Where are the Bibles before Trent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NotWorthy

Guest
The Catholic Church is built on a house of cards. We make the following claims:

A) The truth taught by the Church does not change.
B) The Canon of the New Testament has been set since the 4th century.

Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands of Bibles that were written before the Council of Trent that are still in existence today: ***Someone can bring this whole house of cards down if they just produce a Bible that did not include the deuterocanonical (or apochrypha) books.

So, if we did add those books to the Canon in the Council of Trent, why can’t anyone produce any of these bibles?

NotWorthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
…why can’t anyone produce any of these bibles?
Click to expand...
Didn’t you know??? The Church banned ALL Bibles before Trent. The only reason the Scriptures survive to this day is that a few Bible-believing protestants secretly handed it down through the centuries, until Saint Martin Luther finally came along and made it legal to own Bibles. But, then the Church couldn’t allow that, so they corrputed the Bible by adding in all those extra books.

…or something like that…
 
40.png
DavidFilmer:
Didn’t you know??? The Church banned ALL Bibles before Trent. The only reason the Scriptures survive to this day is that a few Bible-believing protestants secretly handed it down through the centuries, until Saint Martin Luther finally came along and made it legal to own Bibles. But, then the Church couldn’t allow that, so they corrputed the Bible by adding in all those extra books.

…or something like that…
Click to expand...
Ooooo! What you said!!! “Saint” Martin Luther??? (That’s a Catholic term, isn’t it?)

And let’s not forget about England’s Henry VIII - the original English Protestant - burning bibles so that he could get the gold out of the pages!!!
 
On a (more serious) side note, I read where it took the priests and monks about 8-10 months of their lives to write a bible, writing from sunup to sundown. The costs were exhorbitant when you consider the materials needed.

Hard to imagine the dedication and love it took to write one of these bibles, simply for the love of the “Word of God”.

NotWorthy
 
Well, there’s no dispute about which books belong in the New Testament.

And as for the Old Testament, the Catholic bible was based on the Septuagint, a Latin translation of the old testament scriptures which was used by the Jews long before the coming of Christ.
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
The Catholic Church is built on a house of cards. We make the following claims:

A) The truth taught by the Church does not change.
B) The Canon of the New Testament has been set since the 4th century.

Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands of Bibles that were written before the Council of Trent that are still in existence today: Someone can bring this whole house of cards down if they just produce a Bible that did not include the deuterocanonical (or apochrypha) books.

So, if we did add those books to the Canon in the Council of Trent, why can’t anyone produce any of these bibles?

NotWorthy
Click to expand...

Plenty have been destroyed - so it’s possible that there were Bibles, now unavailable, which lacked those books.​

What is certain, is that the order of the books was subject to variations: some pre-Reformation printed Bibles had James directly after Acts. IOW, the order familiar from the Challoner-DR is not the only one ever used before the JB re-ordered them.

Sometimes, the “Prayer of Manasseh”, which is not in the OT canon of the Latin Church’s Bible, but was printed in the 1598 edition of the Clementine Vulgate along with the two books of Esdras (really two parts of the so-called “Apocalypse of Ezra”) in an appendix, was included after 2 Chronicles - and thus, in the body of the OT - since it was an expansion of an event in that book.

A single Bible would not prove anything - one would really need to know that Bibles without the deuterocanonicals were reasonably usual & representative of Catholic practice, rather than an aberration, for the house of cards to fall. ##
 
First of all, Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh! I knew the Apochrypha or Deuterocanonical books were in the Old Testament and not the New! Sorry about that.

Second of all, I’ve heard so many times that the Catholic Church added these books at the Council of Trent. Now there were thousands of bibles scattered across the world. There is no way the Catholic Church would have been able to destroy every one that didn’t have the Deuterocanonicals. These things were extremely valuable and were treasured greatly.

My point being, there SHOULD be ample evidence that the Catholic Church changed the Canons. SINCE there is no evidence of this deception (which is what it would take to mask this change), then any body who makes the claim that the Catholic Church changed the Canon of the Old Testament DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!

Again, this is easy to disprove…just show me.

NotWorthy
 
40.png
JimG:
Well, there’s no dispute about which books belong in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther would have begged to differ with you. He didn’t want the Epistle of James (Epistle of Straw) and Revelations in the New Testament. He may have refuted one or two other books, also (but I’m not sure).
 
He wanted to elminate:

James, probably because of sections like:
2:14-24:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe–and they shudder. Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was active together with his works, and by works, faith was perfected. So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, and he was called God’s friend. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Click to expand...
and
1:14-15:
But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death.
Click to expand...
and Revelation, probably because of passages like
20:13-14:
Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all were judged according to their works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Click to expand...
Also, he probably didn’t like the fact that Revelation has a completely different style from the Gospel of John. This meant that it seemed unlikely to have been written by John. That’s because it was written by a man named John the Elder on behalf of John the Apostle, which meant that a person could only accept Revelation as inspired if they accepted the Church’s authority, which is the only real basis for its inclusion in the New Testament.

and 2 Peter, probably because it says things like:
1:20-21:
First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God.
Click to expand...
and
3:16-17:
He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability.
Click to expand...
And Hebrews, probably because the entire book is an explanation of how Christ’s sacrifice was in line with the OT sacrifices and really helps to show the fat that the mass is a sacrifice.
 
The first printed Bibles were in the 15th century. There were many in print by the 16th century. Luther died just a few months after the start of the Council of Trent so he would not have heard any of the decrees. You have to ask yourself how he even knew about the deuterocanonical books if they werent already in the manuscripts and books at the university.

st julie
 
😃 😃

No no no no! The reason there are no Bibles without the Apocrypha was because the evil Catholics burned all copies of the pure Word of God and brought out perversions with the Apocrypha so they can preach their heretical doctrines of men. They also forbade the distributions of the preserved Word of God on pain of anathema (being condemned as a heretic to be burned at the stake).

😃 😃 😃

ducks

heh heh heh.
 
Yea what Portos said and

Those handwritten/illuminated works of art called Bibles that Monks and Preists spent their lives creating were just so much refuse to Whore of Babylon.

Don’t get too hung up on facts or history. These fundies with less than 200 years of theology – if you can stand to call it that – are not hung up on knowing the truth about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Our church is built on a 2000 year old basement and also has an attic – not just a house of cards. But we can’t notice such things since we spend so much time idol worshipping and worshipping Mary and standing in line to confess our sins to a mere human.
 
Yo! The Guttenburg Bible (The very first Bible to be printed) had all of the books that are still in the Catholic Bible today.
 
Luke1:48:
Yo! The Guttenburg Bible (The very first Bible to be printed) had all of the books that are still in the Catholic Bible today.
Click to expand...
What year was that written?
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
The Catholic Church is built on a house of cards. We make the following claims:

A) The truth taught by the Church does not change.
B) The Canon of the New Testament has been set since the 4th century.

Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands of Bibles that were written before the Council of Trent that are still in existence today: Someone can bring this whole house of cards down if they just produce a Bible that did not include the deuterocanonical (or apochrypha) books.

So, if we did add those books to the Canon in the Council of Trent, why can’t anyone produce any of these bibles?

NotWorthy
Click to expand...
The Vulgate. sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/

So, you’re going to become a good, loyal Catholic, now, right? Or, do you not care about the invalidity of your own argument?
 
The thing about that stuff is it’s harder to refute because it’s so made up there is no actual history to correct. It’s hard to prove something completely fabricated didn’t happen…
 
teajay:

Loved the Jack Chick cartoons! Theology by the unscrupulous for the ignorant!

I always get a kick out of the argument that the Catholic Church (Whore of Babylon, Beast, etc.) banned the Bible in the Middle Ages. As has been pointed out, it took a very looooong time to produce a handwritten Bible; it was extraordinarily expensive to get. Combine that with the fact that the vast majority of people would have been essentially illiterate, and it does not take much mental work to figure out that Bibles would not have been in every house.
 
40.png
JimG:
Well, there’s no dispute about which books belong in the New Testament.

And as for the Old Testament, the Catholic bible was based on the Septuagint, a Latin translation of the old testament scriptures which was used by the Jews long before the coming of Christ.
Click to expand...
May I correct you? The Septuagint is the GREEK translation of the HEBREW scripture, written in Alexadria for greek speaking Jews that lived outside of Paelstine.

students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/
catholicapologetics.org/ap030500.htm

The Septuagint remains the Primary, Official document in the Catholic Church and supercedes all later translations to this day.

It is this document that the Apostles used in thier ministries, therefore, it is considered first before all others.

Here is a comparison of Hebrew scripture and Greek Septuagint…
geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

The Vulgate (Latin) Bible was first commissioned in 382 by Pope Damasus. It included the New Testament.
ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Vulgate

Christ be with you,
Subrosa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top