What Bible shouldn't we read as Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0104
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wish I was. I hope no one takes it seriously. Surely it’s just a joke, right?

When Jesus was born in Gainesville, Georgia during the time that Herod was governor, some scholars from the Orient came to Atlanta and inquired, “Where is the one who was born to be governor of Georgia? We saw his star in the Orient, and we came to honor him.” This news put Governor Herod and all his cronies in a tizzy. So he called a meeting of the big time preachers and politicians, and asked if they had any idea where the Leader was to be born. In Gainesville, Georgia,” the replied, “because there’s a bible prophecy which says:

‘And you Gainesville, in the state of Georgia,

Are by no means the least in the Georgia delegation;

From you will come a governor,

Who will wisely guide my chosen people.’ ”
 
It just gets worse.

This guy John was dressed in blue jeans and a leather jacket, and he was living on corn bread and collard greens. Folks were coming to him from Atlanta and all over north Georgia and the backwater of the Chattahoochee. And as they owned up to their crooked ways he dipped them in the Chattahoochee.
 
No, the Cotton Patch Gospel is a real, published book. (For the record, I have never read it.)
 
The NIV bible was the bible I read that most affected my life I think. My Grandma got it for me in High School. Leather bound, gilded pages, thompson chain reference, it was great. I still have it on my book case. 🙂

I would take a pic of it, but it has my full name in nice Gold script on the front. My Grandma is passed on now into the eternal kingdom, but that will always be a special Bible for me.

But my main bible I read now is the RSVCE.

On a side note:

I like to pull up Bible Hub and see how one verse has been translated across 20 different biblesl, I think it can be a good exercise sometimes to get at meaning from different angles.

Just as an example…Luke 1:28
http://biblehub.com/luke/1-28.htm
 
Last edited:
It’s been 25 years since The New Jerome Biblical Commentary was published. It has an essay on this topic, of which Bibles are good to read. It even includes the NIV (new international version) and the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH. The JPS version is the 1985 translation (latest) of the Masoretic text. It has frequent footnotes about what texts are hard to translate, whereas that is seldom mentioned in any Catholic Bible that I’ve seen.

One step up in the Jewish Bible category is The Jewish Study Bible (2nd Ed, Oxford U Press) which has many essays about the versions of the Jewish Bibles and even the theology of the Bible, from the Jewish perspective. As a study bible, it has copious sidebars with explanations of significant parts of the text.

But, I have not found any study bible or commentary that answers all my questions. For example, what’s the moral of the story in Genesis around Ch 19-20 of the incest of Lot and his daughters. I had to google the topic to come up with some essays on the subject.
 
Last edited:
I have the Navarre commentaries. They are pretty good. No commentary will answer all your questions and cover every verse, I suppose.
 
After working for a major Bible and theology text firm I can truly say not all translations are created equal, even some Catholic ones have dropped the ball. I prefer the RSVCE2 or the NABRE for common reading. But often times if your searching for direct translation it helps to have a few since some translations handle meaning better than others but may fail the much needed wording. I highly advise getting a commentary or two as you read each book. Navarre is great as mentioned above, so is Catena Aurea on the four Gospels, Haydocks Bible commentary is also great (and public domain). As for more intense commentaries you may have to leave strict Catholic authors to get everything, bare in mind theology can influence the author as well (Hermeneia/continental, ICC, Anchor Yale).
 
Last edited:
Is there a NKJV that includes the 7 “Catholic books” omitted by Protestants?
 
I don’t think there is a NKJV bible that includes the 7 Catholic deuterocanonical books. The NKJV is the translation I prefer when reading the New Testament and the Psalms.

The NABRE and the RSV-CE (which I also have and read) do include the 7 Catholic deuterocanonical books.
 
I find it strange that the Catholics could proclaim that the seven extra old testament books were inspired by God and authentic when the Jews themselves reject them as canon. The Protestants don’t accept these books precisely because the Jews don’t. Which side is more likely to be correct? (hint: it’s 2 against 1…)
 
The jews that rejected those books ,did so after Jesus died, to Read this history before drawing conclusions. Jesus himself quoted the Septuagint
 
Last edited:
In the first century the deuterocanonical were accepted but later rejected by rabbinical teachers later they were removed and rejected to Christianity. Jamnia was not a council but a Rabbinican School. The school continue a hundred years afterward jamnia about 50 years. Jamnia was formed at the destruction of the first temple and it formed the school that we get the rejection of these books.

The Jewish Talmud has these deuterocanonical books in them. King James the 1 rewrote in 1611 and uninspired Bible with the deuterocanonical books listed in it.

The Jewish Kaddish is a hymn of praise to God found in Jewish prayer services.
The term kaddish is often used to refer specifically to " Mourners Kaddish ", said as part of the morning rituals in Judaism in all prayer services, as well at funerals ( other than at gravesites and memorials, and 11 months after the death of close relatives.

Certain Jews believed certain ways for instance the Pharisees and the Sadducees the Pharisees believed that God controlled all things yet decisions made by individuals also controlled to the course of a person’s life.
They also believed the resurrection of the Dead acts 23 6
They believed in the afterlife with appropriate reward and Punishment on an individual basis
They believed in the existence of Angels and Demons Acts 23:8
The Sadducees believed that they were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God’s involvement in everyday life.
They denied any resurrection of the Dead.
They denied any afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death, and therefore the nine any penalty or reward after the Earthly life.
They denied the existence of a spiritual world Angels and Demons.

So you can’t just look to the Jewish Bible you have to go outside of the Bible to the oral traditions of not only the Jews but the Catholic Church also. For Martin Luther found a loop hole in St. Jerome’s work. In Jerome translating the Jewish Bible. But Jerome always did believe in the Septuagint. God bless
 
observer333 said:
I find it strange that the Catholics could proclaim that the seven extra old testament books were inspired by God and authentic when the Jews themselves reject them as canon.
Click to expand...
Yep, they were rejected in 98 AD at the Council of Jamnia by one group of Jews, Pharisees, in part to stem the growth of the new Christian sect.
 
Yes, the Cotton Patch version of some books of the New Testament is real. I have read a couple. They were interesting and entertaining, but I do not even think they should be called Scripture.

I like most translations and accept for agenda translating, like the NWT, I have had no problem with any. My favorite of all time would probably be the New American Standard Bible (not the NAB) for its consistency in verb translation and being very literal. I can tell the tense of most verbs and the form of most nouns in the New Testament by how they are translated.
 
The Jews also reject Christ. You really want to use them as your authority on Christianity?

The Jews who accepted the deuterocanonical books are now called Christians.
 
Because they were in the heavily popular Greek Septuagint. Orthodox actually have even more books than Catholics.
 
Martin Luther also wanted to remove James Jude Hebrews and Revelation from the Bible. Heretic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top