Just Out Of Curiosity

[musturde]

I decided to participate in a random Bible study recently. The guy was trashing the Catholic Bible and anything that associated with it. He began going into the history of the KJV and how some verses were omitted in the Catholic version. I tried looking up a defense to his arguments but I haven't found a strong one. Anyone have a source I can read?

[Era Might]

First I would ask him to clarify what he means by "the Catholic Bible." There are a number of translations approved by the Bishops.

Then I would ask for specific verses that Catholic Bibles are supposedly missing, so that his claim is not just a general claim, but something specific that you can research.

Then I would explain to him that Protestant Bibles are missing books from the Old Testament.

And finally, I would note that the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation was published before the King James Version was. And actually, I'm not sure about this, but I think I remember hearing that the King James Version borrowed some elements from the Douay-Rheims. But I'm not sure on that.

[tinytherese]

You may find these articles helpful.



[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404fea1.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp[/url]

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='musturde' post='1778946' date='Feb 11 2009, 01:42 PM']I decided to participate in a random Bible study recently. The[b] guy was trashing the Catholic Bible and anything that associated with it. [/b]He began going into the history of the KJV and how some verses were omitted in the Catholic version. I tried looking up a defense to his arguments but I haven't found a strong one. Anyone have a source I can read?[/quote]

Would that include "Protestant" Bibles?

[musturde]

BTW, there's a big list of verses he gave out, acts 8:37 was one of them.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
From the USCCB's website (which uses the NAB 1991, 1986, 1970):
[quote][37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' "[/quote]

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote]And finally, I would note that the Catholic Douay-Rheims English translation was published before the King James Version was. And actually, I'm not sure about this, but I think I remember hearing that the King James Version borrowed some elements from the Douay-Rheims. But I'm not sure on that.[/quote]

One of the testaments of the Douay was published before the KJV, and the Douay actually borrowed large portions from the KJV or was influenced by it or something, from my understanding. However, the KJV has its own failures.

[ChildoftheCreator]

Well, I am not sure about particular verses in the Bible. I was not aware of any being dropped. I do remember that there were some issues with the Douey-Rheims version of Genesis 3:15 in which the woman will crush the serpents head. Many other Bibles use a masculine pronoun instead of a feminine one. Also when I was comparing the NIV to the New American Bible, I noticed differences between the verses dealing with divorce (can't remember them off the top of my head.) I know that some protestants do not like the NIV so that may not be a good example, but it was interesting to note the differences.

Could you post the list by any chance. I probably wouldn't know anything, but maybe someone else would. Still, I am quite interested in which verses were left out.

This doesn't have very much to do with dropped verses, but he will undoubtedly start talking about the apocrypha of the Bible. I would be surprised if he hasn't already. The very first versions of the KJV actually contained the books, even though they were in a different section known as the apocrypha. They have been in the Christian Bible for a very long time. Which books should be included in the Christian Bible was decided at three Church Councils--the Council of Carthage, Hippo, and ?Nicea?) Anyway, the third council of Carthage has this to say about the books of the Bible:
[quote]It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-preist Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that canon becasue we have recieved from our fathers that those books must be read in the CHurch. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept. --Dionysius Exiguus, Statuta Concilii Africani, 419 AD, speaking about ordinances enacted in the third council of Carthage[/quote]

I suppose my point is that the KJV has the same New Testament books as the early Christian Councils, why do they not have the same OT cannon. You should ask your study group why those who put together the KJV decided not to include these books, and ask them what other books should be dropped. From some of the quotes in the NT, it would seem that it was based off of the Septuagint version of the Bible, so shouldn't the KJV be using that version.

As someone else said, I think you should ask him which Bible he is referring to since there are several: NAB, RSV, Douey-Rheims.


Edit: sorry, I spell Douay wrong.

Edited February 13, 2009 by ChildoftheCreator

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='musturde' post='1778946' date='Feb 11 2009, 04:42 PM']how some verses were omitted in the Catholic version.[/quote]

This always makes me giggle. Actually, they say the Catholics ADDED some things. In reality, it was Martin Luther who removed entire books, not just some passages.

Try this approach: Ask the protestant WHERE the Bible came from. When pushed into a corner to explain where the Bible actually came from, they won't have an answer. It's a simple lack of ignorance of history, really. They don't mean any harm. It's what they've been taught and they've never questioned it.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1780256' date='Feb 13 2009, 09:05 PM']It's a simple lack of ignorance of history, really. They don't mean any harm. It's what they've been taught and they've never questioned it.[/quote]



They may be wrong but to assert that all Protestants simply disagree with you all because they are historically ignorant and unable to question what they have been taught is somewhere between quixotic and just flat wrong. If you want to understand why some protestants reject the Catholic understanding of history you might want to look to the continental and english (even if you don't consider Anglicans protestant) serious protestant scholars. I don't know if you just have to much contact with anti rationalist American evangelicals or if there is some other reason you would say that but it's really not fair.

[Hassan]

[quote name='musturde' post='1778946' date='Feb 11 2009, 04:42 PM']I decided to participate in a random Bible study recently. The guy was trashing the Catholic Bible and anything that associated with it. He began going into the history of the KJV and how some verses were omitted in the Catholic version. I tried looking up a defense to his arguments but I haven't found a strong one. Anyone have a source I can read?[/quote]


An argument has to rise to "the dignity of error", if he just makes a bunch of erratic assertions with his only source being "biblebeleivingchristians.com" I really wouldn't worry about it.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1780282' date='Feb 13 2009, 09:21 PM']They may be wrong but to assert that all Protestants simply disagree with you all because they are historically ignorant and unable to question what they have been taught is somewhere between quixotic and just flat wrong. If you want to understand why some protestants reject the Catholic understanding of history you might want to look to the continental and english (even if you don't consider Anglicans protestant) serious protestant scholars. I don't know if you just have to much contact with anti rationalist American evangelicals or if there is some other reason you would say that but it's really not fair.[/quote]


This is not about a "Catholic understanding". It's about history.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1780305' date='Feb 13 2009, 09:46 PM']This is not about a "Catholic understanding". It's about history.[/quote]


ok, the conclusions derived from historical data by particular scholars which are in line with assertions made by the Catholic Church about particular historical events and/or events which it asserts did occur in history.

[Aloysius]

many modern Bibles, including Catholic ones, are missing some verses which were removed on the basis that they could not be found in some of the oldest manuscripts we have today. I remember seeing this noted in the footnotes of one of my old Bibles; but I can't think of any examples, but I know there are some. the KJV and the Douay Rheims would both stand as older Bibles which did not remove these verses.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1780398' date='Feb 13 2009, 11:40 PM']many modern Bibles, including Catholic ones, are missing some verses which were removed on the basis that they could not be found in some of the oldest manuscripts we have today. I remember seeing this noted in the footnotes of one of my old Bibles; but I can't think of any examples, but I know there are some. the KJV and the Douay Rheims would both stand as older Bibles which did not remove these verses.[/quote]


I know there was the one that stated the trinity in very clear language, I think the Vatican actually defended it until the 20th century. That's the only one I can think of.