I just cu straight to the chase and quote from the KJV - it’s the one I memorized from as a Protestant child, and there are very few Protestants who would have a problem with it, which gives a double advantage - I can quote it without looking, and it carries the kind of authority Protestants are looking for.
Tim Staples employs a similar tactic using the KJV he grew up memorizing. You can tell that it ends to carry a lot of weight with his non-Catholic Christian interlocutors. When quoted with confidence, it even sounds authoritative.I just cu straight to the chase and quote from the KJV - it’s the one I memorized from as a Protestant child, and there are very few Protestants who would have a problem with it, which gives a double advantage - I can quote it without looking, and it carries the kind of authority Protestants are looking for.
I grew up memorizing the NIV - but I agree very few have a problem with KJV (It was almost a riot in church when the new pastor used the NIV instead of the KJV!I just cu straight to the chase and quote from the KJV - it’s the one I memorized from as a Protestant child, and there are very few Protestants who would have a problem with it, which gives a double advantage - I can quote it without looking, and it carries the kind of authority Protestants are looking for.
)
This is not true. Jesus never cited from apocrypha. The first copy of LXX came from 4th century, not earlier. Jewish community **never **accepted apocrypha. But never.
These books already weren’t accepted as canonical in the Jewish community.
I don’t understand this.
Canon of the Bible doesn’t depend on what (only) Luther said. Many church fathers denied some of true canonical books (either OT or NT). Does it mean that they are right?
In the Vulgate and in my German Catholic Bible it’s definitely THE AND NOT A!
Hmmmmm. We seem to have quite a disconnect here. Both can’t possibly be correct. My understanding has always been the 6 books WERE in the original Jewish Bible that Christ and his followers were accustomed to and taken out of the Jewish Bible later after Christianity had started to spread. The have always been a part of the Catholic Bible and only removed by the Reformers. Interestingly Luther also wanted to remove James (Epistle Of Straw) and RevelationFirst of all - sorry for my bad English.
This is not true. Jesus never cited from apocrypha. The first copy of LXX came from 4th century, not earlier. Jewish community **never **accepted apocrypha. But never.
These books already weren’t accepted as canonical in the Jewish community.
I don’t understand this.
Canon of the Bible doesn’t depend on what (only) Luther said. Many church fathers denied some of true canonical books (either OT or NT). Does it mean that they are right?
Not to mention that the Eastern Orthodox also include the deuterocanonicals as part of inspired scripture (in fact, they actuall include even more books!), so it’s ridiculous to say we “added” them at Trent. There’s proof of the canon being laid out at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, Trent just affirmed it AFTER Luther started throwing books out and adding words to Scripture!
First of all - sorry for my bad English.
This is not true. Jesus never cited from apocrypha. The first copy of LXX came from 4th century, not earlier. Jewish community **never **accepted apocrypha. But never.
These books already weren’t accepted as canonical in the Jewish community.
I don’t understand this.
Canon of the Bible doesn’t depend on what (only) Luther said. Many church fathers denied some of true canonical books (either OT or NT). Does it mean that they are right?
To add one more point to your response, when No Nick said “These books already weren’t accepted as canonical in the Jewish community” I’m thinking he’s got his Jewish communities confused. The Jews who didn’t accept Jesus didn’t accept those books. However, the line of Jews who did accept Jesus, DID accept those books. No Nick forgets, Jesus is a Jew by birth and lineage, and the Church Jesus started was 100% Jewish in the beginning. Our Lord’s Church, the Catholic Church, accepted the LXX. That means those 7 books are there, from the 3rd century BC they aren’t some later addition as Protestants have been told by their leaders.Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
- I never said Jesus cited ‘the apocrypha’–I said the New Testament has 135 references to the Septuagint, to the exclusion of the Hebrew OT. That is, 135x language is used which relates back to the launguage used in the Septuagint, which does not occur–or is stated differently–in the Hebrew OT.
- The Septuagint didn’t exist until the Fourth Century? Nonsense. Try 100-200 BC. Curious, but what source do you think the Jewish authorities relied on, to reconstitute the OT circa 200 AD, after the original manuscripts were lost during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ad, and the ensuing diaspora–if not the Septuagint? Or did you think the originals were never lost?
- You say those books ‘already’ weren’t included by the Jewish authorities–well, perhaps you can tell us why they included them in the Septuagint, when they translated the Hebrew scipture into Greek–while all 12 tribes of Israel were represented-- more than 100 years before Christ?
- As for the part you don’t understand…just pointing out that St. Jerome sought to keep those same books out, because he drafted his translation of the Bible–the Latin Vulgate–from the same Hebrew OT reconstituted circa 200 AD–and on the same basis that Martin Luther sought to exclude them–but Pope Damasus–who commissined St. Jerome to translate the Bible to Latin, in 382 AD.-- instructed St. Jerome to include those books, because they were in the Septuagint.
- As for Mr. Luther–be that as it may, he was the original source for seeking to exclude those books which were already in, going back to the late fourth century–to underscore the point that those books were NOT subsequently added by the Catholic Church, but subsequently deleted, by the Reformers. (…and the point about adding ‘solo’ after ‘fide’, simply underscores that the origin of the idea to delete those books, came from someone who thought he was fit to ‘correct’ St. Paul’s writings–or should I say, correct the Holy Spirit).
Great point, nice post!!
Then grab a good old King James or NASB and show them the exact same thing.Hello. Sometimes when I’m in a discussion with a Protestant, and I share a particular verse with them, they’ll say “Oh but that’s the Catholic translation. It’s worded in favor of your doctrines.” what do I say to that?
Also, I’ve heard that the NIV translation is heavily biased in favor of n-C Christian beliefs. The funny thing is, is that sounds like the exact same thing I get told. Is there any truth to this? Thanks
:tiphat: thanks & blessings
I have been wondering. Is the Catholic Bible translated from the Latin or the original languages (Hebrew and Greek)? If it is from the Latin, that may account for any differences in wording. Anyone know?
The Douay-Rhiems Bible, the Bible used by most English speaking Catholics until fairly recently was based on the Latin (the Vulgate) which St. Jerome translated from the original languages.
Sorry, bro, but 6 apocryphal books are later added. They never were in the original Jewish Bible. There is no one sources for your claim, especialy Jewish sources.
Interestingly, many church fathers denied some of the OT or NT books, and even more, some of them do not list some of the NT or OT books in their canon list. And so what if Luther “wanted to remove James?” Luther, actually, was troubled by four books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. In his Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude Luther said:
Sorry bro, but everytime you keep reiterating this bunk, you compel me–and others–to correct you.Sorry, bro, but 6 apocryphal books are later added. They never were in the original Jewish Bible. There is no one sources for your claim, especialy Jewish sources.
Which “original” are we talking about? Moses gave 5 books. This 5-book canon was still in use by the Sadducees even in the time of Christ.Sorry, bro, but 6 apocryphal books are later added. They never were in the original Jewish Bible. There is no one sources for your claim, especialy Jewish sources.
True. But this doesn’t mean that LXX contained apocrypha, or, that Jesus (or apostles) thouth that apocrypha were inspired, or something like that.
By the way, do you know how many times NT echoes midrash, or some other Jewish sources - does it mean that these books (or sources) are inspired, or equal as NT or OT? Read carefuly, pls. I didn’t tell that LXX didn’t exist until 4th Century, I told:
Who said that apocryphal books were in the original LXX? Apocryphal books were later added in the LXX. By the way, tell me this - why copy of LXX have 3 and 4 books of Maccabees? Why (even) catholics consider these 2 books as non-canonical?
Maybe I didn’t understand you well, but…Jerome was not only one church father who rejected apocrypha. Did you know that even at the Trent (and after Trent) some catholics doubted about apocryphal books? Actually, through church history, there were **always **doubts about apocryphal books - Luther didn’t find out America (in my culture, this claim sounds like, Luther wasn’t first who find out something new).
Of course, this is not true. Luther was on of the voice of true tradition. He said (regarding apocrypha):
- As for Mr. Luther–be that as it may, he was the original source for seeking to exclude those books which were already in, going back to the late fourth century–to underscore the point that those books were NOT subsequently added by the Catholic Church, but subsequently deleted, by the Reformers. (…and the point about adding ‘solo’ after ‘fide’, simply underscores that the origin of the idea to delete those books, came from someone who thought he was fit to ‘correct’ St. Paul’s writings–or should I say, correct the Holy Spirit).
Maybe Luther was wrong, but he is not pope. I do not follow Luther, but tradition. I just recognized that Luther followed tradition, too, sometimes he was right, some times he was wrong. In this case, in my opinion, he was right.