7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Yes they are. I just don’t understand what she sees wrong with a Catholic Bible.
Explaining Catholic Bible vs. King James Bible and Saints to Baptist friend
- Status
S
steve93
Guest
Are you talking about the kjv as in the catholic vs the protestant canon list or as in that the kjv is somehow the only “real” (according to fundie lunatics) Bible?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
the Bible itself. my Baptist friend thinks the KJV is the ONLY bible that should be read.
S
steve93
Guest
There is no arguing with these types, might as well talk to a rock. Ask her which bible was the “real” one before English was invented and explain that the original JKV had the “Apocrypha” and that its OT is based on the corrupted masoritic text (the Jews tampered with it and wrote “young woman” instead of “virgin”, which would of course mean that either that is in no way a sign (not being a miracle) or that Abel was our savior!).
That should make her realize her foolishness.
C
commenter
Guest
eek!
If God is speaking to her through her Bible, that is good. Don’t do anything to make her question that. Don’t argue. If she asks a question you should have accurate information to respond. If she finds you to be a fair, listening ear she can talk to, that will tell her more about the Catholic Bible than arguments you find on CAF.
The “weakness” with the KJV, or any translation, is that it depends on who “endorses” this translation. The bible you use is endorsed by the Catholic Church. Her KJV is also endorsed by some human authority.
The greater vulnerability with the KJV is that its canon depends on some **human **authority, just as yours does. What human authority does she follow?
But again I would not go out of my way to point out the weakness of her bible version, unless she attacks the Catholic human authority. For most fundamentalists, the KJV is a given, taken for granted, with no questions about it. She may be better off than many Catholics and Protestants who are glued to the secular culture.
Thank God she reads it! No, you don’t want to make her feel foolish.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
No I don’t want to make her appear foolish. I have known my friend since 1976 and she was brought up in a strong Christian household in the Bible Belt and attended a church very close to Mennonite. When she married her husband her Baptist church made her get re-Baptized.
Her Christian faith has never waivered. She is a role model of a good Christian woman and wife.
I just want to be able to defend my Catholic Bible and the Catholic faith properly-not angrily.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
one thing I know she is disappointed in is that their pastor only offers
Communion once a year. She said they used to take it at least 2-3 times a year. I feel so fortunate to be Catholic and can receive the Eucharist at least once a week if not more often.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
That is a very good question! Very few Christians know the answer to this.
However, as luck would have it, the Journal of the International Society of Bible Collectors in their Spring 2017 issue, just published an article entitled: The Authorized Version and the Apocrypha by Lawrence M. Vance. (p. 76-84.) which tackles this very question!
Vance is the author of numerous books including: A Brief History of English Bible Translations, 1993; Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, 1999; The Making of the King James Bible, New Testament, 2015, King James, His Bible, and its Translators, (2nd ed. 2016)
In the article, Vance goes categorically over all of the early editions of the KJV beginning in 1611, all the way up to the 19th century, ALL of which came with the Apocrypha (with only a couple of very rare exceptions.)
However, in 1826 things changed:
I have an early American KJV printed in 1812 in Maryland which does not contain the Aprocrypha. So this was a movement that was already appearing in the US as well.
By 1828 the American Bible Society adopted a similar resolution regarding the Apocrypha.
It would be difficult to overestimate the power and influence of these early Bible Societies which were dedicated to bringing the Bible to everyone, no matter how poor.
Nevertheless, it was hardly a religious determination, but more of an economic or social one. Vance does not draw any conclusions from these historic facts.
C
CyrilSebastian
Guest
Spiderweb, In what year did Henry Graham write the book?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Wow! That is exactly the information I was looking for! So roughly for 200 years the King James was published containing the Apocryphal books? Then due to cost, Bible societies would only fund publishing Bibles without the Apocryphal books? Have I understood correctly?That is a very good question! Very few Christians know the answer to this.
However, as luck would have it, the Journal of the International Society of Bible Collectors in their Spring 2017 issue, just published an article entitled: The Authorized Version and the Apocrypha by Lawrence M. Vance. (p. 76-84.) which tackles this very question!
Vance is the author of numerous books including: A Brief History of English Bible Translations, 1993; Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, 1999; The Making of the King James Bible, New Testament, 2015, King James, His Bible, and its Translators, (2nd ed. 2016)
In the article, Vance goes categorically over all of the early editions of the KJV beginning in 1611, all the way up to the 19th century, ALL of which came with the Apocrypha (with only a couple of very rare exceptions.)
However, in 1826 things changed:
I have an early American KJV printed in 1812 in Maryland which does not contain the Aprocrypha. So this was a movement that was already appearing in the US as well.
By 1828 the American Bible Society adopted a similar resolution regarding the Apocrypha.
It would be difficult to overestimate the power and influence of these early Bible Societies which were dedicated to bringing the Bible to everyone, no matter how poor.
Nevertheless, it was hardly a religious determination, but more of an economic or social one. Vance does not draw any conclusions from these historic facts.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
It looks like it was first published in 1911 and there are 8 editions. I might not be correct.
E
ericc
Guest
The first printed Bible (around 1450) , the Gutenberg Bible had all the books. It is Catholic of course.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Thank you for that info.
po18guy
Well-known member
The odd thing about the KJV promoters (“onlyists”) is that they cite that it is “authorized version” - but by whom?
A secular king! And they say the Catholic Church is man-made!
Whatever you do, it is best to avoid trying to demonstrate Catholic doctrine using the NAB or NAB/RE. Both are very soft, ecumenical editions and are unclear and imprecise translations. Truth to tell, the KJV is only 91% of the bible, but what it has accords well with Catholic doctrine. My 1845 US King James Version had already been stripped of the Deuterocanonical (“Apocryphal”) books.
The Douay-Rheims is classic, but rather archaic linguistically. The Knox is excellent, but very British. Any of the 1941-1969 Catholic Confraternity bibles are excellent - particularly the New Testament, which was a fresh translation. I also like the Revised English Bible (w/Deuterocanon) by Oxford/Cambridge Press.
However, there is a very interesting point: why is the New Testament called that, in those words? Those two words appear in both the King James Version as well as the Douay-Rheims - in the narratives of the last supper, and in Paul’s recounting of the revelation he received. Our Lord uses these words only to describe the “new testament in my blood” - the Eucharist! We call the 27 books the “New Testament” because of the Eucharist. All later translations have altered that to “new covenant”, but the meaning remains the same.
Might point that out to her, as well as the fact that Jesus commanded the Apostles “Do this, as often as you do it” and that in Acts, the Apostles and disciples met every Lord’s day (Sunday) to break the bread. How is her denomination following our Lord’s command if they have, not unleavened bread and wine, but crackers and juice once or twice per year?
A secular king! And they say the Catholic Church is man-made!
Whatever you do, it is best to avoid trying to demonstrate Catholic doctrine using the NAB or NAB/RE. Both are very soft, ecumenical editions and are unclear and imprecise translations. Truth to tell, the KJV is only 91% of the bible, but what it has accords well with Catholic doctrine. My 1845 US King James Version had already been stripped of the Deuterocanonical (“Apocryphal”) books.
The Douay-Rheims is classic, but rather archaic linguistically. The Knox is excellent, but very British. Any of the 1941-1969 Catholic Confraternity bibles are excellent - particularly the New Testament, which was a fresh translation. I also like the Revised English Bible (w/Deuterocanon) by Oxford/Cambridge Press.
However, there is a very interesting point: why is the New Testament called that, in those words? Those two words appear in both the King James Version as well as the Douay-Rheims - in the narratives of the last supper, and in Paul’s recounting of the revelation he received. Our Lord uses these words only to describe the “new testament in my blood” - the Eucharist! We call the 27 books the “New Testament” because of the Eucharist. All later translations have altered that to “new covenant”, but the meaning remains the same.
Might point that out to her, as well as the fact that Jesus commanded the Apostles “Do this, as often as you do it” and that in Acts, the Apostles and disciples met every Lord’s day (Sunday) to break the bread. How is her denomination following our Lord’s command if they have, not unleavened bread and wine, but crackers and juice once or twice per year?
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Salutations.
Have her share verses w you in her Bible and you share same verses w your Bible. Google Hx of first Bibles w extra books. Print it out and give to her.
Ask her if she believes there is a heaven and if ppl are in it. Are those ppl dead or alive? If I can ask you to pray for me, to ask God to heal me, in Jesus name, by the power of Holy Spirit. Why can’t I ask those family members that died and gone to heaven and the Saints that are in heaven to continue my petitions before the throne. The newest Bibles, even Kings James have had original translating re-evaluated w teams that involve Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Evaluating translations in original languages.
In fact, KJV , was written using the Latin Vulgate version by St. JEROME. They went back to the Old
Testament books in Torah and works of Prophets,
original books of Psalms aND Proverbs.
I heard the Deuterconniacal books were books Jesus read in the Temples. But, under Constatine, the Council he convened, prayed and felt those extra books were not Holy Spirit inspired.
If I’m telling fairy tales, I’m sorry. But, that’s how I was taught. Corrections are allowed.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
H
hadulzo
Guest
There is a balanced history of what transpired on wiki. Not the best source but makes the point defendable from a neutral source. The discussion really drills down to accepting or not accepting the Septuagint, which Jesus and the apostles used. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Although the author of the article does not draw any conclusions, it doesn’t seem unfair to suppose that cost entered into the discussions, as well as the controversial nature of the apocryphal books. In fact, in my opinion that may have been the chief concern. IOW, leaving out the apocryphal books was less controversial than retaining them in the Protestant world.
A faithful Catholic finds this very strange; viz. that Parliaments and Bible societies decide religious issues. It certainly would be hard to find an example of that in the Bible!
E
Ernie07
Guest
Hello,
I’ve found the following thought process to be very effective when talking about the Catholic Bible with Protestants:
- Ask them if they know the history of the Bible and how it came to be. This will help you to understand where they’re coming from. It also helps to have a dialogue rather than a “presentation”.
- Explain that for over 300 years after Jesus’ resurrection there were many disputes and disagreements on what books should be included as divine scripture. Regarding the NT there was general agreement on between 18-23 books up to the middle 3rd century (Origen for instance disputed James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John). It wasn’t until Athanasius in the middle of the 4th century that anyone had even made public their opinion that all 27 books we call the NT were inspired. As for the OT, there were Hebrew speaking Jews who believed in what we would today call a 39 book OT while the Alexandrian Jews believed there to be 46 books that comprised the divinely inspired OT. An understanding of this history should give you credibility with your friend.
- To settle the above disagreements the Church convened a council in Hippo in 393 A.D. At that council it was decided that the divine scriptures were comprised of 27 books in the NT and 46 books in the OT (73 books total). The council sided with the Alexandrian Jews when it came to the OT canon. This decision was ratified in the council of Carthage in 397 A.D. It is important to note to your friend that “the Church” in this case is not the Catholic Church as we know it today. Remind your friend that during this time there were no denominations as we have today, but only a single Christian Church. This is important to note because your friend will likely not agree to any “Catholic Church” council.
- In around 400 A.D., because of the growing popularity of Latin, the Church commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin. Originally, Jerome believed that the OT should only be comprised of 39 books, but he set aside his personal beliefs and submitted to the authority of the Church and translated 46 books into what was called the Latin Vulgate. Including the 27 books in the NT and the 46 books in the OT, the Latin Vulgate was comprised of 73 books and was “the Bible of the Church” for over 1000 years.
- The Protestants removed the 7 books in the OT explaining their decision as siding with the Hebrew Jews.
Many Protestants I speak to are singularly focused on things of today. A key to any discussion with a Protestant is to get them thinking about Christians of all times. That the truth of today must be the truth of yesterday. How does their faith system and beliefs stack up to the truth of 500, 1000, 1500 years ago? Their brothers and sisters in Christ aren’t just those in their church today, but those that lived any time after 33 A.D.
Why the Bible version topic is so important to me is because what could be a more important topic than what comprises the Word of God? We can’t be so lukewarm on this topic thinking that it really doesn’t matter what version of the Bible you use. There are many Catholics that I have interacted with who see no problem with using non-Catholic bibles or that call the 66 book Bible “incomplete” rather than calling it false. The reason why it is false is that one of the books that was removed is 2 Maccabees which describes praying for the dead “as a holy and wholesome thought”. If praying for the dead is valid then the “assurance of salvation” doctrine falls apart. Believing in a false Bible leads to the belief in false doctrine. That is why we as Catholics have to fight for the truth at every turn including fighting for the real Bible. Truth matters!
I hope this helps and if you have any further questions please let me know. Thanks.
-Ernie-
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I don’t think what you are saying is fair. Incomplete is a better description than false, for the 66 book Bible. After all, the NT is in complete agreement with the Catholic Bible, and it would be wrong to call that false.
As for your concern about 2 Mac., the idea of praying for the dead really has no connection with “assurance of salvation.” It is more concerned with Purgatory and the Communion of the Saints.
What you say about knowing the history of the Bible is helpful, but I sincerely doubt that their belief in Sola Scriptura will “crumble” because of it.
You are viewing the problem from a Catholic perspective. But from a Protestant perspective, there are many possible (and plausible) explanations for why our Bibles differ. It is actually better, IMHO, to focus on the Church, its definition, and whether it exists as a visible institution, as described in the Bible. IOW, use the Bible to prove the existence of a visible institutional Church. Once you can prove that the Church of Christ is a visible, and also a Divine Institution, a lot more of what Catholics have to say will be heard or at least considered.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Thank you. Those are all good points.
- Status