Why non-Catholics like New International Version Bible

[GaryTaylor]

I agree Anna, the NAB seems to have moved much father than my original version which was early. So being that I don’t have a newer version, I see the difference in verse but I don’t see whats being said it the footnotes as opposed to early editions. I hear thsi another issue.

But its not my recommended version of Bible anyway, just one I happen to have as Memorial issue from time past.

Earlier in the thread though I was talking about what I did like in the specific verse of revelation’s which indicates "the holy people of God " as opposed to “the Saints”. IMO this sounds more accurate.

This isn’t to say also that the KJV with its Shakespeare style of writting and its errors is perfect either.

As why I mention I have a few versions around and agree I need to purchase another, I have to get to the bookstore I also want to pick up a copy of Benedicts “Jesus of Nazareth” Part-II. I read Part-I and thought it was one of the better works on Jesus Chirst I read since Pelikans “Jesus through the Centurys” in the 90’s .

Nonetheless the Catholic/Protestant interpretation in scripture doesn’t weight on my mind at all. As you see use two Protestant Bibles, and Pelikan who taught at Yale when he wrote “Jesus through the Centurys” and “Mary through the Centurys” was raised Lutheran to Father was Minister. I believe he’s Orthodox today. Both those works I mentioned by him are extrodinary. Those who sincerely seek the Trurh are simply doing just that, regardless of where they happen to be in church today.

Anyway God Bless, Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

Both translations have issues.

The main point of my post was to consider whether the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something that happened after marriage or before–which affects the consideration of annulments. Read back through the last page or two of the thread.

Anna

Agee’d also. Here also we have to consider how the entire Bible views immoral sexual relations before marrige, during marrige etc, and how this plays into CC understanding. This isn’t adultry in many instance’s when we say immoral sex.

So with the Catholic Church its not the idea of not allowing a marriage because of, or the other had a sexual relation “prior” to marriage. But the idea of if this was bought up discussed prior and confession/communion received? Then deemed valid by the church. Also if both are Catholic in good standing with the Church to be a Sacremental Marrige.

And in accord to the sacrement then Three-Callings etc. So with the CC a few ideas come to mind here also. So yes it gets a bit complicated. Nonetheless thats another issue I disagree with in the idea that all Catholics would need to be Virgins before marriage. Here is another ideal which the entire context of scripture would need to be understood from a Catholic Doctrine perspective.

So, for instance, a couple who are living together may not be allowed to get married in the Church until they have spent sufficient time living apart. There are exception, for instance, if the priest is convinced that the couple is not engaged in immoral behavior but is living together out of economic necessity. Likewise, a Catholic politician who supports policies condemned by the Church {such as the legalization of abortion} may be denied a sacramental marriage. More importantly the issue which came to mind here is a couple which marrys then after marrige one or the other finds out a pre-martial affair happened and was never discussed? You have to be in a State of Grace to receive the Sacrement of Matrimony in the CC. There are marriages in the Catholic Church which are not Sacramental Marriages.

But I also can’t speak on exactly how the CC is doing this Sacrament today. But Growing up you had to have “three calls” in the Catholic Church before they would marry you. I believe if pregnancy was an issue, this could be waved, otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to marry in a particular Parish. I’ve seen this happen just with not making the Three-Call and my brother was leaving the state on a career. The church wouldn’t marry Him. And he attended all his life. The question of pregnancy came up which wasn’t the issue. So I had the impression that to the Father/Priest, they simply had to make the Three-Calls or marry elsewhere?

And on and on. But I haven’t stayed on top of this over the decades, so what changed I wouldn’t know. I may be off a bit off here or there though, though I wouldn’t think so. But should someone see error please feel free to correct. What can I say I’m Vatican I old school.

The grew up in a very strick Polish Catholic Church. And I have seen them become very strick with all the Sacrements. My niece is in Tampa and told me they are doing things a bit different their. But here its still pretty much old-school from what I see.

God Bless, Gary

 

[shaky]

"But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh." (Mk 10:6-8)

You cannot become “one” with multiple wives.

Yes, he must give up all of his “extra” wives and remain with only one, however, he is bound to provide and care for the “extra” wives and the children born from those wives.

So why did God allow king David to have many wives and even more concubines:shrug:

 

[shaky]

Both translations have issues.

The main point of my post was to consider whether the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something that happened after marriage or before–which affects the consideration of annulments. Read back through the last page or two of the thread.

Anna

Divorce and remarriage was not permitted Pre Nicene. Then Around the 6Th Century divorce and remarriage was permitted in the east and the west did not object.
There was no Annulments Pre Nicene.
Annulments was a later thing that came into the Church.

 

[ETEXAS]

Actually, I quite like the NIV and wish they would publish a Catholic Edition. This however, will never happen. They’ve even stated on their website that they have no plans in the foreseeable future to translate the deuterocanon.

Actually! There is a Church approved Psalter… Got one in Santa-Fe, at Cathedral !

 

[Anna_Scott]

There are plenty of verses omitted in the NIV compared to the KJV.

Also this Issue in Matthew about fornication or adultery. The Greek word is Pornia> This covers all types of sexuality wrongs committed while one is married.
If your partner has sex with a animal>bestiality or one of the children>incest. Husband with a man or wife with a woman. Also Adultery was only committed when somebody’s wife was violated. But a married man could have sex with single woman as his concubine and that is not considered Adultery in the old testament.

When was it in the new testament that a man can only have One Wife?
Also does a muslim have to give up all his extra wives when he becomes catholic?

Divorce and remarriage was not permitted Pre Nicene. Then Around the 6Th Century divorce and remarriage was permitted in the east and the west did not object.
There was no Annulments Pre Nicene.
Annulments was a later thing that came into the Church.

shaky,
I appreciate your comments, but you’re not giving a direct response to the concerns of my post.

Do you believe the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something, i.e. fornication, unchastity, etc., that happened before or after/during marriage?

. . . . .**The main point of my post was to consider whether the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something that happened after marriage or before–**which affects the consideration of annulments. Read back through the last page or two of the thread.Anna

 

[shaky]

shaky,
I appreciate your comments, but you’re not giving a direct response to the concerns of my post.

Do you believe the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something, i.e. fornication, unchastity, etc., that happened before or after/during marriage?

Well it must be during while you are married. When you repent and get baptised your sins are washed away. So if you are a man or woman and meet another christian in the church and you both fall in love and want to get married. You both are not obliged to mention any sexual encounters you have had in the past before you became a Christian. I certainly would not ask my potential bride that question. If she asked me i would tell her yes or no. Some people would not like that sort of question if they have had so and would probably be tempted to lie or not give a answer either way leaving a bit of a atmosphere

If either had been unchaste after they had been baptised and become christians. The priest would know about this in confession. So if a couple wanted to get married and the priest knew about one or even both of them have had unchastity problems while being christians well that can be a different matter altogether:shrug:

A woman should know about what sort of christian man she is marrying. especially if he is a womaniser, pedophile etc. And a man needs to know what sort of christian woman he is marrying.

Is there anything in the Church catechisms about this.?
What do the bishops say about this?

 

[shaky]

shaky,
I appreciate your comments, but you’re not giving a direct response to the concerns of my post.

Do you believe the “exception” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to something, i.e. fornication, unchastity, etc., that happened before or after/during marriage?

Also Ann with the issue of Annulments on all this i cant find any evidence that there was Annulments pre Nicene.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well it must be during while you are married. When you repent and get baptised your sins are washed away. So if you are a man or woman and meet another christian in the church and you both fall in love and want to get married. You both are not obliged to mention any sexual encounters you have had in the past before you became a Christian. I certainly would not ask my potential bride that question. If she asked me i would tell her yes or no. Some people would not like that sort of question if they have had so and would probably be tempted to lie or not give a answer either way leaving a bit of a atmosphere

If either had been unchaste after they had been baptised and become christians. The priest would know about this in confession. So if a couple wanted to get married and the priest knew about one or even both of them have had unchastity problems while being christians well that can be a different matter altogether:shrug:

A woman should know about what sort of christian man she is marrying. especially if he is a womaniser, pedophile etc. And a man needs to know what sort of christian woman he is marrying.

Is there anything in the Church catechisms about this.?
What do the bishops say about this?

shaky,

I’m really confused by your posts. Aren’t you arguing against the Catholic teaching regarding Matthew 19:9 and annulments? I thought Catholics believe this passage refers to some form of unchastity that occurred prior to the marriage.

Anna

 

[ETEXAS]

Small note here…most Protestant Bibles are “SAFE”…usually it is not the “Text Proper” it is Annotations and Footnotes … my Priest knows I have a lovely handcrafted AV Bible.(I am a former Anglican" It uses…very High Church terms (how do Fundamentalist steal it from Anglicans "who they really do not like any more than Catholics…I used to get called Catholic “Lite”…) well…Nut and Shell Brethren… they use notes from Scofield…to John “Mac”…the Stuart King …contra anti catholic lit…was not anti Catholc (he actually trusted them MORE than Puritans whom he called “Boader Thugs and Brigands”…The Stuart had an “odd” Jesuit Phobia……all this to say when we speak of Catholic “Approved” in your home…you are free to read Protestant translations…they cannot be read in Church…but I have studied comp-lit…I read the AV Psalms…for the sheer elegance…(NOW…My Caution…Careful about using Protestant Versions W/Annotations and Notes!!!..the “Text Proper…frankly…harmless”…:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree Anna, the NAB seems to have moved much father than my original version which was early. So being that I don’t have a newer version, I see the difference in verse but I don’t see whats being said it the footnotes as opposed to early editions. I hear thsi another issue.

But its not my recommended version of Bible anyway, just one I happen to have as Memorial issue from time past.

Earlier in the thread though I was talking about what I did like in the specific verse of revelation’s which indicates "the holy people of God " as opposed to “the Saints”. IMO this sounds more accurate.

This isn’t to say also that the KJV with its Shakespeare style of writting and its errors is perfect either.

As why I mention I have a few versions around and agree I need to purchase another, I have to get to the bookstore I also want to pick up a copy of Benedicts “Jesus of Nazareth” Part-II. I read Part-I and thought it was one of the better works on Jesus Chirst I read since Pelikans “Jesus through the Centurys” in the 90’s .

Nonetheless the Catholic/Protestant interpretation in scripture doesn’t weight on my mind at all. As you see use two Protestant Bibles, and Pelikan who taught at Yale when he wrote “Jesus through the Centurys” and “Mary through the Centurys” was raised Lutheran to Father was Minister. I believe he’s Orthodox today. Both those works I mentioned by him are extrodinary. Those who sincerely seek the Trurh are simply doing just that, regardless of where they happen to be in church today.

Anyway God Bless, Anna

Yes, and it is all about Truth.

I appreciate the book recommendations.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Agee’d also. Here also we have to consider how the entire Bible views immoral sexual relations before marrige, during marrige etc, and how this plays into CC understanding. This isn’t adultry in many instance’s when we say immoral sex.

So with the Catholic Church its not the idea of not allowing a marriage because of, or the other had a sexual relation “prior” to marriage. But the idea of if this was bought up discussed prior and confession/communion received? Then deemed valid by the church. Also if both are Catholic in good standing with the Church to be a Sacremental Marrige.

And in accord to the sacrement then Three-Callings etc. So with the CC a few ideas come to mind here also. So yes it gets a bit complicated. Nonetheless thats another issue I disagree with in the idea that all Catholics would need to be Virgins before marriage. Here is another ideal which the entire context of scripture would need to be understood from a Catholic Doctrine perspective.

So, for instance, a couple who are living together may not be allowed to get married in the Church until they have spent sufficient time living apart. There are exception, for instance, if the priest is convinced that the couple is not engaged in immoral behavior but is living together out of economic necessity. Likewise, a Catholic politician who supports policies condemned by the Church {such as the legalization of abortion} may be denied a sacramental marriage. More importantly the issue which came to mind here is a couple which marrys then after marrige one or the other finds out a pre-martial affair happened and was never discussed? You have to be in a State of Grace to receive the Sacrement of Matrimony in the CC. There are marriages in the Catholic Church which are not Sacramental Marriages.

But I also can’t speak on exactly how the CC is doing this Sacrament today. But Growing up you had to have “three calls” in the Catholic Church before they would marry you. I believe if pregnancy was an issue, this could be waved, otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to marry in a particular Parish. I’ve seen this happen just with not making the Three-Call and my brother was leaving the state on a career. The church wouldn’t marry Him. And he attended all his life. The question of pregnancy came up which wasn’t the issue. So I had the impression that to the Father/Priest, they simply had to make the Three-Calls or marry elsewhere?

And on and on. But I haven’t stayed on top of this over the decades, so what changed I wouldn’t know. I may be off a bit off here or there though, though I wouldn’t think so. But should someone see error please feel free to correct. What can I say I’m Vatican I old school.

The grew up in a very strick Polish Catholic Church. And I have seen them become very strick with all the Sacrements. My niece is in Tampa and told me they are doing things a bit different their. But here its still pretty much old-school from what I see.

God Bless, Gary

Gary,

Very interesting information. I have learned a lot from this thread.

Also, I think a thread on annulments would be a good idea. Just don’t have the time right now to start one. If you do, please send me a PM.

Peace,
Anna

 

[shaky]

shaky,

I’m really confused by your posts. Aren’t you arguing against the Catholic teaching regarding Matthew 19:9 and annulments? I thought Catholics believe this passage refers to some form of unchastity that occurred prior to the marriage.

Anna

Well i am arguing about what people did unchasity wise before they became christians.
while what they did unchasity wise while they were christians might be a different matter.

Is there any catholic teaching that states this passage refers to some form of unchasity that occurred prior to the marriage?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well i am arguing about what people did unchasity wise before they became christians.
while what they did unchasity wise while they were christians might be a different matter.

Is there any catholic teaching that states this passage refers to some form of unchasity that occurred prior to the marriage?

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

bishophelmsinginstitute.typepad.com/the_official_bishop_helms/2010/12/matthews-divorce-exception-clause-1.html

Heres’ two links for you on a Catholic Marriage and the NAB Exception clause.

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

Here is a basic process of annullment

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp

Benedict XVI the Holy Father is correct to urge clergy to put emphasis on better marriage prep – it’s so much easier to handle this on the front end. The challenge, of course, is how to do it.

The process of placing more emphasis of pre-marriage open, honest dialogue, is simply imperative today.

To conclude, if we as a society paid more attention to the relationship before marriage the problems after would be greatly reduced.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Anna_Scott]

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

bishophelmsinginstitute.typepad.com/the_official_bishop_helms/2010/12/matthews-divorce-exception-clause-1.html

Heres’ two links for you on a Catholic Marriage and the NAB Exception clause.

Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

Here is a basic process of annullment

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp

Benedict XVI the Holy Father is correct to urge clergy to put emphasis on better marriage prep – it’s so much easier to handle this on the front end. The challenge, of course, is how to do it.

The process of placing more emphasis of pre-marriage open, honest dialogue, is simply imperative today.

To conclude, if we as a society paid more attention to the relationship before marriage the problems after would be greatly reduced.

God Bless, Gary

Gary,

I read these three links and found them very helpful in understanding the Catholic view of marriage, divorce, and annulment.

I found the section on “porneia” and “Moicheia” very interesting.

Link: bishophelmsinginstitute.typepad.com/the_official_bishop_helms/2010/12/matthews-divorce-exception-clause-1.html

Matthew’s Divorce “Exception Clause”
"Although the Greek porneia has also been translated as “adultery” (or “fornication” which is sometimes interpreted as adultery), it is important to realize that there is a distinct Greek word for “adultery,” moicheia, used twice in that same verse. Note the verse with the Greek words shown; “And I say to you: ‘whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another, commits moicheia; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits moicheia’” (Mt 19:9). If we translate porneia as ‘adultery’ Jesus would appear to be saying something odd, “whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another, commits adultery.” Why would adultery break the bounds of an indissoluble marriage such that you can freely remarry without committing adultery? It should also be pointed out that Christian tradition records Jesus as unequivocally opposed to divorce. Neither Luke nor Mark records any exception; . . . . . "

Thank you so much for the information, Gary.

Peace,
Anna

PLeeD, I had asked how you support your assumption that the intended meaning in Matthew 19:9 is likely “adultery.” I think Gary’s links are very informative, especially regarding adultery vs. other forums of unchastity. I look forward to your comments.

. . . . .Thanks for pointing that out. I still think that in the case of Matt 19:9 it is in every sense textually doubtful.

We don’t know precisely which translated meaning was intended by use of the original word. The only thing we know for sure is that it involves some sort of sexual immorality. I don’t insist that it precisely means adultery here. Used in the immediate context of a married couple, however, IMO the most likely intended meaning is adultery. But, it could also be the case that beastiality or incest, which technically isn’t fornication, and maybe not even technically adultery, would also be counted as an “exception”.

In any case, I think it clearly refers to an event that occurs during a marriage, and not before.

. . . . .I find the proposition completely unacceptable that the intent of Matt 19:9 refers to an unlawful marriage which was rendered unlawful before the wedding because of premarital sex. If that is what the verse means, then any marriage in human history in which one or both of the partners was not a virgin is then unlawful. . . .

. . . . .I agree that there is an apparent variant in the NAB, but I’m still not convinced that unlawful marriage would not include some type of sexual act prior to marriage.

. . . .If the exception was adultery, why didn’t the text specify adultery. It doesn’t, except in some questionable Protestant Bible translations.

How do you support your assumption that the intended meaning is likely “adultery,” other than a theological bias regarding the text? . . . .

 

[PLeeD]

It’s not that difficult. The sentence in question implies that there is some exception that, if met, allows a man who was previously married, but now divorced, to marry again. There is no other way to reasonable read that sentence. Any assumption that it is referring to something that happened prior to the marriage is reading something into the text that isn’t there on its face.

I understand that this flies in the face of what Catholics believe. I can’t help that. It’s what I believe from reading the sentence, verse, and chapter as it exists.

So the question left at that point is, what is the exception?

The word “porneia” indicates some form of sexual immorality. We know from the context that, whatever it is, it apparently can happen between a married man and woman. Adultery us the most likely problem in a marriage that falls under the heading of sexual immorality. As I pointed out in a previous post there are other actions that might generally be defined as adultery, but would also fall under other categories of sexual immorality. Gary’s link admits this.

So I don’t say it has to specifically mean adultery. Adultery is only one of the possibilities that might fall under the heading of sexual immorality.

So, to summarize;

1. Viewing the sentence in question in the context in which it appears, the sentence structure indicates that there is some exception that would allow a wronged husband to a) divorce his wife, and b) remarry, all without c) committing adultery himself.
2. Further, the sentence structure and context indicates that whatever that exception is, it occurs during the course of the marriage, and not before.
3. The exception is in effect for any sort of sexual immorality, adultery being the most common and most likely.
4. In my opinion, any other interpretation of this passage is imposing meaning on the text that is not objectively there.

Lastly, there are two categories of faith that claim valid apostolic succession. One is the Catholic Church, and one is the Orthodox Church. As an outsider looking in, I don’t see any reason to view one church as more valid than the other.

And the fact is, that the Orthodox church allows remarriage in the case of adultery, citing Matthew 19:9 for scriptural justification. I find it interesting that Catholics want to ignore that fact, and characterize remarriage as existing, as Gary’s web site puts it, “Particularly in some Protestant groups…”, while ignoring its existence in Orthodoxy.

That link from Gary also trots out the same laughable notion as the previously linked web site. Namely that what Jesus was referring to was an incestuous marriage, when Paul says:

1 Corinthians 5 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

1It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife.

Their second argument is that it might have been referring to an event that would occur during a betrothal period prior to the marriage. There is no indication that this is what the Pharisees are asking about. They are talking about a man’s wife. Not his fiancee.

This is the biggest problem that I have with the CC. I think this CC discipline in marriage goes far beyond what is allowed in scripture, and from what I’ve read, goes beyond what was happening in the early church. The whole concept of the annulment is extra-biblical IMO. For this reason alone, it seems to me that if one of these two churches holds the full truth of the faith, that it’s more likely to be Orthodoxy.

You guys can continue discussing this if you want. I have nothing else to say on the issue.

 

[balt_orioles54]

This is not a flame bait thread.
I’m just curious what are the things that non-Catholics like New International Version so much.

When I was reading it, I found some verses to be completely out from the original meaning. Then I thought it was because it’s Protestant’s Bible that it’s normal to have different meaning from the Catholics. But before I conclude it, I do some quick research, on “NKJV, KJV and Young Literal Translation”. Compared it, and found even other bible are closer to Catholic’s Bible, if not the same. I do not know how “literal” is the Young Literal version but I assume it’s direct word by word translation.

And then I came across to a website, a person is giving Bible ‘marks’ for their translations.
This person gave New American Bible 60%.
New International Version gets 90%.
KJV and NKJV get 100%.

And it really starts to puzzle me, what is the thing that some like NIV so much that even NAB gets lower mark, when NAB comes closer to KJV? (Just my opinions, I might be wrong)

Catholics and Protestants Agree: Good things take time to settle. :hey_bud:

:ballspin::shamrock2:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1324&pictureid=8908

 

[PLeeD]

I apologize for the tone at the end of my last post. I simply mean to say that while I fully understand and respect the teaching of the Catholic church regarding divorce and remarriage, I do not agree with it. I’ve also made my position clearly understandable. That position is not mine alone. It’s a reasonable position shared with much of the Christian world. I simply don’t intend to debate it any further - especially on this thread as it’s not relate to the OP.

 

[CalCatholic]

However, not all NRSVs contain the Deuterocanonical books as the NRSV-CE does.

In my NRSV with Apocrypha, Daniel ends with Chapter 12. I don’t know why Chapters 13 and 14 are not included, since this version contains the Deuterocanonical books. I’ll have to check on this.

Does anyone have any information about this?

Peace,
Anna

Hi Anna,
I came to this thread late so I don’t know if you ever got this question answered, so I’ll do my best. The NRSV w/ Apocrypha does contain the complete Book of Daniel but it is broken up in the Apocrypha as: ‘The Prayer of Azariah’ (which in the Catholic edition is inserted between Dan 3:23 and 3:24, ‘Susanna’ (which in the Catholic edition is chapter 13) and ‘Bel and the Dragon’ (which is chapter 14 in the Catholic edition of the NRSV). The Catholic edition combines all these stories into the Book of Daniel, and as you can probably guess, the numbering will be different in chapter 3.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,
I came to this thread late so I don’t know if you ever got this question answered, so I’ll do my best. The NRSV w/ Apocrypha does contain the complete Book of Daniel but it is broken up in the Apocrypha as: ‘The Prayer of Azariah’ (which in the Catholic edition is inserted between Dan 3:23 and 3:24, ‘Susanna’ (which in the Catholic edition is chapter 13) and ‘Bel and the Dragon’ (which is chapter 14 in the Catholic edition of the NRSV). The Catholic edition combines all these stories into the Book of Daniel, and as you can probably guess, the numbering will be different in chapter 3.

CalCatholic,

This is a great help. I did find them in the NRSV just as you said. I have not read the Deuterocanonical books. I need to do that soon. They are part of the Anglican Canon.

Thank you so much!
Anna