C
Church_Militant
Guest
Lessee… Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, Confraternity…just to name a few.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Forgot one… New American Bible.
P
Protestant101
Guest
But the “canon” parts of the Bible are not Roman Catholic
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
Scepter Press sells a nice 1941 Confraternity pocket NT with a vinyl cover for $10. It has a nice reading calendar printed in it. I quite like it.
Ignatius Press sells a beautiful RSVCE2 NT + Psalms pocket edition–navy leather with the iconic cover of Christ and the symbols of the 4 evangelists. Ivory paper. Lovely.
Ignatius Press sells a beautiful RSVCE2 NT + Psalms pocket edition–navy leather with the iconic cover of Christ and the symbols of the 4 evangelists. Ivory paper. Lovely.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Really? Precisely who canonized the Bible in the 4th century? It didn’t happen before then, but by all means enlighten us to the best of your information.
Oh, and check your history…you’ll discover that the Catholic canon was the only one until the reformers started tinkering with it. In fact, prior to the mid 1800s every Bible matched our canon until some Bible society removed the Deuterocanonical books with no authority to do so…as a cost cutting measure no less.:knight2:
P
Protestant101
Guest
Even The Apocrypha is not Roman Catholic. Not one syllable of this, the DeuteroCanon or the Holy Bible was written by any Roman Catholic, dead or alive. 
S
Sonny69
Guest
All English translations have problems; look at Psalm 23, almost no translation gets verse 4a completely wrong because it is such a popular verse. I personally spoke to the OT Hebrew scholar and theologian who was part of the translation team for the ESV. it should not read “the” valley, but rather “a” valley and “shodow of death”; although it can be translated that way, the better rendering is in the darkness, as in the blackness of darkness. If you look carefully at the context preceeding the verse the error in translation becomes more evident, but the translators were not given liberty to translate as it should because of its popularity as it is. This is just a single example, but all tranlations have human tranlator issues and the issue of translation from one language into another while retaining the accurate rendering. The DR, KLV, NKJV, NAS, NIV & and ESV are all good English translations and in a good study and reading od Scripture should include the arseneal of at least a few good translations. Ironically, the CEV translation of verse 4 is the more accurate translation than the ones stated above and it is a translation not many would recommend. Verse 4a Psalms 23 “I may walk through valleys as dark as death” and this is the picture of what a shepherd would have gone through to find a lost sheep at night.I’d disagree with you on this. I think the DRB is far superior to the KJB. The period English is essentially the same, but it has all the books and is just as readable.
You can find authentic editions (new) of the 1611 KJV if you just gotta get one. They contain all the books and are especially handy for use with KJ only types who will quickly tell you that they only accept “the 1611 King James Version Bible” as inspired. It ruins their whole weekend when you hand them one that has the Deuterocanonical books in it and point out that that really is a 1611 edition unlike the one they generally have in their hand.Dude…there is no such thing as a Catholic KJB. That’s all folks…
Amazon has used copies of the Confraternity Bible if you are interested P101.
ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DuPNzExbL.SL135.jpg
THE HOLY BIBLE: Confraternity Version. Bible in English.
Hardcover
BTW, I saw mention of a good pocket Bible. I have one that I love and it fits comfortably in my cargo pants side pockets.RSV Catholic Bible, Compact
christianbooksbibles.com/images/productthumb/019/9780195288513.jpg
Retail: $29.99
Our Price: $22.49
You Save: $7.50 (25%)
Code:In Stock ISBN-13: 9780195288513
S
Sonny69
Guest
Opinion is worthless in this discussion and that is pure opinion in my opinion - like the circularity…LOL I do use the DRB in my own study as well as others; they all have issues and the ones I listed in the previous post are all good translations and the most important part is preserved in all, which is the gospel of salvation.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Coming late to the discussion, just a couple of quick points-
the “numbering” in the Bible is not inspired, nor does it exist in the old manuscripts. Numbering systems developed in the late middle ages, and like betamax and vhs and other formats, there were a variety of systems used, gradually shaking out to the “generally agreed upon” system we use today. “Where the chapters break” is one of those variations, and the bracketed numbers in the Psalms in some Catholic translations reflect that.
There are lots of “Catholic” Bibles, in a variety of (English) translations. There are also Bibles in print that include the deuterocanonical books that don’t have imprimatur, and Bibles that do have imprimatur that don’t include the deuteros. So while a “Tobit check” is a quick way to decide whether the book in your hand is a “full-length” Bible, it’s not 100% fool-proof.
Hence the confusion regarding a “Catholic KJV” - although by definition the KJV was always a Protestant translation, it did originally include all 73 books (because the Anglican Church was not Lutheran).
Our SDA friend is correct, of course, that none of the OT books were written by Catholics. But do you know, dear friend, that there are also NT era books that we call “Apocrypha,” which were rejected by the Church when the canon of Scripture was being set? Many of which were determined to be not simply not-apostolic but in fact heretical? Which is why we get a little touchy when people refer to the OT books that Luther rejected as “apocryphal.”
Do you know which NT books Luther rejected?
the “numbering” in the Bible is not inspired, nor does it exist in the old manuscripts. Numbering systems developed in the late middle ages, and like betamax and vhs and other formats, there were a variety of systems used, gradually shaking out to the “generally agreed upon” system we use today. “Where the chapters break” is one of those variations, and the bracketed numbers in the Psalms in some Catholic translations reflect that.
There are lots of “Catholic” Bibles, in a variety of (English) translations. There are also Bibles in print that include the deuterocanonical books that don’t have imprimatur, and Bibles that do have imprimatur that don’t include the deuteros. So while a “Tobit check” is a quick way to decide whether the book in your hand is a “full-length” Bible, it’s not 100% fool-proof.
Hence the confusion regarding a “Catholic KJV” - although by definition the KJV was always a Protestant translation, it did originally include all 73 books (because the Anglican Church was not Lutheran).
Our SDA friend is correct, of course, that none of the OT books were written by Catholics. But do you know, dear friend, that there are also NT era books that we call “Apocrypha,” which were rejected by the Church when the canon of Scripture was being set? Many of which were determined to be not simply not-apostolic but in fact heretical? Which is why we get a little touchy when people refer to the OT books that Luther rejected as “apocryphal.”
Do you know which NT books Luther rejected?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Really?Even The Apocrypha is not Roman Catholic. Not one syllable of this, the DeuteroCanon or the Holy Bible was written by any Roman Catholic, dead or alive.
Seeing as Christianity didn’t exist in the OT that’s pretty well self evident and none of us have ever even inferred such foolishness, though I’m sure you wish we would so you might have some small validity to your arguments, but it’s not gonna happen. 
The point is that it was the Catholic Church that canonized the writings that were inspired scripture in the 4th century and that’s a historic fact.
I realize that the SDA isn’t very good at history or facts, but it’s pretty easy to verify.
J
jblake
Guest
mdrummer5;:
Church Militant;:
Secondly, in 1615, Archbishop Gorge Abbott prohibited the publication of the KJV sans deuterocanonical material. This was due to the publication and distribution of so many copies of the KJV without that content.
Thirdly, the 1611 KJV contains the 76 Book Anglican Canon, of which the 73 Book Catholic Canon is a subset.
jonathon
If you are looking at an Anglican Edition, it is complete by Catholic standards. If you are looking at a Protestant Edition, it is not complete by Catholic standards.
Unofficially, Catholic priests used to recommend the Anglican edition of the KJV, to Protestants studying Catholic beliefs.
Church Militant;:
For starters, the 1599 Geneva Bible was published without the deuterocanonical books.
Secondly, in 1615, Archbishop Gorge Abbott prohibited the publication of the KJV sans deuterocanonical material. This was due to the publication and distribution of so many copies of the KJV without that content.
Thirdly, the 1611 KJV contains the 76 Book Anglican Canon, of which the 73 Book Catholic Canon is a subset.
I’m not sure if that is a reference to the decision to not print, publish, and distribute Bibles that contain deuterocanonical material in 1880 of the American Bible Society, or in 1831 by the the Trinitarian Bible Society. or in 1827 by the British Bible Society. Regardless the Bible Societies were not the first organisations to print, publish, or distribute Bibles without the deuterocanonical material. Furthermore, these organisations were distributing Bibles that met the theological criteria of their sponsors.
The profit motive had a lot more to do with it, than cost cutting. Specifically, printers discovered that they could charge the same for a Bible without the Deuterocanonical material, as with it. So, they printed it without, to increase their profit.
jonathon
J
JackQ
Guest
I was responding to another poster, and what I said made sense in that context. But I’m glad I was able to help you to LOL.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Really? Better check your facts again.
Order your copy of the
1599 Geneva Bible today!
** Each edition comes with a FREE CD-ROM that contains complete Bible Text, Apocryphal Books**, and Metrical Psalms!
P
Protestant101
Guest
It would be nice to see you provide some proof for what you imply here Mister Militant
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Read the link man. They make no bones about providing the translation with the DCs. They couldn’t do that if it didn’t have 'em to begin with.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Actually I read the whole thing. It doesn’t prove that this Bible version was not published by someone without the “DCs”Read the link man. They make no bones about providing the translation with the DCs. They couldn’t do that if it didn’t have 'em to begin with.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
But it does prove that it was published with them, else they wouldn’t exist, now would they?Actually I read the whole thing. It doesn’t prove that this Bible version was not published by someone without the “DCs”
S
Sonny69
Guest
You are speaking of the Council of Nicene and that was not wholly Catholic and not till later in history did the Catholic church “pick and choose” the parts they liked and discarded that which they did not like and not until then was this considered ecumenical - helps to put all the facts out; least you give the wrong historical context for the purposes of your own personal agenda.Really?
The point is that it was the Catholic Church that canonized the writings that were inspired scripture in the Th century and that’s a historic fact.
I realize that the SAD isn’t very good at history or facts, but it’s pretty easy to verify.
The church before the council was already using the books that became and were recognized as inspired and some books in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches disagree on certain books, which are known not to be inspired because of the historical, chronological, contextual and theological errors; my God is not the God of error and I hope we have the same god. The obvious reason for the late inclusion is the response to the charges laid against the Roman Catholic Church, such as praying to dead saints, the fleshly dead saints.
The council was not necessary to even declare what was inspired or not because the churches were already using them, but it was beneficial to do so. Also, since God had promised to preserve His word; regardless it was purposed by God and therefore it was already a “done deal”, as the phrase goes.
God bless all of you this day. S69
S
Sonny69
Guest
The authorized 1611 KJV contains the Apocryphal Books, but it notes they are not inspired and for devotional purposes, which is historically accurate as to how they were used by many churches; so in essence it provides the evidence that early churches recognized they were not inspired, which is why I said in the previous post we do not have a God who has given a written word with error.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Protestant101,
Although your post seems to have veered off of your original question regarding the Confraternity Bible, look at the thread I just started that deals exclusively with the Confraternity Bible, its background, development, and current usage.
I hope it explains what you were looking for.
Although your post seems to have veered off of your original question regarding the Confraternity Bible, look at the thread I just started that deals exclusively with the Confraternity Bible, its background, development, and current usage.
I hope it explains what you were looking for.
- Status