The Bible can it be trusted?

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Yes, and isn't it also the Douay-Rheims translation for the Roman Catholic Church that omitted one of God's original 10 Commandments about idols, changed the words, and re-numbered God's 10 Commandments given to Moses?
The words are there, it's just the numeration (which is not in the Scripture itself) that differs.

What's more "fun" is Gen 3:15. I grabbed a copy of Jerome's Vulgate, and Clement's (?) Vulgate. Putting the verse through a translation app, it comes out "his heel", the same as the New Catholic Bible. But in the Douay-Rheims, and the Challoner revision thereof, the verse reads "her heel." 😕 That makes the DR/DRC no better than the JW's NWT.

--Rich
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
Correct me if I am wrong, but, my understanding is that the Douay Rheims Bible is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is considered the official translation of the Bible for the Latin West. It may be the most accurate translation of the Vulgate. However, there are a lot of manuscripts on which translations are based. One of the issues with the Douay Rheims is that it is a translation of a translation. Direct translation from the manuscripts is better.
Yes, the Douay Rheims is an English translation based upon St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. It is the translation used in English/Latin hand missals before Vatican II.

There are no original manuscripts of Sacred Scripture in existence, so what we have today are different versions and translations of copies of the original manuscripts.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, the Church did not come from the Bible. The Church existed for hundreds of years before the New Testament Canon was settled. The Church was a visible, hierarchical society, teaching and instructing the Faithful before there was even a New Testament Canon.

The Catholic Church is the sole arbiter of the meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture as the Council of Trent decreed; "No one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold."
 

balshan

Well-known member
I am one of the Catholics who argued that we no longer have the originals. I argued that most Protestants agree that inspiration and infallibility apply only to the originals. They do not apply to translations.

But you are jumping to conclusions when you say that RCC's who argue in this manner are trying to cast doubt on God's Word. I was not attempting to cast doubt on God's Word. I was attempting to show that those who adhere to Sola Scriptura do not really adhere to Sola Scriptura. They trust Tradition as much as Catholics do.


Again, the point is to show that Sola Scriptura is not workable. Note that what is absolutely trusted is God's Word. I am attempting to cast doubt on Sola Scriptura, not God's Word.


You are absolutely correct in everything you said. Note, however, that in order to make the argument you are making, you have to appeal to reliability of the mechanism of Tradition. THAT is my point. Put another way--you just proved Catholics right.


Amen: the mechanism of Tradition is reliable. That is the point I was making and you just proved my point--which means you proved Catholics right.
Really provide evidence for your claims. You constantly make claims without the evidence to back up said claim. I have seen non RCs defend God's word over and over again against the false claims that the word cannot be trusted by RCs. It has only been RCs who have thrown doubt on the word of God and it is constant.

No jumping to conclusions at all, it does cast doubt on God's word. No you are proving the RCC cannot be trusted and its interpretations are false. You prove your leaders are wolves.

Sola Scriptura is totally workable. God says do not steal, no excuse, no mitigating circumstances the word is clear, God's will is clear. It is RCs false interpretation, changing the meanings of word used in scripture, adding to scripture that throw doubt on scriptures. If you trust God's word then you will not accept the false interpretations and doctrines of your institution. If something goes against scripture it is not God's will. The practice praying to the dead goes against scripture. Putting Mary up as co this and that goes against scripture.

Your tradition cannot be trusted as it turns to the natural world and philosophies (which are pagan) to interpret and understand the Lord. God has clearly stated in His Word:

1 cor 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”;

James 3:15

This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.

So justifying false practices and beliefs using the world is demonic.
 

Theophilos

Active member
Thread after thread we have some RCs throwing doubt on God's word. Question its accuracy etc. by making statements we don't have the originals. The translations are they God's words blah, blah, blah.

What is the point of doing so? For a new believer it would be disconcerting, as they would be questioning whether they can rely on the scriptures they read.

We all know that the originals are mislaid. We all know the scripture is coming from copies. But is has been shown that there are a few minor differences that really don't make a difference to the context and that there are only a few mistakes that a minor.

The catechism is clear:


102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.


accuracy of the OT:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was found from 125 B.C.11 When it was compared with a scroll of Isaiah from A.D. 900, a scroll copied 10 centuries later, it was found to match in 95 % of its contents. The material that did not match included simple misspellings or slips of the pen. No doctrinal material was affected by the discrepancies. And it can be certain that the Masoretes and their Jewish counterparts played a great role in the accuracy of that text. And there are other examples from ancient history that show the exactness of the copying of the Old Testament.

The biggest issue with Bibles in use today is that most Protestant versions are missing several books from the Old Testament.

For example, the Book of Sirach appears in the Old Testament of the oldest surviving Christian bibles: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). Every Christian Old Testament included this book in the Old Testament until the time of the Reformation. Every Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Old Testament contains the book to this day.

Why is Sirach missing from modern Protestant bibles?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
The biggest issue with Bibles in use today is that most Protestant versions are missing several books from the Old Testament.

For example, the Book of Sirach appears in the Old Testament of the oldest surviving Christian bibles: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). Every Christian Old Testament included this book in the Old Testament until the time of the Reformation. Every Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Old Testament contains the book to this day.

Why is Sirach missing from modern Protestant bibles?
because Protestants have a higher standard:

If lowered our standards of what writings qualified to be in the Canon we would have the same Canon as the Catholics:
and if we lowered our standards even more, we would have the same Canon as the Greek Orthodox Church.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
I am one of the Catholics who argued that we no longer have the originals. I argued that most Protestants agree that inspiration and infallibility apply only to the originals. They do not apply to translations.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.


Transmission and Translation​

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
But you are jumping to conclusions when you say that RCC's who argue in this manner are trying to cast doubt on God's Word. I was not attempting to cast doubt on God's Word. I was attempting to show that those who adhere to Sola Scriptura do not really adhere to Sola Scriptura. They trust Tradition as much as Catholics do.
that would be true IF
Sola Scriptura was about copies and translations:
But it is not
 

balshan

Well-known member
The biggest issue with Bibles in use today is that most Protestant versions are missing several books from the Old Testament.

For example, the Book of Sirach appears in the Old Testament of the oldest surviving Christian bibles: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). Every Christian Old Testament included this book in the Old Testament until the time of the Reformation. Every Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Old Testament contains the book to this day.

Why is Sirach missing from modern Protestant bibles?
No the orthodox put in books that then the Jewish people don't consider scripture. Latin is not a biblical language and penance for example is not repentance.

Of more interest is why is included in the OT of the RCC at all. What makes it scripture after decades of not being scripture. How is it inspired?

The word “apocrypha” originates from the Greek and Latin words for “secret” or “non-canonical.” It is commonly used to refer to ancient, mostly Second Temple–era works that are “outside” of the Jewish Bible...While none of the books of the Apocrypha are considered to be Divinely inspired and are therefore not included in Jewish scripture, the question of whether they have any value from a Jewish perspective is a bit more nuanced...
Why was it not included in Tanach? Besides for the fact that it (Sirach) was written after the end of the age of prophecy, some of the teachings contained in the work were deemed not to be in sync with Jewish values. However, it appears that the rabbis considered at least some of the teachings to have value—if understood properly...The Apocrypha isn’t Divinely inspired, and is therefore not part of the canon, and some of its works are even antithetical to Judaism. Other works may indeed contain some valuable information, but they aren’t given any more credence than any other book, and be aware that there have been various additions and deletions made throughout the ages.


6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter-reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar, and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
 

balshan

Well-known member
While most of this book tracks with long-standing, sound biblical doctrine, there are several tenets that conflict significantly with Christian beliefs. In several places, Sirach implies our actions can bring favor upon ourselves, mitigate our sin in God’s eyes, and anticipate reciprocal responses from those we assist in their time of need (chapters 3, 7, 12, 17, and 22). This is in stark contrast to the Bible’s teaching to be a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7), salvation through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), and Jesus’ exhortation to give without expecting anything in return (Matthew 6:3).

Providing readers precise Sirach citations (chapter and verse, as with the Bible) is highly problematic, as a firm numbering construct apparently does not exist. For example, in the New American Bible (Catholic Bible Press, 1987) and the Apocrypha (God’s Word Translation, Baker Books, 2009), there are several instances where the numbering of verses as well as total number of chapter verses differ. As a result, only Sirach chapters are referenced above.

The book of Sirach is not part of the recognized canon of scripture, and it is not the inspired Word of God. As such, although it may have some historical/cultural significance, it is not God-breathed and does not possess the qualities of divinely inspired Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

Maxtar

Active member
I firmly believe in the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit of God in every born-again believer, and in what Jesus Christ Himself said regarding the authoritative standard of truth being the Word of God - the Bible. Speaking of the Bible, Christ Himself said, "Thy word is truth.." John 17:17
In settling issues of spiritual controversy the Lord Jesus always appealed to the Word of God as an authoritative standard by which to judge truth and falsehood.

He only appealed to the OT standard and since He was God Incarnate He knew them intimately. The same cannot be said of the modern Christian of today because of the many Christian sects that they come from. Everyone claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them, but I fail to see how because of the different interpretations that are bandied about.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
The biggest issue with Bibles in use today is that most Protestant versions are missing several books from the Old Testament.

For example, the Book of Sirach appears in the Old Testament of the oldest surviving Christian bibles: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). Every Christian Old Testament included this book in the Old Testament until the time of the Reformation. Every Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Old Testament contains the book to this day.

Why is Sirach missing from modern Protestant bibles?


Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (who opposed Luther) points out that there are two levels of inspiration
Cajetan's analysis helps us to understand the meaning of the word ‘canon' as employed by Augustine and the Council of Carthage:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.​
Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.​
Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."​
Rufiinus:
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church . . . I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon​

Gregory the Great
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed​

so if a writing is good enough for edification
but not good enough for doctrine?


Then by the Protestants' standard
it is NOT good enough to be included in the Canon

Q:"Why is Sirach missing from modern Protestant bibles?"
A: Its not good enough!!
 
Last edited:

mica

Well-known member
He only appealed to the OT standard and since He was God Incarnate He knew them intimately. The same cannot be said of the modern Christian of today because of the many Christian sects that they come from. Everyone claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them, but I fail to see how because of the different interpretations that are bandied about.
how do you determine if one is a Christian 'sect' ?

How does one know if the Holy Spirit is guiding them?

how do you know if all of those who are 'brandying about' all of those different interpretations are Christian or not?
 

balshan

Well-known member
He only appealed to the OT standard and since He was God Incarnate He knew them intimately. The same cannot be said of the modern Christian of today because of the many Christian sects that they come from. Everyone claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them, but I fail to see how because of the different interpretations that are bandied about.
Unlike your institution which claims it is lead by the Holy Spirit and has the sometimes gift of infallible and then shows by its actions and teachings that is just a false claim.
 

Theophilos

Active member
No the orthodox put in books that then the Jewish people don't consider scripture. Latin is not a biblical language and penance for example is not repentance.

Of more interest is why is included in the OT of the RCC at all. What makes it scripture after decades of not being scripture. How is it inspired?

The word “apocrypha” originates from the Greek and Latin words for “secret” or “non-canonical.” It is commonly used to refer to ancient, mostly Second Temple–era works that are “outside” of the Jewish Bible...While none of the books of the Apocrypha are considered to be Divinely inspired and are therefore not included in Jewish scripture, the question of whether they have any value from a Jewish perspective is a bit more nuanced...
Why was it not included in Tanach? Besides for the fact that it (Sirach) was written after the end of the age of prophecy, some of the teachings contained in the work were deemed not to be in sync with Jewish values. However, it appears that the rabbis considered at least some of the teachings to have value—if understood properly...The Apocrypha isn’t Divinely inspired, and is therefore not part of the canon, and some of its works are even antithetical to Judaism. Other works may indeed contain some valuable information, but they aren’t given any more credence than any other book, and be aware that there have been various additions and deletions made throughout the ages.


6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter-reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar, and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
The canon of the Greek-speaking Jews was larger than the Hebrew canon of the Pharisees used in Judea. These are the scriptures that the Bereans used to confirm Paul's preaching (Acts 17:11), and Paul specifically praises these scriptures that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:

. . . from your infancy, you have known the Sacred Scriptures, which are able to instruct you toward salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice, so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work. 2 Tim 3:15-16

The Greek-speaking Jews were the earliest Christian converts, and their scriptures were the basis of the original bible of the Church. Trent merely confirmed Christian scriptures used from the time of the apostles.
 
Last edited:

1Thess521

Well-known member
The Greek-speaking Jews were the earliest Christian converts, and their scriptures were the basis of the original bible of the Church. Trent merely confirmed Christian scriptures used from the time of the apostles.

Greek was the most common language in that area at the that time:
So much so that even the common Palestinian Jews had lost the ability to read Hebrew.

HOWEVER
neither Jesus ; the Apostles.. not the writers of the NT quoted the deuterocanonical writings as Scripture
ADD TO THAT
the deuterocanonical writings were not included among the Scared Scrolls in God's Holy Temple:
ADD TO THAT
Early Christians considered the deuterocanonicals as good enough for edification but not good enough for doctrine..

We would need to LOWER the standard to accept to the deuterocanonical writings as Scripture.
And we are not going to do that
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
The canon of the Greek-speaking Jews was larger than the Hebrew canon of the Pharisees used in Judea. These are the scriptures that the Bereans used to confirm Paul's preaching (Acts 17:11), and Paul specifically praises these scriptures that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:



The Greek-speaking Jews were the earliest Christian converts, and their scriptures were the basis of the original bible of the Church. Trent merely confirmed Christian scriptures used from the time of the apostles.
But not considered as religious. Praise of one Greek speaking Jewish person is not praise of all. This does not mean that Timothy did not speak Hebrew either.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
The canon of the Greek-speaking Jews was larger than the Hebrew canon of the Pharisees used in Judea. These are the scriptures that the Bereans used to confirm Paul's preaching (Acts 17:11), and Paul specifically praises these scriptures that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:
the collection of scrolls called LXX includes translations of Hebrew Scriptures and Greek writings that are not Scripture.
There is nothing miraculous about the LXX... or the Vulgate ...or King James.

the LXX does not equal Scriptures
Scriptures do not equal the LXX
 
Last edited:

1Thess521

Well-known member
The canon of the Greek-speaking Jews was larger than the Hebrew canon of the Pharisees used in Judea. These are the scriptures that the Bereans used to confirm Paul's preaching (Acts 17:11), and Paul specifically praises these scriptures that Greek-speaking Timothy studied as a child:
show us the proof that
1) the Fourth Book of Maccabees was in the collection of LXX Scrolls Timothy studied as a child:
2) Timothy considered 4th Maccabees as Scripture
3) Paul considered 4th Maccabees as Scripture
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I remember this came up as part of my course the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture. I thought don't we just accept, do we need to worry. However, I have found I had to use it more than I thought. One day having a conversation with my mother this came up and she said people told her parts of the bible weren't real. We went through the facts and we discussed just accepting God's word as real all of it and then you don't have to worry about what to believe.
I agree with your sentence His word is absolutely trustworthy and doubt only comes from one area.
Ya, what you said.
So I have been surprised by the fact that some RCs are constantly throwing doubt on the veracity of God's word. It is only being done, in my opinion, to try and boost their institution's false claims.
This is what is really sad because historically the church turned to the Scriptures first in refuting errors. It was only after the so-called gnostics and others asserted a secret tradition that a church tradition was used to counter that claim.

That's what happens when tradition is left unchecked. Once the nose of error is in the tent there is no keeping the rest of the beast out.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Yes, the Douay Rheims is an English translation based upon St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate. It is the translation used in English/Latin hand missals before Vatican II.

There are no original manuscripts of Sacred Scripture in existence, so what we have today are different versions and translations of copies of the original manuscripts.

The Bible came from the Catholic Church, the Church did not come from the Bible. The Church existed for hundreds of years before the New Testament Canon was settled. The Church was a visible, hierarchical society, teaching and instructing the Faithful before there was even a New Testament Canon.

The Catholic Church is the sole arbiter of the meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture as the Council of Trent decreed; "No one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold."
Yes, all that is true of course. I know that Jerome claims to have seen and had access to an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew. That version does not exist today.

My point was that the Vulgate is a translation of a translation; that is, it is based on the Latin version of the Bible which itself is based on certain manuscripts. Direct translations are better because you remove the middle layer.
 

Theophilos

Active member
But not considered as religious. Praise of one Greek speaking Jewish person is not praise of all. This does not mean that Timothy did not speak Hebrew either.
Timothy was the uncircumcised son of a gentile Greek father and a Greek-speaking Jewish mother (Acts 16:1). He was not circumcised until after he met Paul (Acts 16:3).

Timothy is a Greek name (= honoring God). Timothy's mother's name is Greek (Lois = most desirable), as is his mother's mother name (Eunice = good victory). All the biblical evidence shows he spoke Greek but had no knowledge of Hebrew.

The scriptures that Timothy studied a child had to be the Greek Old Testament. The same scriptures have been used continuously in Greek-speaking churches since the time of the apostles.
 
Top