Don't call "prostestant Biblie"... BIBLE!

[Koko81]

Why Catholics call “protestant Bible” - Bible…

There are differences in number of books, translation differences etc. THIS is NOT BIBLE.

This is unauthorized edited and published with copy right violation book.

It’s like I would take any book, and start changing content and publish it with THE same title… guess what would happen if the author would find out…

How can I call their book - Bible?

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think you’re going to find many supporters of your view.

Just because a Bible is incomplete, doesn’t mean it’s not a Bible. No one owns the copyright to the word “Bible”.

I think one would do more harm than good by refusing to call a Protestant’s Bible a “Bible”. It is unnecessarily combative and will only serve to foster ill feelings towards Catholics.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Are you really interested in a discussion of the canon, or are you just baiting an argument?

As for Lutherans, confessionally, our canon is understood to be the same as the Roman. However, we side with the opinion of St. Jerome, that the Old Testament is most reliable for doctrine in those books which originally composed the Hebrew canon. The remaining books of the Septuagint we receive, but not on the same level of authority with the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Our New Testament canon is identicle.

As for translations, confessionally, Lutherans understand only the originals, in their original languages, to hold doctrinal sway. Translations are always compared to the original texts (i.e., any translation is received on a lower authority than the original writings.) This is why priests of the confessional Lutheran synods are trained extensively in Greek and Hebrew, like our Roman Catholic brethren.

Grace and peace to you.

Why Catholics call “protestant Bible” - Bible…

There are differences in number of books, translation differences etc. THIS is NOT BIBLE.

This is unauthorized edited and published with copy right violation book.

It’s like I would take any book, and start changing content and publish it with THE same title… guess what would happen if the author would find out…

How can I call their book - Bible?

 

[Big_Ro]

Even though I hold the KJV in very low regard, I agree with Joe on this matter. I do want to ask WP about his quote on St. Jerome. I was recently reading something about this and I understood that St. Jerome had recanted on his original comments about the so called apocyphal works. any insight?

 

[Epistemes]

I’m personally grateful for Protestants and their Bibles. In terms of design of supplemental content, Protestant publishing houses are producing some of the finest Bibles ever.

 

[WorkerPriest]

If my memory serves, St. Jerome’s initial intent, was to translate the new Latin Vulgate from only the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT. He did later recant that position, and used the Septuagint, as well. I think he did retain the opinion that the Hebrew texts held preeminence over the Septuagint, though both were certainly useful to the Church.

I’ll have to go back through my old notes to find the quotations… or perhaps, the wonders of technology will make the work shorter.

Peace be with you.

Even though I hold the KJV in very low regard, I agree with Joe on this matter. I do want to ask WP about his quote on St. Jerome. I was recently reading something about this and I understood that St. Jerome had recanted on his original comments about the so called apocyphal works. any insight?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why Catholics call “protestant Bible” - Bible…

There are differences in number of books, translation differences etc. THIS is NOT BIBLE.

This is unauthorized edited and published with copy right violation book.

It’s like I would take any book, and start changing content and publish it with THE same title… guess what would happen if the author would find out…

How can I call their book - Bible?

FWIW, a book with a compilation of the New Testamenty only is still called the Bible

 

[on_fire]

St Jerome didnt think the Greek Sept. was the inspired Old Testament,he believed the Hebrew version was,but he realized it was his personnal opinion and knew it was wrong to go against Mother Church…Mother always knows best…he accepted it and continued with his work.and accepted the Septuagint as the inspired word of God,as we still do today.

 

[teachccd]

Yes… St Jerome, unlike Martin Luther, submitted to the Holy See in spite of his personal beliefs. The Latin Vulgate includes all 46 books of the Old Testament. We can all have personal opinions but when Holy Mother Church speaks we must listen as St. Jerome did… teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Why Catholics call “protestant Bible” - Bible…

There are differences in number of books, translation differences etc. THIS is NOT BIBLE.

This is unauthorized edited and published with copy right violation book.

It’s like I would take any book, and start changing content and publish it with THE same title… guess what would happen if the author would find out…

How can I call their book - Bible?

The term “bible” means books. It does not in and of itself define the number of books that are to be acknowledged as inspired. You are treading some rough waters with your post. The Protestant Bible is incomplete but it should still be regarded as the inspired Word of God being a worthy translation… teachccd

 

[lampstand]

I think the other churches certainly lost something when some of the books were taken out by the reformers. For the average person in the pew, it’s not their fault, they didn’t get to make the choice; but the books that are in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles do go a long way toward supporting prayer for the dead and other important principles of faith. How much of history and the friction between the various churches would be different, if they had all stuck to the same canon? Sometimes questions on the order of, “Why isn’t that in the Bible?” can be answered with a simple, “Oh yes, it is”-- if you point to the so-called deuterocanonical books.

In fact, I wonder why we even still call them that. Catholics make up more than 50% of the Christians in the world (one billion plus, out of the two billion Christians). The Orthodox have a nearly identical canon, and they make up about 250 million. So, why do we talk about these books as if they are still in the minority? Why do we almost apologize for them?

They are part of the Bible.

 

[Koko81]

The term “bible” means books. It does not in and of itself define the number of books that are to be acknowledged as inspired. You are treading some rough waters with your post. The Protestant Bible is incomplete but it should still be regarded as the inspired Word of God being a worthy translation… teachccd

So, if I will take 100 different, random books and I will call this compilation Bible… you are going to be happy … and I will include all books from Catholic Bible… let say connect Koran and Catholic Bible and call this Bible… or… imagine.

People who read Koran think it’s also inspired by God.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Just as a point of clarification, neither Luther nor the English Reformation, removed any of the books from the canon. Luther’s German translation included them all, as did the 1611 King James Version. It is a much later development, even in the Reformation churches, that dropped these from the canon. For Lutherans in America, I believe it was the early 20th century, when their German bibles were traded in for English translations, which were overly influenced by low-church protestantism.

Just a historical point of order. For what it’s worth, my favorite English text, is the Orthodox Study Bible. Peace to you.

PS-- I think the issue of our day, is much less whether the Bible you carry contains the OT Hebrew or Greek, but whether you believe what the text actually says. Modernism and Humanism have wrought such terrible tragedies on both Roman and non-Roman churches, that many have discarded the Sacred Texts altogether. One of the things I still find comforting in my current Lutheran synod, is that they confessionally accept the Holy Scriptures without compromise to modernity nor humanism. Perhaps it is a gift we can give back to our Roman brethren.

I think the other churches certainly lost something when some of the books were taken out by the reformers. For the average person in the pew, it’s not their fault, they didn’t get to make the choice; but the books that are in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles do go a long way toward supporting prayer for the dead and other important principles of faith. How much of history and the friction between the various churches would be different, if they had all stuck to the same canon? Sometimes questions on the order of, “Why isn’t that in the Bible?” can be answered with a simple, “Oh yes, it is”-- if you point to the so-called deuterocanonical books.

In fact, I wonder why we even still call them that. Catholics make up more than 50% of the Christians in the world (one billion plus, out of the two billion Christians). The Orthodox have a nearly identical canon, and they make up about 250 million. So, why do we talk about these books as if they are still in the minority? Why do we almost apologize for them?

They are part of the Bible.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why Catholics call “protestant Bible” - Bible…

There are differences in number of books, translation differences etc. THIS is NOT BIBLE.

This is unauthorized edited and published with copy right violation book.

It’s like I would take any book, and start changing content and publish it with THE same title… guess what would happen if the author would find out…

How can I call their book - Bible?

please do not make claims you cannot substantiate, and please review forum rules on trashing other denominations and their adherents. You don’t hold the copyright because there is none on the bible, only on some translations. You don’t hold the authority to say who may or may not translate and publish, so try not to speak as if you do. To the extent that any version or translation published without Catholic Church authority adheres to the original texts and does not promote error, they can indeed be called “bibles” and it is simply to the detriment of those relying on them if they are incomplete in all the books, but you are a little over the top in your claims.

 

[teachccd]

So, if I will take 100 different, random books and I will call this compilation Bible… you are going to be happy … and I will include all books from Catholic Bible… let say connect Koran and Catholic Bible and call this Bible… or… imagine.

People who read Koran think it’s also inspired by God.

You are making absolutely no sense. ALL of the books in the Protestant canon are inspired but incomplete when compared to the Catholic canon. We can use the KJV (although I don’t particularaly like the translation) as scripture. I never said to “connect” a bunch of other writings and then call it the bible. You are talking apples and oranges here. The Protestant bible would be like taking a part of the Catechism out of the CCC but what remains is still the Catechism just an incomplete version. Do I make any sense? I am just stating facts and not opinions to “make me happy”…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Just as a point of clarification, neither Luther nor the English Reformation, removed any of the books from the canon. Luther’s German translation included them all, as did the 1611 King James Version. It is a much later development, even in the Reformation churches, that dropped these from the canon. For Lutherans in America, I believe it was the early 20th century, when their German bibles were traded in for English translations, which were overly influenced by low-church protestantism.

.

Yes, the books were there but they were not considered to be inspired and noted as apocryphal books. There is a difference in the view of an inspired deuterocanonical text and a non-inspired apocrypha text. That’s why there was no problem dropping them from the compiled canon… teachccd

 

[WorkerPriest]

Indeed, there is a difference in our approximation of their value, and their relative utility for forming doctrine. But our authentic Lutheran patrimony does not discard them, and used them liturgically for a long time (as I believe the Anglicans still do, in some quarters.)

Since the texts of the dueterocanonical books have obvious contradictions with each other (cf. first and second Maccabees,) many Reformation Churches sided with various Church Fathers, that while they were good for edification within the Church, they were not the most reliable for the formation of doctrine. If I recall, this was also the opinion of Pope St. Gregory the Great, among others.

Anyway, I think it an impoverishment that contemporary Lutherans often know nothing of the Septuagint texts, nor of their own patrimony.

Peace to you.

Yes, the books were there but they were not considered to be inspired and noted as apocryphal books. There is a difference in the view of an inspired deuterocanonical text and a non-inspired apocrypha text. That’s why there was no problem dropping them from the compiled canon… teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Indeed, there is a difference in our approximation of their value, and their relative utility for forming doctrine. But our authentic Lutheran patrimony does not discard them, and used them liturgically for a long time (as I believe the Anglicans still do, in some quarters.)

Since the texts of the dueterocanonical books have obvious contradictions with each other (cf. first and second Maccabees,) many Reformation Churches sided with various Church Fathers, that while they were good for edification within the Church, they were not the most reliable for the formation of doctrine. If I recall, this was also the opinion of Pope St. Gregory the Great, among others.

Anyway, I think it an impoverishment that contemporary Lutherans often know nothing of the Septuagint texts, nor of their own patrimony.

Peace to you.

You would have to issue documentation as to the citings of St. Gregory the Great in this regard. And as to contradictions, you would also have to cite those and how they would distinguish themselves from the other contradictions running through Scripture. See the resurrection accounts for example. Should we discard John’s account since he states that it was still dark when they go to the tomb? I’m not sure what you are saying here.

Anyway, there are books that are written to this topic and I hold to the canon of the Catholic Church since we also maintained the Apostolic Tradition from where Scripture was drawn and the Magisterium as the teaching authority and official interpreter of the Church. It’s like pulling the U.S.Constitution away from the Supreme court and allowing every citizen to privately interpret it for themselves.

There is indeed a huge impoverishment in the Christian faith as a whole whereby our divisions take front stage to the very person of Jesus Christ. Very sad indeed.

Peace to you, my friend…teachccd

 

[WorkerPriest]

Fair enough on the references-- I ought not present too boldly, what I only distantly remember from studies long ago.

I might offer, though… that there are some relatively winsome contemporary arguments for pulling the Constitution away from the Supreme Court, and giving it a plain reading amongst the people (i.e., constructionism, and the reading of the Court into the document regarding rights to abortion and so forht, that clearly aren’t there.)

Peace be with you.

You would have to issue documentation as to the citings of St. Gregory the Great in this regard. And as to contradictions, you would also have to cite those and how they would distinguish themselves from the other contradictions running through Scripture. See the resurrection accounts for example. Should we discard John’s account since he states that it was still dark when they go to the tomb? I’m not sure what you are saying here.

Anyway, there are books that are written to this topic and I hold to the canon of the Catholic Church since we also maintained the Apostolic Tradition from where Scripture was drawn and the Magisterium as the teaching authority and official interpreter of the Church. It’s like pulling the U.S.Constitution away from the Supreme court and allowing every citizen to privately interpret it for themselves.

There is indeed a huge impoverishment in the Christian faith as a whole whereby our divisions take front stage to the very person of Jesus Christ. Very sad indeed.

Peace to you, my friend…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Fair enough on the references-- I ought not present too boldly, what I only distantly remember from studies long ago.

I might offer, though… that there are some relatively winsome contemporary arguments for pulling the Constitution away from the Supreme Court, and giving it a plain reading amongst the people (i.e., constructionism, and the reading of the Court into the document regarding rights to abortion and so forht, that clearly aren’t there.)

Peace be with you.

Once authority is lost then it’s every person for themself and the directives become subjective. My analogy was weak since it is Jesus who entrusted the Apostles with His authority and there are many scripture passages that state this. See John 20:19-23 for one example. But, anyhow, I am where I am with the evidence provided by both Catholics and Protestants alike. I have read through many Protestant publications and researched Church history to a somewhat great degree. All things point to authority and who has what authority to speak on Scripture; its canonicity, interpretation and maintenance throughout the centuries of time.

Whenever a non-Catholic Christian makes a statement I always ask by what authority does he or she speak. If I get, “I speak on the authority of Scripture” then I beg the question as to how Scripture is authoritative on its own. A book cannot claim inspiration simply because it says so. We could say the same for the Koran and The Book of Mormon. They both make the same claim. There has to be an authoritative body that is guided by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors of Scripture to guide the Church in the acknowledgement of its canonicity and to guide the Church in its interpretation. It is extremely obvious what happens when the Bible is left up for personal interpretation… 33,000 different denominations all claiming the guidence of the Holy Spirit yet all divided on interpretation. Not what Christ expressed to His Father in John chapter 17… So sad indeed!

Peace be with you and I am only expressing my findings in the truth of the Catholic Church. You seem like a very nice person and you are presenting yourself in an extremely ecumenical manner and for that I thank you. I hope that you see my passion for my faith in the same light… God bless…teachccd