Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Indeed, they are. It should be noted that 'Nihil obstat' and 'Imprimatur' do not signify that the Catholic Church officially endorses the content as Church teaching. Rather, they indicate that the material is permitted to be published and has been reviewed for any teachings that would sufficiently concern the Church's bishops to warrant prohibition of printing.
I think not. They would maybe be included under a separate imprimatur and nihil obstat. I will have to check and see what my old NAB had.
Yes, I would guess people are either agreeing with you or telling you that you are wrong.
I'm asking the OP what they are talking about.
It depends on how much you value thinking through your beliefs for yourself versus letting others do your thinking for you and tell you what to believe. These are the two extremes, and all of us are somewhere between them (if we are still sane). The main difference between Catholic-approved and non-Catholic-originated Bible translations is that the Douay Bible contains the Old Testament Apocrypha which was taken out of the "Protestant" Bibles only after Enlightenment skepticism cast enough doubt on them. (The Protestant Reformers had them in their Bibles.) They are insightful in answering some important but not-often asked questions such as: Whatever happened to Israel after the Assyrian deportations? 2 Esdras 13 contributes to the answer to that question. Commentaries by either Protestant Bible scholars or Catholic bishops (or Judaist rabbis) should be verified; as the Russians say: "Trust but verify." These people also are fellow humans and make mistakes or can be both short-sighted and imaginative. Additional extrabiblical comments can be found added to both Protestant and Judaist (Talmudic) scripture.
Are you talking with me or at me? If it is talking with me then I've already said why I wrote the OP. I have had plenty of fruitful conversation with others in this thread.
DennisF, aren't we letting God tell us what to believe? Wasn't it the Serpent who said to Eve, "has God [really] said ..." and didn't he suggest that there was a benefit to be discovered by testing to see if the forbidden fruit was good? I do not mean to condemn the idea of thinking for yourself but in matters of Christian faith thinking everything through for yourself really isn't a great virtue. In the end every Christian must surrender independent judgement and learn to rely on someone else for truth. So, your right, Catholics surrender independent judgement on the Dogmas of the Christian faith.
I was explaining to someone else that I had a question for you and not a "bug" about the Catholic church.
Yes, Yahweh's (God's) word to us should be our guiding advice, but in saying "think for yourself" it is with regard to other humans, who are also finite and fallible in what they say. God does expect us to think. He gave the authority to Israel (human beings) to adjudicate his Law. Adjudication definitely involves thinking. As for what other fallible humans give out as dogma, individual discernment is required. The Bishop is not going to be standing before the judgement seat of Christ in our place. We must give account of our own behavior and speech - and thinking, not somebody else's. Christ covers for us in the judgement, but what he is covering is of ourselves. So we have a responsibility for what we think, even though we are influenced by others.
By definition, everyone thinks for themselves, including those who follow the teachings of the Church or a pastor. You imply that we shouldn't trust anyone with our salvation. Yet, you trust the assertion that the Bible is God's word and that it contains the books your version includes, which pertains to salvation, doesn't it? You accept a canon and translation of scripture, and likely the Nicene Creed, which isn't solely derived from biblical texts through deductive reasoning. If you tried to formulate the Nicene Creed from scripture alone, it would be challenging, as it would be for anyone. Christians depend on the body of Christ for aspects of eternal life, as intended by Christ. We form a community of believers, each with different gifts—some teach, some pray, some lead, some offer hospitality. Within this body, some study and teach, while others listen and learn. Dogma revolves around learning. It seems you learn too, even if your post suggests a solitary pursuit of the truth.
To "think for one's self" means to not accept claims or conclusions offered by others without first going through a mental activity of determining whether the given statements follow rationally from what you know or believe already. Many people do not do this; they accept the conclusions of others (such as what is said in the mainstream media or over the pulpit) without critically evaluating the veracity - the truth-value - of the claims.
I don't think that follows from what I said, which is more general, though all of us learned of the way of salvation from others. How we accepted the salvific claims is the critical issue.
Hmm. I thought that the Nicene Creed follows scripture rather closely, though phased or summarized in its own language.
How can the "pursuit of truth" not involve "learning"? I don't follow this. All I am asserting, to put it simply, is that we should not quit using our brains. To exercise discernment in our times of deceit, for instance, requires it. Discernment is a kind of "thinking for yourself".
Okay, since the above says that was all that you were asserting then we are in agreement. That is very good. God bless
I am not Roman Catholic; however, the Catholics retained the OT Apocryphal writings while in recent centuries, the Protestants threw them out. (The Reformers did not reject them.) For instance, there are critical facts in 2 Esdras 13 about the answer to the critical question: Whatever happened to Israel after their Assyrian deportation? The answer is the difference between whether they are a major population group, as Yahweh said they would be to Abraham and sons, and that they consequently would remain in the central thread of human history, or be, as many suppose today, the "Jews", a minor lower-kingdom group throughout the intervening centuries. Also ignored in Israelite history are the Israelite empires such as Carthage and Parthia. Most people do not know who the Israelites are in Western history! So the more inclusive RCC Bible gives us more to go on that is critical to understanding the Bible as history versus being a somewhat mythical Platonic Bible World.
Hello DennisF,
Where are the "many" places in the Bible that tell where the north-kingdom Israelites ("Greater Israel") went and are today? I agree that it is not just one modern state ("country"). God said to Abraham, et.al. that their posterity would be a large population group. Where is Greater Israel today?
I am familiar with 2 Esdras.
Why? The early church councils that initially decided on the list of books was a rather political affair, so I wouldn't count on any one group to have divine revelation in selecting the books. There are a continuum of choices; the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were almost put in and later, Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation. Some people throw out all of Paul's writings. Theologian Patrick Cooke of Berkeley, CA is on the inclusionary end of the spectrum and believes that there are 211 books that should constitute the Bible. So who was inspired?
Very funny; I am not catholic but if you look into the history, the OT Apochryphal books were included as scripture from well into the past.
I do not buy into the premise about the ordering being divinely given. They are not chronological, especially if you consider that Isaiah 40 onward was written decades later than Isaiah 1-39. The Proverbs are another case in point in that these proverbs came from multiple sources spanning a significant time period. And Job is considered the earliest book chronologically.
Again, on what basis?
This is interesting but the problem with it is that it is someone's construction and not by some logically necessary criterion that must be the case.
Hello DennisF,
Okay, so where are they? The "sheep" we are discussing, in particular, are the Israelites after being deported by the Assyrians.
I am aware of Hebrew literary structures, which appear also outside of the books of the Bible.
I also have a high view of scripture, though the topic of what constitutes divine inspiration as the "Word of God" is a topic unto itself that is not the topic I was addressing. We have "topic creep" here.
There are differences in the settings of the the two that are not trivial to address. Perhaps Isaiah lived long enough to write both sections, but that would make him a very old man.
