How Do I Convince My Wife Not To Read a Protestant Bible?

[b_justb]

I think the issue is that the bible in question is an NIV Study Bible, not just a copy of the NIV. The NIV Study Bible has tons of notes on what the scriptures mean. The messages in those notes are not always inline with Catholic teaching.

I don’t have my copy handy, but when I was a Protestant the NIV Study Bible was my favorite. I did not come to understand Catholic Church teachings on scripture by reading the foot notes in the NIV Study Bible, quite the contrary. They support the American Evangelical Protestant ideology. I am not saying that all the notes are bogus, but I am saying that on critical Church teachings as seen by the Scriptures those notes are not present in the NIV Study Bible.

If you have a copy, look at the notes for John 6 and Matthew 16 to see what I am talking about.

 

[inthecloud]

Probabli they were written by and sceptic.

 

[Fidelis]

The RSV is a “protestant” bible.

While the RSV**-CE ** (recommended above) is a Catholic Bible.

 

[jmcrae]

Psalm 1:1
Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked…

The other examples you gave make sense, but what’s wrong with this? Older translations say “Happy the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly …” but as far as I can tell there is no significant difference in the meaning, since “man” as I understand it in the old translations is meant to represent everyone; not just male adults.

So “those who” would be the modern equivalent of the meaning intended, right?

 

[Fidelis]

I have to be honest with you now. I actually read the KJV. Also the ASV, NIV, and amplified version. I do not read the Catholic version at all even though I went to Catholic church untill I was 32 or so. I also went to seminary for over 5 years.

I’m sorry your Catholic education was so deficient in substance. Many others, unfortunately, have had similar experiences. On the other hand, many Catholics I know were raised to read and love the Scriptures.

Through the grace of God and the help of the Holy Spirit I have since found the truth of all things and I am sorry to say it’s not the all holy and one true catholic church.

I’m truly sorry you feel that way, but based upon your self-described poor Catholic education, it is understandable. Keep in mind, however, that your personal experience (or mine, for that matter) is not the standard for objective truth in general, and the claims of the Catholic Church in particular. Perhaps now that you are an adult, you can sincerely investigate Catholicism and what it really teaches and not rely on childhood impressions or more recent mis-information from non-Catholic sources.

As for your wife reading the bible, just be happy she does. She may actually give her life to Christ, be saved and discover the truth of all things.

As you know, no one is saved just by reading the Bible. What makes you presume just because this woman is confused about a suitable Bible translation that she hasn’t already “given her life to Christ, been saved and is discovering the truth of all things”?

(I noticed you declined to answer my question in Post #14. So I’m presuming the answer would be “No,” that as a Protestant you would not buy a Catholic study Bible for a fellow Baptist. Well why not? Shouldn’t you be happy that he or she is reading the Bible? )

 

[Pwrlftr]

The fact that Jesus and the apostles referenced the deuterocanonicals would be a pretty good indication that they thought that they were inspired.

Not really. We see examples where apocryphal books are quoted that such as when Paul quotes or references “The Assumption of Moses” and “The Book of Enoch”. I do believe there are other examples but these two are sufficient to illlustrate that one can’t necessarily conclude that Jesus or the apostles thought any of the deuterocanoncial books were inspired based on either a quote or a referenc to the books.

The fact that they were accepted by the Jews who accepted Jesus and were rejected by the Jesus that rejected Jesus is also something not to take lightly.

Who specifically were the Jews who accepted Jesus and how do we know which books they accepted?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…but as far as I can tell there is no significant difference in the meaning, since “man” as I understand it in the old translations is meant to represent everyone; not just male adults.

No. “Man” in the old (ie. correct) translations refers to Christ. Psalm 1:1 is one of the most well known prophecies. To render it “Happy those” is to deliberately trash that tradition.

 

[Joe_5859]

The other examples you gave make sense, but what’s wrong with this? Older translations say “Happy the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly …” but as far as I can tell there is no significant difference in the meaning, since “man” as I understand it in the old translations is meant to represent everyone; not just male adults.

So “those who” would be the modern equivalent of the meaning intended, right?

I think what he is getting at is that those translations which use inclusive language in the Psalms reduce their christological significance. “The man” is Psalms 1:1 was most often seen as referring to Jesus (St. Augustine said as much).

When inclusive language is used, this interpretation is lost.

 

[jmcrae]

No. “Man” in the old (ie. correct) translations refers to Christ. Psalm 1:1 is one of the most well known prophecies. To render it “Happy those” is to deliberately trash that tradition.

I don’t see how, since Christ is certainly among “those who.”

I didn’t “get” that it was supposed to be referring to Christ in the old version, either, so I don’t see how it makes any difference - either way, this interpretation still has to be explained.

 

[hjkoelzer]

I attended catholic school for almost 20 years. If that is deficient then maybe it takes a lifetime. In all the 20 years of catholic education by such estimed orders as the benedictines, Jesuits and just plain old priests of the diocese you’d think I learned a thing or two and read the bible some. But you know all the time I was in seminary and other catholic schools we read lauds and vespers daily and multitudes of other materials but the only time i ever read the bible was when we studied it.

What catholics fail to realize is that we are saved by grace alone. I was taught for decades that we had to perform works, give alms and buy indulgences by works or money to get out of purgetory and have any chance of going to heaven. Well it aint so. It’s all about faith in our savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot in any way shape or form do anything good enough to be saved.

Romans 3-23: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” NKJV

Romans 3-10 “As it is written there is non rightous no not one.”
NKJV

Romans 10-13 says “All who call upon the name of the Lord shall eb saved.”

I believe the Catholic bible has the same quotes.

This is the dilemma that Martin Luther faced. He could not reconcile his sins with his works. He realized that salvation came from God based solely on God’s grace and his faith to accept that fact. No indulgences or works involved. We should do good works yes. It’s what Christians do, but it’s not what gets us into ehaven. Mother Theresa had a similar dilemma. A person with a lifetime of giving and selfless devotion and wonderful works and she could not find the salvation of Christ in Christ. Suggest you look him up at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

If we as Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God and not some fairy tale then we must accept the fact that we can not get to heaven on our own. The bible cannot be part fact and part story. It is the Word of God or it is all bunk.

That sir is why i attend baptist church and not catholic.

 

[TheMese]

Nothing wrong with reading a Protestant Bible version, it’s just incomplete.

:newidea: Let her read the whole thing, then see if she’s interested in reading what wasn’t included.

I don’t think what not included is that important. The CCC has a lengthy Scripture Reference Index and the the Deuteros- comprise only 1% of the listing. The NT accounts for 70%.

Any Protestant version supplied with the Navarre Bible’s commentary would be a splendid Bible for Catholics. The big problem, we all agree is with heretical notes.

 

[TheMese]

hjkoelzer,

So you didn’t learn in 20 years that Catholics get right with God through forgiveness of their sins?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:

God, the Father of mercies,

through the death and the resurrection of his Son

has reconciled the world to himself

and sent the Holy Spirit among us

for the forgiveness of sins;

through the ministry of the Church

may God give you pardon and peace,

and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

1460 Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

 

[hjkoelzer]

The key word in your quote from the well known Catechism from which i studied many years is “I” I absolve you. No priest can absolve a sin.

He reconciled us unto himself by the shedidng of his blood for our sins. You will get no argument from me on that one. The forgivenss requires no man to intervene.

1 John 2:1 says "My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: " This makes no mention of any man saying I absolve you of your sins. This was Paul speaking here. I would hope that he knows what he is talking about.

We could go on all day in this tit for tat discussion but the bottom line is the Catholic Church has taken the bible and added a lot to it’s doctrine that cannot be found in any bible even the cathoilc one. You cant even argue against it because it’s infallible by it’s own words. It can’t possibly be wrong because it is the One the True Church. Those are words from it’s own teachings.
Nuf said on the topic.

 

[Sr_Sally]

Excellent plan!

 

[jmcrae]

The key word in your quote from the well known Catechism from which i studied many years is “I” I absolve you. No priest can absolve a sin.

Yes, he can. John 20:23 says, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (King James Version)

Jesus gave the Apostles His authority to forgive sins, and they passed it on by the laying on of hands all the way on down to our present-day Catholic priests.

 

[TheMese]

What’s the Baptist interpretation of when Jesus’ breathed on the select group known as his Apostles, the proto-bishops of the Church, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” (Jn 20:22-23).

Pray tell.

 

[Church_Militant]

My wife’s friend gave her an NIV study bible. I’ve been telling her that it’s not a Catholic bible and that if she wants to study the Bible based on our faith, she should study one of the approved Catholic versions.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Is there any information from USCCB that would help me convince her it’s not good to read a Protestant version?

Thanks!

I would say that it may not be as bad as you think. The notes will be in error on many things, and I might also suggest that you join her and make the notes a source of study to compare those interpretations with both what a translation like the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, offers as well as the Catechism or other authentic Catholic sources. It is my thinking that both of you will come away with a much deeper and stronger Catholic faith.

I heard some protestant bibles do not translate the word episkopos as bishop.

Well this is true in that it is also sometimes translated as “elders”.

Also the do not translate the world catholic to universal.

None of them do, mainly because though it is found in Acts 9:31 (η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου και τη παρακλησει του αγιου πνευματος επληθυνετο), the context is properly translated “So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.” (RSV) though a literal translation of the underlined words would indeed be Catholic Church. I suppose an alternate translation might be “So the Catholic Church in Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up;” but I am not qualified to make that assessment.

And they often, at least the older RSV, Gideon that I have in my Bible collection translate batalogeo as “vain repetitions” in a take on the Rosary or the EOC Jesus Prayer.

Yes, but that is an n-C/a-C doctrinal interpretation and not what the Bible actually is saying.

And if is a study guide like the Scofield, Mc Arthur and others the footnotes can be a real treatise in fundamentalist theology.

You’re absolutely right there, but again, so long as one is objective and compares the notes to the Word of God and to catholic sources the shortcomings and errors should pretty much glow in the dark. At least they did for me…

When I compare Study Catholic to Protestant Study Bibles in Spanish the differences are often huge in that points.
Buy your wife a good Catholic study Bible.

A good point and a good suggestion. I have heard very good things about the Catholic Answers Study Bible.

There is no way to prove that Jesus or the apostles thought any of the deuterocanonicals were inspired.

I am sure you disagree so I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

This is not true. In fact, Scripture Catholica very extensive list of New Testament verses and passages that are references to Deuterocanonical passages and I have a good article by my friend Wolsely on this here. The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible that will be a good source on this.

There is also the fact that even in Jesus’ day Hebrew was largely a dead language and just as the New Testament was written in Greek because that is what most educated people read and spoke (Due to previous Greek conquests and influence it became the “Lingua Franca” of the day.), so also the majority of Jews of that time used the Greek Septuagint text of the OT which did indeed include the DCs.

 

[Pwrlftr]

This is not true. In fact, Scripture Catholica very extensive list of New Testament verses and passages that are references to Deuterocanonical passages and I have a good article by my friend Wolsely on this here. The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible that will be a good source on this.

There is also the fact that even in Jesus’ day Hebrew was largely a dead language and just as the New Testament was written in Greek because that is what most educated people read and spoke (Due to previous Greek conquests and influence it became the “Lingua Franca” of the day.), so also the majority of Jews of that time used the Greek Septuagint text of the OT which did indeed include the DCs.

I said there was no way to prove that Jesus or the apostles accepted the deuterocanonicals as inspired.

You respond and say:
a.) The deutero’s are referenced in the NT.
b.) That the majority of Jews used the Greek septuagint.

Your point that the deutero’s are referenced or maybe even quoted in the NT does not prove inspiration as other books that you and I both reject are quoted/referenced too. For example, in an earlier post I mentioned how Paul had used two apocryphal books in the book of Jude. If quoting or referencing a text is the test of inspiration than you and I both need to expand our canons.

I don’t know if your second point is true or not but will take you at your word. Which version of the septuagint did Jesus use and which books were in it?

BTW, I’ll take a look at the link you provided later.

 

[Fidelis]

I attended catholic school for almost 20 years. If that is deficient then maybe it takes a lifetime.

By “deficient” I mean that you were apparently never taught what the Church really teaches.

Originally Posted by hjkoelzer
What catholics fail to realize is that we are saved by grace alone. I was taught for decades that we had to perform works, give alms and buy indulgences by works or money to get out of purgetory and have any chance of going to heaven. Well it aint so. It’s all about faith in our savior and Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot in any way shape or form do anything good enough to be saved.

Which proves my point. Here is what the Church actually teaches, right from the Catechism:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

**183 **Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16).

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. **We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. **However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits” Mt 7:20] - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

Originally Posted by hjkoelzer
If we as Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God and not some fairy tale then we must accept the fact that we can not get to heaven on our own. The bible cannot be part fact and part story. It is the Word of God or it is all bunk.

You’re preaching to the choir here, pal.

Originally Posted by hjkoelzer
That sir is why i attend baptist church and not catholic.

Perhaps you need to re-examine that decision, but this time based on facts?

 

[neuro_nurse]

HA!

My wife’s a Baptist. I read the readings for the day every morning and she frequently joins me. When one of the readings is from the deuterocanonic books I’ll say, “I’m sorry, that one’s not in your abridged version.”