And this is a perfect example of why I’ve said on many occasions, today’s western/European Bibles are transcribed per the church’s control, namely the prior Council’s of Nicaea, that edited books and removed certain books from the Bible (the Apocryphal Books). Just goes to show way back then, if a part didn’t fit a simple human’s idea, importance, clear lingustic translation, or a even narratives, it was hidden, removed, erased, or transcribed over. And done by those that had the power over the rest of the world learning all the word og God, to do so, namely the Vatican.
it was hidden, removed, erased, or transcribed over
The only way to make this statement, and for it to be true, is to know what the original writings said in order to know that "they've been changed." Thus becoming a self defeating statement.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence. Having more manuscripts and copies actually helps biblical critics work backwards to accurately represent what the original writings said (up to a 99.8% accuracy). No one group (including the Catholics) could have sole say in what the ancient manuscripts actually said because there were thousands of manuscripts in other locations not in Catholicism's possession. The vast number of Manuscripts acted as a checks and balance system against any unwarranted change or edits.
There is no other book (or collection of books) that compares to the Biblical writings when it comes to the number and quality of manuscripts in our possession. The Bible we posses in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down.
You can take that to the bank (or maybe a credit union :P )
Well, get your check book out haha! Because the Ethiopian Bible was not subject to the Council’s of Nicaea, or the Vatican ever. Since the time the Queen of Sheba left Jerusalem, that country has had its own version of the Bible which is supposed to be more complete. The Ethiopian Bible of course still includes the Apocryphal books and again none of the “edits” western/European Bibles have had since then.
Strange that’s this is public knowledge in Africa, but not so much outside that continent due to Western Scholar’s historical superiority complexes haha.
Haha no of course it’s not a ticket nor am I saying that at all. I’m just presenting the fact that the Vatican has edited and “removed” things from the original Biblical format along with the Councils of Nicaea, beyond the original scriptures, even beyond what Constantine first set out. As we’ve learned even more from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the modern version of the NIV and/or King James Bibles are not “in whole” to what was originally written.
Ethiopian Orthodox has a different 10 commandments than Catholic / Protestant. How can this be when they all have the same Bible (Exodus)? Maybe it's not the same. I don't see chapter headings and verse numbers in the picture above. That's something that translators have added to influence readers toward their own interpretation.
If the translators' opinions were taken away, the Bible books would be very different-- they would be original text. And it would have a big impact. Readers might see "The 10 Commandments" in Exodus 34:28 written on stone tablets and think those were it, instead of Exodus 20 where we've been taught.
The Catholic bible contains 73 books in the Old Testament including the cannon books while the Protestant Bible contains 66 books in the Old Testament.
What is a Catholic Bible?
The Catholic Bible came into existence and practiced with the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the 1st century.
It contains the teachings, literature, wisdom, and story of Jesus Christ who lived in the province of Judea in the Roma Empire.
It contains 73 books in the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes ‘Apocrypha’ the Greek version. The New Testament contains 27 books.
During the time of Jesus Christ, both the Hebrews and the Septuagint were used in the scriptures and this makes the Catholic Bible contain both scriptures.
It is published in accordance with the catholic canon law. It is officially referred to as ‘The Vulgate’. The vulgate is now officially in Latin language and used all over the world.
The catholic bible remained unchanged even after the reformation. The catholic bible contains books such as Baruch, Judith, Sirach, stories of Susanna, Tobit, Stories of Bel and Dragon which are not found in the bible used by protestants.
Here’s the thing though… the apocrypha contains historical inaccuracies and fallacies. There’s a reason it’s excluded from Protestant bibles. It was included to further the Catholic narrative - such as almsgiving, prayer for the dead, and others.
If you actually look at the scriptures referenced by Josephus, or Jesus himself, the 66 are the only true ones the Jews would’ve had access to in 1st century AD.
The Catholic bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament- 73 books total. You may want to edit your post. BTW your post was very good. Thank you
No problem. I have a Catholic Bible. The St Joseph's Edition of The New American Bible.
I just counted the Old Testament books and the New Testament books in there-
And YOU ARE CORRECT- The number of Old Testament books are 47. And 27 in the New Testament.
It is the article I linked to that is incorrect. I have no idea where they got their information. (Perhaps some of the books from the Apocrypha were omitted)
I do have the following Aprocrypha books included: Tobit, Judith, Sirach, and Baruch. But I do not have the stories of Bel, Dragon nor of Suzanna that I know of.
The King James Bible of 1611 contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible and even more in addition to those.
The books excluded from the Jewish canon by the Jews themselves were labeled as the Apocrypha, but they were still included in the published King James Bible. What the Catholics were upset about the label.
Books of the Apocrypha (14 in total - 15 if you include the Additions to Esther)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit (in Catholic bible but sometimes called Tobias)
Judith (in Catholic bible)
Additions to Esther (in Catholic bible but included at end of Esther as footnotes)
Wisdom of Solomon (in Catholic bible)
Ecclesiasticus (in Catholic bible)
Baruch (in Catholic bible)
Letter of Jeremiah (in Catholic bible but called Sirach)
You seem like you would know the answer to this, “why doesn’t the Catholic faith promote the studying of the Bible?”.
It’s not like they’re telling their parishioners not to read it, but how many homilies have you heard a priest give where they’re promoting it? I can’t think of once and my ex wife is a devout Catholic and I went to a private Catholic school..
I have no idea why they don't. I think that is changing now, though. There are Catholic Churches that hold Bible studies during the week.
My born and raised RC parents never read a bible (nor did they even own one) I asked when I bought my own as an adult. I actually left the church at one time and came back to it after much thought. I considered becoming Baptist. I realized it is more about my relationship with God than where I went to church. Church is man-made and the main reason to go is to be with like minded individuals where I can adminster to them and they to me. I really like my small rural Catholic Church here in the bible belt. I came back to the Catholic faith as it is familiar to me. I am what you might consider a Born Again Catholic, though.
Having been Catholic or raised you should know the Catholic Church has bible readings at every Mass. And our priest always discusses the three readings in his homily.
My Catholic church has a bible study every Monday but it only covers the weekly gospel readings. My sister attends one at her Catholic Church that meets weekly but they cover much more than my own Church does. She's been attending hers for years now.
I currently attend a women's bible study in my neighborhood every Thursday. We are reading the Old Testament. The woman teaching it is very good. She is Protestant. She is writing her own bible study book that will be low cost for small groups outside of churches that might wish to have a study guide. She claims the guides for churches are expensive. Anyway we are helping form the questions for the study and others are helping her edit the manuscript.
In the past, I attended a bible study here in my community with a man who once was Catholic who become a Baptist. He did a great job teaching it I miss his interpretations as he did such a great job. He moved away and has since met His Maker. We had other members of other faiths who attended including two Southern Babtists who became Roman Catholic.
I get other takes on the bible from those there who are Protestant. I know many of them might not take kindly to my faith, though. -
That's weird, not sure where you've gone, but every single Catholic parish I've ever seen (all over the world) all my life has Bible studies, daily mass uses different verses from scripture and in school the kids are taught to read the Bible.
They actually forbade it in the past. That's why it was in Latin, and English translations were forbidden. A number of people died to get us the Bible in English. They wanted to be the sole holders of information. That way, they could tell us lies, and we wouldn't know better. The Sabbath is on Saturday, always. But the Pope said we should skip that commandment and have church on Sunday, the "Lord's day," because that was when the Resurrection occurred. They also lied about "Good Friday" to cause people to have a reason to doubt Jesus. Jesus said that proof of being the Messiah was that he would remain in the earth three days and three nights, just as Jonah remained in the whale (they called ever humongous fish a whale) for three days and three nights. Jesus had to be crucified on Wednesday to fulfill this condition. Good Friday only allowed a day and a half.
When they translated from ancient hebrew and Aramaic into Greek much would have been misinterpreted and lost in translation. It only goes more downhill from there.
Its functionally not available the way you make it out.
The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
Exactly, now throw in how King James oversaw Richard Bancroft while he put together the KJV and you can easily see a whole bunch of ways that could go wrong
I'm saying there are thousands upon thousands of ancient Koine Greek manuscripts and they're all in agreement.
There's a reason they're referred to as the Textus Recptus (Received Text).
There's many translations but only 2 Bibles in the world today.
You've got the classical Greek texts preserved by the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) along with Codex Sinaiticus ("discovered" by Protestant Tischendorf in a Roman Catholic convent on Mt. Sinai in a wastepaper basket after he held an audience with the Pope months prior), and Codex Sinaiticus, along with Greek versions of the Old Testament.
The other Bible is the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek New Testament.
Koine Greek was the language of the streets. Classical Greek was the language of scholars. Now presuming one is the real Bible and the other isn't, would you assume a bunch of Jewish fishermen like Peter and James spoke slang or sounded like college professors?
And this is a perfect example of why I’ve said on many occasions, today’s western/European Bibles are transcribed per the church’s control, namely the prior Council’s of Nicaea, that edited books and removed certain books from the Bible (the Apocryphal Books). Just goes to show way back then, if a part didn’t fit a simple human’s idea, importance, clear lingustic translation, or a even narratives, it was hidden, removed, erased, or transcribed over. And done by those that had the power over the rest of the world learning all the word og God, to do so, namely the Vatican.
The only way to make this statement, and for it to be true, is to know what the original writings said in order to know that "they've been changed." Thus becoming a self defeating statement.
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia by way of the thousands of manuscripts and copies currently in existence. Having more manuscripts and copies actually helps biblical critics work backwards to accurately represent what the original writings said (up to a 99.8% accuracy). No one group (including the Catholics) could have sole say in what the ancient manuscripts actually said because there were thousands of manuscripts in other locations not in Catholicism's possession. The vast number of Manuscripts acted as a checks and balance system against any unwarranted change or edits.
There is no other book (or collection of books) that compares to the Biblical writings when it comes to the number and quality of manuscripts in our possession. The Bible we posses in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down.
You can take that to the bank (or maybe a credit union :P )
Well, get your check book out haha! Because the Ethiopian Bible was not subject to the Council’s of Nicaea, or the Vatican ever. Since the time the Queen of Sheba left Jerusalem, that country has had its own version of the Bible which is supposed to be more complete. The Ethiopian Bible of course still includes the Apocryphal books and again none of the “edits” western/European Bibles have had since then.
Strange that’s this is public knowledge in Africa, but not so much outside that continent due to Western Scholar’s historical superiority complexes haha.
Haha no of course it’s not a ticket nor am I saying that at all. I’m just presenting the fact that the Vatican has edited and “removed” things from the original Biblical format along with the Councils of Nicaea, beyond the original scriptures, even beyond what Constantine first set out. As we’ve learned even more from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the modern version of the NIV and/or King James Bibles are not “in whole” to what was originally written.
Ethiopian Orthodox has a different 10 commandments than Catholic / Protestant. How can this be when they all have the same Bible (Exodus)? Maybe it's not the same. I don't see chapter headings and verse numbers in the picture above. That's something that translators have added to influence readers toward their own interpretation.
If the translators' opinions were taken away, the Bible books would be very different-- they would be original text. And it would have a big impact. Readers might see "The 10 Commandments" in Exodus 34:28 written on stone tablets and think those were it, instead of Exodus 20 where we've been taught.
The Catholic bible contains 73 books in the Old Testament including the cannon books while the Protestant Bible contains 66 books in the Old Testament.
What is a Catholic Bible?
The Catholic Bible came into existence and practiced with the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the 1st century.
It contains the teachings, literature, wisdom, and story of Jesus Christ who lived in the province of Judea in the Roma Empire.
It contains 73 books in the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes ‘Apocrypha’ the Greek version. The New Testament contains 27 books.
During the time of Jesus Christ, both the Hebrews and the Septuagint were used in the scriptures and this makes the Catholic Bible contain both scriptures.
It is published in accordance with the catholic canon law. It is officially referred to as ‘The Vulgate’. The vulgate is now officially in Latin language and used all over the world.
The catholic bible remained unchanged even after the reformation. The catholic bible contains books such as Baruch, Judith, Sirach, stories of Susanna, Tobit, Stories of Bel and Dragon which are not found in the bible used by protestants.
https://coredifferences.com/difference-between-catholic-bible-and-protestant-bible/
Here’s the thing though… the apocrypha contains historical inaccuracies and fallacies. There’s a reason it’s excluded from Protestant bibles. It was included to further the Catholic narrative - such as almsgiving, prayer for the dead, and others.
If you actually look at the scriptures referenced by Josephus, or Jesus himself, the 66 are the only true ones the Jews would’ve had access to in 1st century AD.
The Catholic bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament- 73 books total. You may want to edit your post. BTW your post was very good. Thank you
No problem. I have a Catholic Bible. The St Joseph's Edition of The New American Bible.
I just counted the Old Testament books and the New Testament books in there-
And YOU ARE CORRECT- The number of Old Testament books are 47. And 27 in the New Testament.
It is the article I linked to that is incorrect. I have no idea where they got their information. (Perhaps some of the books from the Apocrypha were omitted)
I do have the following Aprocrypha books included: Tobit, Judith, Sirach, and Baruch. But I do not have the stories of Bel, Dragon nor of Suzanna that I know of.
I should have double checked before posting.
The King James Bible of 1611 contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible and even more in addition to those.
The books excluded from the Jewish canon by the Jews themselves were labeled as the Apocrypha, but they were still included in the published King James Bible. What the Catholics were upset about the label.
Books of the Apocrypha (14 in total - 15 if you include the Additions to Esther)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit (in Catholic bible but sometimes called Tobias)
Judith (in Catholic bible)
Additions to Esther (in Catholic bible but included at end of Esther as footnotes)
Wisdom of Solomon (in Catholic bible)
Ecclesiasticus (in Catholic bible)
Baruch (in Catholic bible)
Letter of Jeremiah (in Catholic bible but called Sirach)
Prayer of Azariah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees (in Catholic bible)
2 Maccabees (in Catholic bible)
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books-List/1611-Apocrypha-Books-List.php
So 1 and 2 Esdras, Prayer of Azariah, Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, and Prayer of Manasseh were additional books in the Protestant Bibles.
Yes, it's true those books were removed by some publishers, but it's still possible to buy a King James Bible with Apocrypha included.
Ironically, there's even a Catholic King James version -
http://www.walsinghampublishing.com/kjv/
You seem like you would know the answer to this, “why doesn’t the Catholic faith promote the studying of the Bible?”.
It’s not like they’re telling their parishioners not to read it, but how many homilies have you heard a priest give where they’re promoting it? I can’t think of once and my ex wife is a devout Catholic and I went to a private Catholic school..
I have no idea why they don't. I think that is changing now, though. There are Catholic Churches that hold Bible studies during the week.
My born and raised RC parents never read a bible (nor did they even own one) I asked when I bought my own as an adult. I actually left the church at one time and came back to it after much thought. I considered becoming Baptist. I realized it is more about my relationship with God than where I went to church. Church is man-made and the main reason to go is to be with like minded individuals where I can adminster to them and they to me. I really like my small rural Catholic Church here in the bible belt. I came back to the Catholic faith as it is familiar to me. I am what you might consider a Born Again Catholic, though.
Having been Catholic or raised you should know the Catholic Church has bible readings at every Mass. And our priest always discusses the three readings in his homily.
My Catholic church has a bible study every Monday but it only covers the weekly gospel readings. My sister attends one at her Catholic Church that meets weekly but they cover much more than my own Church does. She's been attending hers for years now.
I currently attend a women's bible study in my neighborhood every Thursday. We are reading the Old Testament. The woman teaching it is very good. She is Protestant. She is writing her own bible study book that will be low cost for small groups outside of churches that might wish to have a study guide. She claims the guides for churches are expensive. Anyway we are helping form the questions for the study and others are helping her edit the manuscript.
In the past, I attended a bible study here in my community with a man who once was Catholic who become a Baptist. He did a great job teaching it I miss his interpretations as he did such a great job. He moved away and has since met His Maker. We had other members of other faiths who attended including two Southern Babtists who became Roman Catholic.
I get other takes on the bible from those there who are Protestant. I know many of them might not take kindly to my faith, though. -
That's weird, not sure where you've gone, but every single Catholic parish I've ever seen (all over the world) all my life has Bible studies, daily mass uses different verses from scripture and in school the kids are taught to read the Bible.
They actually forbade it in the past. That's why it was in Latin, and English translations were forbidden. A number of people died to get us the Bible in English. They wanted to be the sole holders of information. That way, they could tell us lies, and we wouldn't know better. The Sabbath is on Saturday, always. But the Pope said we should skip that commandment and have church on Sunday, the "Lord's day," because that was when the Resurrection occurred. They also lied about "Good Friday" to cause people to have a reason to doubt Jesus. Jesus said that proof of being the Messiah was that he would remain in the earth three days and three nights, just as Jonah remained in the whale (they called ever humongous fish a whale) for three days and three nights. Jesus had to be crucified on Wednesday to fulfill this condition. Good Friday only allowed a day and a half.
They want 100% control.
Not by current protestants. They were in the KJV version at first.
Kind of similar to block-chain. 🙏
ooooo I like that analogy.
Not true the translations alone are even questionable.
It is true. And the translations are not questionable. Some are thought for thought. Some are word for word. Just depends on what your looking for.
When they translated from ancient hebrew and Aramaic into Greek much would have been misinterpreted and lost in translation. It only goes more downhill from there.
Its functionally not available the way you make it out. The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
Who actually knows How Much has been hidden from Humanity over the Centuries...
In my research, damn near everything.
Dont Doubt it for a minute...👍
Am interesting interview highlighting what you said between Vatican translator and Graham Hancock
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t0cZXY70pbo&t=5s
Yes. This is a good video discussion on “wording, editing, meaning” of certain things in the Bible.
Exactly, now throw in how King James oversaw Richard Bancroft while he put together the KJV and you can easily see a whole bunch of ways that could go wrong
And if you learn Koine Greek and Hebrew and are able to access the same manuscripts the King James Version translators used, you'll see it went right.
Are you saying that the translations and use of context aren’t dispute ?
I'm saying there are thousands upon thousands of ancient Koine Greek manuscripts and they're all in agreement.
There's a reason they're referred to as the Textus Recptus (Received Text).
There's many translations but only 2 Bibles in the world today.
You've got the classical Greek texts preserved by the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) along with Codex Sinaiticus ("discovered" by Protestant Tischendorf in a Roman Catholic convent on Mt. Sinai in a wastepaper basket after he held an audience with the Pope months prior), and Codex Sinaiticus, along with Greek versions of the Old Testament.
The other Bible is the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek New Testament.
Koine Greek was the language of the streets. Classical Greek was the language of scholars. Now presuming one is the real Bible and the other isn't, would you assume a bunch of Jewish fishermen like Peter and James spoke slang or sounded like college professors?
100%. Bible is the word of God, so far as it is translated and transcribed correctly.