Which Bible Should We Trust?

[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.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1202122' date='Feb 21 2007, 09:28 PM']The translation is approved, the footnotes don't count for much.[/quote]

The footnotes proved an insight into the Ethos of the translators.

Why do you think what we read at Mass is not the NAB anymore, has not been for a while, and guess why it was changed so "quickly"? Because it stinks as a translation.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1202154' date='Feb 21 2007, 11:02 PM']Footnotes are pretty important, cmom.[/quote]
Not if they are from the NAB.

[Starets]

I went with NAB as it was the only Catholic bible I could find that iwas in large print. at the time, I was legally blind. now all I need is reading glasses. I have heard that someone has rendered the original douay-rhiems text from1609 or thereabouts into modern english. maybe I'll get that one of these days, if i find it again.

[Mary's servant]

[quote name='dandy777' post='1200356' date='Feb 19 2007, 08:38 AM']I think the NIV is one of the best version of the Bible. I find protestant Bibles are more full of details and extra notes thancatholic ones. obviously one has to be very very attentive to keep to catholic tradition and spirituality.[/quote]
Try the Navarre Bible put out by Scepter. There is so much commentary by popes, saints and Vatican documents that it takes up almost an entire bookshelf, and it uses the Revised Standard Version. I have the NIV Study Bible because my girlfriend is Protestant. It has over 20,000 notes and commentaries, but the Navarre edition of just the four gospels is much longer than the entire NIV Study Bible and you don't have to try and seperate the good from the bad.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe Ignatius Study Bibles have a great deal of informative Catholic notes as well. This one you buy section by section.