The Apocrypha

Knee V · Oct 9, 2005

PaladinValer said:
It was the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which was the Third Ecumenical

Thank you.

hoser · Oct 9, 2005

Jig said:
I've always been interested in The Apocrypha because I could never find ONE SINGLE shred of evidence that they should be in the Bible. (I was once Catholic...and read a NAB). I converted to be non-denomintional for the simple fact that Catholics believe that ALL their doctrines are infallible. This means if I could prove just ONE of those doctrines to be false, then the whole Catholic faith is in error with what it believes, because to be Catholic you must believe in ALL the doctrines of the church.

But anyway, Reasons a don't trust The Apocrypha:

I believe they have doctrinal contradiction and tell of ways to atone for sin other then from Jesus only. Such as by works to gain salvation.

Example quotes from some of these false leading books:

Tobit 12:8 says, "It is better to give alms than to store up gold; for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin"

Sirach 3:29 says, "Alms atone for sins."

Sirach 3:3, 30
3 "Those who honor their father atone for sins,"
30 "As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."

"Atone" is the same as "expiate" which means to purify or make amends for.
"Alms" is the charitable donation of money.

Hmmm...faith in Jesus is the ONLY way to atone for sins! PERIOD! It says so in the NT. And please don't bring up 1 Peter 4:8...it says love covers sin...not atone for it. This is what sacrafice did in the OT...cover sins...not atone.

It's Jesus Blood that expiates sin from are souls! Not good works or honoring our parents!

It's funny how Jesus loved quoting OT writing, but never once mentions one of these added books. Were these books not good enough for him to quote? The only reason Catholics keep these books is because without them they cant prove all their doctrines...like purgatory. Which is talked about in II Maccabees 12:44-45 in regards to praying for the dead! When you die you don't get a second chance...your either going to Heaven or Hell....even if the whole world prays that you should go somewhere else.

Plus, the canon of the Palestinian Jews did not include the seven books affirmed by Rome and rejected by Protestantism. So we should reject them unless a good reason is given to affirm them!

Maybe you should accept them because you accept the New Testament cannon that the Catholic Church cannonized. You accept the authority of the true Church when it comes to determining the books of the NT. Maybe you should accept them because they were ALWAYS part of the Old Testament. This same Church that cannonized the NT that you accept authority from in this regard also cannonized the OT. Why accept authority on one hand but not on the other?

Most of the early Chrisitians and the Apostles themselve used the Septuagint which contained the "apocrapha" books. (BTW, they are the Dueterocanon). See this quote.

"[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text."[/font]

This quote from http://www.septuagint.net/

The Deutorocannon should be accepted because it was always accepted until Martin Luther removed those books from the Bible.

Canadian75 · Oct 9, 2005

hoser said:
The Deutorocannon should be accepted because it was always accepted until Martin Luther removed those books from the Bible.

Check your facts Hoser, Luther never removed the Deuterocanon from his German translation. He followed the original opinion of St. Jerome and moved them to an appendix at the end of the OT. He did not consider them inspired, but did not remove them from the bible. He may have wanted to remove the books, but he ulitmately did not. The removal of the deuterocanon from protestant bibles occured long after his death.

Peace.

soblessed53 · Oct 9, 2005

knee-v said:
"Deuterocanon" means "second canon". Just like the 5th book of the OT, Deuteronomy, or "second law". They are called "deuterocanonicals" because they weren't always universally recognized by all groups. They were disputed more than most of the other books. But the church as a whole accepted them as scripture, since the Jews who included them into their canon accepted them as scripture LONG before Christ came.

On another note, there are books in the NT that can rightfully be called "deuterocanonicals", since they were not universally recognized by all groups of Christians. Revelation, James, Jude, Hebrews, maybe a few others were in dispute until the council that recognized them as scripture (I forget which council that was). It was a Church council which the Holy Spirit led in determining which books were of apostolic origin and which were frauds. And it was the same for the OT books. If you accept the 27 books of the NT, then you MUST accept the OT canon that the church uses. If you reject the church's OT canon, then there is NO basis for accepting the 27 books of the NT. Both have the same basis for being canonical.

Oh ok thank you,for taking the time to explain.

hoser · Oct 9, 2005

Canadian75 said:
Check your facts Hoser, Luther never removed the Deuterocanon from his German translation. He followed the original opinion of St. Jerome and moved them to an appendix at the end of the OT. He did not consider them inspired, but did not remove them from the bible. He may have wanted to remove the books, but he ulitmately did not. The removal of the deuterocanon from protestant bibles occured long after his death.

Peace.

Well without debating specifics, the books were always there and then they were removed by some protestant. This is fact.

Catholic Dude · Oct 9, 2005

First of all Jig, what does the Bible say?
In 2Tim3:15 it says "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired". Therefore books like Sirach are inspired. Do you believe what the Bible says or not?

Axion said:
The FULL, 73 Book bible was defined at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 397 AD. It was the only bible in existence until Luther in the 1520s decided to try to remove seven books from his bible translation. Even he didn't dare take them out completely. The seven books only completely disappeared from most protestant Bibles in the 1800s.

Thats the truth, and what he did was open the door for their entire removal later.

What happened to the Sola Sciptura? The Reformers would be in rage if they saw that the individual protestants rights were violated. Each Bible should contain the DeuteroCanonical books and THEN each individual protestant has the option to remove them or not, thats true Sola Scriptura.

Jig · Oct 10, 2005

PaladinValer said:
You must accept all dogmas and doctrines, but not all disciplines and devotions.

Is this not what I said? If you dont accept ALL the Catholic doctrines...you cant be Catholic.

PaladinValer said:
Well, that was the belief by the authors of the Deuterocanon, since, after all, they were written by Jews during OT times. And Jews believe in a works-based salvation, which is clearly stated in all the other OT books which are universally-recognized as being canonical. Should we now throw away all the OT?

Well, lets look at what the Pharisees did and taught. They too, like the Catholics today, thought they were "100%" correct with their doctrine and followed a bumpy trail of tradition and works. They made up a huge portion of Jews in Jesus's day. Did this make them right? Everyone (large percentage) at the time before Jesus, thought the Pharisees were correct, but when Jesus came he set them straight! He taught them salvation apart from works and they killed Him for it...holding fast to tradition and their works.

OT Pharisees = modern day Catholics

Sorry, but this is what I see....

PaladinValer said:
What does St. John 3:16 say? About the "world?" I hate to tell you this, but everyone already is saved, but not everyone is saved onto heaven. All, even unrepentent sinners, have eternal life and will enjoy eternity alive.

It is through Grace that we are saved unto heaven. That's the Vatican Catholic position. They correctly believe that, however, works is a way Grace can be received.

Well, are souls are indeed eternal....and we will live eternally (w/belief in God or not)....but the part that goes to Hell will have no picnic...they will NOT enjoy it! Faith leads to works....Works will not lead to faith...or grace imo.
Did the thief on the cross have works? He gain salvation through faith alone, even without baptism!

PaladinValer said:
Sorry, but according to Vatican Catholic official belief, there is no "second chance" in Purgatory. Why? Because only those who will go to heaven go there, not everyone. Therefore, there isn't a second chance but, rather as the name implies, the final purification of the soul and completion of theosis. And prayers for those souls from those on Earth and those in heaven can speed this process, according to their belief, not zap them immediately right to heaven or wherever they please. Purgatory is a one-way only highway to heaven, not a portal to other realms.

As I feared, your claim of having knowledge isn't coming to fruit.

Sorry if I wasn't 100% caught up on my understanding of the catechism...it has been many years now...but my point still stands...Purgatory has no biblical backgroud worth standing on. Period.

PaladinValer said:
So we should simply ignore the Canon of the Alexandrian Jews? Which was accepted by Jews all over the world?

I've already poked major holes not into your argument, but showed evidence that your claims of knowledge are not what they seem. I think you owe the Vatican Catholics here and everywhere an apology at least in terms of lying that you knew as much as you did.

Could the Pharisees of used this canon?

I will issue no apology. I didn't out right lie...I might have had some hiccups in my Catholic background, but my argument still holds firm.

Jig · Oct 10, 2005

Catholic Dude said:
First of all Jig, what does the Bible say?
In 2Tim3:15 it says "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired". Therefore books like Sirach are inspired. Do you believe what the Bible says or not?

Thats great...now if Paul would of just defined "all scripture" we wouldn't be having this little discussion.

Remember, since I can find contradictions in Sirach, I don't consider it scripture.

Borealis · Oct 10, 2005

Jig said:
Thats great...now if Paul would of just defined "all scripture" we wouldn't be having this little discussion.

Remember, since I can find contradictions in Sirach, I don't consider it scripture.

Really? Can you find contradictions in Genesis? How about the Gospels? How did Judas die? Did he hang himself or trip over his own feet in a field?

There are websites devoted to proving the Bible is wrong because of all the contradictions, and they use the Protestant canon as their basis. Do you really want to start down that path?

As for inspiration, have you read the Book of Wisdom? Go ahead, try it. Read this part:

Wis 2:12 Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
Wis 2:13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
Wis 2:14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
Wis 2:15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.
Wis 2:16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
Wis 2:17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
Wis 2:18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
Wis 2:19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience.
Wis 2:20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
Wis 2:21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them.
Wis 2:22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.

Go ahead, tell me that's not inspired. Try finding a clearer prophecy of Christ's death than that.

Borealis · Oct 10, 2005

Jig said:
Sorry if I wasn't 100% caught up on my understanding of the catechism...it has been many years now...but my point still stands...Purgatory has no biblical backgroud worth standing on. Period.

Right. Here are a few scriptural references, aside from Maccabees. Thanks to www.scripturecatholic.com for the commentary.
[BIBLE]Matthew 5:26[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Matthew 18:34[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Luke 12:58-59[/BIBLE]
Jesus teaches us, Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny. The word opponent (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we wont get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This prison is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.
[BIBLE]Matthew 5:48[/BIBLE]
Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.
[BIBLE]Matthew 12:32[/BIBLE]
Jesus says, And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next. Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase in the next (from the Greek en to mellonti) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.
[BIBLE]Luke 12:47-48[/BIBLE]
When the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.
[BIBLE]Luke 16:19-31[/BIBLE]
In this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.
[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 15:29-30[/BIBLE]
Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the deads behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.
[BIBLE]Philippians 2:10[/BIBLE]
Every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.
[BIBLE]2 Timothy 1:16-18[/BIBLE]
Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him on that day. Pauls use of that day demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.
[BIBLE]Hebrews 12:14[/BIBLE]
Without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.
[BIBLE]Hebrews 12:23[/BIBLE]
The spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.
[BIBLE]1 Peter 3:19[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]1 Peter 4:6[/BIBLE]
Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.
[BIBLE]Revelation 21:4[/BIBLE]
God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.
[BIBLE]Revelation 21:27[/BIBLE]
Nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word unclean comes from the Greek word koinon which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.
[BIBLE]Luke 23:43[/BIBLE]
Many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise, He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus statement I say to you today you will be with me in paradise does not mean there was a comma after the first word you. This means Jesus could have said, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was today or now, and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life perhaps by a bloody and repentant death could be ready for admission in to heaven).
[BIBLE]Genesis 50:10[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Numbers 20:29[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Deuteronomy 34:8[/BIBLE]
Here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.

Baruch 3:4 said:
O Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel, and of their children, that have sinned before thee, and have not hearkened to the voice of the Lord their God, wherefore evils have cleaved fast to us.

Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.
[BIBLE]Zechariah 9:11[/BIBLE]
God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.

Any other false claims you'd like rebutted?

Ioann1972 · Oct 10, 2005

DrTheophorus said:
The Deuterocanonicals are in a lot of Bibles besides the Catholic versions. (...) The majority of Christians use the complete Bible and not the shortened version of the Reformers.

Amen.

In fact, the 16th century reformers didn't reject them entirely either. Luther included them in his German translation of scripture but added a special preface telling the reader that these books aren't part of the Hebrew Bible and hence don't deserve the same canonical status as the rest of the OT. Nonetheless, he stated that the apochrypha are "good and profitable reading", and he encouraged people to read them.

Early editions of the KJV also contain the apochrypha, as well as a long translators' preface about the difficulties of Bible translation and about what they hoped to achieve with their translation. Regrettably, both of these are commonly left out in modern editions.

PaladinValer · Oct 10, 2005

Is this not what I said?

No, you were ambiguous.

If you dont accept ALL the Catholic doctrines...you cant be Catholic.

But you didn't give a definition of "doctrines." You didn't give examples. Plus, I caught two errors in your knowledge. You are going to have to give a list of what you think are Vatican Catholic dogmas and doctrines so the rest of us can be sure you really know what they believe.

Like I said before, I know plenty of ex-Vatican Catholics who think they know their former church's positions but don't. Nine-times out of ten this is the case.

Well, lets look at what the Pharisees did and taught. They too, like the Catholics today, thought they were "100%" correct with their doctrine and followed a bumpy trail of tradition and works.

Um, no.

Vatican Catholicism teaches that you need to practice what you preach.
The Pharisees didn't.

Strike 1.

They made up a huge portion of Jews in Jesus's day. Did this make them right? Everyone (large percentage) at the time before Jesus, thought the Pharisees were correct, but when Jesus came he set them straight! He taught them salvation apart from works and they killed Him for it...holding fast to tradition and their works.

Um, no again

The problem with the Pharisees is that they didn't practice what they preached. Vatican Catholics do.

Strike 2.

OT Pharisees = modern day Catholics

And I've shown otherwise.

And you're also moving beyond the scope of the thread.

Well, are souls are indeed eternal....and we will live eternally (w/belief in God or not)....but the part that goes to Hell will have no picnic...they will NOT enjoy it!

That doesn't change the fact that they too are saved into eternal life.

Again once again, you've moved beyond the scope of this thread.

Faith leads to works....Works will not lead to faith...or grace imo.
Did the thief on the cross have works? He gain salvation through faith alone, even without baptism!

1. More out of scope.
2. The Early Church taught Grace through many means, including through faith, works, and the Sacraments.
3. The thief didn't need Baptism. No Church yet. If you are going to hold that against the Vatican Catholics, it is a void and worthless statement.

Sorry if I wasn't 100% caught up on my understanding of the catechism...it has been many years now...but my point still stands...Purgatory has no biblical backgroud worth standing on. Period.

Nope. Why don't you get reeducated?

Could the Pharisees of used this canon?

Probably some did.

I will issue no apology. I didn't out right lie...I might have had some hiccups in my Catholic background, but my argument still holds firm.

As firm as straw.

Now, unless this thread was supposed to be a hidden complaint and bash of the Vatican Catholic Church, would you mind keeping to your own original intention of arguing about the Deuterocanon?

Jig · Oct 10, 2005

PaladinValer said:
No, you were ambiguous.

But you didn't give a definition of "doctrines." You didn't give examples. Plus, I caught two errors in your knowledge. You are going to have to give a list of what you think are Vatican Catholic dogmas and doctrines so the rest of us can be sure you really know what they believe.

Ah....I know alot of Catholic doctrine...I might not know it all, but I know enough to know I disagree with some. Either way...my point was still correct in a general view, and thats what I was getting at...

PaladinValer said:
Um, no.

Vatican Catholicism teaches that you need to practice what you preach.
The Pharisees didn't.

Strike 1.

Um, no again

The problem with the Pharisees is that they didn't practice what they preached. Vatican Catholics do.

Strike 2.

And I've shown otherwise.

And you're also moving beyond the scope of the thread.

Two strikes on the same pitch? lol

Anyway...I'm glad you have strong beliefs in what you see...I hold fast to mine to, but if you call responding to your comments moving beyond the scope of this topic...try to comment in a way that wont provoke a reponse.

PaladinValer said:
That doesn't change the fact that they too are saved into eternal life.

Is this you making an exception for your lack of knowledge? I believe you said ALL were save and ALL would enjoy eternal life....even in Hell. True it doesnt change the fact that we are all eternal...but when did I disagree with that?

PaladinValer said:
1. More out of scope.
2. The Early Church taught Grace through many means, including through faith, works, and the Sacraments.
3. The thief didn't need Baptism. No Church yet. If you are going to hold that against the Vatican Catholics, it is a void and worthless statement.

Nope. Why don't you get reeducated?

Reeducated? You mean in a pro Catholic way? I studied both pro and con in regards to Catholic doctrine...remember I was at one point Catholic myself, I heard more pro then con and still couldn't believe in some bumpy Catholic doctrine.

In regards to #2...again you understand this to be true with a bumpy translation of scripture at best.
In regards to #3...he still didnt have wroks.

PaladinValer said:
Probably some did.

If that was the case...could these books of help with their tainted view point? I think so.

ScottBot · Oct 10, 2005

Jig said:
Of course its not in the KJV...its in the Catholic aproved bible your NAS...if your saying its not in there...here you go a catholic link:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach3.htm read 3:29....and 3:3

Its NAB, the New American Bible. The NAS is not a Catholic bible. And the KJV (original) contained the Deutero-canon. By Apocrypha, I assume you mean books that were NEVER considered inspired by the Church, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Acts of St. Peter..... there are hundreds, much too numerous to list here, including scores of Gnostic writings which claim authenticity.

PaladinValer · Oct 10, 2005

Its pretty clear this thread is nothing more than a thinly-veiled piece of Anti-Vatican Catholic propaganda...

Jig · Oct 10, 2005

Scott_LaFrance said:
The NAS is not a Catholic bible.

Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.

I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.

Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.

ScottBot · Oct 10, 2005

Jig said:
Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.

I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.

Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.

I actually don't like the NAB very much. I'd much rather use the Ignatius Bible (Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition).

Chadsly · Oct 10, 2005

They were just correcting your mistake. You said it was the NASB. It's just NAB. I usually use the NASB, not the NAB.

Jig said:
Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.

I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.

Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.

ScottBot · Oct 10, 2005

PaladinValer said:
Its pretty clear this thread is nothing more than a thinly-veiled piece of Anti-Vatican Catholic propaganda...

Naaaaaw!!!! anti-Catholicism? Here in general Theology? Say it ain't so.

NPH · Oct 10, 2005

Jig said:
Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.

I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.

Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.

Yes, the NAB is a Catholic Bible. But that's not what Scott said. He said the NAS is not a Catholic Bible, which is what you said earlier.

Did you actually read the quote you posted here?

NAS =/= NAB

The Apocrypha

It's phonetic.

hoser

Guest

Peace-loving Warrior of God

Well-Known Member

hoser

Guest

.

Christ Follower

Christ Follower

Catholic Homeschool Dad

Catholic Homeschool Dad

Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Christ Follower

Revolutionary

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Christ Follower

Revolutionary

Active Member

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency