Collection of Apologetical References on the Bible,
compiled from sources.

Whose Bible Is It?

The 'Ancient' Christian Faith was Catholic

"The evangelical view dates from the time of Martin Luther, and is, indeed, 450 years old. But the author neglects to say (perhaps he doesn't know) that the Catholic view from which Luther sprang and which nurtured him, is 2,000 years old and dates from Apostolic times. The Catholic 'view' is not 'also centuries old.' It is, if the truth be told, the ancient Christian view.

Worship of the Written Tradition

"This continued to be the relationship between the Church and the New Testament up to the time of the 'reformation'. The texts were copied out by the generous labour of unwearying and loving monastic and priestly hands.

"Before the time of printing (1450) it was even physically impossible that the scriptures could ever have been an instrument of teaching the faith: copies were too costly.

"It was only around the time of the invention of printing that a new notion was circulated by an apostate Catholic priest — Martin Luther — who maintained that the Catholic Church and her bishops and priests were not the ones to whom our Lord committed the propagation of the faith but that each Christian was to teach himself by studying the written word of the revealed scriptures. This written word was the sole authority for faith, according to Luther; it was the only way to God.

This meant that the written word replaced the church for people who accepted the idea of Luther." 1

"The Catholic Church has:
Q. A Protestant man once asked me why we did not read the Protestant Bible.

"The primary reason that Catholics don't read the Protestant Bible is that the Protestant Bible is incomplete. It has left out seven books of the Old Testament, along with parts of two others. The missing books are Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Daniel and Esther have also been omitted. The reasons for the differences in the number of books in the Old Testament go back to around the year A.D. 90, even though there were no Protestants until 1517. Around the year A.D. 90 (some 60 years after Jesus' death and resurrection and 20 years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), a group of Pharisees decided that the Hebrew canon of Scripture would not contain the above-mentioned works because they did not meet certain criteria. These criteria seem to have been: (a) Must have originally been written in Hebrew, (b) Must have their original composition dated prior to about 400 B.C., (c) Must be of good moral character. The Scriptures in common use in Palestine from about 200 years before the time of Jesus up until that time were a Greek version (called Septuagint) containing all the books, including those which did not meet this criteria. The Septuagint was used by the Apostles and continued to be used by the Christian Church after the declaration of the Hebrew canon. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the reformers decided to use the Hebrew canon for a variety of reasons, and the other books were omitted. The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (commonly called the Ignatius Bible), is an excellent Protestant translation which has the omitted books restored and is approved for Catholic use." 3

Printed Protestant Bibles - and errors
1525    Tyndale Bible
Translated by William Tyndale. It had many errors in it, and was not complete.

1535    Coverdale Bible
This was the first complete English Bible to be printed, and was commissioned by King Henry VIII's Secretary of State, Cromwell.

1537    Matthew's Bible
This was the work of John Rogers

1539    The Great Bible
This was the work of Miles Coverdale. It was the first official Church of England Bible. It was in the language of the people and set up in every church in England.

1560    Geneva Bible
Sometimes called the "Breeches Bible." "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches." Genesis 3:7 GB) It was a revision of the Tyndale and Great Bible and was the Bible of Shakespeare, Bunyan and the Puritans.

1568    Bishop's Bible
Replaced the Great Bible as the official Bible of the Church of England.

1611 King James Bible (Authorized Version)
King James I appointed 54 of the best scholars in England to revise the Bishop's Bible. It took them seven years. The authorities authorized this translation which had enormous influence on the minds of people, and on English literature. The New Testament in the King James translation was taken with few exceptions, from the Catholic Douay Rheims translation, which was completed 29 years previously. Like all translations, the King James translation had errors in it. In the last century (19th) Protestant scholars met to come up with a better translation because there were several thousand errors in the King James translation. The following site - Catholic Apologetics - has multiple pages on the errors contained in the original and multi-revised King James Bible. In the main page, scroll down to the King James Bible link and go from there!
Note: I do not ascribe to nor recommend many of the Radical "traditionalist" Apologetical sentiments on this site.

1881-1885 Revised Version
The King James Version was revised

1952    Revised Standard version
King James translation again revised.

1970    New English Bible


1973    New International Version


1980    New King James Version


1986    New Revised Standard Version
4
Q. from Charles to St Michael's Apologetics Forum

"... one question that I hadn't thought of for those that believe in 'sola scriptura': If all you need is the bible and believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal to each and everyone all that is needed for salvation and have no need for the Church, then why do Protestant Bibles have footnotes?" 5

Selective Bible Reading

"Many of the tens of thousands of 'Christian' Churches and sects do not baptise (despite Mt 28,19); many don't even accept a visible Church (despite Eph 1,22-23); none accepts the primacy of Peter (despite Mt 16,18); few reverence Mary (despite Lk 1,48); many see Jesus as merely human (despite 2 Cor 4,4); few believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass (despite I Cor 11,23-26); fewer still believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (despite Mt 26, 26-29); many deny his humanity (despite 2 Pet 1,16); some deny the immortality of the soul (despite Mk 12,25); some deny the resurrection of the body (despite Mk 12,25); most refuse to pray for the dead (despite 2 Macc 12,45); most refuse to reverence the saints (despite Rev 14,15); most refuse to accept the power of the Church to forgive sin (despite Jn 20,23); some believe in predestination, in salvation by faith alone, in . . .; the list of beliefs and disbeliefs is endless.

"And all claim to be 'Bible' Christians. All claim, as a 'right,' to be 'interpreters,' of the Word of God. Is it any wonder that non-believers scoff and men and women of faith are ashamed?" 6

No Bible without the Catholic Church

"A final point that bible Christians should note is this: until the Protestant reformation and the invention of printing, the copying of the Scriptures was in the hands of monks, nuns and priests who, had they been so anxious to deceive people, could easily have attempted to alter the Scripture to suit their moods or to help extend or maintain their alleged 'control' over the people. That the copyists showed extraordinary care in transmitting the precious words to posterity is admitted by all who are familiar with textual criticism.

"The same much maligned Catholic monks, nuns and priests were uniquely responsible for the transmission of the written word of God (and for the preservation of much else besides) until the time of Martin Luther who split with the Catholic Church (and with 1500 years of Christianity) in 1517.

"Martin Luther paid grudging tribute to those allegedly evil and power-hungry Catholics when he wrote: 'We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics — (for example) that they possess the Word of God which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.' (Comment in Johan. xvi)" 7

How does a bible Christian know that the translation of the bible he is reading, is correct?

"The fundamental weakness of their position becomes even more apparent when we consider the translations available to bible Christians.

"The famous Protestant theologian Simon Bisschop (sometimes called by his Latin name Episcopius — born in Amsterdam in 1583 where he also died in 1643) wanted everybody, before being given a bible to read, to be made to learn Hebrew and Greek because of the poor, corrupt and often deliberately misleading translations that abounded in his day. They abound, still, in ours.

"The faults in the English translations of both Old and New Testaments in the early days of the consolidation of Protestantism in England were notorious. William Tyndale (1484-1536) and Miles Coverdale (1488-1568) as well as Queen Elizabeth's bishops all tried their hands at translating, but met with trenchant criticism from Protestants and Catholics alike. Amongst the latter was St Thomas More. Even King James I lamented the errors and falsifications, and the 'King James Version' resulted from the outcry that the earlier, misleading, translations, provoked.

"For Catholics, there are modern translations made by competent scholars and approved by the Church as being in conformity with the original texts. And in deciding between possible ways of translating a text, the Catholic scholar has almost 2,000 years of tradition to draw upon.

"The bible Christian, alone with his or her bible (or even attending bible classes, the Fundamentalist's answer to the authority of the Catholic Church) remains even more impaled on one or other of the horns of the dilemma to which we referred above. There are numerous differing versions of the bible in circulation — many of them quite excellent, but some of which bolster up doctrines peculiar to various sects and 'evangelical' fundamentalists. The genuine seeker after biblical truth must decide between them — but how? On what basis? Without Catholic Tradition, the bible Christians are defenceless against the religious mania and downright deceit of some 'bible translators'.

"The situation of bible Christians worsens while we discuss it. For, even if one grants that their bible is canonical, authentic, genuine, inspired and faithfully translated,"

How can bible Christians be sure that they are correct in their interpretation of the Word of God?

"When we speak of the 'Word of God' we are not referring to spoken words, or the letters written or printed, to represent them, but to their meaning.

"St Augustine, one of the greatest minds that the Church ever possessed, nevertheless found himself humbled by the task of understanding the meaning, plumbing the depths and unravelling the complexities of Scripture: 'There are more things in Scripture of which I am ignorant, than those that I know'. (Epist. ad lnquis. Januar.)

"St Jerome (347-420 A.D.) who translated the Old and New Testaments from their original languages, and who knew not only Greek and Hebrew, but Syriac and Samaritan Aramaic, advises his fellow Catholics interested in biblical study not to forget 'that the Gospel consists not of words, but of their meaning. A false explanation transforms God's word into man's word, and what is worse, into the Devil's word: for the Devil himself could quote Scripture.' (In Epist. ad Galat. i, v, II, 12; iii, v. 8)

"Dr John Balguy, (1686- 1748), a well-known Protestant theologian felt himself bound to challenge the simplistic view common in his day that each and every reader had the right and the capacity to interpret the bible — and to do so correctly. 'I answer in one word: open your bibles: take the first page that occurs in either Testament and tell me without disguise: is there nothing in it too hard for your understanding? If you find all before you clear and easy, you may thank God for giving you a privilege which he has denied to thousands of sincere believers' (Discourses, p. 133 — his italics). Unfortunately his irony goes unnoticed by fervent bible Christians." 8

Bible not self-justifying

"Having rejected the Church, the fundamentalists are left clutching a written scroll, like common thieves' to use Dryden's image, who while attempting to destroy their parent's home, and usurp his power, steal a priceless heirloom whose true meaning is beyond the power of usurpers to unravel.

Were they all scholars, skilled in textual criticism, and aware of all the hidden subtleties of analogy, and of the importance of a knowledge of epistemology, grammar, and syntax, and could read perfectly Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Samaritan and numerous other ancient languages, they would still be light-years away from the heart and meaning of the writings. For they are not the rightful possessors of the treasure.

"Possessing only the shell, it is not surprising that this is passed off as the fruit, and the bible, all they possess, is claimed to be all that God said, or wanted to be heard. The 'Christian' mentality that regards the Old and New Testaments as encyclopaedias of knowledge, and the sole repositories of truth, (akin to the mentality of fundamentalist Muslims who regard the Qur'an in the same way) is peculiar to fundamentalist Protestantism: but what do such people make of St Paul's reference (Ephesians 6,19) to the 'mystery' of the gospel?

"However bitter the pill may be to swallow, the only key to understanding 'the truth of the gospel' (Gal. 2,5) and to distinguishing the 'true' gospel from 'other gospels' (Gal. 1,8-9) is the Catholic Church.

"Turning to scripture (as this alone will satisfy the fundamentalists) we find numerous texts (too many to be quoted in full) that the Church has always read as applying to this mysterious reality called 'purgatory': 2 Maccabees, 12,46 (prayer for the dead); 2 Tim 1,18 (prayer for Onesiphorus); Matthew 12,32 (sin too malicious to be forgiven either in this world or after death); Luke 12,59 (person won't be freed until the last 'mite' due to God's justice has been paid).

In Luke 16,19ff the rich man (in the story of Dives and Lazarus) is traditionally considered to have ended up in purgatory, because of his charity towards his brothers (impossible in hell) — and even Church of England Bishop Gore declared that this passage clearly pointed to an intermediate state of purification after death.

"St Peter (I Pet 3,19) tells us that between his death and resurrection, Jesus went 'to those spirits that were in prison'. The Protestant Peake's revised 'Commentary on the Bible' ( 1962) refers this to the souls of those who died in previous ages. They can't have been in hell (it is eternal) and they weren't in heaven. Where were they?

"To fundamentalists who object, like Boettner, that the book of Maccabees 'has no standing,' (pp.227-228) a Catholic should ask 'on what authority is it rejected?' If the fundamentalists choose to doubt the Catholic Church's canon of Scriptures in the matter of the books of Maccabees, then they have no reason to be sure about any other of the books of the Old or New Testament. They can't have it both ways. The only authority on which their 'faith' rests is, however unpalatable this may be, the authority of the Catholic Church." 9

From the Editor

"People tainted by fundamentalism have serious mental and spiritual problems that run deeper than anti-Catholicism. It is extremely difficult to help people struck down by the virus. Often the most we can do is try to prevent the disease spreading. If infection of Catholics is to be avoided, then the Church has to isolate the virus and prepare anti-bodies. Pain-killers and placebos are useless in combatting it.

"Over the past twenty years, like many other Catholic priests, I had expected that religious people of all faiths would see through the historical and religious distortions of fundamentalism. In the face of a resurgent and militant anti-Catholicism calling itself 'Evangelism' and 'Fundamentalist Christianity', one has been obliged, finally, to come out of the corner and start fighting back. Mincing words is worse than useless. Too many youngsters and even older people have been deceived, and have lost their faith. Too many of them have lost respect for all religion, after being enticed away from Catholicism, and become eventually disillusioned with fundamentalism." 10

Catholic Converts Forum: Posted by Scott S on July 22, 1999 at 09:50:21:

"Martin Luther, August, 1516 (From a sermon on St. Peters Chains)

'If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say that he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His power be exercised by one man, to whom also he commits it. He has however made this power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell against it without injury. He says: ' The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it ', as though he added: ' They will fight against it, but they will never overcome it; ' so that in this way it may be made manifest that His power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do.'

"My question is: What made him forget the truth of what he once believed?"

Writings which the Catholic Church Decided to be the 'Canon' of Scripture of the New Testament11
Be amazed at what available "scripture" was not accepted to be included in the 'Canon.' Visit the St Charles Borromeo web-page below!


Footnotes:

  1. Catholic Tradition - The Key to the New Testament, by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.

  2. To Tell You the Whole Truth About the Church and the Holy Bible - St Charles Borromeo Church

  3. I'm Glad You Asked, Questions from the parishioners of St Charles Borromeo Catholic Church, Picayune, Mississippi For further information on Luther's "hacking" of the bible - Luther and the Canon of the Bible

  4. To Tell You the Whole Truth About the Church and the Holy Bible - St Charles Borromeo Church

  5. St Michael's Apologetics Forum

  6. Is the Bible the Principal Rule of Faith for Christians?, by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.

  7. The important place of Catholic Tradition:Inconsistencies of Bible-based religions, by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.

  8. Five Critical Questions to ask 'Biblical' Christians, by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.

  9. Purgatory, prayers for the Dead and Catholic Tradition, by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.

  10. Two letters on Fundamentalism: How best to serve the Truth?, by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.

  11. Writings which the Catholic Church Decided to be the 'Canon' of Scripture of the New Testament
Annals Australasia un-Official Home Page


Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page


What's New at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page