Protestant Bible Incorporates the ONLY inspired books

[patrick457]

No, I am not lost. I really am learning a lot from this. As I said in my post, the question was posed to myself. I was looking for responses and a Catholic understanding. You have no idea just how much I appreciate this. I learn so much from reading from others. The analysis is absolutely wonderful.

No appologies, but a huge thank you!

You’re welcome.

Since we’re talking about Catholic Bible translations, I’d recommend the RSV-CE (if you wish a more readable translation) and the Douay-Rheims, with more emphasis on the latter (Trivia: the original edition of the Douay-Rheims New Testament published in 1582 actually influenced the KJV; when it was revised by Bishop Richard Challoner, his revision in turn became by the KJV).

As for the Vulgate (if you can read Latin), bear in mind that many online versions of the Vulgate are mostly based on the Stuttgart edition, first published in 1969 (5th edition, 2007) by the German Bible Society (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).

However these electronic version is usually mutilated, lacking all formatting, notes, prefaces and apparatus, and lacking the Gallican Psalter, Apocrypha, and Deuterocanonical books, and often containing only the first three chapters of Daniel, stopping at the point where the deuterocanonical Song of the Three Holy Children would begin, and they usually lack punctuations and the like.

Here’s the full text of the Clementine Vulgate.

 

[YADA]

No, I am not lost. I really am learning a lot from this. As I said in my post, the question was posed to myself. I was looking for responses and a Catholic understanding. You have no idea just how much I appreciate this. I learn so much from reading from others. The analysis is absolutely wonderful.

No appologies, but a huge thank you!

Welcome back …

What are your thoughts about the information you have had a chance to review … ???

What is the most surprising thing you have learned?

Is there anything you wonder ahy you had not been taught about?

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **R Britton **
Hi

As a person wanting to learn more about Catholicism, from a protestant background, could someone please give me guidance on which versions of the Bible are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?
I’ve had a hunt around this site, but not been able to find the answer.
Many thanks
Rachel

Most protestant bibles now include the deuterocanonicals.

 

[inthecloud]

The Original AV 1611 had the deuterocanonical books and it was a felony to publish that Bible with the Deuteros. They were deleted by American Bible printers in the 1800s due to the God breathed order of saving money in paper and ink getting those “nasty books out”.

Cambrige University Press does print replicas of the original complete Authorized Version of 1611.
I call incomplete American KJVs the Unauthorized Version.

Catholic Bibles often has a Nihil Obstat.Many Bible Publisher do Catholic and Protestant version of their Bibles now. The Catholic are a bit thicker.

The RSV has a Catholic Edition. Good for Protestants who what are used to the Protestant edition.
If in the UK the Bible of Jerusalem is the most popular Catholic Bible now in several versions.
Canadians use more the NRSV.
American RCIA use the NAB.
Fans of the KJV would like the Douay Rheims.
The Good News Bible and the Anchor Bible are good ecumenical bibles as is the new English Common Bible of 2007 (any reviews?).

 

[patrick457]

The Original AV 1611 had the deuterocanonical books and it was a felony to publish that Bible with the Deuteros. They were deleted by American Bible printers in the 1800s due to the God breathed order of saving money in paper and ink getting those “nasty books out”.

I think you meant ‘WITHOUT the Deuteros’?

Cambrige University Press does print replicas of the original complete Authorized Version of 1611.
I call incomplete American KJVs the Unauthorized Version.

I hope that the 1582-1609 Douai-Rheims would also get reprinted and become widely available…

Catholic Bibles often has a Nihil Obstat.Many Bible Publisher do Catholic and Protestant version of their Bibles now. The Catholic are a bit thicker.

The RSV has a Catholic Edition. Good for Protestants who what are used to the Protestant edition.
If in the UK the Bible of Jerusalem is the most popular Catholic Bible now in several versions.
Canadians use more the NRSV.
American RCIA use the NAB.
Fans of the KJV would like the Douay Rheims.
The Good News Bible and the Anchor Bible are good ecumenical bibles as is the new English Common Bible of 2007 (any reviews?).

Last time, I noticed that the Contemporary English Version has a version with the Deuteros in it (along with other Apocrypha, such as 3 and 4 Macabbees).

 

[Nan_S]

The Good News Bible and the Anchor Bible are good ecumenical bibles as is the new English Common Bible of 2007 (any reviews?).

Don’t know anything about the Anchor Bible or the English Common Bible.

The language of the Good News Bible is very readable. It’s a great one for kids, particularly 5th through 9th graders. It’s also good for older readers who prefer an “easier to understand” version. I wouldn’t use it for serious study, tho.

 

[tnystrom]

Originally Posted by **R Britton **
Hi

As a person wanting to learn more about Catholicism, from a protestant background, could someone please give me guidance on which versions of the Bible are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?
I’ve had a hunt around this site, but not been able to find the answer.
Many thanks
Rachel

Most protestant bibles now include the deuterocanonicals.

Most Protestant Bibles do not contain the deuterocanonicals?! Which translations!?

 

[MrS]

Most Protestant Bibles do not contain the deuterocanonicals?! Which translations!?

It is common to see at gatherings for Scripture Study, that the ones who bring a Bible are usually non-Catholic.

Perhaps one reason is that their versions are much easier to carry

But, in seriousness… Catholics really never had to “argue” for 73 books being correct until protesters insisted on just 66.

Finally a very difinite study of the subject is available:

handsonapologetics.com/ For a copy of*** Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger***

---

Also, the author, Gary Michuta, debated the infamous Jame White on the topic. It is, admittedly, a rather dry subject. But the Catholics have the upper hand in Truth again.

It is worth having as a reference book for any serious Christian who might address the issue of 73 vs 66

.

 

[inthecloud]

I have read Jewish sources saying that the Deutocanonicals were set appart of the Masoretic Canon becasue they were too Christian. Wisdom and Ben Sirach specially.
And the Reformers took those books out saying the Jews did not believe in those books. I do not think they thought about the reasons the Jews did not believe in those books!

 

[MrS]

I have read Jewish sources saying that the Deutocanonicals were set appart of the Masoretic Canon becasue they were too Christian. Wisdom and Ben Sirach specially.
And the Reformers took those books out saying the Jews did not believe in those books. I do not think they thought about the reasons the Jews did not believe in those books!

That is generally true…

so… the reformers thus preferred the Canon of those who opposed Christianity, rather than the Canon of those who were the first and original Christians… and the True original Bible Christians.

.

 

[beeliner]

1. I have read Jewish sources saying that the Deutocanonicals were set appart of the Masoretic Canon becasue they were too Christian. Wisdom and Ben Sirach specially.
2. And the Reformers took those books out saying the Jews did not believe in those books. I do not think they thought about the reasons the Jews did not believe in those books!

1. Please give a reference to support that assertion. I’m not trying to be confrontational, it just doesn’t ring true.

How could books written more than a century before Christ be Christian at all, let alone ‘too Christian’?

1. There was only one reason they were not admitted to the Jewish canon - they were considered too recent. It had nothing to do with their content, and in fact, the books continued to be part of popular Jewish literature. They were in no way banned, just no longer allowed to be used in worship.

Similarly, most early Protestant Bibles, particularly those for Anglicans and Lutherans, included them in a separate section, as do most of the more recent modern translations. Even most Catholic Bibles now follow that procedure, while of course considering the books fully canonical.

 

[MrS]

1. Please give a reference to support that assertion. I’m not trying to be confrontational, it just doesn’t ring true.

How could books written more than a century before Christ be Christian at all, let alone ‘too Christian’?

1. There was only one reason they were not admitted to the Jewish canon - they were considered too recent. It had nothing to do with their content, and in fact, the books continued to be part of popular Jewish literature. They were in no way banned, just no longer allowed to be used in worship.

Similarly, most early Protestant Bibles, particularly those for Anglicans and Lutherans, included them in a separate section, as do most of the more recent modern translations. Even most Catholic Bibles now follow that procedure, while of course considering the books fully canonical.

Even the Jews disagreed . Some only believed that the Pentetuch was inspired, while other believed in all the Scriptures (OT), the resurrection concept,

The Jerusalem Council of 90AD was called to settle the question(among other questions) of the problem of conversions of Jews to the new religion of Christianity. The Books that were then (not before) considered unacceptable contained too much that supported Christian teaching.

Time was not the issue. None of the OT was written closer than about 400 years before the birth of Christ.

.

 

[beeliner]

1. Even the Jews disagreed . Some only believed that the Pentetuch was inspired, while other believed in all the Scriptures (OT), the resurrection concept,
2. The Jerusalem Council of 90AD was called to settle the question(among other questions) of the problem of conversions of Jews to the new religion of Christianity. The Books that were then (not before) considered unacceptable contained too much that supported Christian teaching.
3. Time was not the issue.
4. None of the OT was written closer than about 400 years before the birth of Christ.

1. That is true as far as it goes, but they believed the books to be ‘inspired’ in different ways.

The Law (Torah) was what you had to observe to be a Jew.

The Prophets (Nevi’im) were just that.

The Writings (Ketuvim) were historical literature, not necessarily factual but inspirational. Some of these books, like Ezra and Daniel, used prophecy as a literary device but were nonetheless grouped with the Writings.

1. Here you are not even close. The council in question was at Jamnia, not Jerusalem. The reasons for the council are now obscure, but it is very doubtful that it had much, if anything, to do with Christianity.

Also, please give examples of what you mean by ‘Christian teaching’ in the deuterocanonicals. Christians have always used the OT for teaching. Please be specific.

1. Time was the entire issue.
2. That is nonsense. Of the protocanonical books, Daniel, Esther and some Psalms were written much later than that, as were all of the deuterocanonicals.

Once again I am not trying to be hostile, but I asked for documentation from a Jewish source as you claimed, which you have not provided. You should not make claims that you cannot support.

 

[Subrosa]

IIn Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation.

The Hebrew canon was not decided until the year 90 ad at the Council of Jamnia (present day Jaffa). During Jesus’ time it did contain all of the books including the 14 you say it didn’t.

Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament.

Jesus never quote from the New Testament. Neither did the writers of the New Testament. According to your working theory, the New Testament books should not be in the New Testament. Nor should the Song of Songs, another OT book, because it is not quoted in the New Testament.

For that matter we find that Jude’s letter draws information from both the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Verses 14 and 15 contain direct quotes from Enoch. According to your working theory both of these books should be a part of the Bible.

I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

Jerome was told by the Pope to put them in the Vulgate. He did. Also, Jerome eventually came to accept the books.

Augustine, in his treatise On Christian Doctrine, lists the canon of the bible in chapter 8 of book 2. Here, have a look.

If you have a serious look at the history of the biblical canon, you will find that the 14 books you speak of are contained in all church canons before the Reformation. For instance the Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian and Antiochian churches all use them.

I will give you that the 14 books have been controversial, but christians since the beginning have used them. This is a fact that you must come to terms with. Only since the reformation were they removed.

Subrosa

 

[beeliner]

Once again I am not trying to be hostile, but I asked for documentation from a Jewish source as you claimed, which you have not provided. You should not make claims that you cannot support.

CORRECTION: It was inthecloud, not MrS, who made the original claim:

I have read Jewish sources saying that the Deutocanonicals were set appart of the Masoretic Canon becasue they were too Christian.

My apologies to both posters.

 

[tnystrom]

Most Protestant Bibles do not contain the deuterocanonicals?! Which translations!?

Sorry it’s had to type with irony and sarcasm. My point was most Protestant Bibles do NOT contain the deuterocanicals. I was asking which include them. I used to work for Wycliffe Bible Translators. I know Protestant Bibles and the theory behind translation as I taught linguistics and translation theory at the graduate school utilized by Wycliffe.

 

[Navarricano]

Many of you have probably already seen this video … it’s not new … but it’s very funny. It’s called “Baby Got Book” by a Protestant preacher called DJ Dan “Southpaw” Smith. I remembered it because of this quote:

Catholic Bibles often has a Nihil Obstat.Many Bible Publisher do Catholic and Protestant version of their Bibles now. The Catholic are a bit thicker.

Pay attention to what he says around 2:51 in the video.

Link to the video here.

 

[RobHom]

Many of you have probably already seen this video … it’s not new … but it’s very funny. It’s called “Baby Got Book” by a Protestant preacher called DJ Dan “Southpaw” Smith.

It was kind of funny…but in a good way.

Pay attention to what he says around 2:51 in the video.

Link to the video here.

Its interesting how he even managed to slip in the comment about how “if you’re Catholic you even have more books”…and I didn’t detect the slightest bit of unkindness or malice in the comment.

Overall…he makes some good points. Not my style of music…

 

[Nan_S]

This is from another thread, but it sure fits here:

I went to a non-denominational Christian men’s fellowship meeting decades ago. Before the hat was passed to collect contributions the protestant leader asked that we all first stand up and pray. So he asked somone to randomly open their KJV and read a passage but then pointed to me since I was standing closest to him. When I stood up with my Catholic Bible (New American Standard) and opened it randomly it landed on an old testament book. As I started reading a passage from the Book of Wisdom (a passage that no Protestant had had since it is Deuterocanonical book) he panicked and said “wait we Protestants don’t have Wisdom” (I has to smile from ear to ear as I heard a few nervous coughs and throat clearing in the audience). He then walked up, flipped my bible randomly to the back in the NT area and told me to read again. He winced again as I started to read: **“The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church…” **but had to shut up and listen as even a few protestants had to laugh, groan and shake their heads at their poor luck.

Little did he know that my bible had the deck stacked so to speak since I read those passages often and the binding has a page memory for opening up there.

Does God use loaded dice?

James

 

[Mimi]

Quoting from post # 10, ziapueblo wrote, in part:

There are many references of the Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament. Here are a few:

-Matthew 12:42, Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
-St. Paul alludes to chapters 12 and 13 of the book of Wisdom in Romans 1:19-25 and Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees chapter 7.
-Christ drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.
-Jesus and his Apostles observe the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem during the winter time (John 10:22-36). The establishment of this key feast day is only recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any of the other Old Testament books.

There are many more examples. I can send you a list if need be

This is just the refutation I am including in a reply to a fundamentalist ex-Catholic with whom I’ve exchanged several email. I got some good material from Mark Shea’s site on the Jewish canon history, too.

ziapueblo, if you’re still around, I would be interested in the other quotes you mentioned above. Please PM me or email them.

Thanks in advance!

God bless,
Mimi

PS The man I mentioned above says Jesus is his brother, but Whoo! you should see the way he treats His Mother!! She’s lumped in with new age goddess worship…shameful. Please pray for Jim.