Explaining Catholic Bible vs. King James Bible and Saints to Baptist friend

[7_Sorrows]

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

Thank you for the advice about saints and for the other background on Bible versions and Deuter canonical books.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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

I think talking to her about the history of the Bible is very important. The Bible precedes the King James Version.
That is an excellent link. Thank you.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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!

Very true. By what authority do they have to decide what books should be included or not included in the Bible?

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

As you convey this information to your Protestant friend you must remain very charitable because they will start to see the foundation of their faith system (Bible alone) crumbling. If they are honest they are left with either the Church got it wrong and used a false Bible for the first 1500 years of its existence (and that can’t be the case because Jesus said He would protect His Church) or they are wrong. And to say they are wrong can be a very traumatic event for them…and they will fight it.

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-

Thanks Ernie! That is a great post! Very helpful. I think knowing the history of the Bible is very important. Truth does matter!

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

Where can I find the scripture that proves the Church of Christ is visible and a Divine
Institution?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Thanks to all who have posted here. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your advice and knowledge.
The more I read your posts makes me realize how much I still need to learn. I studied a lot about the Catholic faith about 10 years before converting and I have continued to try to educate myself, but, unfortunately, my 65 year old brain does not retain the information as efficiently as my 20 year old brain did when I was in college 45 years ago minoring in religion. That is why I don’t have the confidence “presenting” my
argument when it comes to the Bible or theological issues.

My friend lives in another state, but we talk once a week. I will have to innocently drop tidbits of
the information I have learned here in our conversations and see what comments or
questions follow.

I accept she is Baptist now and protestantism is all she has ever known. But I know she is receptive to learning certain things. I certainly am not trying to be overbearing
or trying to convert her or a competition of " my church is better than your church".
Simply when we dialogue about Christianity or theology or our Bibles, I want to sound
like I know what I am talking about.
As I said, in our 39 year friendship she has never wavered in her faith nor her belief in
Jesus Christ. She was given a much stronger foundation by her parents on how to be a Christian and lead a Christian life than I was. I was a non-committed non-practicing
Christian most of my life torn between Judaism and Christianity and agnosticism every
now and then. That is why I admire my friend so much. She is so sure about her belief
and faith in God and Jesus. Her life on earth is so clear to her.

 

[USMC_Convert]

BTW, I forgot to mention a favorite way I explain praying to Saints, maybe this will help her understand.

Let’s say you want something from someone, a job for example. So you go in front of the boss and ask him for the job. You have that ability to just go and ask him directly for the job and being the boss he has the power to give you the job or to deny you that job; however, what if before you even got to the office you could have had his mother call him up and say “hey this next guy “John” I think you should give him the job.” Or if one of his really good friends turned around to him and said, “hey you got a guy John coming to see you, why not give him the job?”

How much more willing would the “boss” be to give “john” the job than if he just went there on his own?

This being said you also have to, at the same time, explain why God gives the Blessed Mother so much power. She is the Queen of the Universe! Why is she the Queen? How can we prove that?

Ask her what line of Kings is Jesus in? Davidic line of Kings! In the Davidic line of Kings who is the Queen? The King’s wife? No, it is always the Kings mother who is the Queen, so Mary being the Mother of Jesus means she reins with Him as Queen. Look to the story of King Solomon for scripture references…

 

[7_Sorrows]

BTW, I forgot to mention a favorite way I explain praying to Saints, maybe this will help her understand.

Let’s say you want something from someone, a job for example. So you go in front of the boss and ask him for the job. You have that ability to just go and ask him directly for the job and being the boss he has the power to give you the job or to deny you that job; however, what if before you even got to the office you could have had his mother call him up and say “hey this next guy “John” I think you should give him the job.” Or if one of his really good friends turned around to him and said, “hey you got a guy John coming to see you, why not give him the job?”

How much more willing would the “boss” be to give “john” the job than if he just went there on his own?

This being said you also have to, at the same time, explain why God gives the Blessed Mother so much power. She is the Queen of the Universe! Why is she the Queen? How can we prove that?

Ask her what line of Kings is Jesus in? Davidic line of Kings! In the Davidic line of Kings who is the Queen? The King’s wife? No, it is always the Kings mother who is the Queen, so Mary being the Mother of Jesus means she reins with Him as Queen. Look to the story of King Solomon for scripture references…

thank you for that advice!

 

[DebChris]

Patrick Madrid recommends the RSV when communicating with non-Catholics so everybody has a Bible that used and accepted by most denominations.
I carry a small Catholic Edition from Ignatius Press.
While the NAB is the translation used for liturgical services within the United States, I discovered while living in the Middle East that the RSV was used for the Mass there as other places that had been held under British protectorate, and many parts of Africa.
I also have a copy of the Catholic Answers Bible which is NAB. It contains a history of the “Origin, Inspiration, and History” of the Bible.
–Jerome’s Vulgate was accepted by the 9th century, remaining to this day the official version of the Church although not completely free from error nor to be preferred over original manuscripts.
–Since the Douay-Rheims translation in 1582, English has undergone continuous change and a complete revision of the Douay-Rheims was undergone in 1750.
–1611 King James Version was an attempt to consolidate the various Protestant Bibles then in circulation. “While of great literary merit, Protestants themselves recognized the many serious defects in the translation.”
–Canon determined by Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, formally canonized by Council of Trent in 1546.

Pharisees set up 4 criteria sacred books had to pass to included in revised Jewish canon: (1) in harmony with Pentateuch; (2) Written before the time of Ezra; (3) Written in Hebrew; (4) Written in Palestine.

Catholics recognize the Alexandrine Canon of the Greek-Roman tradition. the one Jesus quoted from. The books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Patrick Madrid recommends the RSV when communicating with non-Catholics so everybody has a Bible that used and accepted by most denominations.
I carry a small Catholic Edition from Ignatius Press.
While the NAB is the translation used for liturgical services within the United States, I discovered while living in the Middle East that the RSV was used for the Mass there as other places that had been held under British protectorate, and many parts of Africa.
I also have a copy of the Catholic Answers Bible which is NAB. It contains a history of the “Origin, Inspiration, and History” of the Bible.
–Jerome’s Vulgate was accepted by the 9th century, remaining to this day the official version of the Church although not completely free from error nor to be preferred over original manuscripts.
–Since the Douay-Rheims translation in 1582, English has undergone continuous change and a complete revision of the Douay-Rheims was undergone in 1750.
–1611 King James Version was an attempt to consolidate the various Protestant Bibles then in circulation. “While of great literary merit, Protestants themselves recognized the many serious defects in the translation.”
–Canon determined by Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, formally canonized by Council of Trent in 1546.

Pharisees set up 4 criteria sacred books had to pass to included in revised Jewish canon: (1) in harmony with Pentateuch; (2) Written before the time of Ezra; (3) Written in Hebrew; (4) Written in Palestine.

Catholics recognize the Alexandrine Canon of the Greek-Roman tradition. the one Jesus quoted from. The books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Thanks!

 

[ericc]

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?

I can point you to the book exactly that show what happen to the printing of the apocrypha. You can borrow it here openlibrary.org/works/OL4630282W/Review_of_the_conduct_of_the_directors_of_the_British_and_Foreign_Bible_Society_relative_to_the_Apoc

Spoiler! From the Preface of the book:

Since the following pages went to press, it has been reported that the Sub-committee the British and Foreign Bible Society have resolved to propose to the General Meeting, that its funds shall no longer be applied to the printing of the Apocrypha. Supposing the report to be correct, it does not render this publication the less necessary. It remains to be seen whether the line of conduct finally adopted, shall be such as to prevent the funds of the Bible Societies of Britain from being indirectly instrumental in aiding the circulation of the Apocrypha by the Foreign Societies. …

Interesting book. Scanning through the Contents page should give you enough insight as to which chapters are relevant to you.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I can point you to the book exactly that show what happen to the printing of the apocrypha. You can borrow it here openlibrary.org/works/OL4630282W/Review_of_the_conduct_of_the_directors_of_the_British_and_Foreign_Bible_Society_relative_to_the_Apoc

Spoiler! From the Preface of the book:

Since the following pages went to press, it has been reported that the Sub-committee the British and Foreign Bible Society have resolved to propose to the General Meeting, that its funds shall no longer be applied to the printing of the Apocrypha. Supposing the report to be correct, it does not render this publication the less necessary. It remains to be seen whether the line of conduct finally adopted, shall be such as to prevent the funds of the Bible Societies of Britain from being indirectly instrumental in aiding the circulation of the Apocrypha by the Foreign Societies. …

Interesting book. Scanning through the Contents page should give you enough insight as to which chapters are relevant to you.

thanks for the link.

 

[PNEUMA]

I explained that it was intercession, but I could almost “see” her roll her eyes over the phone or a tone of why do you need a saint to intercede when you can ask God directly.
I got the impression she doesn’t and won’t ever believe in saints.

Paul and Timothy pray for the saints and the saints pray for them

Colossians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. In our prayers for you we always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Paul and Timothy pray for the saints and the saints pray for them

Colossians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. In our prayers for you we always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you PNEUMA! I will remember this scripture! Her son’s name is Timothy too! This is the type of example I was hoping for.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I can point you to the book exactly that show what happen to the printing of the apocrypha. You can borrow it here openlibrary.org/works/OL4630282W/Review_of_the_conduct_of_the_directors_of_the_British_and_Foreign_Bible_Society_relative_to_the_Apoc

Spoiler! From the Preface of the book:

Since the following pages went to press, it has been reported that the Sub-committee the British and Foreign Bible Society have resolved to propose to the General Meeting, that its funds shall no longer be applied to the printing of the Apocrypha. Supposing the report to be correct, it does not render this publication the less necessary. It remains to be seen whether the line of conduct finally adopted, shall be such as to prevent the funds of the Bible Societies of Britain from being indirectly instrumental in aiding the circulation of the Apocrypha by the Foreign Societies. …

Interesting book. Scanning through the Contents page should give you enough insight as to which chapters are relevant to you.

Great link!

In reading the preface, one gets the sense of extreme hostility to the Papist Bible. The Apocrypha has become, by this time, a rallying point for Protestants to take a stand against the Romish Church. In England, in this period, Catholics had finally won legal emancipation from the penal laws, which was sorely resented in some quarters. This resentment would find expression in things like a total removal of the Apocrypha from Bibles as pure human fiction of no value or worse. Today’s Evangelicals keep this spirit alive.

Even in the US, during the same period, the influx of immigrants and the rise of Catholicism throughout the young nation, had a similar effect. There were penal laws in some States against Catholics, and these were, little by little, being struck down. The alarming freedom of expression for Catholics was more than some could take.

Even today! Is there any religion in the US that is more the target of celebrity ridicule, media hype and political censure than Catholicism?

 

[jas84173]

I’ve always been kind of offended when people refer to the books Catholics and Orthodox Christians define as scripture " apocrypha “. Apocrypha means literally " hidden things”. There is nothing being hidden. Most Protestants will even acknowledge they are beneficial to read , but just deny they are Inspired scripture. We prefer the term " Deuterocanonical Books" where as books considered Inspired by all Christians , Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike are " Protocanonical Books ". Apocrypha is a term best to describe books which were never given status as scripture for example The Book of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Peter, and literally maybe up too 100 writings which were written pseudiographically. It’s a shame these books which were held by Catholics and Orthodox as scripture for over a millennium are now given the same word as books that were also deemed heretical. I’ve always liked the NRSV and do respect them for saying NRSV w/ Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books. I like that version, although there is a NRSV Catholic Edition as well, the former includes books considered Inspired by Orthodox Christians as well, so it is really a " Common Bible ". I’ve always preferred the translation of the NRSV over all others as well.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Great link!

In reading the preface, one gets the sense of extreme hostility to the Papist Bible. The Apocrypha has become, by this time, a rallying point for Protestants to take a stand against the Romish Church. In England, in this period, Catholics had finally won legal emancipation from the penal laws, which was sorely resented in some quarters. This resentment would find expression in things like a total removal of the Apocrypha from Bibles as pure human fiction of no value or worse. Today’s Evangelicals keep this spirit alive.

Even in the US, during the same period, the influx of immigrants and the rise of Catholicism throughout the young nation, had a similar effect. There were penal laws in some States against Catholics, and these were, little by little, being struck down. The alarming freedom of expression for Catholics was more than some could take.

Even today! Is there any religion in the US that is more the target of celebrity ridicule, media hype and political censure than Catholicism?

I am coming to believe there is still some hostility to Catholic Bibles today. Most Christian bookstores do not carry Catholic Bibles - only Protestant Bibles.

 

[Ernie07]

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.

Nothing against you as I’ve heard this “incomplete” argument all too many times, but sadly, the tolerance for error is becoming commonplace within the Catholic faith (and this includes our Church leaders). What was once anathema per the Council of Trent is now simply “incomplete” As stated by that council: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” The problem is that this should still apply and yet we’re so much more accommodating today. I mean what’s the big deal about 7 books, right…it’s only 15% of the OT!?

If I told you that there were 45 states or 11 apostles or 9 Commandments and I professed all of these to be true would you call that “incomplete” or false? If I were to tell you that I also believe in a 66 book Bible as being complete, but the books I leave out are the first 7 would you still think my beliefs are “incomplete”? Who are we to say what can be stricken from the Word of God? We have replaced steadfastness regarding the truth with a “let’s all just get along” type attitude. Sickening.

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.

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Most Protestants believe that once they profess belief in Jesus they are saved and nothing they do (short of rejecting belief in Christ) from a sin standpoint can take away their salvation. Purgatory flies directly in the face of that belief…that we’re not assured of our salvation and must persevere to the very end. Without Purgatory their belief system can make sense…with Purgatory it makes no sense and is actually dangerous perhaps giving someone a false sense of security. To believe in Purgatory is not to be Protestant and that is why 2 Macc is so important since it is so clear and leaves no other interpretation.

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.

If the very book they use as the basis of their faith system is proven to be false how does their belief system not crumble? The removal of the 7 inspired books was vital to Luther’s break from the Church. It showed how the authority of the Church could be side-stepped and allowed him to structure a completely new belief system. He needed to kill the belief in Purgatory for his belief system to make any sense at all. Take that away and they have a gaping hole in their views on salvation.

What are a few of the possible explanations they would use as to why our Bibles differ? I’ve heard, “you Catholics added 7 books” (which is easily refuted by history), “the 7 books were always disputed” (yes, but the Church ended those disputes by decree in the late 4th century), “we simply sided with the Jews and Catholics didn’t” (again, easily refuted by history). What other explanations have you heard?

And I hear you on your thoughts of proving a visible institutional Church. Typically though, before I enter into that kind of discussion I take them back in time to discuss the merits of a Bible-only faith system up to the end of the 4th century (when the Bible didn’t even exist!). Hard to defend a belief system that would have been unknown and untenable for the first 300+ years of the Church…but that is a discussion worthy of a separate thread.

Thanks for your thoughts.

-Ernie-

 

[po18guy]

What I have done over the past several years is listen to Catholic radio daily, at home and in the car. I watch Catholic videos on YouTube and read Catholic books. I may be only a year or less behind you, but the Lord will grant you the grace of learning.

 

[Michael85]

It sounds like your friend is an Independent Fundamental KJV Only Baptist. I have been involved with these types of people briefly. They are usually very anti-Catholic (and interestingly enough, very anti-Calvinist as well). Some of them hold to the 'Baptist successionism" teaching which claims that there have always been churches who believe the same thing modern Baptists believe, and that these churches were independent of the established Church, which they (correctly) identify as the Catholic Church. They claim that groups such as the Montanists, Paulicians, Waldenses, Albigenses etc were actually Baptists. Never mind that these groups did not teach anything like modern Baptist beliefs. Those who hold this view generally do not see themselves as Protestants.

With regards to the KJV only position, there are a variety of viewpoints and they are explained here. Generally they will say that the manuscripts behind the modern critical text from which all the new Bible versions (except the NKJV) are translated from are corrupt. There is some evidence for this, and I have myself held that position. But many of these Independent Fundamental Baptists will claim that the KJV has some level of inspiration, and some go so far as to say that the KJV can be used to correct the original Hebrew and Greek. Some even say that if a non-English speaker wants the Bible, they need to learn English and read the KJV.

If you want to read more about the KJV only position to try and help your friend, James White’s book The King James Only Controversy is very extensive. (Keep in mind, though that White is very anti-Catholic).