The Catholic church does NOT believe that a pure and perfect Bible exists and is available to man today?

[Cattitude]

“The Catholic church does NOT believe that a pure and perfect Bible exists and is available to man today.”

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

 

[GailMac]

Off the cuff I’d take to the person asking to Eucharistic Adoration and simply say “Behold all those Words made Flesh!”… and a few besides! Love it!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Robbinson]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

I would say that the Catholic Chuch does believe in a pure and perfect Bible (subject only to translation difficulties) and proclaims that the Bible is God’s inspired and inerrant word. However, the Church further proclaims the validity of the traditions of the Apostles and the early Church as guided by the Holy Spirit which, together with scripture, constitutes the entire deposit of faith.

The Bible itself refers to importance of following and keeping the oral traditions and teachings of the Apostles.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Scottgun]

Bear in mind that not only do we not posses the original NT writings from the authors, it doesn’t look like there was any serious attempt to preserve them–something you would expect if Scripture was the proximate rule of faith. This suggests that it was the living Church that was the proximate rule of faith.

 

[colliric]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

I would agree with them.

Theologically Inerrant, does not mean that it doesn’t contain either Bad Grammar and Bad Spelling(in some Bibles, especially Good News Version), questionable Geographical descriptions in some parts, Outright Contradictions of a chronologically comparitive nature(when you compair one Gospel to another, or one OT historical book with another), and outright contradictions in how each Gospel records Jesus’ Sayings.

No it’s not Pure and No it’s Not Perfect… it is Humanly Authored… but it is also most Divinely inspired!

If it was pure and perfect, it would not have to be translated(we’d understand it right away) and it would not contain typos in some editions!

It is Pure and perfect when it is in our own hearts(the full true Gospel), but in the penned out fully expressed version which we call the Holy Bible it has made the jump, or been translated from our hearts to the page, so it’s not entirly perfect and shouldn’t be considered to be so.

The perfect bible exists in our hearts I would say, but it takes a physical form of it as expressed by others, which allows us to unlock that truth that God plants in our heart at the start of our life by finding out that it is in the hearts of other human beings too(and we are not alone!).

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I would say that Christianity is about a relationship with God through the man Jesus, who is God-made-man. That relationship is concretely expressed and nourished through a relationship with the Catholic Church, who is the Body of Christ and hence the sacrament of Jesus in the world. In the Church, Jesus has given to the Bishops his authority to teach infallably in his Name. The Scriptures, which is a written record of God’s revelation to man, together with Sacred Tradition have been entrusted to the Church who authoritatively interprets them.

For Catholics, the question of a “perfect Bible” is a null question. Personally, since the Bible cannot interpret itself, it cannot logically be perfect. And historically, we know that there are many variations in the text that are even accepted by the Church. What does it mean to say that the Bible is “pure” then?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But of course that’s true.

Usually any person who would make such a claim against the Catholic Church is most like an advocate of the KJV-only movement (or some other movement that seeks to place a certain version of the Bible as divinely above the others) However, when you look at things historically and realistically, no matter what you do a ‘perfect Bible’ is just impossible today. For starters, we have very few ancient manuscripts left, all in poor condition when they were discovered.

Also, translating the Bible is like playing “Pass the Message” only that it is between various generations across time. Still, no matter how much you’ve retained, time and human error will eventually erode the original words as they go down farther down the line.

I agree with the Bible Translations Guide that I read on this site when it said that there’s nothing really wrong about using more than one Bible version. I think different versions just give us different perspectives of the original texts. It’ll probably help you get to a more accurate understanding if you try seeing things from the perspectives of different translations.

 

[Athanasiy]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

We should not expect the ‘’ total accuracy ’’ or ‘’ full scientific accuracy '’ from the Bible.
We must not interpret the Biblical symbolic language literally.
The Bible also does not to promote the racial superiority which permits the violence against other nations and people.

 

[Ron_Conte]

God did not give us the original manuscripts, nor any one definitive edition of the Bible (exactly these letters, in exactly this order, and no other) because He wants us to focus on the truths of Scripture, which can be expressed in any language, in many differents phrasings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

Admit it ​

No such Bible exists, nor is there any need for one to be identified, even if that were possible (it’s not). It is not something to be worried or defensive about, but is merely a fact. It suffices that the Bible has been preserved sufficiently well to be able to be used for general religious purposes.

Worrying about “God’s Preserved Bible” is better left to KJV-onlyites & Muslims

 

[inthecloud]

**## Admit it **

Yes, that is why a Church is needed. There is no perfect Bible per se. The church has to approve the good ones.

No such Bible exists, nor is there any need for one to be identified, even if that were possible (it’s not). is not something to be worried or defensive about, but is merely a fact. It suffices that the Bible has been preserved sufficiently well to be able to be used for general religious purposes.

The best answer posible.

Worrying about “God’s Preserved Bible” is better left to KJV-onlyites & Muslims

In other word fundamentalism in a intelectual suicide.

 

[COPLAND_3]

“The Catholic church does NOT believe that a pure and perfect Bible exists and is available to man today.”

Some of the posts on this thread seem to have the right idea about what is ‘perfect.’ There is not a perfect translation from the original langauges that the Bible was written in, and there is not even a perfect ancient manuscript that exists today in the original languages. I could believe that the authors of the Bible wrote their texts perfectly while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but it is quite obvious that the scribes who have copied the sacred writings over the centuries have made scribal errors, which has no effect whatsoever to the inspiration of the writings. While the Church has the authority to determine what is inspired, it does not make any claim that we have a perfect translation, in fact it acknowledges the very same thing that I have just mentioned.

Hope this helps!

 

[Cattitude]

Thanks for all the great replies. This particular person is a vehement KJV-only. (And anti-Catholic to boot.)

He’s using Psalm 12:6-7 to back up his claims that God sad would preserve His word that the KJV is that “word”.

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (KJV)

I guess he’d have to use the KJV to back this up (don’t bother cross-checking with others to get a fuller understanding :nope: ),since other translations don’t quite say the same thing:

Psalm 11:6-7 (Douay-Rheims):
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried by the fire, purged from the earth, refined seven times. Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us: and keep us from this generation for ever.”

Am I correct in thinking that where he thinks the “them” that the Lord will preserve is NOT referring to the “words of the Lord” in verse 6, but to the needy & the poor in verse 5? That seems to fit with the tone of the entire Psalm, and fits better with the D-R translation of “us” (meaning a group of people) instead of “them”. Finally, some other translations use “promises” rather than “words”, which would indicate that its not a reference to scripture per se, but God’s verbal promises/words.

What do you all think?

 

[Steve40]

By who’s standard is the Bible not pure and perfect? When you are trying to communicate with that which is (name removed by moderator)ure and (name removed by moderator)erfect any communication may appear to be (name removed by moderator)ure and (name removed by moderator)erfect to the (name removed by moderator)ure and (name removed by moderator)erfect.

Show me a language and human communication that is pure and perfect. The Bible is not lacking. Humanity in fallen sin is.

Where understanding is lacking we must rely upon the gift of faith and trust in God.

 

[Claudius]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

I would ask the person which non Christian “denomination” they belong to and then point out to them in the Bible, usually any version will do, that they do not believe or live as the Bible says they should. Every protestant “faith” is deficient and we need to show them that.

Only the Catholic faith is the one from God. It is the only one that the Bible fully supports. We should be asking them why they don’t believe and live as Christ commanded. The “perfect” bible is a pure afterthought.

 

[Chancellor]

How would you respond to this claim by a non-Catholic?

The question about a perfect bible is a fishing expedition. First I would ask the questioner to back up his judgements with real life examples so I could see what the real issues are. As stated the proposition is much too vague.

My other answer might sound cynical but I think it is a legitimate question, “So, what is your point?”

The Chancellor

 

[noelj_fox]

What does Thread mean by pure and perfect Bible? Please qualify the question. Thanks!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Thanks for all the great replies. This particular person is a vehement KJV-only. (And anti-Catholic to boot.)

He’s using Psalm 12:6-7 to back up his claims that God sad would preserve His word that the KJV is that “word”.

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (KJV)

Oy vey, he basically believes God waved His hand and somehow miraculously made the KJV perfect. This is purely just another fundamentalist fantasy. -_-;;

If God truly did intend to preserve His Word in the KJV, can your correspondent then account for these mistakes found in the KJV editions across the century?

(1) 1611, Great “He” Bible, (Ruth 3:15, “and he went into the city.”)
(2) 1611, Great “She” Bible, (Ruth 3:15), “and she went into the city.”)
(3) 1611, “Judas” Bible, (Mat. 26:36, “Judas” for “Jesus.”)
(4) 1631, “Wicked” Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the “not.”)
(5) 1638, “Forgotten Sins” Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, “More Sea” Bible, (Rev. 21:1, “There was more sea.”)
(7) 1653, “Unrighteous” or Field’s Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, “unrighteous shall inherit.”)
(8) 1702, “Printers” Bible, (Ps. 119:161, “Printers have persecuted.”)
(9) 1711, “Profit” Bible, (Isa. 57:12, “shall profit” instead of “shall not profit.”)
(10) 1716, “Sin On” Bible, (John 5:14, “sin on more” for “sin no more.”)
(11) 1717, “Vinegar” Bible, (Luke 20, “parable of the Vinegar” instead of “Vineyard.”
(12) 1746, “Sting” Bible, (Mark 7:37, “sting of his tongue” not “string.”
(13) 1792, “Denial” Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, “Murderers” Bible, (Jude 1:16, “murderers” used instead of “murmurers.”
(15) 1802, “Discharge” Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, “I discharge” instead of “I charge.”
(16) 1804, “Lions” Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, “out of thy lions” instead of “loins.”
(17) 1805, “To-Remain” Bible, (Gal. 4:29, “to remain” inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, “Standing Fishes” Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, “the fishes shall stand” instead of “fishers.”
(19) 1807, “Ears to ear” Bible, (Mat. 13:43, “ears to ear” instead of “to hear.”
(20) 1810, “Wife-Hater” Bible, (Lk. 14:26, “hate not . . . and his own wife” instead of “life.”)
(21) 1823, “Camels” Bible, (Gen. 24:61, “Rebekah arose, and her camels” instead of “damsels.”
(22) 1829, “Large Family” Bible, (Isa. 66:9, “not cease to bring to birth” instead of “not cause to bring forth.”
(23) undated, “Fool” Bible, Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God” instead of “there is no God.”

You can tell him/her, that my source is not even Catholic.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Cattitude,

The KJV only folks have extremely weak arguments to back up their positions concerning the KJV. In my Protestant days I battled them often, which played a big part in my research and studies of the ancient Bible manuscripts and the transmission of the Bible which eventually helped lead me to see the Catholic Church in a new light. We as Catholics have the Magesterium of the Catholic Church as an authority along with the Bible, the KJV only folks have the KJV translation as an authority in a similar way in their flawed way of thinking. It is indeed a very desperate way to grap onto some kind of authority. I think that we are much better off with our 2000 years of apostolic succession than to cling to a translation that was “authorized” in 1611 by the anglican church!

I used to joke that they must believe that Jesus wrote the KJV when He was writing in the sand, and Thomas wrote the NIV because he doubted that the KJV was totally accurate.

 

[inthecloud]

I also wonder of the implicit racism and ethnocentrism in the KJV only movement.
That means that only English speakers have God perfect Revelation?