Different Bibles? Wha?

[finalfrogo]

I read something today that confused me... is the Bible that Protestants use different from the Bible that Catholics use? Is the Bible of Eastern Orthodox also different?
​

 

[Booko]

I read something today that confused me... is the Bible that Protestants use different from the Bible that Catholics use? Is the Bible of Eastern Orthodox also different?
​

Yes. The Catholic bible also contains deuterocanonical books.

From what I read JamesthePersian post in another thread, apparently there is no single canon in Orthodox Christianity, though they have a lot in common.

See post #10 in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29537

 

[Katzpur]

I read something today that confused me... is the Bible that Protestants use different from the Bible that Catholics use? Is the Bible of Eastern Orthodox also different?​

This is what I find confusing: Some people insist that "the" Bible is inerrant. They seldom say which Bible is inerrant. The various translations in use today contain some fairly significant differences. If "the" Bible is inerrant, I'd like to know which one it is.

 

[standing_alone]

This is what I find confusing: Some people insist that "the" Bible is inerrant. They seldom say which Bible is inerrant. The various translations in use today contain some fairly significant differences. If "the" Bible in inerrant, I'd like to know which one it is.

Probably (though I don't think any Bible is the word of God, cause I'm a filthy unbeliever ) the first Bible written ever, for wouldn't that be the one that was inspired by God and would therefore be inerrent?

 

[Katzpur]

Probably (though I don't think any Bible is the word of God, cause I'm a filthy unbeliever ) the first Bible written ever, for wouldn't that be the one that was inspired by God and would be inerrent in the minds of believers?

Well, obviously the original writings of the prophets and apostles would be far closer to inerrant than anything we have today. But it's not as if "the first Bible written ever" was written as a single book. The canon has changed many, many times over the centuries since the individual books comprising it were authored. And even if the originals were letter-perfect, what about all the writings that either didn't make the cut or were literally lost? No book that is incomplete can be considered truly inerrant.

 

[sojourner]

This is what I find confusing: Some people insist that "the" Bible is inerrant. They seldom say which Bible is inerrant. The various translations in use today contain some fairly significant differences. If "the" Bible is inerrant, I'd like to know which one it is.

It's real easy. Most of those who say the Bible is inerrant read only the Protestant, King James version. Therefore, the Protestant, King James version is the one that is inerrant.

 

[Booko]

It's real easy. Most of those who say the Bible is inerrant read only the Protestant, King James version. Therefore, the Protestant, King James version is the one that is inerrant.

I had one person try to tell me that the King James Version was the one that Jesus wrote, and that's why it was better than all the others.

Even Ripley would've been amazed by that, I suspect...

 

[Ody]

Different translations, same idea (mainly)

 

[Katzpur]

I had one person try to tell me that the King James Version was the one that Jesus wrote, and that's why it was better than all the others.

The one that Jesus wrote? :biglaugh:

Even Ripley would've been amazed by that, I suspect...

Yes, I suspect he would!

 

[Booko]

The one that Jesus wrote? :biglaugh:

Hey, they never taught me in Sunday school that the Bible was comprised mainly of oral traditions from various times that were later recorded. So I figure, in a way it's not that bizarre, if you don't read much.

The part where anyone would think Jesus spoke English is what kind gets me. But then, people can't find basic stuff on a map either, so maybe it's not so strange after all.

 

[Booko]

The one that Jesus wrote? :biglaugh:

Hey, they never taught me in Sunday school that the Bible was comprised mainly of oral traditions from various times that were later recorded. So I figure, in a way it's not that bizarre, if you don't read much.

The part where anyone would think Jesus spoke English is what kind gets me. But then, people can't find basic stuff on a map either, so maybe it's not so strange after all.

I have a lot of interesting conversations with people while sitting at the counter at the Waffle House. You get to meet a lot of really normal people there.

It's also a great opportunity to ask guys in the trades how to do those little fix-it jobs around the house.

 

[finalfrogo]

It's real easy. Most of those who say the Bible is inerrant read only the Protestant, King James version. Therefore, the Protestant, King James version is the one that is inerrant.

You can't be serious! Are you saying the inerrancy of a Bible is effected by the number of people who read it?

 

[James the Persian]

Yes. The Catholic bible also contains deuterocanonical books.

From what I read JamesthePersian post in another thread, apparently there is no single canon in Orthodox Christianity, though they have a lot in common.

See post #10 in this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29537

This is not quite true. The RC canon has most (but not all) of the deuterocanon. We use all of it, so our OT canon is slightly larger than theirs. We, the OOs and the RCs also use the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text of the OT (which most Protestants use) which means that there are many minor (and some not so minor) differences in the non-deterocannonical texts.

The Orthodox Church does have a single canon. What you appear to have misunderstood is my argument against a single canon accepted by the whole Church in history. The RCs reduced the Septuagint very early and the Ethiopian canon was longer than ours even before the schism at Chalcedon. In addition, Aramaic speaking Christians used the Pe****ta. That means that there were three or four different canons, all considered valid, used in different areas within the one Church. Since the various schisms this is no longer the case as the Ethiopians are now OO, we are EO and the Latins RC (though the OOs have two canons, the majority using the same one we do).

One thing that is important to note is that all of these canons were based on the Septuagint with most or all of the deuterocanon included. The actions that lead to the Protestant Bible had no precedent in any Church prior to the Reformation which rather puts the lie to the claims of sola scriptura.

James

 

[Booko]

The Orthodox Church does have a single canon. What you appear to have misunderstood is my argument against a single canon accepted by the whole Church in history. The RCs reduced the Septuagint very early and the Ethiopian canon was longer than ours even before the schism at Chalcedon. In addition, Aramaic speaking Christians used the Pe****ta. That means that there were three or four different canons, all considered valid, used in different areas within the one Church. Since the various schisms this is no longer the case as the Ethiopians are now OO, we are EO and the Latins RC (though the OOs have two canons, the majority using the same one we do).

Ah, I was hoping you would drop in this thread.

One thing that is important to note is that all of these canons were based on the Septuagint with most or all of the deuterocanon included. The actions that lead to the Protestant Bible had no precedent in any Church prior to the Reformation which rather puts the lie to the claims of sola scriptura.

I was raised Protestant, but it was only after reading a little of church history I realized how disconnected from history many Protestants have become. And I was raised in a denomination that wasn't too disconnected, even. It does lead to some odd conclusions sometimes.

 

[sojourner]

You can't be serious! Are you saying the inerrancy of a Bible is effected by the number of people who read it?

No, I'm saying that most of the people who claim that the scriptures are "inerrant" make that claim having read only the King James version. It's tongue-in-cheek.

 

[may]

Bible Online this is my favourite bible