Has anyone read the Catholic Bible?

Question

Why do people think it is different?
I have read the Catholic Bible and the RSV and found them similar
so why do people think we have a different Bible to anyone else?

God Bless You

Answer 1

The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same with 27 Books.

The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.

The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.

The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.

After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.

The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

The Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 + 27 = 73 Books total.

1500 years later, Protestants decided to change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.

Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

The main difference in Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles is the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bibles. Your statement about reading both the Catholic Bible and the RSV makes me think that you are not aware that there is a Catholic Edition of both the RSV and NRSV.

I find it interesting that while Protestants don't use the Apocrypha, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT used by the early church and quoted from in the NT includes the Apocrypha, indicating that the early church may have considered it to be inspired.

Answer 3

It has to do with seven books in the Old Testament that existed before Christ even came:

1000-50 BC: The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books are written.

C. 200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.

C. AD 100: So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.

C. AD 400: Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.

AD 1536: Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the "Apocrypha."

AD 1546: The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.

Answer 4

The Catholic Bible includes some of the Apocryphal books that are not in the Protestant Bible, which include Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and 1&2 Maccabees.

It's not different, per se, it just includes certain books that are not recognized as the official "canon" of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, they do have historical value.

Answer 5

I dont find much difference either, the Apocrypha isnt anything with some "strange different teaching" or anything. The only real difference I see is the 10 Commandments are different in the Catholic Bible than in the standard Bible.

Answer 6

The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iraneaus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria used the Apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable OrigIn and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Aprocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamnia, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Aprocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Aprocrypha (especially those relating to Tobit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.





v

Answer 7

Look at what the catholic Church has done to the Ten Commandments, compare your Catholic Bible with a regular Bible for yourself.

The Catholics have changed A LOT OF THE BIBLE !

Answer 8

people have all sorts of misconceptions when it comes to Catholics. Sometimes they hear these "myths" at home, and sometimes they even hear them from their pastors who aren't that educated about other faiths.
In addition to the misconception that we have a completely different bible, some also think that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, the statues in the church, and that we give the priests the power to forgive us for our sins (instead of God), etc etc.

Edit: cute baby in your avatar BTW

Answer 9

i tried to once but the church only had them in spanish and i lost my coppy.

also i went to this bible site and it listed a pice from the bible that was in every form of the bible. the only thing that really seprated the bibles is how they worded the verses.

Answer 10

People keep changing the bible slightly each time and then sell it to make money. It is sick.