Catholics...For Your Advise.

[Anna_Scott]

While the newer version of the Catholic bible is the one we use in Mass here in the States. I for one find the modern gender -neutral editing very bland, and watered down. The Douay-Rheims English translation is the closest to the original vulgate translated by St Jerome, and has been endorsed by many leaders in the Church. It will be in use long after the “modern” translations have gone by the wayside. As far as focusing on things that unite us I can think of nothing better than first agreeing on what the word of God is and we can’t do that when everybody wants to write their own version of the story.

Greggy,

You are disagreeing with other Catholics regarding what is considered the recommended Bible for Catholics. So, this is not my argument.

There are, also, disagreements within Protestantism, regarding the most accurate translation of Scripture. Janet1983 prefers the KJV and that is her personal choice.

While I respect the history of the KJV and the fact that men gave their lives to make this translation possible; there are other translations that I think are far more accurate–mainly due to the fact that many of the early manuscripts were not known at the time the KJV was done. As time passes, more and more manuscripts are discovered. So, that is something for all of us to follow.

The Deuterocanonical is not included in modern versions of Protestant Bibles. These scriptures have been part of the NT since the Bible was first assembled by the council of Rome in 387 AD. The Douay-Rheimes contains the exact same books that were declared Holy scripture by the Church at that time. Older Protestant Bibles had them included as the Apocrapha.

Agreed. The Deuterocanonical Books, known to Protestants as the Old Testament Apocrypha, are not included in the Protestant Canon.

These Deuterocanonical Books were part of the KJV for nearly 300 years. I will not argue whether or not they should have been removed during the Protestant Reformation. Though Protestant, I’m inclined to disagree with their removal–not that my opinion is really of any consequence.

The Deuterocanonical Books are available for anyone to read, regardless of their religious affiliation. I have read the Protestant Cannon. The Deuterocanonical Books are next on my list.

The Ethiopian Orthodox have a Canon that is different from Catholic and Protestant Canons. So, I don’t think we are going to settle the issue of the Canon on this Thread, or even on this forum.

At most, we can help educate one another regarding the history of the assembly of the different Biblical Canons and the history of the transmission of Scripture–a topic for another Thread.

I have many Bible translations, including Catholic Bibles, the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, the TANAKH, and Jewish TORAH with Commentary.

I have read a number of books on the transmission of Scripture. The more I read, the more I realize how much I don’t know.

The point is, this is a vast subject. Scholars can’t agree, so I doubt we will either.

I think it is better to bring any variations among translations into the discussion of particular issues, rather than trying to settle the issue of the Biblical Canon.

I think getting into an argument of “my Bible is better than your Bible” is not all that productive. That’s just my humble opinion; and we are way off topic for this Thread–again, my apologies to the OP.

Anna

 

[greggy53]

Greggy,
You are disagreeing with other Catholics regarding what is considered the recommended Bible for Catholics. So, this is not my argument. Agreed. The Deuterocanonical Books, known to Protestants as the Old Testament Apocrypha, are not included in the Protestant Canon. These Deuterocanonical Books were part of the KJV for nearly 300 years. I will not argue whether or not they should have been removed during the Protestant Reformation. Though Protestant, I’m inclined to disagree with their removal–not that my opinion is really of any consequence. The Deuterocanonical Books are available for anyone to read, regardless of their religious affiliation. I have read the Protestant Cannon. The Deuterocanonical Books are next on my list. The Ethiopian Orthodox have a Canon that is different from Catholic and Protestant Canons. So, I don’t think we are going to settle the issue of the Canon on this Thread, or even on this forum. At most, we can help educate one another regarding the history of the assembly of the different Biblical Canons and the history of the transmission of Scripture–a topic for another Thread.I have many Bible translations, including Catholic Bibles, the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, the TANAKH, and Jewish TORAH with Commentary.I have read a number of books on the transmission of Scripture. The more I read, the more I realize how much I don’t know. I think getting into an argument of “my Bible is better than your Bible” is not all that productive. That’s just my humble opinion; and we are way off topic for this Thread–again, my apologies to the OP.Anna

I didn’t start the “my bible is better than your bible” business. This is what I said:
… "But we Catholics understand that in Genesis after Eve used her free will to sin that the father prophesied that another woman would use her free will and accept God’s grace and defeat sin. We know and accept with great joy that Mary’s free consent and acceptance of God’s will was a necessary part of his plan for all mankind’s salvation. "

Then Janet1983 jumped in to disagree with a quote from her Protestant Bible. I then defended my original position with a quote from my Catholic Bible, and gave my reasoning for it.

Then you jumped in to lecture me about bible translations, and to inform us how well educated you are in the matter. As far as your “humble opinion” is concerned It doesn’t sound very humble to me. “Condescending” seems to be a more apt description.
The Apocrypha as the Protestants call it was not removed during the so-called reformation. Luther kept in his Bible but removed the 7 Deuterocanonical Books from the NT and placed it in it’s own section . About 100 years or so ago someone somewhere decided to remove it completely from Protestant editions. I have in my possession a KJV printed in 1876 that has all 15 books of the Protestant Apocrypha.

 

[greggy53]

Actually, I love the Kings English. The KJV is beautifully written. I love the language; Language that has been destroyed by our modern hip-hop culture.

 

[wwolverine]

No offense I hope, just trying to make Catholics ‘see’ how some of us think.

1 – If the Sacraments themselves can save, doesn’t that mean that if a deviously evil man were to also partake of the Holy Communion, he would join you in your heaven? (please don’t reply and say he wouldn’t attend because even the evil Pharisees went for baptism at the Jordan river)

2 – If Mary was the mother of God, just because she gave birth to Jesus who is God, doesn’t that mean that if you put the foetus of humans into the body of a monkey, then that monkey would be the mother of humans? (no offense, but it’s the closest analogy I can think of).

3 – If the Catholic church is above scripture like what some people here say to explain why they do not follow certain scriptural teachings, wouldn’t that be refuting what God taught? So, is God the master or the disciple?

Hope to see some clear and objective answers.

.

I pity your thinking Mosacked cause your hate makes you ask questions which you feel you should ask. But comparison is the worst thing that you can do. If God wanted He could have created Jesus just by one word, and not used Mother Mary for that purpose. If you know anything of Mother Mary, than you should know that she was a miraculous child born to old parents.

Abraham would not have been the father of nations if he had not born the miraculous Issac in his old age, as promised by God, and same is Mother Mary the Mother for all.

If you don’t accept Mother Mary, that does not give you right to compare her with what ever you like.

God Bless you.

 

[wwolverine]

I would agree 100%. Further, it is an attack on the family in every form, and here is why.

St. Joseph could not be Jesus’s adopted Father. He was married to Mary, but she is not his Mother.

This also means that if you do not share genetic code, you are not the parents of the child. What about people who were adopted? By this line of thought, if you are not biologically related, you are an outsider are not really part of the family.

Hi Ralph,

Aslo it could mean that Jesus is not in King David’s line as he is not the son of St. Joseph. So does it mean Mossacked is still waiting for the birth of Jesus, and this discussion is all in vain from his point?

 

[wwolverine]

You’re right…she CARRIED.

That’s why I say she’s SURROGATE. and merely a VESSEL.

And I have no problem with that word you put there.

Hello Mosacked,

You must have read the OT, as thats the place where all predictions were made and they came to reality. Cause God’s word is never in vain.

Check 1 Chronicles 13.9 - 10
When hey came to tghe threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because he oxen stumbled. 10. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzaah, and he sruck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God.

As per your saying Mother Mary was the Ark, just a surrogate, What was more important was the Word of God which was inside the Ark. So Why was God angry on Uzzah? He did not touch the Word of God in the ark, only the ark, the way you are touching it.

God Bless you.

 

[wwolverine]

Why get the Pope in to your mess.

Hi Bill,

Mosacked dont like catholics because they are united under one spiritual leader the Pope a direct representative of Jesus on earth, who is also called a humble servant and mossacked has no leader. His leaders are always in disagreement and then break up creating more groups.

May God guide him in right direction.

 

[guanophore]

You’re right…she CARRIED.

That’s why I say she’s SURROGATE. and merely a VESSEL.

And I have no problem with that word you put there.

It seems that you would benefit from some study of the history of the Christian faith. The heresies that you are proposing here were proposed a couple millenia ago, and were already addressed and put to rest by the Church. The title, Theotokos, was selected precisely to combat the heresy of Nestorianism, which you appear to have unwittingly embraced.

She is not a surrrogate, or a vessel. He was conceived in her womb, He took His flesh from her flesh, and all of His humanity is drawn from her physical body.

This is the meaning of the title, Theotokos. It does NOT mean that she is the mother of the eternal Godhead, but of the incarnated 2nd person, Jesus. It is one of the mysteries of our faith.

 

[Janet1983]

The Deuterocanonical is not included in modern versions of Protestant Bibles. These scriptures have been part of the NT since the Bible was first assembled by the council of Rome in 387 AD. The Douay-Rheimes contains the exact same books that were declared Holy scripture by the Church at that time. Older Protestant Bibles had them included as the Apocrapha.

I might not accept is as Scripture, but my Bibles (English and German) list them as apocrypha…
These are a 1611 KJV as well as a Luther Bible (German) and a Bible which was a Project of the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany (Einheitsübersetzung)…
My older Luther Bible (the print pre-dates WW2) does not have them however…

 

[Javl]

I didn’t start the “my bible is better than your bible” business. This is what I said:
… "But we Catholics understand that in Genesis after Eve used her free will to sin that the father prophesied that another woman would use her free will and accept God’s grace and defeat sin. We know and accept with great joy that Mary’s free consent and acceptance of God’s will was a necessary part of his plan for all mankind’s salvation. "

Then Janet1983 jumped in to disagree with a quote from her Protestant Bible. I then defended my original position with a quote from my Catholic Bible, and gave my reasoning for it.

Then you jumped in to lecture me about bible translations, and to inform us how well educated you are in the matter. As far as your “humble opinion” is concerned It doesn’t sound very humble to me. “Condescending” seems to be a more apt description.
The Apocrypha as the Protestants call it was not removed during the so-called reformation. Luther kept in his Bible but removed the 7 Deuterocanonical Books from the NT and placed it in it’s own section . About 100 years or so ago someone somewhere decided to remove it completely from Protestant editions. I have in my possession a KJV printed in 1876 that has all 15 books of the Protestant Apocrypha.

greggy:

Excuse me for putting my two cents in. I’ve been reading your, Anna’s, and Janet’s posts.
You are right in your defense of your original position to quote from the Catholic Bible, but your method did seem a bit like “my Bible is better than your Bible”, whether intentional or not. Anna’s comments were just that, comments. And, I don’t think that she was condescending.

I use the Revised Standard Version, both Catholic and Protestant editions and, in my opinion, I think that they are closest to the Latin Vulgate in translation ( I do know a bit of Latin ). These editions are best because they are in everyday language without “thee, and thy, etc.” making it easy for all to read and understand.

Meanwhile, God Bless all.

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[greggy53]

I might not accept is as Scripture, but my Bibles (English and German) list them as apocrypha…
These are a 1611 KJV as well as a Luther Bible (German) and a Bible which was a Project of the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany (Einheitsübersetzung)…
My older Luther Bible (the print pre-dates WW2) does not have them however…

I wonder who, or why, and when did they decide to stop including them?

 

[greggy53]

greggy:

Excuse me for putting my two cents in. I’ve been reading your, Anna’s, and Janet’s posts.
You are right in your defense of your original position to quote from the Catholic Bible, but your method did seem a bit like “my Bible is better than your Bible”, whether intentional or not. Anna’s comments were just that, comments. And, I don’t think that she was condescending.

I use the Revised Standard Version, both Catholic and Protestant editions and, in my opinion, I think that they are closest to the Latin Vulgate in translation ( I do know a bit of Latin ). These editions are best because they are in everyday language without “thee, and thy, etc.” making it easy for all to read and understand.

Meanwhile, God Bless all.

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I don’t agree that a revision is best because it may be easier for some to read. I guess I’m just old fashioned. I think the church like our school systems have contributed greatly to the decline of the English language with a dummy-down mentality…But thats just my opinion.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I didn’t start the “my bible is better than your bible” business. . .

Then you jumped in to lecture me about bible translations, and to inform us how well educated you are in the matter. As far as your “humble opinion” is concerned It doesn’t sound very humble to me. “Condescending” seems to be a more apt description.

Greggy,

First, if I sounded condescending or less than humble; I truly apologize. One of the disadvantages of this format, is that sometimes it can be difficult to read another person’s tone.

I really had to laugh to myself, when I read your accusation that I was trying to inform you on how well educated I am in the matter. I wasn’t laughing at you. I was laughing at the idea that I would presume to be educated in the matter.

As I said, the more books I read on the transmission of Scripture, the more I realize just how much I do not know. It really is a huge subject. I don’t speak any of the Biblical languages. I’ve had this discussion with Javl before.

Scholars spend their whole lives devoted to the study of manuscripts and all the factors involved in creating the Bibles we have available today.

So, Greggy, I do not consider myself to be well educated on Bible translations.

This is the statement that triggered my jumping into the discussion:

If you are using a Protestant Bible I would say that your translation has been polluted by those who would discredit God’s Church and to promote their own false teachings.

You accused Protestants of discrediting God’s Church and promoting false teachings through Protestant Bible translations. That is a very offensive accusation.

I wanted to say that we, Protestants and Catholics, do not have to harbor such suspicions of one another. We’ve had a rocky history, but things are changing.

I want to focus on the things that unite us, and work to understand the things that divide us. That is one of the many reasons I participate on these “Catholic” Forums. I am grateful that Catholics allow non-Catholics to participate, here. As I have said before, these Forums are a lifeline for me.

So, the last thing I want to do, is sound condescending. I have a great respect for the Catholic faith. I learn from these forums everyday.

One of the Catholic sources I quoted, dispels the idea that we are each pushing our own agenda’s with Bible translations:

Quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

"For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions.

It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation.

At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike."

. . . . As far as focusing on things that unite us I can think of nothing better than first agreeing on what the word of God is and we can’t do that when everybody wants to write their own version of the story.

Here, you are saying we can’t agree on what the Word of God is, because “everybody wants to write their own version of the story.” It is obvious, that by “everybody,” you mean “Protestants.” This is yet another insult to Protestants.

So, Greggy, you made these two accusations against Protestants:

• “If you are using a Protestant Bible I would say that your translation has been polluted by those who would discredit God’s Church and to promote their own false teachings.”
• “As far as focusing on things that unite us I can think of nothing better than first agreeing on what the word of God is and **we can’t do that when everybody wants to write their own version of the story.”

I didn’t respond with insults “in kind.” In fact, I didn’t insult you, Catholicism, or Catholic Bibles. I simply tried to dispel the misconceptions, using quotes from Catholic sources.

So, can we forgive one another and move forward? I would really like that.

Respectfully,
Anna**

 

[greggy53]

You certainly don’t owe me an apology, and I’m sorry you considered my contentions about Protestant translations insulting I do however stand by them. Personally I think you are over reacting a bit, but then again (as my wife oftern reminds me) I can be very insensitive to others feelings. It is a fault in my character and I regret having offended you. Let there be peace between us.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You certainly don’t owe me an apology, and I’m sorry you considered my contentions about Protestant translations insulting I do however stand by them. Personally I think you are over reacting a bit, but then again (as my wife oftern reminds me) I can be very insensitive to others feelings. It is a fault in my character and I regret having offended you. Let there be peace between us.

Thank you, Greggy. I agree: let there be peace between us.

Anna

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hi Bill,

Mosacked dont like catholics because they are united under one spiritual leader the Pope a direct representative of Jesus on earth, who is also called a humble servant and mossacked has no leader. His leaders are always in disagreement and then break up creating more groups.

May God guide him in right direction.

wwolverinne
Thank You for your post, well it looks like Mos. does have a leader remember the cult he belongs to Thats his leader

 

[Javl]

It seems like Mosacked took off and won’t come back. I guess he was a rabble-rouser and now can’t stand the heat. Shall we close the thread?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

It seems like Mosacked took off and won’t come back. I guess he was a rabble-rouser and now can’t stand the heat. Shall we close the thread?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Sounds like a great plan, Javl.

Anna

 

[Bill_Pick]

It seems like Mosacked took off and won’t come back. I guess he was a rabble-rouser and now can’t stand the heat. Shall we close the thread?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Thank God if he is gone

 

[Javl]

Thank God if he is gone

Then it’s agreed. Thread is closed. Amen.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem