Which Bible Should We Trust?

[TruthSeeker777]

[quote name='Fixxxer' post='1200219' date='Feb 19 2007, 09:38 AM']The Satanic Bible.[/quote]

Fixxer, your comments are always so philosophical.

[AlterDominicus]

I am currently using The NSRV Catholic Edition Bible

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1200720' date='Feb 19 2007, 06:47 PM']I can't see what has been shoved to your face. All I see is pretty reasonable facts. If you bothered to read Urib's post, you'd see it makes sense.
I have never heard of the King James Bible taking anything away from God's Word. The canon of the New Testament remains the same as it was in 100 A.D. It was either written by the Apostles or by an author endorsed by the Apostles.

S. T. asserts that only Catholic bibles are authentic. The Catholic Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Bible taken from Jerome’s Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. It not only shows deference to corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and discredited Apocryphal writings, but it is a secondary translation. Any of Jerome’s errors were simply translated into English. And since that time, it has undergone numerous changes. According to William Bradley, author of “Purified Seven Times,” Catholic Cardinals Newman and Wiseman attest to these changes. Cardinal Wiseman is quoted as saying, “It [the Douay-Rheims translation] has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.” [End of quote]

The Authorized King James Version of 1611 finds its Old Testament in the Masoretic text endorsed by the Hebrew canon, and its New Testament in the majority-text. The majority-text represents well over 90% of the over 5,000 Greek handwritten manuscripts that contain the New Testament scriptures. On grounds of sourcing, age, and scholarship, it is the authority in the English speaking world, whether the world likes it or not.[/quote]
But the KJV has undergone numberous revisions because it was not well done the first time. You realize of course the 1611 KJV came out in three different versions. How can something done in the 1600s be superior to St Jerome who used original texts from the 4th CENTURY?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1200720' date='Feb 19 2007, 06:47 PM']I can't see what has been shoved to your face. All I see is pretty reasonable facts. If you bothered to read Urib's post, you'd see it makes sense.
I have never heard of the King James Bible taking anything away from God's Word. The canon of the New Testament remains the same as it was in 100 A.D. It was either written by the Apostles or by an author endorsed by the Apostles.

S. T. asserts that only Catholic bibles are authentic. The Catholic Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Bible taken from Jerome’s Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. It not only shows deference to corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and discredited Apocryphal writings, but it is a secondary translation. Any of Jerome’s errors were simply translated into English. And since that time, it has undergone numerous changes. According to William Bradley, author of “Purified Seven Times,” Catholic Cardinals Newman and Wiseman attest to these changes. Cardinal Wiseman is quoted as saying, “It [the Douay-Rheims translation] has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.” [End of quote]

The Authorized King James Version of 1611 finds its Old Testament in the Masoretic text endorsed by the Hebrew canon, and its New Testament in the majority-text. The majority-text represents well over 90% of the over 5,000 Greek handwritten manuscripts that contain the New Testament scriptures. On grounds of sourcing, age, and scholarship, it is the authority in the English speaking world, whether the world likes it or not.[/quote]
The 1625 KJV had the Apocrypha in it, so its hardly discredited except to te protestants who altered the Word of God by removing it.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Rick777' post='1200148' date='Feb 18 2007, 11:50 PM']Wrong.....Try this instead.

[img]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/rick777/Bible.jpg[/img][/quote]
yup i'd suggest the same

[Starets]

I use the New American Bible

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1200792' date='Feb 19 2007, 05:22 PM']I use the New American Bible[/quote]

It has heretical footnotes.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1200819' date='Feb 19 2007, 06:40 PM']It has heretical footnotes.[/quote]
seriously

if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

LEARN TACT!

[ReinnieR]

Main Entry: tact
Pronunciation: 'takt
Function: noun
Etymology: French, sense of touch, from Latin tactus, from tangere to touch -- more at TANGENT
1 : sensitive mental or aesthetic perception <converted the novel into a play with remarkable skill and tact>
2 : [b]a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense[/b]
synonyms TACT, ADDRESS, POISE, SAVOIR FAIRE mean skill and grace in dealing with others. TACT implies delicate and considerate perception of what is appropriate <questions showing a lack of tact>. ADDRESS stresses dexterity and grace in dealing with new and trying situations and may imply success in attaining one's ends <brought it off with remarkable address>. POISE may imply both tact and address but stresses self-possession and ease in meeting difficult situations <answered the accusations with unruffled poise>. SAVOIR FAIRE is likely to stress worldly experience and a sure awareness of what is proper or expedient <the savoir faire of a seasoned traveler>.

[Akalyte]

The Bible is Catholic

The Catholic Church has preserved and defended the Bible for 2000 years from destruction and error. She has grounded her doctrines upon the Bible and always has held the Bible in highest veneration. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has the right to call the Bible, Her Book!

1) The Roman Catholic Church gave God’s holy scripture the name Bible. The Word Bible comes from the Greek word biblia, which means "the books".

2) The Roman Catholic Church in all her wisdom decided which books were inspired and should make up the Bible. In the 382 AD, Pope Damasus I directed the Council of Rome to compile the first New Testament. The bishops at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, under the direction of St. Augustine settled and declared the inspired books of the Old and New Testament.

3) The Catholic Church produced more than 600 editions of the Bible in different languages before the first Protestant Bible ever appeared. A Catholic could read the Bible in German, Italian, Spanish, French, Bohemian, Flemish, and Russian before the Reformation.

4) The first Bible ever printed by a printing press was the Catholic Gutenberg Bible in 1456.

5) Martin Luther changed the Bible. First, he took 7 books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1&2 Maccabees) out of the Old Testament because they caused problems for his new theology. Second, Luther had a trouble with verses such as (James 2:24) “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” So he inserted the word ALONE in Romans 3:28 to make it read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith alone apart from the observance of the law.” Luther even stated,” You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that." Cited in John Stoddard, REBUILDING A LOST FAITH The Catholic Church believes the Bible is equally inspired: not selectively inspired as Luther did.

6) The Roman Catholic Church did chain Bibles before the invention of the printing press. This was done not to hinder anyone from reading the Bible but to prevent people from stealing it. Bible scholars estimate that the cost of one Bible during the middle ages was equivalent to 10 years of wages.

7) The word Trinity is not in the Bible. This word was invented by the Catholic Church to try to explain the mystery of there being three persons in one God.

8) The over used question used by Fundamentalists, "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" is not found in the Bible.

9) The phrases, which say, "The Bible alone is to be used as the sole rule of faith." or "Saved by faith alone" or "Once saved always saved " are absent from Holy Scripture.

10) Why does the Catholic Church call the Latin Bible Vulgate? The term comes from the Latin word vulgata, which means the popular edition. Vulgata is derived from the Latin word vulgas, which means "common people." In other words, the Latin Bible is for everyone!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]The Bible is Catholic[/quote]I would agree that it's "Catholic" but I wouldn't agree that it's strictly Roman Catholic. There are numerous phrases in the Bible that would suggest that it is universal in the world church [every rite].

[quote]The Catholic Church has preserved and defended the Bible for 2000 years from destruction and error. She has grounded her doctrines upon the Bible and always has held the Bible in highest veneration. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has the right to call the Bible, Her Book![/quote] Lots of the other rites [Greek, Assyrian, Coptic, etc] have also done this, read about the Saints during the reign of Diocletian and you'll see that the Roman Church didn't even suffer the most and that the most Saints during this era didn't come out of the Roman Church but the Coptic Church, but that doesn't invalidate either, both of these churches [along with the other rites] worked together to preserve the Bible, as everyone of them was present during the Bible's compilation.

[quote]1) The Roman Catholic Church gave God’s holy scripture the name Bible. The Word Bible comes from the Greek word biblia, which means "the books".[/quote]Sounds greek to me, but the name, doesn't seem to matter as much as what it is, itself.

[quote]2) The Roman Catholic Church in all her wisdom decided which books were inspired and should make up the Bible.[/quote] Umm, this isn't exactly true. The Councils that compiled the Bible involved every church rite [Coptic, Roman, Greek, Assyrian, etc]. If you read the issues discussed and what led to the schime[s] [among other problems], you'll see that every [original] church rite was involved in it's compilation.

[quote]3) The Catholic Church produced more than 600 editions of the Bible in different languages before the first Protestant Bible ever appeared. A Catholic could read the Bible in German, Italian, Spanish, French, Bohemian, Flemish, and Russian before the Reformation. [/quote]I wasn't aware of this, I thought that the translation of the Bible was a major accomplishment of Luther [being the first to translate it into German] and that this was a central issue that Luther had with the Roman Church of that time [it wouldn't allow the translation].

[quote]Luther translated the Bible into German to make it more accessible to the common people[/quote] I'm not going to say that I know everything, but I'm pretty sure that this is an undisputed fact and a major demand that Luther had been making to the Roman Church for quite some time, to no avail.

[quote]7) The word Trinity is not in the Bible. This word was invented by the Catholic Church to try to explain the mystery of there being three persons in one God.[/quote] Actually Tertullian is credited as being the individual that brought the word "trinity" to the churches doctrine. I dont remember him being Roman Catholic [thou he could have been] but I'm pretty sure that the church was united [all the rites] at this time, so I dont think he was Roman.

Reza

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1200638' date='Feb 19 2007, 04:50 PM']No. The Vulgata Clementina. It was the Bible spoken of at Trent as being used for hundreds of years. Not the Nova Vulgata.[/quote]

I have bad news for you. You can't be more Catholic than the Pope! :

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1201267' date='Feb 20 2007, 04:07 AM']I wasn't aware of this, I thought that the translation of the Bible was a major accomplishment of Luther [being the first to translate it into German] and that this was a central issue that Luther had with the Roman Church of that time [it wouldn't allow the translation].
Reza[/quote]

You are right about it being the Catholic Church, not roman Catholic Church, there are 22 rites and Anglican rite usage. The Church had translated the bible into German twice BEFORE Luther did.

[Urib2007]

I don't agree with Martin Luther because he was an occultist who was linked to the Rosicrucian group.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1202017' date='Feb 21 2007, 08:53 PM']I don't agree with Martin Luther because he was an occultist who was linked to the Rosicrucian group.[/quote]

Would you agree that he acted wrongly by scissoring the Old Testament?

[Urib2007]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1202099' date='Feb 21 2007, 06:43 PM']Would you agree that he acted wrongly by scissoring the Old Testament?[/quote]

Hi, Maggie. Will you please explain to me how he scissored the OT?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1202109' date='Feb 21 2007, 10:10 PM']Hi, Maggie. Will you please explain to me how he scissored the OT? [/quote]

He threw out multiple books in the OT, including my favorite, Sirach

[Theoketos]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1200819' date='Feb 19 2007, 06:40 PM']It has heretical footnotes.[/quote]


[quote name='ReinnieR' post='1200824' date='Feb 19 2007, 06:43 PM']seriously

if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

LEARN TACT![/quote]

Actually, he is right. Some of the footnotes are indeed heretical. Usually this comes from a minimalist tendancy.

Jimmy Akin has a great post about it.

[url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html"]http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html[/url]

For those who do not want to read it, he points out that the NAB footnotes say that Jesus could not forsee the future and that he was not a true prophet.

I will pm some more if you like.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1202116' date='Feb 21 2007, 10:24 PM']Actually, he is right. Some of the footnotes are indeed heretical. Usually this comes from a minimalist tendancy.

I will pm some if you like.[/quote]
The translation is approved, the footnotes don't count for much.

[Nathan]

Footnotes are pretty important, cmom.