The words are there, it's just the numeration (which is not in the Scripture itself) that differs.
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.
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.
The biggest issue with Bibles in use today is that most Protestant versions are missing several books from the Old Testament.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.
Just the Simple Truth » Was the Bible copied accurately?
www.justthesimpletruth.com
because Protestants have a higher standard:
that would be true IF
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.
carm.org
how do you determine if one is a Christian 'sect' ?
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.
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: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.
Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible
The Apocrypha is not in the Bible because Jesus, the apostles, and the Jews did not accept it nor did the early church, also it contains false teachings.
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.
the collection of scrolls called LXX includes translations of Hebrew Scriptures and Greek writings that are not Scripture.
show us the proof that
Ya, what you said.
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.
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.
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).