Is there a Bible that both Catholics and Protestants accept?

[CopticChristian]

I find it a little difficult to take this guy promoting King James onlyism seriously. I mean he’s fretting over Genesis 1:1? Really? Because new versions say “heavens” and not “heaven”? Good grief! I’ve already looked through my other Bibles and yeah, there are some changes, but nothing worth getting in a riot over. And it’s not like there aren’t other translations that aren’t closer to the KJV. My Douay-Rheims / Clementine Vulgate is more in line with how the KJV portrays the verses that the youtube KJV-only apologist brings up.

The value is the absurdity of the extreme of Sola Scriptura with the charts and the notion of “pure bible” the manuscripts he cites have the deuterocanonicals and the 1611 King James as you know has the deuterocanonicals. He serves the purpose of the absurdity of a Protestant trying to define the canon absent the Church and is a mirror to the history of Scritpture that leads to a fanatic that makes no sense.

 

[bmonk]

Hi Jeanne,

The REAL issue is not ONLY the missing books which are easy to find in all Catholic bibles, and at times are included in the back as “uninspired” books [despite] 2 Tim. 3:16. in some non Catholic Bibles

The REAL issue is the SUBTLE changes of words and wording to change the meaning of what God Taught in support of there own PERSONAL [and wrong] beliefs.

One who is NOT well grounded in what we Catholics believe and why we believe it are WELL ADVISED to avoid non-catholic bibles.

God Bless you,
Pat

Another source of problems in non-Catholic Bibles would be the footnotes. When a Bible translation is given an Imprimatur, it is primarily on the notes (and the accuracy of the translation), since the text itself is not allowed to be changed.

The value is the absurdity of the extreme of Sola Scriptura with the charts and the notion of “pure bible” the manuscripts he cites have the deuterocanonicals and the 1611 King James as you know has the deuterocanonicals. He serves the purpose of the absurdity of a Protestant trying to define the canon absent the Church and is a mirror to the history of Scripture that leads to a fanatic that makes no sense.

I’ve heard of “Sola Scriptura” Protestants getting themselves into even harder conundrums when they ask “What version of the actual Scriptures is the inspired text? The original Manuscript (which we no longer have)? The Critical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek text? A translation? (And then which Translation??) The KJV?” And–once they’ve picked their option, how do they use it, how do they decide what is part or not part of the text?

I really don’t know how a conscientious Protestant decides everything consistently.

Maybe that’s why I’m not a Protestant. . . .