Other than the apocrypha

[scpb2277]

What are the major differences between a bible that is accepted by Catholics vs. one accepted by those of Protestants?

Aren’t the texts basically identical (minus translation differences of course) between the two? Are the missing texts of the apocrypha that important to the central message of Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

 

[yinekka]

It was the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who settled the question of which books should be in the bible. It wasn’t up to anyone else to remove books in the sixteenth century.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I think they can be very different in the translation. When I read some bibles I’m not sure what they are talking about. You really need to understand the history of the bible you study. For example the King James bible started in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England under the control of King Henry VIII. Given how the Church of England started how accurate do you think this is compared to the original Catholic bible created in the 4th century?

A lot will be quite similar, but who knows where the differences are unless you study both. I have hard enough time reading one so I stick with the Bible that has been translated from 4th century. Given that I will never be fluent in Greek or Latin this is the best I can do…

 

[MariaG]

What are the major differences between a bible that is accepted by Catholics vs. one accepted by those of Protestants?

Aren’t the texts basically identical (minus translation differences of course) between the two? Are the missing texts of the apocrypha that important to the central message of Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

Central message? No, since Protestants are our separated brethren, clearly they are Christians and Christ is the central message.

However, there is great depth of Christianity that is lost, specifically, the true meaning of “communion of the saints” since most Protestants deny the “dead” saints have any role in our lives.

As for being identical, the major difference would be the footnotes that help us to understand scripture, no matter which translation is used.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What are the major differences between a bible that is accepted by Catholics vs. one accepted by those of Protestants?

Aren’t the texts basically identical (minus translation differences of course) between the two? Are the missing texts of the apocrypha that important to the central message of Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

Since all of Scripture is God-breathed, it is not wise to discard some of the books. You can get the “central message of Christianity” just from the book of, say, John for instance.John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So shall we discard all of the Bible except for John since he says what he wrote in his gospel account can lead one to eternal life? Of course not. We must live by “every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Mt 4:4)

Also, since Jesus is Truth itself (Jn 14:6), to fully know Him is to know all He has revealed. We cannot pick and choose ourselves what is His word and what isn’t. As someone mentioned earlier, we are subject to identify the Scriptures according to the Spirit that reveals which books are Scriptures. We must not deny the Spirit.

 

[Church_Militant]

I just swiped this excellent response from up in Ask an Apologist.

These links should be helpful for explaining the Church’s continued inclusion of the deuterocanonical books (sometimes referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha, which BTW can also be found in the actual 1611 edition KJB which are still available.) in the Bible.

Recommended Reading:

The Old Testament Canon
How to prove deuterocanonical books are inspired?
Did Catholics add books to the Bible?
Original books of Bible

 

[losh14]

What are the major differences between a bible that is accepted by Catholics vs. one accepted by those of Protestants?

I should point out that because Protestant churches often tend to prefer one translation over another, and because translations can vary in source material and methodology, there will be *de facto * differences. For such as KJV-only Protestants (or a group of ICOCers in Springfield, IL, who insisted only on the NIV), this must indeed be pointed out.

When I study Scripture, I usually keep an NASB, NIV, NKJV and TEV open to gain the nuance. Generally the change is insignificant, save for a shade of a meaning or the poetic flow of language. But the message is consistent across all translations (and indeed, the deuterocanonicals are consistent with their contemporary epistles in terms of tone, language and topic).

A note, there are books the Church considers apocrypha, for instance Paul’s Letter to the Laodicians, which was widely followed by some early Protestants. For this reason, we call teh ones in the Bible “deuterocanonicals” rather than apocrypha. Protestants don’t make such a distinction.

 

[Tom]

What are the major differences between a bible that is accepted by Catholics vs. one accepted by those of Protestants?
Aren’t the texts basically identical (minus translation differences of course) between the two? Are the missing texts of the apocrypha that important to the central message of Christianity?
Thanks in advance!

The discarded Scripture from the Protestant versions are very important and point to many basic errors of Protestantism. Prayer for the dead, the resurrection, saints and angels, purgatory, confession, the list goes on. The fact that Jesus taught from the Greek version which included these books. Why would a Christian want to follow Scripture based on the decision of those who crucified (the Jewish canon, set AFTER His death and resurrection) Jesus?

 

[rossum]

What are the major differences between a bible that is accepted by Catholics vs. one accepted by those of Protestants?

Aren’t the texts basically identical (minus translation differences of course) between the two? Are the missing texts of the apocrypha that important to the central message of Christianity?

Thanks in advance!

As well as the Deuterocanonical books, there are differences in the books of Esther (Protestant 10 chapters, Catholic 16 chapters) and Daniel (Protestant 12 chapters, Catholic 14 chapters).

rossum

 

[Tom]

The links in CMs post includes:
cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
Read it.

 

[celticcrusader]

this is a delicate issue, is the Catholic bible right? Of course it is right! Our seperated brothers, like St. Paul have scales over thier eyes and cannot see the truth.now did Jesus abandon his Church for 1600 yrs. and let them run free, did The Holy Spirit let the early Church teach error for 1600yrs and then have men come along and say God is wrong and we can straighten this mess out? I think not! But in my opinion if you are not reading a closed cannon Bible , this is what you must believe.Now here is the issue! When are you comming home?

 

[gcnuss]

For example the King James bible started in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England under the control of King Henry VIII.

Henry VIII was long gone, having died in 1547, when King James I ordered a new translation of the Bible, so I don’t think he had anything to do with it.

 

[Teflon93]

Propaganda tends to creep into translations. John 6 is a good passage to look at for this, along with Matthew 16.