Different versions of the Bible

[RodneyJ]

Is the RCC against any certain version of the Bible? If so, why?

 

[ziapueblo]

Is the RCC against any certain version of the Bible? If so, why?

There are a few differences between the Catholic Bible and the protestant Bible. The protestant Bible is missing 7 books in the OT. These books are known as the Dueterocanonical books. The Catholic Bible uses the Septuegint, which is the Greek version of the Hebrew OT. The Septuegint includes the Dueterocanonical books, the Hebrew does not.

Martin Luther took these books out of the OT because of personal reasons because they supported Catholic teaching. Martin Luther also wanted to take out the Epistle of James and the book of Revelation. There is so much more that could be written. I hope this helps.

P.S.
Martin Luther also added the word “alone” in the book of Romans to support his idea of “faith alone.”

Others can correct me if I made some mistakes (although I think I’ve got it all)

 

[RodneyJ]

Thanks for your answer. Do you have proof of this or is this teaching?

Keeping in mind, I am learning your faith, that is why I have these questions.

 

[teadough]

Thanks for your answer. Do you have proof of this or is this teaching?

Keeping in mind, I am learning your faith, that is why I have these questions.

Welcome to the Forums Rodney. I am a recent Catholic convert and I am still learning the basics of Catholicism. I hope that you can keep an open mind on the subject you brought up and try and look at it from the eyes of the Catholics who have held on to this beliefe from the get go. It’s funny how for so many years I had been taught a different story on the makeup on the Bible. From a protestant view I don’t say that I was lied to per se,but I was steared in the wrong direction and I had never tried investigating the other side in regards to Catholic apologetics. Once I did that i can say that the Holy Spirit moved on me in a way that i can onl’y hope and pray happens to you.

God Bless and Peace be with you my friend.

 

[RodneyJ]

Welcome to the Forums Rodney. I am a recent Catholic convert and I am still learning the basics of Catholicism. I hope that you can keep an open mind on the subject you brought up and try and look at it from the eyes of the Catholics who have held on to this beliefe from the get go. It’s funny how for so many years I had been taught a different story on the makeup on the Bible. From a protestant view I don’t say that I was lied to per se,but I was steared in the wrong direction and I had never tried investigating the other side in regards to Catholic apologetics. Once I did that i can say that the Holy Spirit moved on me in a way that i can onl’y hope and pray happens to you.

God Bless and Peace be with you my friend.

Thank you.

 

[unacanta]

There are a few differences between the Catholic Bible and the protestant Bible. The protestant Bible is missing 7 books in the OT. These books are known as the Dueterocanonical books. The Catholic Bible uses the Septuegint, which is the Greek version of the Hebrew OT. The Septuegint includes the Dueterocanonical books, the Hebrew does not.

Martin Luther took these books out of the OT because of personal reasons because they supported Catholic teaching. Martin Luther also wanted to take out the Epistle of James and the book of Revelation. There is so much more that could be written. I hope this helps.

You have made a couple of the most absurd statements I have read here.

1. Martin Luther did not “took these books out of the OT”
   The Protestant bible contain the same books which the Jewish bible does.

bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Also:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a2

1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible
An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[8]

P.S.
Martin Luther also added the word “alone” in the book of Romans to support his idea of “faith alone.”

NASB: Rom11:13
NIV: Rom4:23, Rom14:7
NKJV:Rom4:23, Rom11:3, Rom16:27
ESV: Rom4:23, Rom11:3,

Of these four I checked the word alone is there, but not linked with the word faith. I don’t have my Greek text, but I am sure you will fine the word in it, long before Martin Luther translated into German.

Others can correct me if I made some mistakes (although I think I’ve got it all)

Near as I can tell, you were in error on all points

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You have made a couple of the most absurd statements I have read here.

1. Martin Luther did not “took these books out of the OT”
   The Protestant bible contain the same books which the Jewish bible does.

I did not know there was a Jewish “Bible” could you point one out? Particularly one with the same number of books.

bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Also:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a2

1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible
An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521,

translating from what?

and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534.

did he get the new testament from the Jews?

During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[8]

NASB: Rom11:13
NIV: Rom4:23, Rom14:7
NKJV:Rom4:23, Rom11:3, Rom16:27
ESV: Rom4:23, Rom11:3,

Of these four I checked the word alone is there, but not linked with the word faith. I don’t have my Greek text, but I am sure you will fine the word in it, long before Martin Luther translated into German.

well that is interesting I was never good at acronyms are those Protestant Bibles?

Near as I can tell, you were in error on all points

Here is the issue

1. What was Luther’s objective?
2. Where, what, was Luther taught and by who?
3. From the Torah to 1500 where was the “Bible”?
4. From 33-1500 where was Luther’s religion?

 

[RodneyJ]

FWIW, I was wondering could I continue reading my Message bible, or do I need to read something other than what I have to get a deeper understanding of the Catholic readings?

 

[Rolltide]

Here is a list of the currently approved Catholic versions of the Bible, taken from a FAQ at the EWTN website (this is only a portion of the article.

ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm
From this link, go to “Scripture, Divine Revelation”, and then to “Bible Versions, Approved”. There is no direct link.

Liturgical Use in United States

There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on inclusive language]

Devotional Reading

A bewildering array of Catholic Bibles are available for personal use. They all have imprimaturs, but not all avoid the use of inclusive language. That use is indicated in the summary. The order is generally chronological.
**

1. Douai-Rheims**. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s 1750 edition, and subsequent revisions by others up to the 20th century, is the most common edition. Retains some archaic English. The 1899 edition is available from TAN Books. The text is widely available on line, including EWTN’s library.
   **
2. Confraternity Edition.** Begun in 1936 by the American bishops’ Confraternity for Christian Doctrine as a translation from the Clementine Vulgate. The publication of Pius XII’s encyclical Divino afflante spiritu (1943) caused the translation committee to switch to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Not all books were completed by the time of Vatican II (1962-1965). Those that were finished were used in the liturgy in the 1950s and 60s. Published in a dignified American idiom. Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing.
   **
3. Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition.** Translated for an American audience from the original languages in the 1940s and 1950s by the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and adapted for Catholic use by the Catholic Biblical Association (1966). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press, and available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.
   **
   4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970).** Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as “full of grace”.
   **
   4.2 NAB with Revised New Testament (1986).** A restoration of some traditional familiar phraseology. Unfortunately, it also included some mild inclusive language. No longer widely available, owing to the publication of the revised Psalms (see next entry).

4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.
**
4.4 Modified NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002).** This title is of my own invention. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. It is the text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S… The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language, where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. “brothers and sisters”, instead of the older “brethren”), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Whether a Bible will be made available having these modified NAB texts is not known at this time. Since they do not extend to the entire Bible, it is possible that none will be, as that would require further editing of the underlying NAB text.

 

[Rolltide]

continued…

5. Jerusalem Bible (1966). A translation based on the French edition of the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated it from the original languages. This Bible is the one used by Mother Angelica on the air. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.

6. New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary).
**
7. New Jerusalem Bible (1990).** A revision of the Jerusalem Bible directly from the original languages. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy, but is considered a very literary text, and comparable in quality to the NRSV in scholarship.

8. Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992). This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. The same principle was used by ICEL to translate the Mass texts. Would be better to call a paraphrase than a translation.

Catholic versus Protestant Bibles

Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the “Apocrypha” as pious reading.
**
Commentaries**

While an older orthodox commentary from the 1950s, called A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Nelson Publishers) can sometimes be found, we are now starting to see new faithful commentaries being published. The best one is the Navarre Bible (Scepter Press). It is a work in progress from the University of Navarre in Spain. It has both the RSV and the Latin Vulgate, with commentary underneath from the Fathers, Doctors, the Magisterium and the writings of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei. So far the volumes of the New Testament (one per Gospel and collections of the epistles) are available, as well as some Old Testament volumes (Pentateuch, Joshua-Kings). Additionally, Ignatius Press has begun to publish the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, individual NT volumes by orthodox scholars, including Scott Hahn. Sop, far the Gospels and Acts have been published. Both the Navarre Bible and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible can be obtained from EWTN’s Religious Catalogue, the publishers, and through most Catholic catalogs, distributors and bookstores.

The most widely used Catholic commentary is probably the Jerome Biblical Commentary, now in a 2nd edition. There is also a summary version of it. This commentary is the work of well-known Catholic Biblical scholars and is filled with articles on historical, archaeological, linguistic and other subjects useful for understanding the background of the Scriptures. The JBC is, therefore, a valuable resource for those seeking such information. However, the textual commentaries use primarily the historical-critical method, and thus must be read with discernment. The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium.

 

[teadough]

FWIW, I was wondering could I continue reading my Message bible, or do I need to read something other than what I have to get a deeper understanding of the Catholic readings?

if you want to get a deeper understanding of Catholic theology I suggest you go to your local library and check out various books. Get some heavy stuff along with some,sort of,lite reading. For the heavy readings the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH will give you everyting from a-z.

One book in particular that really helped me along was a book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie. Also, look for books at your library by Scott Hahn.

If you would like some audio I would be more than happy to send you a file by linking you to a file sharing site. Just private message me if you would like to check some of these out and when I get off of work in the a.m I will upload some really interesting CD’s for you.

Hope this helps

 

[ziapueblo]

Unacanta ,

Learn your church history. There was no Jewish canon of Scripture until the late first century. This was done at a council that not only through out the Septuegint but also Christianity. Do you want to use a Jewish canon in your Bible that actually through Christianity completely? By the way, the early Christians and Jesus and his apostles used and learned from the Septuegint. About 90% of quotations in the NT from the OT come from the Septuegint. Good luck. I really hope you have more comments.

 

[DarkMark]

You have made a couple of the most absurd statements I have read here.

1. Martin Luther did not “took these books out of the OT”
   The Protestant bible contain the same books which the Jewish bible does.

unacanta;3426189:

Check your History. There was no “Jewish Bible”. The Jewish community did not even settle which books were “inspired” on there part until the first century through a council known as " Council of Jamnia" which met in A.D. 90. In this council, they also took out all the NT Books and the Deutrocanonical books which the Christians at that time was using. Following there council to determined which books belong in the Bible is like following Hither in order to find out what Jesus said! What to follow there canon? Fine, go ahead, but you should also take out the NT.

Jesus and the Apostles use the Greek translation of the Bible as did the Early Christians which includes the Deutrocanonical books. There are numerous quotation from Jesus and the Apostles that goes back to the Deutrocanonical books. The real questions are:

1. Did Luther had any authority what so ever to change the scriptural status of these books? No
2. Where was Luther beliefs found in the Early Church? No where, he invented most of them.

 

[turtleoompa]

Ziapueblo and DarkMark are correct. Also Martin Luther moved the 7 books towards the back of his version of the bible to suit his own purposes, and eventually they were phased out of the protestant bible.

 

[Transformer]

FWIW, I was wondering could I continue reading my Message bible, or do I need to read something other than what I have to get a deeper understanding of the Catholic readings?

I can’t recommend the Message; its paraphrases of many passages really don’t get the Message across clearly at all. You might compare one of the gospel accounts of the Our Father in the Message with the same account in a relatively literal translation (perhaps a Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition, or even a New American Bible would be fine). That should give you an idea of the degree to which the Message oversimplifies many passages.

Still, I certainly don’t think the Message is going to magically corrupt your faith if you just use it as a tool for understanding the basic, literal meaning of some difficult Bible accounts.

God bless.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

did he get the new testament from the Jews?

Last I checked all of the apostles were Jews. So, yes, we did.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Rodney it would be safe to say the church would be against cultic or arian translations like the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of its translation bias to deny the deity of Christ.

 

[Cajetan]

Out of all of the Scripture versions out there, I have found that Eugene H. Peterson’s The Message reserves a high place among the ones to be avoided. This is especially so for Catholics, but most serious Protestants would probably echo this sentiment. It is not a translation at all; it actually goes well beyond the standards of a paraphrase. What Peterson has produced would be more accurately labelled a very free interpretation or commentary… and not a good one at that (what we have here is what Eugene H. Peterson thinks that the Bible is saying, not to mention in a thoroughly obnoxious and disrespectful manner which he apparently thinks will appeal to the zoned-out youth of our day. And who the heck is Eugene H. Peterson? Exactly.)

If its use by chance inspires some people to encounter the Scriptures through a valid version, then that’s great. But I could never recommend its use to anyone.

For Catholics, there are any number of great-to-good authorized versions out there: the Douay-Rheims, Douay-Confraternity, Knox Bible, NAB, RSV:CE, Jerusalem Bible, etc. Granted, they aren’t as easy to find as Protestant Bibles, but that’s what the Internet is for. Shop around.

 

[Zooey]

Hi Rodney it would be safe to say the church would be against cultic or arian translations like the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of its translation bias to deny the deity of Christ.

Yup!! And a good thing, too.

Cajetan:

Out of all of the Scripture versions out there, I have found that Eugene H. Peterson’s The Message reserves a high place among the ones to be avoided. This is especially so for Catholics, but most serious Protestants would probably echo this sentiment. It is not a translation at all; it actually goes well beyond the standards of a paraphrase. …
If its use by chance inspires some people to encounter the Scriptures through a valid version, then that’s great. But I could never recommend its use to anyone.

Hi, I’m Zooey, Resident Serious Protestant:tiphat: .

I actually picked up a copy of the Message New Testament at a yard sale a few years ago…I read it a lot after I had open heart surgery some months after that, when I could barely read the Bible at all, because I was sore & tired & thoroughly miserable…but I wouldn’t recommend it.

On the other hand, as Cajetan says, if it inspires you to read Scripture, that is a:yup: good thing. Just don’t use it as your main Bible, certainly not as a study Bible. It’s not up to the weight. But – if it gives you a feel for the main story of the Bible (& it does), it can be the route that leads you to a better, more literal version of the texts.
I think of it as a “Bible storybook” for grown-ups. Not altogether a bad thing: I still have–and enjoy–the Bible storybook [Egermeier’s] I read as a child. But I wouldn’t try to learn doctrine from either one.:twocents: (About what my opinions are worth…)

 

[garysibio]

---

1. Martin Luther did not “took these books out of the OT”
   The Protestant bible contain the same books which the Jewish bible does.

---

Actually, he did. There were several versions of the Bible (OT) used by the Jews:

1. The one used by the Pharisees. This corresponds to the verion used by Protestants today. This was decided after the fall of Jerusalem.
2. The one used by the Saducees. It consisted of Gen, Ex, Lev, Num & Deut only.
3. The one used by the Essenes. Same as #1 minus
   Esther plus a few others.
4. The Septuagint. This is the version used when the NT quotes the OT. It contains the books in the Catholic OT which Luther removed.

---

“Luther removed books from the New Testament.”​

No one said he did this although he did want to get rid of James & Revelation. He was talked out of it.

---

NASB: Rom11:13
NIV: Rom4:23, Rom14:7
NKJV:Rom4:23, Rom11:3, Rom16:27
ESV: Rom4:23, Rom11:3,

Of these four I checked the word alone is there, but not linked with the word faith.​

The verse he added ‘alone’ to was Rom 3:28. The only verse in the Bible with the phrase ‘faith alone’ is James 2:24 where it says we are not saved by faith alone.

Gary