PDA

View Full Version : cathloic bible??



fuzzy
May 10th 2007, 02:59 AM
k this is really annyoing...... Okay I know that there is the bible of course but then my mom is still cathlolic says there is a cathloic bilbe?? I go to a christian school and know the bible and get how there could be a cathlolic bible? can someone explain to me if its just that the catholic adds something and this is really bugging me!!!!! me being a born again and Im telling her that in schoo land I know that there is only one word of GOD!! and then she goes well the christian added stuff so Im really confused:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Befaithful
May 10th 2007, 03:05 AM
k this is really annyoing...... Okay I know that there is the bible of course but then my mom is still cathlolic says there is a cathloic bilbe?? I go to a christian school and know the bible and get how there could be a cathlolic bible? can someone explain to me if its just that the catholic adds something and this is really bugging me!!!!! me being a born again and Im telling her that in schoo land I know that there is only one word of GOD!! and then she goes well the christian added stuff so Im really confused:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

What does she mean the Christians added stuff...isn't she a christian. :hmm:

ravi4u2
May 10th 2007, 03:33 AM
Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles have several different translations to keep up with our ever-changing language. However, they are basically the same because they both come from the original languages of Holy Scripture. The major difference is that the Roman Catholic Church added a collection of books and passages known as the “Apocrypha” to their Old Testament during the sixteenth century.
The apocrypha does not present itself as being inspired by God. For example, the anonymous author of 2 Maccabees admits his book is NOT an original work but is an abridgment of someone else’s writings! (See 2 Maccabees 2:23) (NAB) (505)
The author concludes this book saying, “If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.” (2 Maccabees 15:38) (NAB) (523) This clearly proved to me that this is NOT the inspired words of God! Holy Scripture: “Know first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) (NAB) (1410)


To top it all off the author of 1 Maccabees admits that he is not a prophet when he says: “There had not been such a great distress in Israel since the time the prophets ceased to appear among the people.” (1 Maccabees 9:27) (NAB) (488)
Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted virtually all of the books of the Old Testament yet none of them made even a single quote from the entire apocrypha! The early church never accepted the apocrypha as inspired by God and many Christian leaders spoke strongly against adding the apocrypha to the Bible, including the writer of the Roman Catholic Bible (Latin Vulgate), Saint Jerome.2 & 5 He was right!
Holy Scripture: "Every command that I enjoin on you, you shall be careful to observe, neither ADDING to it nor subtracting from it.” (Deuteronomy 13:1) (NAB) (172) Also in Holy Scripture: “ADD NOTHING to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver.” (Proverbs 30:6) (NAB) (687) The bottom line: adding the apocrypha to the Roman Catholic Bible was wrong because Holy Scripture says you don’t ADD to God’s word.


Again, even the Roman Catholic Church didn’t declare most of the apocrypha to be inspired by God until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. The purpose of this council was to counteract the Protestant Reformation and the apocrypha was added to the Roman Catholic Bible in an attempt to help support some Roman Catholic doctrines such as “purgatory,” which is not in Holy Scripture.


Again, the Bible was once forbidden to Roman Catholic laymen when it was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse in 1229 A.D.

Dolly_Dagger
May 10th 2007, 06:10 AM
well i was gonna say something but ravi4u2 kinda stole what i was gonna say plus more. so i won't say a thing.

qbee
May 10th 2007, 09:45 AM
No the protestants didn't add anything
They took away books that were not considered
inspired and were added with RCC doctrines - rejected
by the protestants - as doctrines of men - Not God.

The Roman Catholic Old Testament includes all books in the Protestant Old Testament plus others that Protestants call the Apocrypha. For the most part, the Roman Catholic Old Testament includes the books in the Septuagint (LXX),
an ancient Greek translation of Jewish writings, which included not only the Tanakh but additional documents.


The protestants rejected these 7 books - as uninspired - believed added by the church during the 16th
century to promote there own doctrines that were not part of the early church -

This is just the Old Testamant -
The Protestant New Testament contains the same books as the Catholic New Testament.

You should do a study of the reformists to learn how this all came about
Also The protestants didnt want to seperate from the church they wanted
reform - but the church rejected that and ex-communicated us - That is why
we are called protestants - WE protested the teachings we believed were false
from the RCC - The RCC has changed many of these things over the centuries
but there is still much doctrine that we disagree with and to this day reject ..

TEITZY
May 10th 2007, 10:49 AM
k this is really annyoing...... Okay I know that there is the bible of course but then my mom is still cathlolic says there is a cathloic bilbe?? I go to a christian school and know the bible and get how there could be a cathlolic bible? can someone explain to me if its just that the catholic adds something and this is really bugging me!!!!! me being a born again and Im telling her that in schoo land I know that there is only one word of GOD!! and then she goes well the christian added stuff so Im really confused:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

My mum has a Catholic Bible (RSV I think). In Exodus 20 the translators have actually removed the second commandment and split the tenth commandment into 2 separate commandments.

Cheers
Leigh

Sold Out
May 10th 2007, 12:21 PM
k this is really annyoing...... Okay I know that there is the bible of course but then my mom is still cathlolic says there is a cathloic bilbe?? I go to a christian school and know the bible and get how there could be a cathlolic bible? can someone explain to me if its just that the catholic adds something and this is really bugging me!!!!! me being a born again and Im telling her that in schoo land I know that there is only one word of GOD!! and then she goes well the christian added stuff so Im really confused:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

A Catholic bible is different from other bibles (NIV, KJV, NAS, etc) for two reasons:

1. It contains the Apocrypha (added books) These books were not accepted into the canon (by the Catholic Church) until 1546. Prior to that, they had the same number of books.

2. The Catholic bible is not translated from the original Greek & Hebrew texts. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was the bible the church used prior to allowing the laity to have bibles.

There are problems with the Catholic bible. First, the Catholic church gave us the original canon of books in the 3rd century, then 1200 yrs later they decide that they can add to it. So which version is really correct, or should I say, "God's Word"?

Secondly, the Latin Vulgate translation was a BAD translation to start with, so if you translate from that to English, you get a WORSE translation. We already know how much can be lost from Hebrew/Greek straight to English, so you can imagine what was lost by translating down TWO languages.

GothicAngel
May 10th 2007, 12:42 PM
A Catholic bible is different from other bibles (NIV, KJV, NAS, etc) for two reasons:

1. It contains the Apocrypha (added books) These books were not accepted into the canon (by the Catholic Church) until 1546. Prior to that, they had the same number of books.

I dont think I am supposed to say this here... but the EOs have it too... anyways.

The books were not rejected universally by anyone unti l1546. Prior to that, the majority of people used the Apocrypha as Scripture.

I do have quotes from the Early Church on the Apocrypha- waay before 1500s I can say. Before the 500s too/



2. The Catholic bible is not translated from the original Greek & Hebrew texts. It is translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was the bible the church used prior to allowing the laity to have bibles.


The Vulgate is a transalation from the Greek and Hebrew. Also, what is your back up that there are none transalated from Greek and Hebrew? Also, what difference does it make?

BTW, in the defence of the RCC (and EOs lol)... show me where, in history, the Protestant Church allowed their laity to have bibles before the printing press ;)


There are problems with the Catholic bible. First, the Catholic church gave us the original canon of books in the 3rd century, then 1200 yrs later they decide that they can add to it. So which version is really correct, or should I say, "God's Word"?

No, the Christians gave the canon in the 3rd century (prob. before) and then 1200 years later some body (Luther) decided to take them out. So, which version would you say is correct- the one from long ago, or the one from sooner?


Secondly, the Latin Vulgate translation was a BAD translation to start with,

You say this becuase...?


so if you translate from that to English, you get a WORSE translation. We already know how much can be lost from Hebrew/Greek straight to English, so you can imagine what was lost by translating down TWO languages.

Please show me some grave transalation errors in Catholic bibles. (or Eo bibles I guess...)

GothicAngel
May 10th 2007, 12:44 PM
...

The protestants rejected these 7 books - as uninspired - believed added by the church during the 16th
century to promote there own doctrines that were not part of the early church -




If you are referring to Purgatory, this was in fact believed in by the Early Church. I can back this up if you wish.

VerticalReality
May 10th 2007, 01:15 PM
If you are referring to Purgatory, this was in fact believed in by the Early Church. I can back this up if you wish.

Being that this is a Maturing in Christ forum, anything you claim should be backed up. Otherwise it is simply opinion.

qbee
May 10th 2007, 01:55 PM
I have moved this thread to WR -
please continue ..

qbee
May 10th 2007, 01:57 PM
If you are referring to Purgatory, this was in fact believed in by the Early Church. I can back this up if you wish.

Yes please back it up - :)
now that we have moved Fuzzy's thread in here to discuss it -

rchivers
May 10th 2007, 02:10 PM
I tried to show a friend the verse (its in 1st Timothy)) where it says there will be those who turn away from the spirit and are forbidden to marry, etc. (basically describing the RCC) and they had removed the verse. So I would say they definently removed anything that talked about themselves in a negative way.

I'll find the verse.....

rchivers
May 10th 2007, 02:19 PM
King James Version 1 Timothy 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Thats the verse I was thinking of...

Jollyrogers
May 10th 2007, 04:25 PM
Just to add to this, Along with the Apocrapha books The Catholic Bible has 2 extra chapters at the end of the book of Daniel. From my understanding they are considered legend and not to have ben written by Daniel so they were dropped by the Protestants.

Sold Out
May 10th 2007, 06:16 PM
I dont think I am supposed to say this here... but the EOs have it too... anyways.

The books were not rejected universally by anyone unti l1546. Prior to that, the majority of people used the Apocrypha as Scripture.

I do have quotes from the Early Church on the Apocrypha- waay before 1500s I can say. Before the 500s too/


The Vulgate is a transalation from the Greek and Hebrew. Also, what is your back up that there are none transalated from Greek and Hebrew? Also, what difference does it make?

BTW, in the defence of the RCC (and EOs lol)... show me where, in history, the Protestant Church allowed their laity to have bibles before the printing press ;)



No, the Christians gave the canon in the 3rd century (prob. before) and then 1200 years later some body (Luther) decided to take them out. So, which version would you say is correct- the one from long ago, or the one from sooner?



You say this becuase...?



Please show me some grave transalation errors in Catholic bibles. (or Eo bibles I guess...)
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

fuzzy
May 10th 2007, 11:53 PM
thnx guys and gals for posting but try to keep on subject plz.

God Bless,

GothicAngel
May 10th 2007, 11:57 PM
Yes please back it up - :)
now that we have moved Fuzzy's thread in here to discuss it -
Very well.

Purgatory in the early Church.

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

-In his epitaph (c180), Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis, requests prayers for his soul.

-From Tertullian's "The Crown" (211): "...We offer sacrifices for the dead on thier birthday anniversaries..."

-From Tertullian's "On Monogamy" (213): (speaking of widows) "...She prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection."

-In his epitaph (c350), the Christian Pectorius prays to Jesus for the repose of his mother's soul and requests prayers for his own soul from others.

-From the "Catechetical Lectures" (c350) of St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem: "...For I know that there are many who are saying thus: 'If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?'...[but] We offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners."

-From St. Gregory of Nyssa's "Sermon on the Dead": "If a man... after his departure out of the body... finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has beem purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire."

-From St. Augustine's "Explanation on the Psalms" (392): "... In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire..."

Is that sufficient?

RSiscoe
May 11th 2007, 08:42 PM
k this is really annyoing...... Okay I know that there is the bible of course but then my mom is still cathlolic says there is a cathloic bilbe?? I go to a christian school and know the bible and get how there could be a cathlolic bible? can someone explain to me if its just that the catholic adds something and this is really bugging me!!!!! me being a born again and Im telling her that in schoo land I know that there is only one word of GOD!! and then she goes well the christian added stuff so Im really confused:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

I am going to start a thread that will explain why Catholics and Protestant have different Bibles. See "Luther and the Bible".

pnewton
May 14th 2007, 11:39 PM
I noticed the Latin Vulgate was mentioned as being the basis for the Catholic Bible. This fifth century Bible was translated by one man from the original languages and included the deuterocanonical books that are not included in the current King James Bible. I say the current King James Bible because in 1611, these books were part of the King James Bible and were included in virtually all KJV prior to the 19th century. I found a site that sells antique Bible pages so this can be verified through a non-Catholic source.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=King+James+Bible+apocropha&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

While the list for the current 39 books of the Old Testament goes back to the Council of Jamnia where a council of Pharisees decided what should be in the Old Testament, the Catholic canon goes back an extra three hundred years to the library at Alexandria and the Septuigant.

I just wanted to point our that the Catholic canon, objectively and historically, did not add any books.

JesusRocks
May 15th 2007, 01:52 AM
We use the King James Bible.....My priest use it. Every parish I have belonged to all my life uses the King James Bible...the word Catholic is not part of it..those are special Bibles, like teens etc :B

Ramon
Jun 17th 2007, 05:53 PM
The original King James did include the Apocrypha, Catholics did not add anything to the canon, it was the Protestants that took them out.

In fact Martin Luther wanted to take out any books that did not support his feelings on God. He wanted to take out James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.....................

Mighty Mutt
Jun 17th 2007, 07:53 PM
Contrary to popular catholic belief, protestants as a whole do not think of Luther as the head of the protestant denominations. It gets really discouraging to hear over and over "Luther did this, Luther did that." While Luther is widely credited for sparking the Reformation, there were many others in that same period who were beginning to break from roman catholicism.

punk
Jun 17th 2007, 08:56 PM
Contrary to popular catholic belief, protestants as a whole do not think of Luther as the head of the protestant denominations. It gets really discouraging to hear over and over "Luther did this, Luther did that." While Luther is widely credited for sparking the Reformation, there were many others in that same period who were beginning to break from roman catholicism.

What is interesting though is that Luther basically was advocating eliminating books from the Bible that differed from his understanding of doctrine (at least in the case of James).

It sort of makes a mockery of sola scriptura when you are using doctrine to decide what constitutes "scripture".

Since certain Catholic doctrines find their support in the Apocrypha it becomes an interesting question as to whether Protestants eliminated these works in an effort to eliminate support for unpalatable Catholic doctrines, in another attempt to decide what is "scripture" according to doctrine, rather than deciding what is doctrine through scripture.

Braves27
Jun 17th 2007, 09:33 PM
Since certain Catholic doctrines find their support in the Apocrypha it becomes an interesting question as to whether Protestants eliminated these works in an effort to eliminate support for unpalatable Catholic doctrines, in another attempt to decide what is "scripture" according to doctrine, rather than deciding what is doctrine through scripture.

Well, the King James Bible never had the Apocrypha fully integrated into the Scripture. It was between the OT and NT, sort of hanging there, like they knew it wasn't quite Scripture, but that these books did have some benefit.

Even if that wasn't the case, it's not as if these "unpalatable Catholic doctrines" are untouched anywhere else in the Bible; Scripture can't contradict itself. When you have something questionable to begin with, and it contradicts itself and Scripture, obviously there's something wrong.

punk
Jun 17th 2007, 09:41 PM
Well, the King James Bible never had the Apocrypha fully integrated into the Scripture. It was between the OT and NT, sort of hanging there, like they knew it wasn't quite Scripture, but that these books did have some benefit.

Even if that wasn't the case, it's not as if these "unpalatable Catholic doctrines" are untouched anywhere else in the Bible; Scripture can't contradict itself. When you have something questionable to begin with, and it contradicts itself and Scripture, obviously there's something wrong.

You're not talking about a contradiction though, you are talking about a not-mentioning.

If the Apocrypha says 'A' and the rest of the Bible says 'not-A', well that is a problem.

But if the Apocrypha says 'A' and the rest of the Bible has nothing to say about 'A' at all, well that isn't a contradiction now is it?

Mighty Mutt
Jun 18th 2007, 12:48 AM
What is interesting though is that Luther basically was advocating eliminating books from the Bible that differed from his understanding of doctrine (at least in the case of James).

It sort of makes a mockery of sola scriptura when you are using doctrine to decide what constitutes "scripture".

I agree absolutely, Punk. Another interesting point is that Luther did not just abandon all catholic doctrine either. Looking even at the Lutheran church today and it would not be a difficult leap to see the catholic influence. As I am sure you know, just reading Luther's theses, a good potion of it had nothing to do with doctrine, but was primarily focused on church corruption. I would guess that his idea of reformation had less to do with doctrine and more to do with the practices of the clergy. Had not other reformers sprung up in that period, I doubt that Luther on his own really would have brought on the cataclysmic change.


Since certain Catholic doctrines find their support in the Apocrypha it becomes an interesting question as to whether Protestants eliminated these works in an effort to eliminate support for unpalatable Catholic doctrines, in another attempt to decide what is "scripture" according to doctrine, rather than deciding what is doctrine through scripture.

A good question indeed.

Ramon
Jun 18th 2007, 05:16 AM
As I am sure you know, just reading Luther's theses, a good potion of it had nothing to do with doctrine, but was primarily focused on church corruption.




yes, they were selling forgiveness for sins.....he didn't want to break away, but when they did not change, he was forced to basically

Mighty Mutt
Jun 18th 2007, 02:09 PM
Yep. My understanding is that he didn't have a problem with the priests forgiving sins, just that they were extorting for their services. To me, the idea of the priest forgiving sins is problem enough!

Deriluxa
Jun 19th 2007, 02:16 AM
Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles have several different translations to keep up with our ever-changing language. However, they are basically the same because they both come from the original languages of Holy Scripture. The major difference is that the Roman Catholic Church added a collection of books and passages known as the “Apocrypha” to their Old Testament during the sixteenth century.
The apocrypha does not present itself as being inspired by God. For example, the anonymous author of 2 Maccabees admits his book is NOT an original work but is an abridgment of someone else’s writings! (See 2 Maccabees 2:23) (NAB) (505)
The author concludes this book saying, “If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.” (2 Maccabees 15:38) (NAB) (523) This clearly proved to me that this is NOT the inspired words of God! Holy Scripture: “Know first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) (NAB) (1410)


To top it all off the author of 1 Maccabees admits that he is not a prophet when he says: “There had not been such a great distress in Israel since the time the prophets ceased to appear among the people.” (1 Maccabees 9:27) (NAB) (488)
Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted virtually all of the books of the Old Testament yet none of them made even a single quote from the entire apocrypha! The early church never accepted the apocrypha as inspired by God and many Christian leaders spoke strongly against adding the apocrypha to the Bible, including the writer of the Roman Catholic Bible (Latin Vulgate), Saint Jerome.2 & 5 He was right!
Holy Scripture: "Every command that I enjoin on you, you shall be careful to observe, neither ADDING to it nor subtracting from it.” (Deuteronomy 13:1) (NAB) (172) Also in Holy Scripture: “ADD NOTHING to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver.” (Proverbs 30:6) (NAB) (687) The bottom line: adding the apocrypha to the Roman Catholic Bible was wrong because Holy Scripture says you don’t ADD to God’s word.


Again, even the Roman Catholic Church didn’t declare most of the apocrypha to be inspired by God until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. The purpose of this council was to counteract the Protestant Reformation and the apocrypha was added to the Roman Catholic Bible in an attempt to help support some Roman Catholic doctrines such as “purgatory,” which is not in Holy Scripture.


Again, the Bible was once forbidden to Roman Catholic laymen when it was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse in 1229 A.D.

The deuterocanonical books were included in the Septuagint, the oldest translation from the Hebrew bible into Greek.

The Catholic canon was fixed well before the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent just formally defined the canon because it came into dispute. The Church often formally defines dogmas when they are disputed, such as the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ.

Regarding Maccabees, you regard it as not inspired from the quote you gave from the writer. Paul admits himself in 1Corinthians7:25 that he is giving his own opinion, and that he has no command of the Lord.

1Corinthians7:25 Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

Does this make Pauls letter to the Corinthians any less inspired?