If the Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did so many versions of the canon continue to circulate afterwards?

[Justy90]

And your point? The Church did accept them. That’s all that matters.

The point is that the apocrypha has been questioned throughout history regardless of whether Rome accepted these books or not.

 

[Teneas]

:coffeeread: reads with interest

 

[Rence]

I don’t believe that to be exactly accurate. The apocrypha was translated into Latin along with the other books prior to St. Jerome’s decision to keep it separate. He wasn’t the first to translate it from Greek so this didn’t have any bearing upon his decision to present as such to the Church.

Hebraic Jews stopped including them in their Bible after the second century A.D. because they were the only books not written in Hebrew. The rest of the OT was written in Hebrew. When they scattered due to persecution, many went to Greece. Some of the new books were written in Greek. They decided after the second century AD, that they weren’t going to include those books written in Greek. They felt that the ones written in Hebrew were canon. They still read the ones that were not canon, but don’t regard them as canon. So they took them out.

The Catholic Bible, though, always included them. Even when the Catholic Bible was translated to Latin. St. Jerome was not the first to transate it from Greek to Latin. There were many translations that the CC regarded as flawed due to the translators’ errors. They commissioned St. Jerome to do an official CC approved translation of the Catholic Bible from Hebrew and Greek to Latin, which is the Vulgate Version. The Douay-Rheims translation gave us the English version of the Catholic Bible.

Back to St. Jerome: St. Jerome questioned them because the Jewish Bible no longer included them, and they were not longer regarded as canon. Apparently, he thought that since the Jewish Bible took them out, that the Catholics should as well. Although St. Jerome questioned them, he did translate them knowing they would not be taken out of the Catholic Bible.

And the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit decides what is canon in the Bible. And the Catholic Church confirmed that they are canon.

Does that clarify what I said, or do you still think it’s incorrect?

There are plenty of Jewish people on the forum, maybe we should ask them to clarify it as they were taught? Who to better answer about Jewish Bible?

 

[Justy90]

Hebraic Jews stopped including them in their Bible after the second century A.D. because they were the only books not written in Hebrew. The rest of the OT was written in Hebrew. When they scattered due to persecution, many went to Greece. Some of the new books were written in Greek. They decided after the second century AD, that they weren’t going to include those books written in Greek. They felt that the ones written in Hebrew were canon. They still read the ones that were not canon, but don’t regard them as canon. So they took them out.

The Catholic Bible, though, always included them. Even when the Catholic Bible was translated to Latin. St. Jerome was not the first to transate it from Greek to Latin. There were many translations that the CC regarded as flawed due to the translators’ errors. They commissioned St. Jerome to do an official CC approved translation of the Catholic Bible from Hebrew and Greek to Latin, which is the Vulgate Version. The Douay-Rheims translation gave us the English version of the Catholic Bible.

Back to St. Jerome: St. Jerome questioned them because the Jewish Bible no longer included them, and they were not longer regarded as canon. Apparently, he thought that since the Jewish Bible took them out, that the Catholics should as well. Although St. Jerome questioned them, he did translate them knowing they would not be taken out of the Catholic Bible.

And the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit decides what is canon in the Bible. And the Catholic Church confirmed that they are canon.

Does that clarify what I said, or do you still think it’s incorrect?

There are plenty of Jewish people on the forum, maybe we should ask them to clarify it as they were taught? Who to better answer about Jewish Bible?

I am well aware of what you said. My point was that these books have been questioned throughout history for much more than them just merely not being written originally in Hebrew.

 

[Rence]

Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

I hope I sufficiently answered the first post.

*Originally Posted by Dirk Skene
And your point? The Church did accept them. That’s all that matters.

The point is that the apocrypha has been questioned throughout history regardless of whether Rome accepted these books or not. *

I thought your point was about the Catholic Church getting Her Bible right the first time?
And to answer that point: She did get it right the first time. The Council of Trent in 1546 AD only confirmed what was done right the first time - as it was explained by other posters. They were in the original Catholic Bible and they remained in the Catholic Bible.

Others (such as St. Jerome) can question all they want, the Catholic Church has the last say in the matter regarding Her Bible. And they’ve been consistent since the ‘first time’.

 

[Rence]

I am well aware of what you said. My point was that these books have been questioned throughout history for much more than them just merely not being written originally in Hebrew.

Oh, well I’m sorry for the confusion. I thought my original answer was not what you were looking for. I see you have more researching to do then

As a Catholic, I don’t have a problem with them

 

[Justy90]

I hope I sufficiently answered the first post.

*Originally Posted by Dirk Skene
And your point? The Church did accept them. That’s all that matters.

The point is that the apocrypha has been questioned throughout history regardless of whether Rome accepted these books or not. *

I thought your point was about the Catholic Church getting Her Bible right the first time?
And to answer that point: She did get it right the first time. The Council of Trent in 1546 AD only confirmed what was done right the first time - as it was explained by other posters. They were in the original Catholic Bible and they remained in the Catholic Bible.

Others (such as St. Jerome) can question all they want, the Catholic Church has the last say in the matter regarding Her Bible. And they’ve been consistent since the ‘first time’.

Rome at one point rejected James and Hebrews as inspired and then later changed it. That doesn’t constitute being right the first time.

 

[benidict]

Rome at one point rejected James and Hebrews as inspired and then later changed it. That doesn’t constitute being right the first time.

are you sure that wasnt martin luther? its my understanding he rejected james and hebrews because it didnt fit in with his man made prima scriptura view point. when did the Church ever question james and hebrews. do you have a source? thx.

 

[benidict]

Rome at one point rejected James and Hebrews as inspired and then later changed it. That doesn’t constitute being right the first time.

hi, i dont believe it was the Church that questioned james and hebrews. martin luther most definitly did tho. it went against his man made doctrines and theology of grace and faith. on the other hand. all the books were discussed and debated before being put into the cannon. and not only that, if rome got it wrong, then your bible is wrong as well. also do not early editions of the kjv have the deutrocannonical books in them? just some things to throw out their.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

Most are fakes

 

[Justy90]

if rome got it wrong, then your bible is wrong as well. also do not early editions of the kjv have the deutrocannonical books in them? just some things to throw out their.

First of all, it was Hippo and Carthage who ultimately put the Canon together which takes Rome out of the picture. And secondly, your Douay Rheims Bible was revised more times than the King James version which (again) doesn’t say much for Rome getting it right the first time.

 

[mark_a]

I am well aware of what you said. My point was that these books have been questioned throughout history for much more than them just merely not being written originally in Hebrew.

In your opinion, who has the *authority *to decide which books belong?

 

[Justy90]

In your opinion, who has the *authority *to decide which books belong?

Who has the authority?? We can’t count on Rome or even the East to dictate it to us that they gave us the Bible which they both claim because as you well know they each have a different set of books in which they both claim to be Canon with discernment of the Holy Spirit. Now how is that possible?

 

[Teneas]

Who has the authority?? The Holy Spirit gave the discernment.

To who?

 

[Justy90]

To who?

I don’t know. Both the Orthodox and Catholic church claim to have given us the Bible, but like I said, both have a different set of books in which they call Canon by the discernment of the Holy Spirit.

 

[benidict]

First of all, it was Hippo and Carthage who ultimately put the Canon together which takes Rome out of the picture. And secondly, your Douay Rheims Bible was revised more times than the King James version which (again) doesn’t say much for Rome getting it right the first time.

interesting. st. jerome had the earliest manuscripts to go on. and even in the 1800s the protestant theologians stated that the king james version had at least 30000 errors. if anything youve just proven sola scriptura is wrong. thank you.

 

[Teneas]

I don’t know. Both the Orthodox and Catholic church claim to have given us the Bible, but like I said, both have a different set of books in which they call Canon by the discernment of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that it can be problematic by all means. I will say that God won’t hold anyone accountable, at all because of his mercy, that believes in him through their own interpretation of scripture, or domination’s teachings. As long as it does his name proud. Ignorance is bliss, so to speak.

• I am not calling anyone ignorant as a bad term, simply the actual term of ignorance. I also am not speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church with my words on this particular thread, as they are just my feelings on the matter of mercy, and ignorance*

Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. This should not be confused with being unintelligent, as one’s level of intelligence and level of education or general awareness are not the same.

From wiki

 

[Justy90]

I agree that it can be problematic by all means. I will say that God won’t hold anyone accountable, at all because of his mercy, that believes in him through their own interpretation of scripture, or domination’s teachings. As long as it does his name proud. Ignorance is bliss, so to speak.

• I am not calling anyone ignorant as a bad term, simply the actual term of ignorance. I also am not speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church with my words on this particular thread, as they are just my feelings on the matter of mercy, and ignorance*

Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. This should not be confused with being unintelligent, as one’s level of intelligence and level of education or general awareness are not the same.

From wiki

AH! So now if the Catholic church committed errors, nobody will be blamed. But, if one does not follow Catholic teaching, he is enathema. I see, it all depends upon who makes the error. You just clarified much on this subject and many others.

 

[benidict]

AH! So now if the Catholic church committed errors, nobody will be blamed. But, if one does not follow Catholic teaching, he is enathema. I see, it all depends upon who makes the error. You just clarified much on this subject and many others.

as an angilcan you follow infant baptism, correct? also many anglicans believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, correct? and your format for your services follows very much along with the Catholic mass, correct? so what errors did the Catholic Church make? many anglicans are ready to come back to Rome. therefore who is in error? also there are anglicans who do accept the deutrocannonical books. as stated they were in the first editions of the kjv. so what errors has the Catholic Church commited. could it be that the error was not the Churches but the king who founded anglicanism because like a petulant child he couldnt get his way when the Church in here authority told him no! hmmm:shrug:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Quite true. Even my former rector, who is very evangelical and more of a protestant-thinking chap than catholic, accepted the deuterocanonical books and loved the apocrypha. The problem here is that you can get ten Anglicans in a room and they treat everything like a roarchach ink blot and interpret for themselves. History be damned, councils be damned, it’s an individualist approach and emotion, feeling, not logic or a link to the past. Anglicans are so diverse on the Eucharist that it’s chaos and coffee hour is about all I’ve seen they have in common. The ACNA, the “conservative” Anglican group in North America was founded basically on a disgust for gay marriage more than anything else. While I applaud their disgust, the problem is that they themselves are predominantly evangelicals and ACNA is becoming known as “Association of Calvinists in North America” and “Anglo Catholics Needn’t Attend.” The Catholic view of the Eucharist is not the Anglican. They have a Calvinist view. You are correct about Henry VIII, an amoral heathen and even worse was Thomas Cranmer, who possessed more moral cowardice than any man I’ve ever read about, who sanctioned and fought for the multiple divorces and executions of not only Henry’s wives but the oversight of executions of brave Catholic bishops and priest whom he watched being drawn and quartered to death. You also forget Elizabeth I who essentially turned the Church of England into a political compromise to appease and shut-up the Calvinists on one side and the pro-Catholic minorities on the other and try to make both sides happy. It’s like watching Clinton and the Republicans in the 1990’s, only imagine them creating a state church! Elizabeth did. Anglicanism owes more to Elizabeth and her deliberately vague and wishy-washy compromise than to Henry who was essentially a Catholic at heart whose hormones and greedy ambition made him go against his conscience and commit the unthinkable.

as an angilcan you follow infant baptism, correct? also many anglicans believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, correct? and your format for your services follows very much along with the Catholic mass, correct? so what errors did the Catholic Church make? many anglicans are ready to come back to Rome. therefore who is in error? also there are anglicans who do accept the deutrocannonical books. as stated they were in the first editions of the kjv. so what errors has the Catholic Church commited. could it be that the error was not the Churches but the king who founded anglicanism because like a petulant child he couldnt get his way when the Church in here authority told him no! hmmm:shrug: