/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>597596

>Apocrypha

It's really hard to be hidden in plain sight.

>Hello /christian/, I would like to know why the supposedly non-canonical books of The Bible were mostly taken out of the Protestant Bibles but are still in Catholic Bibles. Even the early King James Bibles had the original 73 books instead of the only 66 it is printed for several centuries now.

It went like it:

>Luther: This doctrine have no biblical support

<Church: But it have, most explicit there, but there are other pla-

>Luther: *removes said books* This doctrine have no biblical support.

But it wasn't until eighteen/nineteen century where they stopped to print them iirc. Why I don't know, probably because of masons.

>Besides that, what is the inherent difference between a Douay-Rheims, Common English and King James Bible except the missing/additional books, is there an fundementally different doctrine?

They use different manuscripts to base their translation of. For example KJV uses mainly Textus Receptus while D-R uses mainly Vulgate. But even then KJV diffres from TR to force doctrine like in Luke 1:28 or when it translates "disobidence" to "disbelief" or when it hides usage of "tradition" in possitive sense.

>And can fellow Gadoligs please tell me why you have all 73 books? I have my reasons why all 73 books should be in the Bible and the additional 7 should not be considered apocrypha but canon, but what reasons does the Catholic church give?

Three main arguments are:

>Septuagint had deuterocanon, septuagint was used by apostles and Christ, you can find quotations and allusion to deuterocanon in New Testament (which was acknowledged in footnotes of orginal KJV even)

>There was no offical canon up until Pope comisioned African bishops (because they were many, learned and away from Antioch-Alexandria fuckery) to decided it once for all at council which he with papal confirmed, and then it was confirmed once agian at Nicea II, Florence etc.

>There is zero prtestant canons before Luther. There are few catholic canons, there are some quasi-catholic but closest to protestant canon is Jewish one, made in circa 100 AD only because Christians used deutercanon and rest of LXX to btfo Jews in every debate which Justin Martyr confirms. And this canon explicitly denies NT.

Most protestants don't use them because it seems like the Holy Ghost no likey. The KJV translators did translate the Apocrypha so if you want to read then use that version.

>>597615

>>Luther: This doctrine have no biblical support

><Church: But it have, most explicit there, but there are other pla-

>>Luther: *removes said books* This doctrine have no biblical support.

What doctrines did the other books teach?

>>597629

justification by works of the law:

>Whoever honors his father atones for sins, (sirach 3:3 RSVCE)

>Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin. (sirach 3:30 RSVCE)

>For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity and of righteousness will have fulness of life; (tobit 12:9 RSVCE)

vs

<For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. (Leviticus 17:11 RSVCE)

<Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22 RSVCE)

<yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified. (Galatians 2:16 RSVCE)

<I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose. (Galatians 2:21 RSVCE)

<10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”

<11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”;

<12 but the law does not rest on faith, for “He who does them shall live by them.”

<13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree”—

<14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:10-14)

<but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:7 RSVCE)

granted, in spite of these deuterocanonical passages teaching otherwise,:

>If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, session 6 Canon 1)

>>597646

>>Whoever honors his father atones for sins, (sirach 3:3 RSVCE)

>>Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin. (sirach 3:30 RSVCE)

>>For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity and of righteousness will have fulness of life; (tobit 12:9 RSVCE)

Thise contradict the books everyone agrees on

>>If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, session 6 Canon 1)

But you still think you need to do works, just that you need also to believe

>>597629

Nothing that cannot be find by other books but most important being:

>Prayer for the dead

>Free will

>Creatio ex nihilo

>Just war

>Raphael being archangel

>>597646

>justification by works of the law:

This is bullshit and you know it.

>Whoever honors his father atones for sins, (sirach 3:3 RSVCE)

>Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin. (sirach 3:30 RSVCE)

>For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity and of righteousness will have fulness of life; (tobit 12:9 RSVCE)

vs

<James 5:20 He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

<1 Peter 4:8 But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

Oh wait.

>>597648

Oh and OT also Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: and charity covereth all sins.

>>597615

Why are you bearing false witness? That's not true at all. You are a liar.

>>597596

The reason for the difference is based on the different denominations interpretations between the church's relation with scripture. Catholics say

>Scripture is a book given to us by the Holy Church

Whereas Protestants say

>The Church is an institution proclaimed to us by Holy Scripture

So Catholics start at the Church, and use it to determine scripture. Protestants start at scripture, and use it to determine the Church. However, in order to do that, you need to determine scripture. You need the Bible before you can have sola scriptura. So protestants looked at the scriptures already given, and accepted all scriptures written by prophets. However, they realized that certain books were given during what's called the 400 years of silence. Basically, there were no prophets in Israel to write out those books. This isn't a problem if you think scripture comes from the Church, since the Church has the Holy Spirit and they can determine the truth of a work. But if scripture comes first, then any book not written by a prophet should be rejected, as the writer didn't have the clear influence of the Holy Spirit and there is nobody with the power to declare the book inspired.

However, the apocrypha still tells many stories of what happened between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and are historical Christian works. Martin Luther said that these books were "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He translated them and bound them in a separate volume. The King James translators translated the apocrypha and bound it in a separate section. It's ultimately a very small issue that people on both sides like to exacerbate to make it seem like a bigger deal. So you'll have Catholics saying "MARTIN LUTHER REMOVED THE MOST ESSENTIAL BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE BECAUSE HE WAS A SATAN POSSESSED DEMONIAC WHO HATED THE CHURCH" and you'll have Protestants saying "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ADDED THESE BOOKS TO SCRIPTURE BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE THESE BOOKS ARE EVIL AND SATANIC" when really, neither claim is true.

>>597648

what are these new passages supposed to show me?

you're not suggesting James 5:20 and 1 Peter 4:8 are teaching justification by works, right?

>>597652

>Why are you bearing false witness? That's not true at all. You are a liar.

He's just upholding tradition, man. Even many hundreds of years ago there were the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.

>>597652

Matthew 11:13

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

>>597652

>Why are you bearing false witness? That's not true at all. You are a liar.

Which part? Luther being whiny bitch, easily verifiable historical claims or KJV being biased shit?

And if we speak about false witness alredy:

>certain books were given during what's called the 400 years of silence.

Which is ad hoc meme, easily disproved by fact of Anna and Simeon living. That being said, books of Kings were not written by prophet in large part, so is wisdom literature.

>>597653

I am saying that you are full of shit or have little to none reading comprehension. Because Sirach 3:3 says that charity (in form of honoring father) covers sin as 1 Peter 4:8 etc do.

Because Sirah 3:30 and Tobit 12:9 says that charity (in form of almsgiving) covers sin as 1 Peter 4:8 etc do.

Becuase you make works of charity works of law ignoring Galatians 5:6 1 Thessalonians 5:8 and of course James 2:24.

>>597684

Challoners DR is the best as it is a literal translation of the clementine Jerome vulgate which is the most accurate (not counting the benedictine 20th century pope Pius x version).

>>597685

>whiny bitch

>I am saying that you are full of shit

please calm down, take a deep breath.

>Because Sirach 3:3 says that charity (in form of honoring father) covers sin as 1 Peter 4:8

<Above all keep your love for one another fervent, because love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:8)

(which is quoting:)

<Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers all transgressions. (Proverbs 10:12)

what's being expressed here is that love acts like forgiveness.

hatred looks for and exaggerates faults, but love seeks ways to make sins disappear.

it's not saying that if you honor your father, your sins are atoned for, like sirach 3:3 is saying.

it's not saying that if you give alms, your sins are atoned for and purged away, granting you eternal life, like sirach 3:30 and tobit 12:9 are saying.

>you make works of charity works of law

how so?

>>597690

I'm thinking of doing it too

So I just want to know one thing. For the Catholic believer, which bible best fits the church's dogma that I can easily access.

>>598559

Douay Rheims is p much a meme. It’s not used by the Church much anymore, and the main reason people recommend it is cause it’s a response to King James Onlyism by prots. In English translations, the Vatican generally uses the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, also known as the Ignatius Bible. The New American Bible and St. Joseph Bible are also common

>>598580

Also, the Douay Rheims is a fine translation. When I said it was a meme, I meant that people who encourage it as the only proper Catholic Bible are just memers. There’s nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims itself though

>>598581

>There’s nothing wrong with the Douay Rheims itself though

>

Ephesians 3:9

>KJV: which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

>DRB: which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things:

>RSV: hidden for ages in God who created all things;

1 John 4:3

>KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

>DRB: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God:

>RSV: and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.

1 Timothy 3:16

>KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

>RSV: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,

>DRB: And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh,

John 4:42

>KJV: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

>DRB: for we ourselves have heard him, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.

>>598580

DR is definitely not a meme. It is the only literal translation of St Jerome's vulgate and was the default liturgical book until the nova vulgate came out. The nova vulgate is not based on St Jerome but is a critical text based on modern secular scholarship.

St Jerome's vulgate must be preserved itself as it uses source material that at the time were considered ancient and no longer exist. The old testament is based on the proto masoretic Hebrew text (which probably makes it inferior to the Septuagint) and also the Septuagint and old Latin translations. The new testament uses the ancient Aramaic/Hebrew translation of Matthew which St Jerome had access to. This means any critical analysis must use St Jerome's vulgate as a source.

Now in terms of translations for use, the only other suitable/superior to use would be the OSB for the old testament Septuagint and the EOB for the new testament. Everything else is vastly inferior. Nova vulgate itself is a dynamic translation which is bonkers, and translations of the nova vulgate are all dynamic too which completely skews God's word into the translator's opinion as much of the subtext and wordplay of Jesus is lost.

>>598686

St Jerome's vulgate whilst perfect on matters of faith and morals probably is lacking in pure textual preservation which is why I use the EOB for the new testament which is the most superior. I would never use KJV due to it being based on the late masoretic text and erasmus' received text and not literally even translating that text but allowing protestant theology to obscure:

All literal Catholic, Eastern and Oriental bibles and the Greek:

>Hail, full of grace

KJV:

>Greetings most highly favoured

Which has huge theological implications

>>598559

Use the version used by your archdiocese.

If you're in the UK, that's the Jerusalem Bible, I think.

If you're in the US, that should be the New American Bible Revised Edition.

Both of these are assuming you're a Latin Catholic, of course. Eastern Catholic dioceses have their preferred translations too.

>>598707

>I would never use KJV

It's based on the preserved word.

Psalm 12:6-7

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Some of us believe these words. Meaning there is still, and always, an original word of God. So whatever inaccurate names you want to give it, they are truly the originals sources and the KJB is a strict formal equivalence translation of those sources. Anything, any other translation, based on other sources than this is the corruption, it will contain contradictions and doctrinal errors, and this can be shown to you if need be.

>and not literally even translating that text but allowing protestant theology to obscure

Do you have any real examples? The four I just gave are pretty serious and they all build on each other, they all distort Jesus Christ.

As for the EOB, it does the following:

>Places brackets in Ephesians 3:9

>Alters the other three in the footnotes

Also, in addition to that, the EOB

<Changes the word "fornication" to the subjective phrase "sexual immorality" in Mt. 5:32; Inserts the word "difficult" into Mt. 7:14 through the use of footnotes; Separates Mark 16:9-20 from the rest of the book.

<States that God might "again humiliate" Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:21 (only the NASB also does this); Distorts the meaning of Philippians 2:6 to imply Christ Jesus had to "take" equality with God; Alters Hebrews 1:8, where it should say "unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever". It simply reads "of the son he says"

<It also changes the meaning of 1 Peter 3:3 to mean one can wear the outward adorning; Changes the definition of words in 1 Cor. 6:9 to include sodomites in the church at Corinth.

A couple more additional alterations for comparison sake:

Colossians 1:14

>KJV: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

>EOB: In him, we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.

1 Timothy 6:10

>KJV: For the love of money is the root of all evil:

>EOB: Truly, the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

1 Corinthians 9:18

>KJV: What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

>EOB: What then is my reward? That, when I preach the Gospel, I may present the Good News of Christ for free, in order not to abuse my authority in the Good News.

And it also uses footnotes to question the words of Jesus significantly in Matthew 5:18 (without a cause), Luke 4:4 (but by every word of God), John 16:16 (because I go to the Father), and EOB footnotes can't decide whether they have seen visions or not in Colossians 2:18

>>598774

>Some of us believe these words.

Amd others use KJV

>>597724

>what's being expressed here is that love acts like forgiveness.

That does not flow from text. Moreover, more natural explanation is literal one aks it is saying that charity cover sin. And charity is expressed by honor and alms &c.

Proverbs 16:6 By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for

>how so?

You say that honoring father and alms aka works of the grace are works of the law.

>>598774

I believe those words too. However I do not believe any vernacular translation is perfect as the very act of translating distorts God's word. I believe the perfect word of God lies with the Eastern Church who use the original Greek or Oriental communions for the original Aramaic/Hebrew. In the west we rely on corruption's that although some are perfect in terms of faith and morals like the Vulgate are still textually imperfect.

I never claimed EOB was perfect, just the best, however comparing it to the inferior KJV does not prove much.

>>598815

>however comparing it to the inferior KJV does not prove much.

Considering that those were new variations over and in addition to what the DRB/RSV/NRSV changes, I'd say it's pretty serious. It introduces hundreds of new variations based on the critical text, so it's hard to call that an improvement or superior in any way. The EOB can't even decide whether to include the word "not" in Colossians 2:18, see the footnote. At least decide what it says if you're "superior"!

And yes it does remove "through his blood" from Colossians 1:14. Even one of these changes is too much. I would never use it.

>>598954

And also I would never recommend it to anyone.

>>601264

>1 Maccabees is super interesting because in 12:21 it says that Spartans are actually sons of Abraham and related to the Jews.

The son of Abraham and Keturah, Aphras, accompanied Hercules into North Africa. His daughter married Hercules and had a son Diodorus.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=24JRAeGc5xAC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=spartans+on+jews+sources&source=bl&ots=TRmFk5jh7H&sig=ndXsWMwcLFM-AQJkNTATZBGkPJw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X3wLT42gG8LW0QG2_63rBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=spartans%20on%20jews%20sources&f=false

>>597628

>Most protestants don't use them because it seems like the Holy Ghost no likey.

It's implied in the New Testament that Jesus Christ ordained the OT only up to Malachi. Also I suggest you be careful toying with blaspheming the Holy Spirit next time because that's an unpardonable sin.

>>597615

> (which was acknowledged in footnotes of orginal KJV even)

KJV never had footnotes

Exodus 20:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

>>597596

First of all, the catholic church officially declared the Latin Vulgate as the ecclesiastic text during the council of Trent, which by then the main reformers were physically dead. Even few of those who opposed Martin Luther didn't view the apocryphal books as inspired, nor did the people before that time like Pope Gregory the great. And if you review the history of the construction of the bible, including within the earliest of the Christian history, then you eventually realize that Luther's understanding of the canon is reflected throughout the centuries.

>>611588

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour indeed.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-Chapter-11_Original-1611-KJV/

Footnote for v. 35 - 2.Macc. 7.7.

>>611591

>First of all, the catholic church officially declared the Latin Vulgate as the ecclesiastic text during the council of Trent, which by then the main reformers were physically dead.

And while this is true, Canon was decided elier, on Council of Florence and before that on Nicea II

>Even few of those who opposed Martin Luther didn't view the apocryphal books as inspired,

This is bullshit, since we have sums of those polemics, like De Controversiis that quote Deuterocanon on large

> like Pope Gregory the great.

Gregory the Great Letters Book 7 letter 28 (540-604 ad)

And yet I rejoice with your benignity that you carefully attend to and observe what the Truth says; Give alms, and behold, all things are clean unto you (Luke xi 41); and this which is written, Even as water quencheth fire, so alms quench sin (Ecclus. iii. 33). Paul the apostle also says, Let your abundance supply their want, that their abundance also may be a supply to your want (2 Cor. viii. 14). Tobias admonishes his son, saying, If thou hast much, give abundantly; but if thou hast little, of that little impart willingly (Tob. iv. 9). You therefore observe all these precepts: but we beg you to pray for us, lest we should dispense the fruits of your labours indiscreetly, and not as need requires; lest from that whereby you diminish sins we should heap up sins.

>And if you review the history of the construction of the bible, including within the earliest of the Christian history, then you eventually realize that Luther's understanding of the canon is reflected throughout the centuries.

The most extreme views is that they are Still Scripture, inspired by God, but not canonical i.s. not part of canon of mass. Luther position is even more extreme i.e. deutercanon is not scripture at all.

>>611653

The sidenotes are references, it never acknowledges error in scripture like you've stated before.

>>611659

What I stated: you can find quotations and allusion to deuterocanon in New Testament (which was acknowledged in footnotes of orginal KJV even)

I would have to be (God forbid) protestant to state that those are errors.

>>597596

>I would like to know why the supposedly non-canonical books of The Bible were mostly taken out of the Protestant Bibles but are still in Catholic Bibles

Funny that, in which period did the non-canonical books of the bible come form again?

Another frequent argument was that THE JEWS didn't recognize their authority, and thinking about it, I've been wondering if those are the same jews being talked about in the NT. You know who they are:

Acts 7:51 You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

It makes sense that they would resist the "Apocrypha", too.

>>611715

>Jerusalem Bibles

Better than the NAB/NABRE, not as good as the RSVCE or D-R.

>>611712

>Funny that, in which period did the non-canonical books of the bible come form again?

Since Moses. Book of Wars of The Lord etc.

And if you mean Deutercanon then since Salomon.

>>611712

>THE JEWS didn't recognize their authority, and thinking about it, I've been wondering if those are the same jews being talked about in the NT.

They are. Read Justin Martyr

>>611715

>As I understand it, and I could be wrong, there had been dispute in the Catholic Church as to whether or not the Apocrypha should be included in the Bible up until the Protestant Reformation. It was one of the things St. Augustine and St. Jerome argued about a lot.

Before times of Augustine and Jerome there was not strict canon. Augustine argued that deutercanon and protocanon are the same (due to LXX) and Jermoe said that Jews did not use them. But they both accepted as official Canon of Hippo