I finally got a Catholic Bible!

  • Thread starter Thread starter amazingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a superb bible! The notes, prefatory material and so on make it so much easier to understand than any other bible I know.

I sometimes have “bible study” with Protestants, and will say things they don’t agree with. And I say, “Look it up. Don’t you have a computer?”

So doubt has changed to, “How do you know all this stuff?”

And I just smile. 🙂
 
Amazingcathlic: congratulations. 🙂

Thomasbradley: I prefer the Ignatius bible, second edition. Douay-Rheims is very good too.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
Douay Rheims is the only Bible I will read.
Click to expand...
Why? The Church has the authority to approve translations – if they did not, how did Douay-Rheims get approved? Given that standards of translation and general knowledge of the Ancient World have greatly improved over the ages, why not pick up a good modern Bible and read it?
 
congratulations.

There is a bit of ‘bible exclusivity’ A great exercise is to compare the translations of words from Biblical Hebrew against the range of English texts and the Septuagint.

A simple word can be translated so the context is quite varied.
 
Here is why. The Douay Rheims was translated from the Vulgate. Newer ones are not.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
Here is why. The Douay Rheims was translated from the Vulgate. Newer ones are not.
Click to expand...
Okay. But the Vulgate was translated from the Greek and Hebrew. So how does going back to the ORIGINAL languages somehow make a bible inferior to a translation of a translation?
 
The traditional Catholic numbering of Psalms (Psalterium Gallicanum)is not present in new versions. Some don’t even contain the Johannine Comma or Acts 15:34. And a issue I have even with the Douay Rheims is that since 1752 the apocrypha which was present in the Vulgate and Pope Clement Vlll said should continue to be read even though it was not in the Canon of Trent has been omitted from the appendix of the Old Testament.
 
Last edited:
Yes – as we better understand, and as better scholarship is brought to bear, we know things we did not know before.
 
CRV said:
Was this impolite comment necessary?
Click to expand...
It’s what I say (in some form or other) to questions like this – the person in question is claiming an authority he does not have. Should I play along with him and enable his mistake?
 
That comment was unnecessary and added nothing positive to the conversation. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion/thoughts, and yes, everyone is free to respectfully disagree.
 
Last edited:
CRV said:
That comment was unnecessary and added nothing positive to the conversation. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion/thoughts, and yes, everyone is free to respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...
With whom did I disagree? I didn’t address that comment to anyone here!
 
It immediately followed Thomasbradley312 - the time is the same (right now both show 16mins), and the thread you linked to also had the last post by Thomasbradley312.

Connection seemed obvious to me and unrelated to the thread title “I finally got a Catholic Bible”
 
vern_humphrey said:
I would say, “Who the bleep gave YOU the authority to make pronouncements on the Pauline corpus?”

Of course many of Paul’s letters were dictated and written by a scribe – the scribe sometimes interjects his own name. How does that invalidate the Epistles?
Click to expand...
The response you are going against is ridiculous as well. There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul’s name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul. The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars. Some scholars have proposed that Paul may have used an amanuensis, or secretary, in writing the disputed letters.

However this brings me to my point. Modern Bibles such as the NABRE introductions make one skeptical of the authorship. Seriously if you own a NABRE check out the introduction of 2 Peter. I have no issue with that being in academic Bibles, but a Catholic Bible openly saying Hey this isn’t written by Peter and probably was written long after he died is totally unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
The response you are going against is ridiculous as well. There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul’s name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul.
Click to expand...
But do those scholars have the authority to delete those epistles? The canon of the Bible is fixed by the Church, which is the only authority.

To claim or pretend that WE have the authority to challenge the Church is a sin.
 
And neither do they have any business putting their opinions on authenticity of books in the Catholic Bible. The Church spoke. Their opinions do not matter in the least.
 
CRV said:
It immediately followed Thomasbradley312 - the time is the same (right now both show 16mins), and the thread you linked to also had the last post by Thomasbradley312.
Click to expand...
You know this forum is asynchronous. The position of a response does not mean it is a response to the immediately preceding post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top