Is there a Bible that both Catholics and Protestants accept?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeanne71350
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jeanne71350

Guest
Hi there,

This may be a stupid question, but I’m going to ask it anyways. I know that many Protestant Bibles do not include the Apocrypha, but are there any translations of Scripture out there that are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants?

-Jeanne
 
The RSV is an ecumenical translation (meaning it had both Catholic and Protestant scholars working on it). It is published in separate editions for Catholics and Protestants (there are a handful of differences in the footnotes only).
 
SonCatcher said:
The RSV is an ecumenical translation (meaning it had both Catholic and Protestant scholars working on it). It is published in separate editions for Catholics and Protestants (there are a handful of differences in the footnotes only).
Click to expand...
While the liturgy in America is NAB, Great Britain primarily uses RSV.
 
jeanne71350 said:
Hi there,

This may be a stupid question, but I’m going to ask it anyways. I know that many Protestant Bibles do not include the Apocrypha, but are there any translations of Scripture out there that are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants?

-Jeanne
Click to expand...
It’s not a stupid question at all. There are several such translations, products of interdenominational scholarship, Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Protestant Jewish. They all contain the deuterocanonical books.

The Good News Bible, subtitled “Today’s English Version” was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society. The NT only version was titled “Good News for Modern Man”. Current editions carry the title “Good News Translation”. This is an excellent translation for casual reading, it contains useful footnotes and cross-references.

The multi-volume Anchor Bible, originally published by Doubleday and now owned by Yale University, is, in my opinion, the absolute cream-of-the-crop in contemporary Biblical scholarship. Most libraries have it. I personally own three volumes, Genesis, 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, but I have perused most of the others as well. Revisions are ongoing. A truly amazing collection of work.
 
Both the RSV and the NRSV are Ecumenical translations and are used by Catholics and Protestants.
 
No, I’m a closet catholic while my Family are baptists. The KJV version is the only bible they use. They practically believe if you dont have the KJV God looks down on you and frowns but they forgot during the reformation they took books from the Catholic bible away and made their own! God Bless :getholy:
 
catholic111 said:
No, I’m a closet catholic while my Family are baptists. The KJV version is the only bible they use. They practically believe if you dont have the KJV God looks down on you and frowns but they forgot during the reformation they took books from the Catholic bible away and made their own! God Bless :getholy:
Click to expand...
You can get a 1611 King James with the Deuterocanonicals and read the original King James with deuterocanonicals online at…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=17

You can see July 1 Mary is mentioned in the Calendar.
 
=jeanne71350;8013298]Hi there,
Click to expand...
This may be a stupid question, but I’m going to ask it anyways. I know that many Protestant Bibles do not include the Apocrypha, but are there any translations of Scripture out there that are accepted by both Catholics and Protestants?
Click to expand...
-Jeanne
Click to expand...
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 isue is the SUTTLE changes of words and wording to change the meaning of what God Taught in suport of there own PERSOANL [and wrong] beliefs.

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

God Bless you,
Pat
 
if you are looking for a bible to use in apologetics discussions the best will be the RSV-CE which is closest to the more traditional translations or the NRSV-CE which is closer to new translations like the NIV.
 
PJM said:
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 isue is the SUTTLE changes of words and wording to change the meaning of what God Taught in suport of there own PERSOANL [and wrong] beliefs.

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

God Bless you,
Pat
Click to expand...
I agree. I believe that there are so many translations out there that carry over the spirit of the reformation. Luther added words. The Geneva Bible added footnotes to teach Calvinism. The Scofield had footnotes to teach dispensationalism and lately translations are being put out to fit theology and it is my understanding that the NIV is like that.

I found an interesting discussion of the King James only at the following:

youtube.com/watch?v=tBrMcdgfJTc

It is worth watching because this guy points out his concerns as a Protestant with all the other translations and mistranslations and how the message is changed. It is an education. I don’t believe everything he says but he does a good job of pointing out the problems with translations.

I have seen apologists, apologetic websites, and heard apologists use the King James. There may good reasons for this. It brings into question that for 100 years the original King James had the deuterocanonicals and were then removed. It leaves the question as to the cannon something to refer to if you choose to do apologetics. The question of the cannon is always there if you have a King James in hand, paricularly the 1611.
 
RSV-(2)CE.

Translated by Protestants, modified by Catholics.

but I like the NABRE better.
 
catholic111 said:
No, I’m a closet catholic while my Family are baptists. The KJV version is the only bible they use. They practically believe if you dont have the KJV God looks down on you and frowns but they forgot during the reformation they took books from the Catholic bible away and made their own! God Bless :getholy:
Click to expand...
This is not what you ask however I suggest getting hold of Scott Hahn Book of Romans bible study for two reasons. It is the book Protestants turn to most frequently, he routinely points out differences in translations, and I would suggest that you look at this website rather than buying 5 bibles.

biblos.com/bhs.htm

You can use the parallel tab to look at any verse as it is translated in other versions and see the differences. On the right you will see Choose a Translation and there are other choices. You can look at the Greek too.

I hope this helps.
 
The answer to the question of this thread is NO!!!

Protestants do not accept the bible–they accept their own made up redacted form of it!

If Protestants accepted the bible they wouldn’t be Protestants!

If Protestants accepted the bible they would accept the Body and Blood of Jesus.

They don’t accept that!

If they don’t accept the Body and Blood of Jesus and eat it and drink it like He commands–they surely can not accept the bible.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The answer to the question of this thread is NO!!!

Protestants do not accept the bible–they accept their own made up redacted form of it!

If Protestants accepted the bible they wouldn’t be Protestants!

If Protestants accepted the bible they would accept the Body and Blood of Jesus.

They don’t accept that!

If they don’t accept the Body and Blood of Jesus and eat it and drink it like He commands–they surely can not accept the bible.
Click to expand...
What you say has truth. If you look at The Bible this is what Protestants have done with the English Translations:

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611).

The Septuagint
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codes Ephraemi Rescriptus
The Dead Sea Scrolls

All had deuterocanonicals

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible
King James 1611

all had deuterocanonical

I want to know on whose authority, what church authorized the removal of the deuterocanonical in 1881 for the King James. Was it the pillar and foundation of truth?

historicism.net/readingmaterials/sixthpoint.pdf

Even more influential than these Synods were the Puritan
Bibles, the English ‘Geneva’ (1560) and the Dutch
‘Staatenvertaling’ (1637), through their extensive Calvinistic
annotations. Both Bibles set the authentic Puritan note (so
lacking in today’s evangelistic world!) of the ultimate triumph
of the gospel and the victory of the cross over the cosmos.

This is what a Protestant says:

The serious challenges the church faces today is due to the influx of counterfeit Bible versions. MVO proponents like Dr. White are blinded to this reality. Isn’t it something that since the introduction of the 1901 American Standard Version into the American Churches, the churches have become weak and confused. No longer is there any doctrinal absolutes taught in churches, instead it is a feeling based Christianity with the version of your choice. Since the ASV of 1901 there have been 214 different versions printed. The question I have is how many Bibles did God write? Just as we saw the public schools degenerate after prayer was removed in 1962, we saw the church degenerate after the real word of God was excommunicated and replaced with the false versions.

You are correct, they no longer have a bible, they have translation manuals. They should be routinely asked “where are the original scriptures and who has them”. I believe and trust that you know. They do not.
 
With all due respect, I have been going to Catholic school for 12 years, I know very well the differences between the Bibles. I have my Catholic Bible. I wanted something that I can use in Scripture discussions with everyone. I found an NRSV that includes the Apocraphya. I appreciate all the help from everyone. Thanks 🙂

-J
 
jeanne71350 said:
With all due respect, I have been going to Catholic school for 12 years, I know very well the differences between the Bibles. I have my Catholic Bible. I wanted something that I can use in Scripture discussions with everyone. I found an NRSV that includes the Apocraphya. I appreciate all the help from everyone. Thanks 🙂

-J
Click to expand...
Thank you. I responded to the original question as posed. My experience in listening to Scott Hahn is this. He often times asks for different interpretations of a particular passage and points out the mistranslations, in particular “works of the Law” and many translations this is not translated well. I gather from him that the translations are not the most important piece of information. It is knowing what the proper understanding is, understanding it as it comes from the Greek, Patristic and Church teaching and then looking at the translation that is closest to the original translation to teach. You probably know this too, you asked the question, I responded. It would appear you have had your fill.
 
Well since Luther changed the Bible how can there be a cath/pros agreement on the Bible- the p’s took out 7 books and edited several others. Jesus quotes several times the Scripture which is in the Bible but not in the Protestant bible but it is in the books the P’s took out. Guess what - that erasure does is justify the P’s. If you read history and the early church Fathers you will realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
 
rdscheirer said:
Well since Luther changed the Bible how can there be a cath/pros agreement on the Bible- the p’s took out 7 books and edited several others. Jesus quotes several times the Scripture which is in the Bible but not in the Protestant bible but it is in the books the P’s took out. Guess what - that erasure does is justify the P’s. If you read history and the early church Fathers you will realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
Click to expand...
And all God’s children said Amen.
 
CopticChristian said:
I agree. I believe that there are so many translations out there that carry over the spirit of the reformation. Luther added words. The Geneva Bible added footnotes to teach Calvinism. The Scofield had footnotes to teach dispensationalism and lately translations are being put out to fit theology and it is my understanding that the NIV is like that.

I found an interesting discussion of the King James only at the following:

youtube.com/watch?v=tBrMcdgfJTc

It is worth watching because this guy points out his concerns as a Protestant with all the other translations and mistranslations and how the message is changed. It is an education. I don’t believe everything he says but he does a good job of pointing out the problems with translations.

I have seen apologists, apologetic websites, and heard apologists use the King James. There may good reasons for this. It brings into question that for 100 years the original King James had the deuterocanonicals and were then removed. It leaves the question as to the cannon something to refer to if you choose to do apologetics. The question of the cannon is always there if you have a King James in hand, paricularly the 1611.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top