D
DictatorCzar
Guest
Each church has their own version of the Bible. I’m wondering what is the true church and which church has the true version of the Bible. Are multiple churches true but they have different bibles?
- Status
Z
Zynxensar
Guest
Since you’re asking on a Catholic forum, you’ll get the response of “The Catholic Church has the true version of the Bible and is the true Church”. And no, only one Church is true. Doesn’t make sense for Christ to establish multiple Churches when one propagates the truth.
(The term ‘Church’ I’m using refers to the bigger branch eg Catholicism. The Protestant Church (of Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists etc) is another)
(The term ‘Church’ I’m using refers to the bigger branch eg Catholicism. The Protestant Church (of Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists etc) is another)
Last edited:
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Most Christians use, essentially, the Catholic Bible, or at least the Catholic New Testament. See the Catholic Encyclopedia and Wikipedia articles. Note that this is one reason why we need a Universal Church with teaching authority. Christ and His Apostles did not leave us a defined list of scripture, they left us with a Church. Luther said Sola Scriptura, but he himself was unsure about exactly what was scripture.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Canon_of_the_New_Testament
en.wikipedia.org
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Canon_of_the_New_Testament
Biblical canon - Wikipedia
C
commenter
Guest
You can’t have an authoritative canon of the Bible without an authoritative magisterium. When I read Protestant books of apologetics, I find the weakest chapter is on the NT canon.
Typical phrases: “it was agreed that”; “it was decided that”; “a consensus was reached that”; and so on. There are no active voice verbs. There is no specific doer identified in their sentences.
There is no hint as to who, exactly, determined to include these 27 books, and exclude hundreds of others. By what authority?
Typical phrases: “it was agreed that”; “it was decided that”; “a consensus was reached that”; and so on. There are no active voice verbs. There is no specific doer identified in their sentences.
There is no hint as to who, exactly, determined to include these 27 books, and exclude hundreds of others. By what authority?
P
PJH_74
Guest
Unless someone has declared it so, the reality is that there was not one “Bible” when the texts were written as a whole. Even then there is not one exact version of each book. I know someone will argue the Latin Vulgate…but is that accurate to the languages you can speak fluently? You may note that the Vulgate isn’t even on the approved list:
Approved Engish Language Catholic Bibles
I’m leery of anyone who hangs on to an any translation of the Bible for too long, King James anyone? The best translations come from reliable and hopefully some of the oldest sources. However what is more important is that the translation reflects the current state of English as we currently speak it.
Approved Engish Language Catholic Bibles
I’m leery of anyone who hangs on to an any translation of the Bible for too long, King James anyone? The best translations come from reliable and hopefully some of the oldest sources. However what is more important is that the translation reflects the current state of English as we currently speak it.
C
CatholicSpirit
Guest
Someone told me “The Catholic Church allows the NIV, the King James Version is secondary.”
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL!
You realize that each group / denomination / Church that you ask will answer “we’re the one true Church”, right? (Except for the ones that answer “none of us is”, which is particularly… weird.
)
U
UpUpAndAway
Guest
Would it not make sense for the Vulgate to be omitted from this list given that it’s not in English?
C
commenter
Guest
G. K. Chesterton said that the translators of the 20th century likely had a better knowledge of ancient languages than the translators of the KJV. But the KJV translators had a much better knowledge of the English language.
G
GodSpawned
Guest
Asking whats the most correct Bible is a bit like asking what’s the most accurate dictionary. Do you focus on making it readable? Or do you focus on accuracy to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, so loose some of the meaning or context? There is no ‘right’ answer, and this is why there are multiple approved translations.
C
commenter
Guest
Your source? My limited reading suggests that it is questionable this council really happened, let alone what specific actions such as this. If it happened, I don’t think they accepted any Gospel as inspired anyway.
Last edited:
O
otrrl
Guest
The council of Jamnia was a Jewish council, not a Christian one… It would have had nothing to do with the gospels.
I, too, have read that the historicity of Jamnia is doubted.
At a deeper level of this discussion, in an important way, the Jews had already asserted which books they considered inspired – and those were translated into Greek for the Jews who were outside of Palestine and didn’t know the ancient Hebrew. The “canon” of scripture that the Jews selected in the second century was decided not only on the basis of how the Jews were to continue to exist without the Temple (which had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD), but also on the basis of undermining the Christian sect that had emerged out of Judaism.
Another point to consider, Judaism was not just one thing back in the time of Christ. There were different traditions or schools of Judaism with selections of scripture to support each one.
The Roman Catholic Church is the church established by Christ. Other Christian churches exist because they split off from the RCC or are derived from churches which themselves were already split off from it.
I, too, have read that the historicity of Jamnia is doubted.
At a deeper level of this discussion, in an important way, the Jews had already asserted which books they considered inspired – and those were translated into Greek for the Jews who were outside of Palestine and didn’t know the ancient Hebrew. The “canon” of scripture that the Jews selected in the second century was decided not only on the basis of how the Jews were to continue to exist without the Temple (which had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD), but also on the basis of undermining the Christian sect that had emerged out of Judaism.
Another point to consider, Judaism was not just one thing back in the time of Christ. There were different traditions or schools of Judaism with selections of scripture to support each one.
The Roman Catholic Church is the church established by Christ. Other Christian churches exist because they split off from the RCC or are derived from churches which themselves were already split off from it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Don’t waffle on this one, @commenter – you’re absolutely correct! There was no “council of Jamnia”, per se, although there seems to have been a Sanhedrin-esque body that met there. However, establishing the content of the Jewish canon of the O.T. wasn’t in their purview.Gabika50:
Your source? My limited reading suggests that it is questionable this council really happened, let alone what specific actions such as this.
So, no… there was no “council of Jamnia” who “concluded the number of books in the Bible.” As @otrrl points out, if they did exist as such (and they didn’t) they nevertheless wouldn’t have even raised the question of the so-called “gospel of Thomas”, since they would have looked only at the canonicity of Old Testament writings (which they, in fact, didn’t).
However, all we have to do is look at the Gospels for clues at the lack of agreement over what counted as ‘inspired Scripture’. Jews in the diaspora used the Greek translation – the Septuagint – which Christians then used, as well. Jews in Jerusalem (most notably, the Sadducees), however, used Hebrew sources and clung only to the Torah (what we’d call the ‘Pentateuch’). So, they really hadn’t “already asserted which books were considered inspired” – they hadn’t settled that question. They would have all agreed that the Torah was inspired… but they wouldn’t have agreed on the canonical status of other books.
Last edited:
P
PJH_74
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Those who translate Bibles are scholars with a strong command of languages. I’ll guarantee you they are quite meticulous in choosing which words to use and that requires a strong command of English in this case.
I’m just saying this to make the point that the Bible is better read written in a language you are fluent in…I doubt many here are fluent in Latin.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s Chesterton. He’s being a bit snarky, I’d assert, and was saying, “boy, folks spoke better English way back then, than they do today.”
O
otrrl
Guest
Thank you for your reply to my post. Towards the end of that post, I said (based on The Jewish Study Bible 2nd Ed. Oxford U Press essay on the dead sea scrolls) that there were several traditions within Judaism, each leaning towards their own selection of scrolls or books.
I am 500+ pages into reading The Catholic Introduction to the Bible, Vol 1, The Old Testament" 2018 Ignatius Press by John Bergsma and Brant Pitre. On page 23 (in summary) the view now is to discredit a “council of Jamnia (Jabneh)” owing to a lack of evidence."
They go on, “In short: during the life of Jesus and at the time of the birth of the early Church, there was significant and widespread disagreement within Judaism over exactly which ancient Jewish writings were inspired Scripture, and this was just one of many disputed religious questions that were expected to be resolved by the coming of the Messiah (cf. Jn 4:25),”
This volume is the best introduction to scripture that I have come across and I highly recommend it. I think they intend to produce a Volume 2, about the New Testament, which I look forward to.
Each page of this volume is easy (for me) to read. For further reading, they point to books that I have already read and have on my shelf. This book is written at the level of a graduate school textbook for a one-semester course (whew). But, I think they explain mostly everything at a reading level that the general public could understand. Just when I think I’ve “got them” for leaving something out, I turn the page and there it is. They dive straight into controversies and list arguments on each side, when indicated.
Their point of view is reading the Bible through the lens of faith.
I am 500+ pages into reading The Catholic Introduction to the Bible, Vol 1, The Old Testament" 2018 Ignatius Press by John Bergsma and Brant Pitre. On page 23 (in summary) the view now is to discredit a “council of Jamnia (Jabneh)” owing to a lack of evidence."
They go on, “In short: during the life of Jesus and at the time of the birth of the early Church, there was significant and widespread disagreement within Judaism over exactly which ancient Jewish writings were inspired Scripture, and this was just one of many disputed religious questions that were expected to be resolved by the coming of the Messiah (cf. Jn 4:25),”
This volume is the best introduction to scripture that I have come across and I highly recommend it. I think they intend to produce a Volume 2, about the New Testament, which I look forward to.
Each page of this volume is easy (for me) to read. For further reading, they point to books that I have already read and have on my shelf. This book is written at the level of a graduate school textbook for a one-semester course (whew). But, I think they explain mostly everything at a reading level that the general public could understand. Just when I think I’ve “got them” for leaving something out, I turn the page and there it is. They dive straight into controversies and list arguments on each side, when indicated.
Their point of view is reading the Bible through the lens of faith.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
The KJV has literally thousands of phrases that are so well written they have entered the common memory of Western Civilization. They are memorable, they come to mind in real life. Can you say the same thing about the New American Bible? It looks like it came out of a word processor.
The KJV addresses God as if He were important. Modern translators convey the idea of a committee chair.
C
commenter
Guest
No, Chesterton often praised the writing in contemporary works, even if he did not agree with the philosophy. He was making a comparison of specific translations, not centuries.Chesterton. He’s being a bit snarky, I’d assert, and was saying, “boy, folks spoke better English way back then, than they do today.”
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK. So, let’s see the citation for the quote you’re referencing, and we’ll be able to determine what he meant. What are you quoting, then?
C
commenter
Guest
I was quoting GKC from memory, and I can’t find that exact quote. Here is something comparable.commenter:
OK. So, let’s see the citation for the quote you’re referencing, and we’ll be able to determine what he meant. What are you quoting, then?
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Apostle_and_the_Wild_Ducks
Go to Part 1, then “The Great Translation”
Last edited:
- Status