What Bible shouldn't we read as Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0104
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve always found it interesting how others are told to steer away from Bibles that do not contain the deuterocanonicals because they are not “catholic bibles” yet how few Catholic read, ponder, or study those books…so called Protestant Bibles have the same NT books we do…translations may very slightly, but if the reader is well catechised in our faith it should not cause much of an issue.

This points to the importance of adult catechesis. Without catechesis we become closer to Sola Scriptura Protestants than well formed practicing Catholics.
 
I don’t know where you got 66 books that I was saying the true Bible had. The Bible has 73 books. Pope St. Innocent 1 ( 401- 417 ) in 405 AD he approved the 73 book Canon and closed it. In the ( Councils of Hippo, 393 , and Carthage 397 AD ), it approved the 46 books of the Septuagint as the cannon for the Old Testament
The first word of the NT was written about 50 ,AD ( 1 These ), the last word between 90-100 ( Rev ), for a total of 27 books.
Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit and 1and 2 Maccabees ( as well as portions from Daniel and Esther ) Luther could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint translated into Greek. That are not in the Protestant Bible.

The reason I think we have so many denomination is, the early Church use to evangelize preach on Heaven, hell and purgatory. You hardly have that anymore at least in my parish and people I talk to from different parishes are getting the ( warm fuzzy feeling ) instead of every once and a while a priest slamming his fist on the pulpit and preaching on reality that we are not just here for fun and games that’s fine to have that but if it’s all about you and not your neighbor where will you be a 100 years from now. And also as Catholics if we believe in Christ in the Eucharist then we should be lined up to receive this miracle.
Well I hope the sheds light on a misunderstanding God bless
 
As my jaundiced, myopic eyes see it, Catholics hear the scriptures automatically at the mass, and so may tend to ignore it elsewhere. How many Catholic bibles have I bought used (back to 1914!) that appear unread?

However, those seven books have utterly amazing theological and typological content in them. Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Sirach in particular. They have a place in the bible which the Church has determined. Yet, when they are in non-Catholic bibles, they are often placed between the testaments.

I find that interesting from a Catholic perspective, as I consider them to be anticipatory books of Christ. They fill that non-existent gap of 400 years (Malachi to Matthew) that the protestant world shuffles its feet and tries to explain.

Consider Wisdom 2, verses 10-20 in particular, written perhaps 50 years before the Incarnation. If that is not a clear phophecy of Christ, a clear description of His life, I do not know what is.
 
The Jewish Talmud mentions some of the 7 books. There was also typology between the 7 books and the New Testament. That’s why many of the church fathers agreed that it was inspired by God.
 
Any on your list of approved bibles are fine. I’d stay away from anything but modern
English translations though; old English is confusing and distracting-and I doubt Jesus spoke in anything but the modern practical dialectics of His day. Understanding is everything here.

Having said that I’ve ran into a Protestant version or two that I liked-most won’t “contaminate” you although some can have passage translations slanted towards their theology here and there-and of course they’re missing some really good OT books.
 
Last edited:
Amen!! My use of the word “you” was not meant for you specifically but as a generalization…sorry about that! The Bible topic, whether it’s about translations or Catholic versus non-Catholic gets me going. And since this topic is under Apologetics I thought I’d pontificate a bit. Again, I apologize for that. Bottom line is that we’re in total agreement with each other! God Bless!

-Ernie-
 
I love the language of the Douay Rheims, so I stick to that. I will not read Protestant bibles, including the KJV because I do not like the language of the translation and feel it conflicts with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Some of them, in minor ways.
 
I personally use only the Douay Rheims, Confraternity, Latin Vulgate, etc
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
PaulfromIowa:
US Catholic Bishops Approved Translations of the Bible:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/
Click to expand...
It’s strange that the USCCB website mentions the NRSV-CE but doesn’t list the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE.

Personally, I really like the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE, but I do NOT like the NRSV-CE.

I also don’t like the CEV
Click to expand...
Not strange.

The RSV-CE was published in 1966, just shy of 20 years before the current Canon Law came into effect in 1983. It was therefore approved through a mere Imprimatur, not canon 825. The NRSV came out in 1989, and was therefore subject to canon 825.

The RSV-2CE was deemed a sufficiently editorial revision of the RSV-CE rather than a new translation and as such, was published under the same 1966 Imprimatur of the RSV-CE.
 
I love the Duaoy Rheims version of the Bible! Heavy read but beautiful
 
Don’t forget the Jerusalem Bible! It has many useful notes, and was favored by Mother Angelica. 😉

What many Protestants don’t realize is that “bible societies” back in the early 19th Century made the decision to leave out the deuterocannonical books for expediency. The original English Protestant Bibles had them (but called them Apocrypha.) Good older KJV Bibles with the Apocrypha will not harm a Catholic reader any more than the NAB or NABRE. But why choose the KJV when the Challoner D/R bible has the best of both worlds? It uses many felicitous phrases from KJV but adheres strictly to the Vulgate, and has good Catholic notes.
 
Last edited:
Well this is true. King James the 1 had the apocrypha ( hidden ) books in his 1611 Bible. Sirach and Tobit were found in the dead sea scrolls. Protestants always relied on the Hebrew Canon of the Jewish Bible 24 books but they always disregarded the Greek as inspired but looking at the dead sea scrolls that were written between 150 BC and 70 AD. So the Sirach and Tobit and other deuterocanonical are in the dead sea scrolls and the oral Jewish Talmud in Hebrew and the Protestants still don’t accept those books.
 
Never, ever read the Cotton Patch Version. I can’t believe what I read.

“Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that’s been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage” (CPV).
 
…
AmbroseSJ said:
Don’t forget the Jerusalem Bible! It has many useful notes
Click to expand...
Agreed!

One that I acquired recently was the Navarre Bible, which uses both RSV and New Vulgate translations, along with extensive commentary…a very good read.
 
Truthfully, a reasonably well-catechized Catholic may read any bible. The purpose thereof is to recognize, identify and have an answer ready for the intentional twisting and bias in so many modern translations.
 
About the existence of such a translation? Or how much I despise such translations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top