That is an established fact.
The question, for those who have delved into this, is how many allusions, legitimate allusions, are there? I have been here long enough to have discussed every supposed quote from this website and I do not mind doing it again. But one or two at a time please.

Oh, O.K., I’m sorry. I misunderstood.

I posted a link to N.T. quotes/references to the DC Books. Did you check it out?

. . .There is a list on scripturecatholic.com:

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.
Link: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Salza makes the point that the Jewish councils that rejected the DC were the same councils that rejected the entire N. T. Canon.

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Indeed. And when I say I do not see any quotes, I am referring to the content of the link provided. Someone said that Jesus “quotes” the Deuterocanonicals. He does not. No one quotes the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. That is an established fact.
The question, for those who have delved into this, is how many allusions, legitimate allusions, are there? I have been here long enough to have discussed every supposed quote from this website and I do not mind doing it again. But one or two at a time please.

This challenge and this question should be done in reference to Jimmy Akin…Have you listened to him?

jimmyakin.org/2011/11/did-jesus-quote-the-deuterocanonicals-receiving-the-holy-spirit-in-acts-should-i-quit-my-job-at-hospital.html

Here is what he says…

He references this book

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, Archer and Chirichingo

I get a lot of requests for a list of the references the New Testament makes to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, giving a list is not such a simple affair since it is not always obvious whether something is a genuine reference.

Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, but many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation, but only the original languages).

This is the same with New Testament references to the protocanonical books of the Old Testament. How many New Testament references there are to the Old Testament depends in large measure on what you are going to count as a reference.

As a result, many scholarly works simply give an enormous catalogue of all proposed references and leave it to the individual interpreter to decide whether a given reference is actual or not.

Here is a link to the book…and here is the breakdown…The Septuagint is quoted more than the MT…I believe some common sense should prevail here rather than challenges…I challenge you to listen to Jimmy Akin and get the book…

Categories:

A (straightforward LXX): 268
B (LXX where it slightly deviates from MT): 50
C (Masoretic Text): 33
D (LXX where it deviates more from the MT): 22
E (Other): 13
F (Allusions that aren’t quotations): 32

Total using LXX as primary text: 340
Total using MT as primary text: 33

 

[BrianH]

Oh, O.K., I’m sorry. I misunderstood.

I posted a link to N.T. quotes/references to the DC Books. Did you check it out?

Peace,
Anna

Yes. That is what I am referring to. I have, in numerous threads, dealt with the list from scripturecatholic. If you want to pick a few and we can discuss them, I think you will find no direct quotes but a few allusions. Very few. Arguably 5-7

 

[BrianH]

This challenge and this question should be done in reference to Jimmy Akin…Have you listened to him?

jimmyakin.org/2011/11/did-jesus-quote-the-deuterocanonicals-receiving-the-holy-spirit-in-acts-should-i-quit-my-job-at-hospital.html

Here is what he says…

He references this book

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, Archer and Chirichingo

Here is a link to the book…and here is the breakdown…The Septuagint is quoted more than the MT…I believe some common sense should prevail here rather than challenges…I challenge you to listen to Jimmy Akin and get the book…

Categories:

A (straightforward LXX): 268
B (LXX where it slightly deviates from MT): 50
C (Masoretic Text): 33
D (LXX where it deviates more from the MT): 22
E (Other): 13
F (Allusions that aren’t quotations): 32

Total using LXX as primary text: 340
Total using MT as primary text: 33

Coptic
Before we proceed, how do you determine the contents (ie the books) of the LXX in 30 AD when no lists or copies exist from that time? Do you agree, or disagree, that the earliest surviving copies are from two centuries later and contain different books? Thus indicating that the LXX was in flux at the time of Christ and whether or not the NT allusions or quotations from the MT or LXX also need to take that into account.
Thank you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes. That is what I am referring to. I have, in numerous threads, dealt with the list from scripturecatholic. If you want to pick a few and we can discuss them, I think you will find no direct quotes but a few allusions. Very few. Arguably 5-7

BrianH,

I provided the link: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html. The N.T. passages are noted along with the corresponding DC passages.

You can choose any of the citations, at this link, and provide your support to prove they are wrong. Should make an interesting discussion.

Peace,
Anna

***Edited to add PS: ***
There is also a list at this link: cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

 

[CopticChristian]

BrianH,

I provided the link: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html. The N.T. passages are noted along with the corresponding DC passages.

You can choose any of the citations, at this link, and provide your support to prove they are wrong.

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

I have used this link and been criticized for this link…I think that Jimmy Akin does a better job because he explains it and the link you provide offers no explanation…I suppose the combination of both is a plus…