Just to annoy my coworkers

[Daniel_Marsh]

It was not really until the 1880’s that England’s own planned replacement for their King James Bible, the English Revised Version(E.R.V.) would become the first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible. The widespread popularity of this modern-English translation brought with it another curious characteristic: the absence of the 14 Apocryphal books.

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Someone has claimed that the 1599 edition of the Geneva bible lacked the Apocyrpha, but I have not seen any documentation for that claim.

 

[Church_Militant]

Nah, I’m sure that all the Catholics who post on these forums are learned apologists who know WAY more than the average Joe Catholic in the street.

This one sure does! :irish1:

 

[Reformed1]

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Someone has claimed that the 1599 edition of the Geneva bible lacked the Apocyrpha, but I have not seen any documentation for that claim.

In the quote you posted, it said something about “Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles.” which at best, is a half truth.

The inclusion of the apocrypha in a Bible was not an endorsement of their canonicity as every single reformer I know of rightly rejeted the apocrypha. For certain, Calvin did not think to highly of the books you guys call the deuterocanonicals.

Perhaps they were included due to their historical value?

 

[awfulthings9]

“Just to annoy my coworkers”

I got the impression that he is simply trying to be a pain in the neck. Did I misunderstand the thread?]

This is more or less correct. I posted this in the spirit of levity. Of course, my arguments were absurd and not a good apologetic defense of Catholicism.

To the poster who said we don’t know what flavor of Protestant she is, as I mentioned earlier, she is Church of Christ (instrumental).

In all reality, all that many Protestants typically object to is the term “original sin”, because many think it implies that a new child is actually guilty of having “committed” a sin. When I explain what we actually believe (as I did with another co-worker that day), the response is usually, “Oh, well I can buy that.”

While I was trying to be a “pain in the neck”, I hope this doesn’t give the impression that this is the way I present our faith. I am fortunate to work in an environment in which, while thier are many faiths, we all have a great sense of humor. We often get into serious after hours or lunch discussions, but we mutually kid each other, as well, and I think it is a healthy thing when we can step back and enjoy a little good-natured “ribbing” without going so far as to genuinely insult one another’s faith. I guarantee that my co-worker has taken her fair share of turns being a “pain in the neck” to me regarding her difficulty understanding Catholic stuff. The irony here is that the occasional “ribbing” keeps things light enough that the lines for genuine communication always seem to be open (as happened at least twice with other coworkers yesterday). In fact, after the lighter conversation I related, we had a conversation about what Catholics actually believe. This wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t found a light-hearted way to bring the subject up.

Does anyone else agree that good-natured humor is an effective way to break down the barriers people have to actual conversations of substance?

 

[lizaanne]

Does anyone else agree that good-natured humor is an effective way to break down the barriers people have to actual conversations of substance?

I absolutely agree! I don’t think you did anything wrong at all, given the raport you have with your co-works. We don’t always have to be so darn dead serious about our Fath, that’s not to say that we water it down or make light of it, but for goodness sake, if we can’t have a happy heart about what we believe, how totally sad is that? The teachings of the RCC may be hard at times, but I strongly believe they are only as hard as we make them out to be.

Carry on! I think you did a great thing having this conversation!

~Liza

 

[Norseman82]

I had a very awkward moment at work yesterday…

As I was about to leave work, I was talking with a coworker (who is Lutheran) that I was going to stop at Mass on the way home because it was a Holy Day of Obligation and that it was a case that either I go to Mass or I was going to hell (emphasis that it was applying to my actions). He replied that he guessed he would be in the second group going to hell then (he was probably just joking). This is where the awkward moment came in. Would I say that it was OK since he was Lutheran and thus validate Lutheranism, or would I make some remark that he should be Catholic and thus endanger my job due to religious harassment? I ended up just saying, “I thought you weren’t Catholic”.