Why are there so many versions of the Bible?

[BreadOfLife]

i dunno, in my experience Catholics are just like everyone else--they all believe somewhat different things...

Yes, the poorly catechized or unfaithful ones do.

 

[tom55]

Please watch "A Lamp In The Dark" on Youtube for a comprehensive look at the historic development of the Bible, and the role of Satan's church (Catholicism) in attempting to corrupt the Word of God throughout the history of Christianity.

I agree with Phoneman777: Watch A lamp in the dark........And then do your own research.

You will see how it is full of lies, lacks historical FACTS and is a juvenile attempt to articulate the development of the bible.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, the poorly catechized or unfaithful ones do.

well, i don't guess you will like this much, but imo "catechism" goes directly against how a seeker is told to study the Bible, with the Spirit as their guide, etc. Paul spent an entire chapter, and made other assertions, that i don't see how a catechist could even assimilate? My guess is that these have just been written out of the Catholic Bible, but i don't know. Is "Douay-Rheims" a Catholic bible?

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, i don't guess you will like this much, but imo "catechism" goes directly against how a seeker is told to study the Bible, with the Spirit as their guide, etc. Paul spent an entire chapter, and made other assertions, that i don't see how a catechist could even assimilate? My guess is that these have just been written out of the Catholic Bible, but i don't know. Is "Douay-Rheims" a Catholic bible?

Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people who read the Bible with the "Spirit as their guide." That's why there are almost 50,000 disjointed, perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have "the Truth."
That doesn't even include all of the other pseudo-Christian sects that were started because somebody read the bible with the "Spirit as their guide."

Peter warned about people trying to interpret Scripture for themselves when he spoke of the Letters of Paul:
2 Pet. 3:16
There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

To answer your questions - yes, the Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible.

 

[bbyrd009]

Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people who read the Bible with the "Spirit as their guide." That's why there are almost 50,000 disjointed, perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have "the Truth."
That doesn't even include all of the other pseudo-Christian sects that were started because somebody read the bible with the "Spirit as their guide."

Peter warned about people trying to interpret Scripture for themselves when he spoke of the Letters of Paul:
2 Pet. 3:16
There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

To answer your questions - yes, the Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Bible.

Peter did not warn people not to interpret Scripture with the Spirit as their guide, however; and i never said anyone should interpret Scripture for themselves, BoL.

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.
15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

 

[michaelvpardo]

The Catholic Canon is correct.

The entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

During a period of 37 years at the end of the 4th and the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times. It is the same canon of Scripture that was around during the Protestant Revolt and that is still in use today by the Catholic Church. It was during the so-called Reformation and subsequent periods that rebellious, prideful men had problems with the canon and decided that some of the books were uninspired. Luther wanted to remove several books including Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli did not believe Revelation to be inspired and wanted to remove it as well.

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393). At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document. 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon. 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

So, let me understand something, when Catholic Scholars created a new translation, the Jerusalem Bible, and changed the order of some verses to make it fit Catholic doctrine more closely, and duplicated some lines of text while deleting others, they were producing an invalid approved version of scripture? Or were they producing an "inspired" translation under the authority of Rome?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Peter did not warn people not to interpret Scripture with the Spirit as their guide, however; and i never said anyone should interpret Scripture for themselves, BoL.

12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.
15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

The verses above are NOT a guarantee to the individual - but top the CHURCH as a whole.

As for your statement that you never said that "anyone" can interpret the Scriptures - WHO, then has the Authority to do it?
Finally - Peter DID warn against self interpretation because so many were twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16)

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, let me understand something, when Catholic Scholars created a new translation, the Jerusalem Bible, and changed the order of some verses to make it fit Catholic doctrine more closely, and duplicated some lines of text while deleting others, they were producing an invalid approved version of scripture? Or were they producing an "inspired" translation under the authority of Rome?

First of all - translations aren't "inspired". If you believe that they ARE - then you are dead wrong.

Secondly - give me some examples of what you are claiming about the Jerusalem Bible (deletions, repeated verses, deletion of verses, rearranging of verses).
Evidence is KEY to an intellectual debate . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, i don't guess you will like this much, but imo "catechism" goes directly against how a seeker is told to study the Bible, with the Spirit as their guide, etc. Paul spent an entire chapter, and made other assertions, that i don't see how a catechist could even assimilate? My guess is that these have just been written out of the Catholic Bible, but i don't know. Is "Douay-Rheims" a Catholic bible?

Really??
How IS a person told to study the Bible - and by WHOM??

 

[tom55]

So, let me understand something, when Catholic Scholars created a new translation, the Jerusalem Bible, and changed the order of some verses to make it fit Catholic doctrine more closely, and duplicated some lines of text while deleting others, they were producing an invalid approved version of scripture? Or were they producing an "inspired" translation under the authority of Rome?

Are you talking about the same Jerusalem Bible that has a been widely praised for it's very high level of scholarship? The one that is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants? The Jerusalem Bible is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Are they also under the hypnosis of Rome??

Remember the Commandment Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

 

[bbyrd009]

1)The verses above are NOT a guarantee to the individual - but top the CHURCH as a whole.

2)As for your statement that you never said that "anyone" can interpret the Scriptures - WHO, then has the Authority to do it?
3)Finally - Peter DID warn against self interpretation because so many were twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16)

1) i respect that the RCC attempts to present an earthly, unified Church, ok. I just find the model to be against Scripture. Which i understand that you do not, although i'm not sure how you might address a religion with billions of adherents, "Christianity," as a "narrow path." Another way to put that is that it is the individual that is called to "change their mind," and while i guess in your current view the mind-changing is a call to join a religion, and agree with its tenets, and defend them, ferociously, and go start pulling tares--which i am still doing myself, i guess, right here; i am your twin brother, tbh, attitude and all--i dimly perceive that there is another, better way. You say that those verses are not a guarantee to the individual, and i can't imagine how you justify this. Isn't the conclusion there, "Well, i joined the RCC, so i am assured of salvation?"

2) anyone reading with the Spirit as their guide, i guess. And i am coming to see that this person will evince some uniquely Scriptural attributes, that i only wish i could get a handle on, lol;
a)they will recognize and admit that they do not know the truth as an absolute, an objective,
b)beliefs will be untangled from faith,
c)the living nature of the Bible will be admitted, and it will be understood that a Passage might be understood in more than one way (many currently do this only when it serves their agenda, i guess)
d)when a passage is being discussed, Its contrasting Passage will be brought out,
e)condemnation of another's pov will fall by the wayside
f)no conclusions will be assumed, and thus no beginning premises will arise from them (ie "a saved person is one who is going to be Raptured when Jesus comes back and takes all believers to their Mansions in the Sky," etc)

3)i don't disagree, and we have plenty of popes demonstrating the idea, to put it unkindly. But what is not being recognized there, it seems to me, that those were to those popes destruction, and imo the believing Catholics of the day were not condemned because of them, which would negate your assertion that some passage is meant for a Corporate (fleshly) Church?

 

[bbyrd009]

Really??
How IS a person told to study the Bible - and by WHOM??

well, we have already gone over that, and both presented our positions. I would say here that Protestants do it the same way as Catholics, for the most part--we come in ignorance to someone who has been "commended" to us, right, someone with charisma, who is "successful" by our society's standards, and has surely signed a Contract for Jesus--"compromised," iow; no matter how well-meaning they might be--and then we adopt their conclusions, and believe the kingdom is exactly where those persons "point it out" to be, there in "the future" or "eternity" (in their flawed definition), which is inevitably also "somewhere else," meaning "not Earth," and then we proceed to just ignore the Scriptures that plainly make that all a lie for the next 60 years, when we get around to cracking a Bible on our own and get uncomfortable with what we find.

So, if one seeks faith, faith comes by hearing. So, if one seeks hearing, hearing comes by the Word. So, if one seeks the Word, they might then find hearing; and if one finds hearing, they might then find faith.

i currently liken this process to the one most people are familiar with, wherein they have previously read some passage in the Book, and then have a fuller understanding of It revealed to them by the Spirit (Word) IRL, which can result in hearing, or not hearing, if hearing would interrupt a nonScriptural agenda.

Another way to answer your question might be for anyone so inclined to resolve these two Passages:

8This book of instruction must not depart from your mouth; you are to recite it day and night so that you may carefully observe everything written in it. For then you will prosper and succeed in whatever you do.

6...Clearly, what was written brings death.

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you talking about the same Jerusalem Bible that has a been widely praised for it's very high level of scholarship? The one that is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants? The Jerusalem Bible is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Are they also under the hypnosis of Rome??

Remember the Commandment Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?

please, his assertions are documented. Wadr, all translations are rendered moot when one reads from the lexicon, and digs up the inspired definitions of the terms in there. One can read water (grape juice) or wine, or distilled wine.

 

[tom55]

please, his assertions are documented. Wadr, all translations are rendered moot when one reads from the lexicon, and digs up the inspired definitions of the terms in there. One can read water (grape juice) or wine, or distilled wine.

Are you talking about the same Jerusalem Bible that has a been widely praised for it's very high level of scholarship? The one that is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants? The Jerusalem Bible is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Are they also under the hypnosis of Rome??

You inserted yourself into this conversation but you didn't, as usual, answer a single question.

I don't understand this statement: One can read water (grape juice) or wine, or distilled wine

 

[BreadOfLife]

1) i respect that the RCC attempts to present an earthly, unified Church, ok. I just find the model to be against Scripture. Which i understand that you do not, although i'm not sure how you might address a religion with billions of adherents, "Christianity," as a "narrow path." Another way to put that is that it is the individual that is called to "change their mind," and while i guess in your current view the mind-changing is a call to join a religion, and agree with its tenets, and defend them, ferociously, and go start pulling tares--which i am still doing myself, i guess, right here; i am your twin brother, tbh, attitude and all--i dimly perceive that there is another, better way. You say that those verses are not a guarantee to the individual, and i can't imagine how you justify this. Isn't the conclusion there, "Well, i joined the RCC, so i am assured of salvation?"

2) anyone reading with the Spirit as their guide, i guess. And i am coming to see that this person will evince some uniquely Scriptural attributes, that i only wish i could get a handle on, lol;
a)they will recognize and admit that they do not know the truth as an absolute, an objective,
b)beliefs will be untangled from faith,
c)the living nature of the Bible will be admitted, and it will be understood that a Passage might be understood in more than one way (many currently do this only when it serves their agenda, i guess)
d)when a passage is being discussed, Its contrasting Passage will be brought out,
e)condemnation of another's pov will fall by the wayside
f)no conclusions will be assumed, and thus no beginning premises will arise from them (ie "a saved person is one who is going to be Raptured when Jesus comes back and takes all believers to their Mansions in the Sky," etc)

3)i don't disagree, and we have plenty of popes demonstrating the idea, to put it unkindly. But what is not being recognized there, it seems to me, that those were to those popes destruction, and imo the believing Catholics of the day were not condemned because of them, which would negate your assertion that some passage is meant for a Corporate (fleshly) Church?

[SIZE=11.5pt]1. NOPE[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt] – and the Church has never taught that salvation is a guarantee.
As for John 16:12-15 about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to ALL truth – this is based on a simple formula:
When Jesus spoke to the crowds, He was preaching to every individual. HOWEVER, when He instructed His Apostles – that was to the hierarchy of the Chuirch.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]Finally – as for the “narrow path” – you make FAR too much about the general numbers. Remember that there have been many billions of people over the last 2000 years so 1.2 Billion pales I comparison. Anyway, assuming that there are 7 billion people in the world and only 1.2 billion are Catholics -= that would illustrate that we are a minority in the world.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11.5pt]Secondly, NOT every Catholic is faithful So that number would decrease significantly.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]2.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt] Anybody who THINKS he is being guided by the Spirit when reading the Bible probably doesn’t know his Bible in the first place.

In Acts 8:26-40, we see that the Ethiopian Eunuch is moved to read the Scriptures but cannot understand them. So, what does he do – he asks a leader of the Church (Philip) to assist him and help him to understand.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]3.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt] Although there have been some Popes who behaved in a less than Christian way – not ONE single Pope has ever taught heresy – so I’m not really sure what you are talking about.
The fact is that, as leaders of the Church, they were guided by the Holy Spirit to teach truth. Their behavior, however, is on them . . .[/SIZE]

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you talking about the same Jerusalem Bible that has a been widely praised for it's very high level of scholarship? The one that is widely admired and sometimes used by liberal and moderate Protestants? The Jerusalem Bible is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Are they also under the hypnosis of Rome??

You inserted yourself into this conversation but you didn't, as usual, answer a single question.

I don't understand this statement: One can read water (grape juice) or wine, or distilled wine

and no one wants the new wine, after tasting the old; the old wine is better, they say

might be connected with other references to wine,

15For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it's only nine in the morning.

et al, the point being that the Book is alive, and someone assuring you that "this passage means this, and this is all it can mean" is demonstrably reading grape juice, no problem, but there are more rungs on that ladder.

"please, his assertions are well documented," paraphrased, was an answer to your question, that you just perhaps did not like very much. BAM use that Bible if you like, i am not your arbiter, ok. I doubt It is much less corrupted than any English version, and was no doubt undertaken with the best of intentions. One does not begin to find the wine until they are reading from the Lex anyway imo.

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, we have already gone over that, and both presented our positions. I would say here that Protestants do it the same way as Catholics, for the most part--we come in ignorance to someone who has been "commended" to us, right, someone with charisma, who is "successful" by our society's standards, and has surely signed a Contract for Jesus--"compromised," iow; no matter how well-meaning they might be--and then we adopt their conclusions, and believe the kingdom is exactly where those persons "point it out" to be, there in "the future" or "eternity" (in their flawed definition), which is inevitably also "somewhere else," meaning "not Earth," and then we proceed to just ignore the Scriptures that plainly make that all a lie for the next 60 years, when we get around to cracking a Bible on our own and get uncomfortable with what we find.

So, if one seeks faith, faith comes by hearing. So, if one seeks hearing, hearing comes by the Word. So, if one seeks the Word, they might then find hearing; and if one finds hearing, they might then find faith.

i currently liken this process to the one most people are familiar with, wherein they have previously read some passage in the Book, and then have a fuller understanding of It revealed to them by the Spirit (Word) IRL, which can result in hearing, or not hearing, if hearing would interrupt a nonScriptural agenda.

Another way to answer your question might be for anyone so inclined to resolve these two Passages:

8This book of instruction must not depart from your mouth; you are to recite it day and night so that you may carefully observe everything written in it. For then you will prosper and succeed in whatever you do.

6...Clearly, what was written brings death.

And AGAIN, you have not answered the question.
You quoted a passage from Joshua, who was talking about the LAW - not the Bible.

So, I ask you again:
How IS a person told to study the Bible - and by WHOM??

 

[bbyrd009]

[SIZE=11.5pt]2.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt] Anybody who THINKS he is being guided by the Spirit when reading the Bible probably doesn’t know his Bible in the first place.[/SIZE]

anyone who thinks that some earthly person has more authority than them is in worse shape, however. The Spirit brings life, not the letter. If one is deceived, then their heart will be revealed in their interpretation of Scripture; if someone else interprets your Scripture for you, your heart is still revealed.

 

[bbyrd009]

The fact is that, as leaders of the Church, they were guided by the Holy Spirit to teach truth. Their behavior, however, is on them

they aren't any leaders of the Church of Living Stones that i recognize; you are of course free to. Commend them to each other, also, if you like.

So we basically have the same argument going here, that we have for government: "people cannot govern themselves; so let's elect a person to govern us!" lol

 

[bbyrd009]

In Acts 8:26-40, we see that the Ethiopian Eunuch is moved to read the Scriptures but cannot understand them. So, what does he do – he asks a leader of the Church (Philip) to assist him and help him to understand.

i hope you understand that i am not condemning this at all. BAM seek other, learned opinions on Scripture. But that is different from accepting their interpretation as Sacrosanct, whoever on earth they may be. Men have nefarious agendas; God does not.