Catholic bible and the Deuterocanon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrianH said:
They would know because this is not a controversial area Anna. ** Scholars **may differ on the textual stream being quoted but what constitutes a direct quote or an allusion is pretty standard stuff. People just really do not argue that much about something like that. I simply follow the experts in matters like this. Not everything is contentious…🤷😃
Click to expand...
Wow. I am sure glad that I am not a scholar and not brilliant. Based on what you write here it appears that in answer to my question as to whether you consider the DC to be Scripture the answer would be…
  1. The DC are considered canonical by the Catholic Church. Additional books are considered canonical by Eastern Orthodox and even more books by the Oriental Orthodox. What is considered canonical is a result of geography and historical circumstances. Different groups have different canons and I would think it absurd for a Protestant to argue against the use of books by groups who for centuries have used them. However, I also think that the rejection of the Deuterocanonical books by various parts of the Reformation, English, Radical, and German, was understandable and not at all problematic. These large groups left the Catholic Church and are in no way bound or held to her perceived authority in regards to a canon based upon theological and historical circumstances. The Catholic canon was and will remain the canon of a segment of Christianity. Long before the Reformation other Christians used a larger canon. The role of local regional synods is overstated in apologetics. Trent was dogmatic for the Catholic Church. The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are not bound to her decrees.
Click to expand...
Yes…Now can you tell me where in the Bible including the DC that the Bible teaches us that we should adhere to “Scholars” for anything…I keep seeing this ol passage that says…the “Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth”…now I speak other languages, not Greek, but this seems to ring true in Aramaic/Lamsa Bible

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Lamsa/15_1Timothy/1Timothy3.htm

Greek

interlinearbible.org/1_timothy/3-15.htm

and English…in many different versions…

bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm

New International Version (©1984)
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
New Living Translation (©2007)
so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

English Standard Version (©2001)
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
**
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)**
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

International Standard Version (©2008)
in case I am delayed, so that you may know how to behave in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Now, as I said I am no scholar, not brilliant…but here is what I see…do you find somewhere in a Bible that I should pay heedance to Scholarship…did I miss something?🤷
 
You would not have any of those versions you just quoted without scholarship and trained and educated translators. So any Bible is dependent on scholars who can read and write in the original languages, assess the different textual streams, and determine either dynamic or formal equivilants.🤷🙂
 
BrianH said:
They would know because this is not a controversial area Anna. Scholars may differ on the textual stream being quoted but what constitutes a direct quote or an allusion is pretty standard stuff. People just really do not argue that much about something like that. I simply follow the experts in matters like this. Not everything is contentious…🤷😃
Click to expand...
Brian,

Again, we can’t read your mind, Brian. Until you defined the “standard” you follow to determine what is an allusion consistent with a direct quote, and what is an allusion that does not fall under a direct quote; your statements appeared contradictory.

Instead of stopping after you apologized for the confusion, you found it necessary to begin your explanation by saying, “So, at the risk of insulting your intelligence, here it goes”; and you suggested your statements appeared contradictory, because of a lack of knowledge on my part or exposure to new information—and that you might need to over-explain.

I’m bringng these things to your attention, Brian, because this kind of behavior can affect your reputation on the forums and the reputation of the faith you represent. Sometimes you can get tangled up in scholarship and lose sight of basic communication skills and charitable responses. Oops. I forgot–caring about tone is “too feminine” for you. 😉

So, let’s move on.

Peace, 🙂
Anna
 
BrianH said:
You would not have any of those versions you just quoted without scholarship and trained and educated translators. So any Bible is dependent on scholars who can read and write in the original languages, assess the different textual streams, and determine either dynamic or formal equivilants.🤷🙂
Click to expand...
Brian,
You missed the point entirely. 🤷

Peace,
Anna
 
BrianH said:
You would not have any of those versions you just quoted without scholarship and trained and educated translators. So any Bible is dependent on scholars who can read and write in the original languages, assess the different textual streams, and determine either dynamic or formal equivilants.🤷🙂
Click to expand...
To be honest as there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…I really have no need for more than one Bible…and that Bible exists within the OHCAC…I just pointed out the several versions which in my opinion are not necessary…and in that case renders Scholars unnecessary…neither is their education, ability to write, assessing and determining…you dodged the question as to where the Bible explains the need for Scholarship…your mind and answer dwells within the world and not the world of the Bible as I asked…thank you for pointing out where your mind dwells…👍
 
CopticChristian said:
…I really have no need for more than one Bible…and that Bible exists within the OHCAC…
Click to expand...
Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Speaking of the Bible that exists within the OHCAC; you still haven’t answered post #40 and post #41. 🤷 BrianH is getting all the love. . . .

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Brian,

Again, we can’t read your mind, Brian. Until you defined the “standard” you follow to determine what is an allusion consistent with a direct quote, and what is an allusion that does not fall under a direct quote; your statements appeared contradictory.

Instead of stopping after you apologized for the confusion, you found it necessary to begin your explanation by saying, “So, at the risk of insulting your intelligence, here it goes”; and you suggested your statements appeared contradictory, because of a lack of knowledge on my part or exposure to new information—and that you might need to over-explain.

I’m bringng these things to your attention, Brian, because this kind of behavior can affect your reputation on the forums and the reputation of the faith you represent. Sometimes you can get tangled up in scholarship and lose sight of basic communication skills and charitable responses. Oops. I forgot–caring about tone is “too feminine” for you. 😉

So, let’s move on.

Peace, 🙂
Anna
Click to expand...
On-line reputation…:cool:
Thanks for the lecture Anna. I hope you feel better:shrug:;):rolleyes:
 
Anna_Scott said:
Brian,
You missed the point entirely. 🤷

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Actually no. He asserted, indirectly, either the authority of the church or possibly the Bible itself. The problem with that is that your church, my church, no church is the final authority on matters of “quotes”. It is instead a shared knowledge and endevor that crosses all denominational lines. While it is a rather mundane task, it is one that people skilled in original languages participate in. In making the point about scholarship, he relied on the works of scholars. In even being able to make a point, he needs scholarship to do so.
 
CopticChristian said:
To be honest as there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…I really have no need for more than one Bible…and that Bible exists within the OHCAC…I just pointed out the several versions which in my opinion are not necessary…and in that case renders Scholars unnecessary…neither is their education, ability to write, assessing and determining…you dodged the question as to where the Bible explains the need for Scholarship…your mind and answer dwells within the world and not the world of the Bible as I asked…thank you for pointing out where your mind dwells…👍
Click to expand...
You think like a fundamentalist. I am not sure if that is your background or just something you have adopted. I do not. Why should I? I reject the presupposition that everything we do with the Bible must be directly stated in the Bible. That view would ignore the facts in my estimation. The Bible never states that everything we think about the Bible must be in the Bible. Of course the Catholic Church knows that and teaches that as well. I believe I have a more “Catholic” view of this than yourself. Kinda funny really.
The “one Bible” you profess is the result of scholars. Whatever translation that may be.
I have not dodged the question. I reject the presupposition. The Bible never says that everything you must believe about it is in the Bible. But of course, you already knew that.
 
BrianH said:
Actually no. He asserted, indirectly, either the authority of the church or possibly the Bible itself. The problem with that is that your church, my church, no church is the final authority on matters of “quotes”. It is instead a shared knowledge and endevor that crosses all denominational lines. While it is a rather mundane task, it is one that people skilled in original languages participate in. In making the point about scholarship, he relied on the works of scholars. In even being able to make a point, he needs scholarship to do so.
Click to expand...
Brian,

As I said, you missed CopticChristian’s point entirely.

Peace,
Anna
 
I am trying to find out what Anna and Coptic are really objecting to…the Catholic Church is not anti-scholarship. Certainly not. We know that scholars examine scripture to determine what constitutes a quote. We also know that not everything we do with the Bible must directly be stated in the Bible. So what exactly do they object to?
:confused:
I personally think it is the messenger. They are so determined to argue with me that cannot agree with me even when I am not saying anything controversial. 🤷:(😃
 
Anna_Scott said:
CopticChristian can handle himself just fine. He doesn’t need my help. 😃

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
I see. So you do not wish to state the point that he is trying to make. However, you are comfortable telling me, twice, that I do not get the point. I see…:dts:
 
BrianH said:
    1. I think I have explained. On a personal level, I prefer the Orthodox Study Bible with its larger canon as opposed to the Catholic Bible. Although I also have several Catholic Bibles as well. I find the issue of the Deuterocanonical to be important to Fundamentalists and Catholic apologists who do not understand how little it would impact
      Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and other mainline groups. The vast majority of Protestants do not read the 66 already in their Bible. I think the books should be in the Bible in the manner they are in the KJV for Protestants. I think their exclusion entirely from the Bible is anti-historical.
      .
Click to expand...
I find your thought process interesting. The Protestant Reformation is based upon the removal of books in the Bible and without the removal of these books it would not have occurred from a philisophical point of view. Of course it truly occurred becuase of political motives not philisophical motives. Luther was losing a debate to Eck at Leipzig about purgatory and reverted back to St Jerome’s false assertation that the DC should not be included in the Bible. As Dead Sea Scrolls proved that they should be included; based upon them being found in the original language, the books should be included. Luther’s basis for rejecting these books has been proven historically wrong.

As his rejection of these books and the basis he rejected them upon has been proved incorrect how does one then support his faith? Everything it was based upon has been proved to be in error. He has admited that if these books are included in the Bible then his faith was erroneous. How does one refute the founder of Protestant thought.

With that how does one state that it makes little impact? It is in fact the removal of the books was the basis of him changing the faith. This of course is abandoning many of the true reasons: Luther’s relationship with his father and the political climate of the monarchs being the two truly decisive turning points.

I would hope that we are all past the fake notion that it was based upon indulgences and Catholic corruption.
 
BrianH said:
I see. So you do not wish to state the point that he is trying to make. However, you are comfortable telling me, twice, that I do not get the point. I see…:dts:
Click to expand...
That is correct. 😃

Peace,
Anna
 
BrianH said:
You would not have any of those versions you just quoted without scholarship and trained and educated translators. So any Bible is dependent on scholars who can read and write in the original languages, assess the different textual streams, and determine either dynamic or formal equivilants.🤷🙂
Click to expand...
Define scholar? As the Bible was truly defined first and foremost in the early days of the Church via the Doctors of the Church and the actual practices of the Church. Scholars do have discussions about the different meanings of the words in the Bible; however, that tends to be Protestant vs Catholic discussion. Catholic thoughts were defined by the first Christians. Protestants, that do not support the teachings of the ealry Churh writings, because it refutes their faith has to examine and restate the Bible in langauge that supports their belief.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Speaking of the Bible that exists within the OHCAC; you still haven’t answered post #40 and post #41. 🤷 BrianH is getting all the love. . . .

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Anna,

I answered that by saying that I was looking at Wikipedia and not comparing each bible…I cannot find the link right now…but I answered this question sometime back…

Pax
 
BrianH said:
You think like a fundamentalist. I am not sure if that is your background or just something you have adopted. I do not. Why should I? I reject the presupposition that everything we do with the Bible must be directly stated in the Bible. That view would ignore the facts in my estimation. The Bible never states that everything we think about the Bible must be in the Bible. Of course the Catholic Church knows that and teaches that as well. I believe I have a more “Catholic” view of this than yourself. Kinda funny really.
The “one Bible” you profess is the **result of scholars. ** Whatever translation that may be.
I have not dodged the question. I reject the presupposition. The Bible never says that everything you must believe about it is in the Bible. But of course, you already knew that.
Click to expand...
Everything in the Bible is the result of people and those people do not exist in a vacuum…I understand what you are saying and the question is Independent Scholarship or Scholarship within the confines of the Church. You choose the former and I choose the latter. The result is that I do not rely directly on Scholarship and you do. That is OK for you but not for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top