My struggle with bibles

[Strong in Him]

When I read a Catholic Bible, I am assured that it contains the full canon of Holy Scripture as defined by ancient Church councils and definitively listed by the Councils of Florence and Trent, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. If the Bible includes cross-references, then it will link passages between the Old Testament and the New Testament, including the Deuterocanonical books. If there are annotations provided by the Catholic Church or one of its faithful shepherds (a bishop), then I can trust in their reliability. However, these assurances are not present when I use a Jewish Tanakh or a Protestant Bible. For these reasons, I prefer a Catholic Bible over a Protestant or Jewish one.

How is that a struggle over Bibles?

All you're saying is that you trust Catholic Bibles, any annotations written by Catholic Bishops and what the Catholic church tells you. But you don't trust Protestants.
Why write a thread, in the General Theology forum, saying, essentially, that you consider Protestants to be untrustworthy? I doubt you're looking for a serious debate because your bottom line is "I trust whatever the Catholic church tells me."

 

[Valletta]

How is that a struggle over Bibles?

All you're saying is that you trust Catholic Bibles, any annotations written by Catholic Bishops and what the Catholic church tells you. But you don't trust Protestants.
Why write a thread, in the General Theology forum, saying, essentially, that you consider Protestants to be untrustworthy? I doubt you're looking for a serious debate because your bottom line is "I trust whatever the Catholic church tells me."

That's not what was said. First of all, it is true that the Catholic Church believes that no one has the authority to alter the Bible from the original Bible approved by the Church in the late 300s, so all 73 books is essential for a Catholic. But as to the rest, the Catholic Church goes through a rigorous process in order to formally approve a Bible. Many Bibles, such as the Catholic Public Domain Bible, are NOT approved. Approval means you can rely on the translations and cross references because a lot of work has gone into verification. There are a variety of translations and I use multiple Catholic Bibles. As to what the Catholic Church teaches or says about a particular passage, the Church has only formally weighed in on a number of passages which, after over 1600+ years, is still in the single digits.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's not what was said.

No, because a thread which said "Only Catholic bibles are accurate; I don't trust Protestants" would be deleted.
It amounts to the same thing though.

First of all, it is true that the Catholic Church believes that no one has the authority to alter the Bible from the original Bible approved by the Church in the late 300s, so all 73 books is essential for a Catholic. But as to the rest, the Catholic Church goes through a rigorous process in order to formally approve a Bible.

That may be the case. The OP still distinguished between Catholic and Protestant Bibles, stating they did not trust the latter.
The title of the thread is "my struggle with Bibles" and not "my struggle with knowing which of the Catholic versions of the Bible are the most accurate."
It comes across as another thread promoting Catholicism and dismissing Protestants.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How is that a struggle over Bibles?

All you're saying is that you trust Catholic Bibles, any annotations written by Catholic Bishops and what the Catholic church tells you. But you don't trust Protestants.
Why write a thread, in the General Theology forum, saying, essentially, that you consider Protestants to be untrustworthy? I doubt you're looking for a serious debate because your bottom line is "I trust whatever the Catholic church tells me."

There's an excellent reply to your post shown below.

My response is that the ESV Bible is available in at least two editions: one approved by the Catholic bishops in India for use in their liturgy, as well as in the Catholic Church in the UK and possibly elsewhere, and another shorter version commonly used in various Protestant churches and by individuals. When I read a Catholic Bible, I am confident it includes the entire canon of Holy Scripture, which is why I prefer the ESV-CE over the standard ESV, as the latter contains only the books recognized by most Protestant denominations. The ESV-CE I use lacks extensive cross-references, offering only occasional notes in the translation footnotes. In contrast, my RSV-CE includes cross-references that connect passages from the Old Testament to the New Testament, including the Deuterocanonical books.

I authored the post to clarify and inform my interlocutors, particularly those interested, why a Catholic like me opts for a Catholic Bible or a version endorsed by the Catholic Church over one that is not. You are invited to discuss the principles I've outlined, to express disagreement, or to present an alternative viewpoint, even arguing why you believe it may be incorrect. This is why the topic is apt for General Theology. Naturally, you may also choose not to engage in the discussion.

That's not what was said. First of all, it is true that the Catholic Church believes that no one has the authority to alter the Bible from the original Bible approved by the Church in the late 300s, so all 73 books is essential for a Catholic. But as to the rest, the Catholic Church goes through a rigorous process in order to formally approve a Bible. Many Bibles, such as the Catholic Public Domain Bible, are NOT approved. Approval means you can rely on the translations and cross references because a lot of work has gone into verification. There are a variety of translations and I use multiple Catholic Bibles. As to what the Catholic Church teaches or says about a particular passage, the Church has only formally weighed in on a number of passages which, after over 1600+ years, is still in the single digits.

 

[Strong in Him]

There's an excellent reply to your post shown below.

My response is that the ESV Bible is available in at least two editions: one approved by the Catholic bishops in India for use in their liturgy, as well as in the Catholic Church in the UK and possibly elsewhere, and another shorter version commonly used in various Protestant churches and by individuals. When I read a Catholic Bible, I am confident it includes the entire canon of Holy Scripture, which is why I prefer the ESV-CE over the standard ESV, as the latter contains only the books recognized by most Protestant denominations. The ESV-CE I use lacks extensive cross-references, offering only occasional notes in the translation footnotes. In contrast, my RSV-CE includes cross-references that connect passages from the Old Testament to the New Testament, including the Deuterocanonical books.

I authored the post to clarify and inform my interlocutors, particularly those interested, why a Catholic like me opts for a Catholic Bible or a version endorsed by the Catholic Church over one that is not. You are invited to discuss the principles I've outlined, to express disagreement, or to present an alternative viewpoint, even arguing why you believe it may be incorrect. This is why the topic is apt for General Theology. Naturally, you may also choose not to engage in the discussion.

You don't get it.

Your thread essentially says "Catholic Bibles are the best/most accurate; I don't trust Protestant Bibles."
You are distinguishing between Bibles produced, or approved, by the Catholic church and Bibles produced by Protestants. What defines a "Protestant" Bible? Is this about the Apocrypha? Is it about translation from the Greek or the accuracy of previous texts? Is it because we are not Catholics and therefore not part of the "true" church?
And if you don't trust Protestant Bibles then, for you, they are untrustworthy or inaccurate. So, by default, the people who use these inaccurate Bibles are wrong, untrustworthy or naïve. If there is a debate on a subject and someone quotes from the Bible in support of their argument, you would, presumably, dismiss it with "oh, that passage is from the "wrong" Bible."

To me, the whole thread comes across as another; this is why Protestants are wrong and Catholics alone are correct.

 

[trophy33]

When I read a Catholic Bible, I am assured that it contains the full canon of Holy Scripture as defined by ancient Church councils and definitively listed by the Councils of Florence and Trent, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. If the Bible includes cross-references, then it will link passages between the Old Testament and the New Testament, including the Deuterocanonical books. If there are annotations provided by the Catholic Church or one of its faithful shepherds (a bishop), then I can trust in their reliability. However, these assurances are not present when I use a Jewish Tanakh or a Protestant Bible. For these reasons, I prefer a Catholic Bible over a Protestant or Jewish one.

I also do not see what is the struggle you mentioned in the title. You seem to have a pro-Catholic opinion/beliefs and thats it. What's the struggle of yours?

 

[chevyontheriver]

You don't get it.

Your thread essentially says "Catholic Bibles are the best/most accurate; I don't trust Protestant Bibles."
You are distinguishing between Bibles produced, or approved, by the Catholic church and Bibles produced by Protestants. What defines a "Protestant" Bible? Is this about the Apocrypha? Is it about translation from the Greek or the accuracy of previous texts? Is it because we are not Catholics and therefore not part of the "true" church?
And if you don't trust Protestant Bibles then, for you, they are untrustworthy or inaccurate. So, by default, the people who use these inaccurate Bibles are wrong, untrustworthy or naïve. If there is a debate on a subject and someone quotes from the Bible in support of their argument, you would, presumably, dismiss it with "oh, that passage is from the "wrong" Bible."

To me, the whole thread comes across as another; this is why Protestants are wrong and Catholics alone are correct.

I use an ESVCE which has been translated by Protestants as far as I know in its entirety and which has been approved by the Catholic Church. As far as I know the Protestants translated ‘the Apocrapha’ and had various alternative readings for verses and the Catholic approval was picked from among those. The Protestants in charge still hold the Copyright so the ESVCE is still approved by them when a Catholic publisher prints it and distributes it. It IS a collaborative effort between Catholics AND Protestants, just as was the effort to produce the RSVCE a generation before. That one was essentially the Oxford Study Bible with a few hands full of alternate readings already offered by the Protestant translators.

So Protestants are wrong and Catholics alone are correct … except Catholics and Protestants can and do collaborate more often than you imagine … so maybe it’s not as black and white as you want to force it to be with your Protestants right and Catholics always wrong thinking.

 

[Strong in Him]

I use an ESVCE which has been translated by Protestants as far as I know in its entirety and which has been approved by the Catholic Church. As far as I know the Protestants translated ‘the Apocrapha’ and had various alternative readings for verses and the Catholic approval was picked from among those. The Protestants in charge still hold the Copyright so the ESVCE is still approved by them when a Catholic publisher prints it and distributes it. It IS a collaborative effort between Catholics AND Protestants, just as was the effort to produce the RSVCE a generation before. That one was essentially the Oxford Study Bible with a few hands full of alternate readings already offered by the Protestant translators.

That's great.

So Protestants are wrong and Catholics alone are correct … except Catholics and Protestants can and do collaborate more often than you imagine …

Glad to hear it.

so maybe it’s not as black and white as you want to force it to be

I don't want to force anything.

The OP clearly states that when they read a Catholic Bible they are assured that it contains the full canon of Scripture as defined by ancient church councils and reaffirmed by the Vatican. They do not have these assurances when they read a Protestant Bible. Therefore they prefer a Catholic Bible over a Protestant one.

So - what? The OP is a Catholic, I would expect them to say that they read, accept and prefer a Catholic Bible. So what is the reason for the post? The title of the thread is "my struggles with Bibles". They haven't written of a struggle - they just say that they are assured that a Catholic Bible is affirmed and recognised by Catholics - and a Protestant one isn't.
Sorry, but big deal.
If I had written a thread in which I said that I, a Protestant, didn't have any faith in Catholic Bibles, I'm quite sure there would be challenges from the Catholics on the forum. This has also been posted in "General Theology", and not OBOB. This suggests that the OP wants some kind of debate or help for his "struggles". I don't feel that he does. It comes across as an opportunity to say how trustworthy Catholics are compared with Protestants - why else would he say that he doesn't trust the Bible of a church that he doesn't go to?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't want to force anything.

OK.

The OP clearly states that when they read a Catholic Bible they are assured that it contains the full canon of Scripture as defined by ancient church councils and reaffirmed by the Vatican.

Yup.

They do not have these assurances when they read a Protestant Bible. Therefore they prefer a Catholic Bible over a Protestant one.

Yup.

So - what? The OP is a Catholic, I would expect them to say that they read, accept and prefer a Catholic Bible. So what is the reason for the post? The title of the thread is "my struggles with Bibles". They haven't written of a struggle - they just say that they are assured that a Catholic Bible is affirmed and recognised by Catholics - and a Protestant one isn't.
Sorry, but big deal.

Then you go and do your thing.

If I had written a thread in which I said that I, a Protestant, didn't have any faith in Catholic Bibles, I'm quite sure there would be challenges from the Catholics on the forum. This has also been posted in "General Theology", and not OBOB. This suggests that the OP wants some kind of debate or help for his "struggles". I don't feel that he does. It comes across as an opportunity to say how trustworthy Catholics are compared with Protestants - why else would he say that he doesn't trust the Bible of a church that he doesn't go to?

Has anyone forced you to read a Catholic Bible? Catholic Bibles, in the translations themselves and not necessarily in the notes, are trustworthy if you grant the trustworthiness of the approving source. You don't. So?

 

[Strong in Him]

Then you go and do your thing.

I'm not doing my thing; I'm asking what the point of the thread is.

The OP, who is a Catholic, prefers a Catholic Bible over a Protestant Bible because they have certain assurances and affirmations from the Vatican.
Or in other words, I, a Catholic prefer reading a Catholic Bible.
Fine.
Good for them.
It's what we would expect.
How does this say that the OP has, or has had, struggles with Bibles - it's just saying that they prefer one over another.

Are they genuinely struggling with the Bible, want advice, want to start a debate - or just saying that they prefer Catholic Bibles?

I prefer chocolate ice cream; so what?

 

[Palmfever]

I think you are too tied to Catholic authority. I understand that that is a "safe place" for you. But one does not have to be a "rebel" to make God Himself your primary authority and then trust in your own studies and rational powers to determine what is right for you. Just my opinion...

2 Tim 2:15
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Has anyone forced you to read a Catholic Bible? Catholic Bibles, in the translations themselves and not necessarily in the notes, are trustworthy if you grant the trustworthiness of the approving source. You don't. So?

The annotations in a Bible, such as those in the NAB, can be scholarly yet not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church. Consequently, I may not hold the NAB notes in the same regard as Haydock's or those in the Ignatius Bible. The original post does not imply that notes in a Catholic-approved Bible are inherently trustworthy. This is akin to the writings or statements of a Catholic scholar, who may express views not aligned with Church teachings. In contrast, a Protestant Bible might contain annotations that align with Catholic doctrine, and thus, a Catholic might fully agree with them. Ultimately, it is the Church's teachings that are pivotal; they serve as the critical measure for earning the trust of Catholic Christians.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not doing my thing; I'm asking what the point of the thread is.

I refer you to post #125 shown below.

There's an excellent reply to your post shown below.

My response is that the ESV Bible is available in at least two editions: one approved by the Catholic bishops in India for use in their liturgy, as well as in the Catholic Church in the UK and possibly elsewhere, and another shorter version commonly used in various Protestant churches and by individuals. When I read a Catholic Bible, I am confident it includes the entire canon of Holy Scripture, which is why I prefer the ESV-CE over the standard ESV, as the latter contains only the books recognized by most Protestant denominations. The ESV-CE I use lacks extensive cross-references, offering only occasional notes in the translation footnotes. In contrast, my RSV-CE includes cross-references that connect passages from the Old Testament to the New Testament, including the Deuterocanonical books.

I authored the [original] post to clarify and inform my interlocutors, particularly those interested, why a Catholic like me opts for a Catholic Bible or a version endorsed by the Catholic Church over one that is not. You are invited to discuss the principles I've outlined, to express disagreement, or to present an alternative viewpoint, even arguing why you believe it may be incorrect. This is why the topic is apt for General Theology. Naturally, you may also choose not to engage in the discussion.

 

[Strong in Him]

I refer you to post #125 shown below.

That doesn't answer my question.

I think most of us can guess why you, a Catholic, would prefer a Bible endorsed by the Catholic church over one that isn't.
That seems to be a bit like me saying "as a Brit I prefer the Union Jack to the Stars and Stripes."

We're invited to join the discussion? I wasn't aware there is a discussion; you are just telling us what you prefer.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That doesn't answer my question.

I think most of us can guess why you, a Catholic, would prefer a Bible endorsed by the Catholic church over one that isn't.
That seems to be a bit like me saying "as a Brit I prefer the Union Jack to the Stars and Stripes."

We're invited to join the discussion? I wasn't aware there is a discussion; you are just telling us what you prefer.

And you seem to have a bug about it. Why?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That doesn't answer my question.

I think most of us can guess why you, a Catholic, would prefer a Bible endorsed by the Catholic church over one that isn't.
That seems to be a bit like me saying "as a Brit I prefer the Union Jack to the Stars and Stripes."

We're invited to join the discussion? I wasn't aware there is a discussion; you are just telling us what you prefer.

Your post, referenced above as #135, indicates that there are at least 100 posts in this thread not authored by you or me, confirming that a discussion is indeed taking place.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you include the NABRE in that? From what I've heard it has some really questionable content in the footnotes.

Edit: there are some specific examples here: Critical Notes on the NABRE’s Critical Notes

The NABRE translation is adequate, though not particularly beautiful or melodious when read aloud, and is sufficiently reliable for anyone wishing to read the Holy Scriptures. The footnotes, however, are a different issue. Despite being included in every printed edition of the NAB I am aware of, I consider them scholarly but not conducive to faith-building. Often, they appear to be written from a skeptical viewpoint that does not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church. It puzzles me why they are included when they seem to contradict what is stated in Dei Verbum.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was going to ask that same question but you beat me to it.

For the record the 1970 NAB has some tenditious footnotes too, as had the Jerusalem Bible in the big boxed version. The JB Reader's version pretty much just had the text and minimal notes.

I'm all for a Catholic produced Bible. But I use Catholic Editions of the RSV and ESV mostly. Once in a rare while a Knox Bible or a Douay/Challoner/Confraternity Bible. IF the Bible has been given an Imprimatur I'm OK with the basic text. The notes, for some things like the 1970 NAB or the NABRE I wonder how they ever got the notes approved? They would have almost had to have found a blind bishop to read the notes. IMHO.

I occasionally use the Knox version and find it agreeable. My usage extends to the RSV-CE, RSC-CE2, NRSV-CE, JB, and the CTS New Catholic Bible, which is a liturgically adapted JB. Sometimes, I read the KJV with Apocrypha; it's fascinating, though occasionally it seems anti-Catholic, particularly in its introduction to the readers, and it lacks a nihil obstat, an imprimatur, or any other form of Catholic endorsement. I am not prejudiced against Protestant scholarship, much of which is outstanding. I approach the annotations in Protestant "Study Bibles" with discernment, embracing what is beneficial and disregarding the rest, akin to enjoying a fish meal where I consume the flesh and discard the bones. For comparative analysis, I utilize a variety of Protestant bibles.

 

[jas3]

The NABRE translation is adequate, though not particularly beautiful or melodious when read aloud, and is sufficiently reliable for anyone wishing to read the Holy Scriptures. The footnotes, however, are a different issue. Despite being included in every printed edition of the NAB I am aware of, I consider them scholarly but not conducive to faith-building. Often, they appear to be written from a skeptical viewpoint that does not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church. It puzzles me why they are included when they seem to contradict what is stated in Dei Verbum.

It's been a while since I looked at this thread in detail, so this may have already been discussed, but wouldn't the footnotes be included under the version's imprimatur and nihil obstat?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

For the text yes. Unless it is a RSVCE or a ESVCE, which are both complete and whose texts have been approved, at least in the CE versions. But as to notes, some of them shock me. And I am hard to shock.

I am also hard to shock, but certain aspects of the NAB/NABRE footnotes are indeed shocking, and some introductions appear as if they were written by an atheist skeptic. However, I am aware that the scholars responsible for them are not atheists.