How Much Is The Bible ?

Story_Bud

I Am Looking To Get It And Would Just Like To Know How Much The Bible Costs ?
Thanks In Advance!

homer911

There are plenty of Christian Charities who will give you a bible for free, but the important thing is to find a version that is easy for you to read

Bibles come in all sorts of formats and prices, so its not easy to give you a simple answer, but you can certainly get one for less than €20

juan.kerr

homer911 wrote: »

There are plenty of Christian Charities who will give you a bible for free, but the important thing is to find a version that is easy for you to read

Bibles come in all sorts of formats and prices, so its not easy to give you a simple answer, but you can certainly get one for less than €20

Alternatively nick a copy from a hotel room. Does Ireland have an equivalent to Gideons?

Note: This approach may result in eternal damnation however...

Story_Bud

juan.kerr wrote: »

Alternatively nick a copy from a hotel room. Does Ireland have an equivalent to Gideons?

Note: This approach may result in eternal damnation however...

not a chance would i even try it

juan.kerr

Story_Bud wrote: »

not a chance would i even try it

That was a test, you are on the right path.

Story_Bud

homer911 wrote: »

the important thing is to find a version that is easy for you to read

I would like to get one which is written in the way it was first wrote and not in modern english

zoomtard

Story_Bud wrote: »

I would like to get one which is written in the way it was first wrote and not in modern english

I use this when reading the New Testament and this when reading the Old Testament. After years of study I still find it difficult to read it "in the way it was first wrote" so unless you are very comfortable with Hebrew and Greek, I reckon you should just pick up a translation called "New International Version" which is very easy to read and understand.

Onesimus

Depending upon where you live I'd give you one for free. If you are after the old English then Douay Rheims is the best buy for you I have this one and vulgate in Latin too I've got two or three of them hanging around. It's a direct translation from the Latin.

Bibles come in all shapes and sizes and the price varies. But the Douay Rheims would cost you in the 20 euro region.

if you want to review this translation you can so here: www.drbo.org

Hope this helps.

Onesimus

alex73

You can get a copy of every version online.

Story_Bud

Onesimus wrote: »

Douay Rheims would cost you in the 20 euro region.

if you want to review this translation you can so here: www.drbo.org

Hope this helps.

Onesimus

Thanks I Appreciate It,I Will Go Around Town Next Week And Get It! Is It Widely Available ?

Onesimus

Story_Bud wrote: »

Thanks I Appreciate It,I Will Go Around Town Next Week And Get It! Is It Widely Available ?

Yes but it wont be available in Protestant shops ( I say that respectfully ). It will be available in Veritas shops in Lower Abbey street Dublin. But if your not close to Dublin www.veritas.ie give a variety of stores they have located around the country.

You can also buy from veritas online using your laser card. Free delivery and comes the next working day.

Onesimus

wolfsbane

Story_Bud wrote: »

I Am Looking To Get It And Would Just Like To Know How Much The Bible Costs ?
Thanks In Advance!

Do check several versions for free on-line before splashing out on one.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

The 'search' panel at the top has a versions menu on the right.

**********************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

philologos

You can get an paperback bible for as little €3.40. Otherwise you can read it for free online.

uck51js9zml2yt

juan.kerr wrote: »

homer911 wrote: »

There are plenty of Christian Charities who will give you a bible for free, but the important thing is to find a version that is easy for you to read

Bibles come in all sorts of formats and prices, so its not easy to give you a simple answer, but you can certainly get one for less than €20

Alternatively nick a copy from a hotel room. Does Ireland have an equivalent to Gideons?

Note: This approach may result in eternal damnation however...

it does.... its called gideons.

my recommendation is the new king james version.


christian publication centre in abbey st or scripture union at the bottom of talbot street.

ISAW

Titus Ancient Numismatics wrote: »

it does.... its called gideons.

my recommendation is the new king james version.


christian publication centre in abbey st or scripture union at the bottom of talbot street.

I like the English but some stuff is added in such as the comma Johanneum.

Here is another source in various languages
http://breadsite.org/bible.htm

Story_Bud

Ya shame theres none in limerick but i will have a look around anyway during the week if not i will check online and hopefully they will accept 3V card! Sorry for the late reply i feel asleep thoughts of school tomorrow haha goodnight and god bless!

uck51js9zml2yt

Story_Bud wrote: »

Ya shame theres none in limerick but i will have a look around anyway during the week if not i will check online and hopefully they will accept 3V card! Sorry for the late reply i feel asleep thoughts of school tomorrow haha goodnight and god bless!

There is a christian bookshop in limerick.
cant remember the streey but i can check over the next few days.

Story_Bud

if you could i would be grateful,i have an idea where there is religious shops inside town and no doubt i will find it and hopeful they will have the Douay Rheims Catholic bible

wolfsbane

ISAW wrote: »

I like the English but some stuff is added in such as the comma Johanneum.

Here is another source in various languages
http://breadsite.org/bible.htm

Isn't the comma Johanneum in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible? Is it not also in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Has the Catholic Church changed its mind on what constitutes the Bible?

I'm not defending 1 Jn. 5:7, just wondering how the passage fits in Catholic teaching about the nature of the Bible.

****************************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

dead one

Story_Bud wrote: »

I Am Looking To Get It And Would Just Like To Know How Much The Bible Costs ?
Thanks In Advance!

Here are some points about cost of Bible
1. It has denounced the thinkers.
2. It has always been enemy of investigation and science.
3. Thinkers / Scientists have been imprisoned in the name of Bible
4. The brave have been murdered in the name of Christ.
See, it doesn't cost much.

Fanny Cradock

You might also want to pick up a book on the history of modern science and read up on who was doing science and what institutions supported them, dead one.

Either lay your charges out in detail on an appropriate thread (scurrilous tabloid-style accusations aren't acceptable) or go troll elsewhere.

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote: »

Isn't the comma Johanneum in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible? Is it not also in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Has the Catholic Church changed its mind on what constitutes the Bible?

I'm not defending 1 Jn. 5:7, just wondering how the passage fits in Catholic teaching about the nature of the Bible.It was included in the Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam because of its doctrinal importance in supporting Trinitarianism. Owing to the widespread use of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source, the comma is also contained in most translations published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, [n 1] for Protestant translation.[n 2]

In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
...
Although many traditional Bible translations, most notably the Authorized King James Version (KJV), contain the Comma, modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes. The Nova Vulgata, the modern revision of the Vulgate approved for liturgical use by the Catholic Church, also excludes the Comma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#Manuscript_evidence

lists all the actual evidence of it.
Nine Latin Manuscripts -earliest being seventh century
Ten Greek manuscripts - earliest being 10th century.
Douay Rheims 1899 American Edition has it. - Father Son Holy ghost.

New International Version 1984 has "the Spirit, the water and the blood;" and the three are in agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Biblia Sacra Vulgata has
7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

Sanguis- blood
Spiritus- spirit
Aqua- water

the Latin for Father is "Pater" and Son is "filius" Holy Spirit is Spiritus "sanctus"

Verbum = word

You are right about modern versions of Jerome but again thisis what they say Jerome wrote. the only actual evidence goes back to 7th century not 4th.

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5

nd there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.

Story_Bud

dead one wrote: »

Here are some points about cost of Bible
1. It has denounced the thinkers.
2. It has always been enemy of investigation and science.
3. Thinkers / Scientists have been imprisoned in the name of Bible
4. The brave have been murdered in the name of Christ.
See, it doesn't cost much.

Look only up until a year ago i was fascinated by the exploration of space, how everything came about and evolution and that conflicts with religion but now after 17 years of being alive, i have found god and i know i will never walk without him again and any questions that may still linger in my head about these will never need to be asked when i meet god , for he is the answer to everything i will ever need !
My faith has brought me peace and has no doubt made me a better person and i know he is watching over me, so please don't try spoil the thread!

wolfsbane

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#Manuscript_evidence

lists all the actual evidence of it.
Nine Latin Manuscripts -earliest being seventh century
Ten Greek manuscripts - earliest being 10th century.
Douay Rheims 1899 American Edition has it. - Father Son Holy ghost.

New International Version 1984 has "the Spirit, the water and the blood;" and the three are in agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Biblia Sacra Vulgata has
7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

Sanguis- blood
Spiritus- spirit
Aqua- water

the Latin for Father is "Pater" and Son is "filius" Holy Spirit is Spiritus "sanctus"

Verbum = word

You are right about modern versions of Jerome but again thisis what they say Jerome wrote. the only actual evidence goes back to 7th century not 4th.

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5

nd there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.

Thanks for the info on the Comma, ISAW. I was not concerned with the evidence for and against (in this discussion), but wondering rather how the RCC moved from its defence of the Comma ( Council of Trent) to omitting it in today's Catholic versions.

Has their Tradition failed them on identifying Biblical text? Or have today's leaders got it wrong? If a new Council were to rule on what was Scripture and what not, would it include the Comma?

*****************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

uck51js9zml2yt

Story_Bud wrote: »

Ya shame theres none in limerick but i will have a look around anyway during the week if not i will check online and hopefully they will accept 3V card! Sorry for the late reply i feel asleep thoughts of school tomorrow haha goodnight and god bless!

christian bookshop 10 upper gerald griffen street limerick.
they should be able to help you finding a bible. nice bunch of people:-)

Onesimus

Story_Bud wrote: »

Look only up until a year ago i was fascinated by the exploration of space, how everything came about and evolution and that conflicts with religion but now after 17 years of being alive, i have found god and i know i will never walk without him again and any questions that may still linger in my head about these will never need to be asked when i meet god , for he is the answer to everything i will ever need !
My faith has brought me peace and has no doubt made me a better person and i know he is watching over me, so please don't try spoil the thread!

Listen up folks. Because this is the answer no Atheist can respond to.

It is the answer of Faith. Amen to that Story Bud.

Peregrinus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the info on the Comma, ISAW. I was not concerned with the evidence for and against (in this discussion), but wondering rather how the RCC moved from its defence of the Comma ( Council of Trent) to omitting it in today's Catholic versions.

Has their Tradition failed them on identifying Biblical text? Or have today's leaders got it wrong? If a new Council were to rule on what was Scripture and what not, would it include the Comma?

As regards the formal definition of the canon, the debate (and the formal decrees) in the church revolved around identifying the canonical works, rather than on identifying the exact text of those works. In a world in which the texts existed in manuscript form only, agreeing the exact text might have seemed a bit of a stretch. And, remember, the Christians were coming from a Jewish background which was well used to dealing with scriptures which existed in a variety of forms and variations (and indeed translations); they didn’t see this as a huge problem.

Identifying the text of a canonical work has always been the work of biblical scholarship, rather than of formal teaching. The question scholars ask is not “were these particular words inserted by the original author?” - many of the canonical texts have more than one author, and many went through a significant complilation/redaction/editing process beforing being received as canonical, but “do these words form part of the text received as canonical by the Jewish people (for OT works)/the church (for NT works)?” And, since reception as canonical is itself a process which can stretch over a long period, the question need not always have a simple yes/no answer.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the Council of Trent “defended” the comma. I don’t think the comma was a matter of dispute between the Catholics and the Reformers. Trent defined the canon as the works as “contained in the old Latin Vulgate”; I don’t know whether the status of the comma was uppermost in their minds when they framed these words, but the comma does not appear in editions of the Vulgate prepared before around 800, which makes it at least arguable that the comma was not included in the dogmatic definition. But the comma certainly appeared in editions of the Vulgate which were current at the time of the Council, and continued to appear until relatively recently so, if it was arguable, it doesn’t appear that the argument was advanced very strongly.

There doesn’t appear to have been any controversy about this until the nineteenth century. This is probably because the comma was included in the King James Bible which (at least in the English-speaking world), was enormously influential among Protestants. By the nineteenth century, however, scriptural scholarship was much further advanced, and more and more translations were issued which omitted the comma, or bracketed it, or relegated it to a footnote. According to Wikipedia, the first official Catholic pronouncement dealing explicitly with the comma came only in 1897, to the effect that it was “unsafe” to dispute the comma. This was followed in 1927 by a ruling that the comma could be disputed. There has never been an explicit teaching that the comma is, or is not, canonical.

Jesus Shaves

Story_Bud wrote: »

Look only up until a year ago i was fascinated by the exploration of space, how everything came about and evolution and that conflicts with religion but now after 17 years of being alive, i have found god and i know i will never walk without him again and any questions that may still linger in my head about these will never need to be asked when i meet god , for he is the answer to everything i will ever need !
My faith has brought me peace and has no doubt made me a better person and i know he is watching over me, so please don't try spoil the thread!

Where did you find him?

Story_Bud

Honestly I had a dream that i was dying and while i lay there i knew i wasn't getting into heaven,the thought of it scare me so much i wished i could make things right and as i was about to die i woke up from my dream and i believe that i needed to die in order to be saved and my faith has been reborn ever since that moment

Onesimus

Story_Bud wrote: »

Honestly I had a dream that i was dying and while i lay there i knew i wasn't getting into heaven,the thought of it scare me so much i wished i could make things right and as i was about to die i woke up from my dream and i believe that i needed to die in order to be saved and my faith has been reborn ever since that moment

Wow thats a cool conversion story...Story bud.

kollegeknight

Its the Knock Shop. Is located on little catherine st. (where PJs pub used be)
Little Caterine st is just off lower william st.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Titus Ancient Numismatics wrote: »

There is a christian bookshop in limerick.
cant remember the streey but i can check over the next few days.

PseudoFamous

They sell them in the 2€ shop in Arklow, no joke. Not great quality to them, I'm sure, but hey, two euro for the King James Bible. If you feel entrepreneurial, you could sell them for a fiver each on ebay. The RRP on the back of them is $16 or something.

Story_Bud

So i checked inside the knock shop and another religious shop while in town but no luck with douay rheims, i had been pronouncing it wrong until a lady corrected me on my mistake Lovely people! I ended up ordering it from veritas online store and it is processing my order since i bought it ? What does that mean .. i had compared prices and for 55e it was a bargain compared to the 70 - 90e prices i had seen online!

Onesimus

Story_Bud wrote: »

So i checked inside the knock shop and another religious shop while in town but no luck with douay rheims, i had been pronouncing it wrong until a lady corrected me on my mistake Lovely people! I ended up ordering it from veritas online store and it is processing my order since i bought it ? What does that mean .. i had compared prices and for 55e it was a bargain compared to the 70 - 90e prices i had seen online!

55 euro is quite expensive. I got mine for 10 euros in Medjugorje. :eek:

Story_Bud

I feel i am getting a good deal to be honest and i cannot wait till it arrives

lmaopml

Story_Bud wrote: »

I feel i am getting a good deal to be honest and i cannot wait till it arrives

Well I hope you enjoy it!

You are being charged a lot though Story_Bud?? - you could have downloaded it, or browsed it online for pretty much the same cost of your access to the internet, you could browse the ESV or the KJV or the DR etc..online anytime really, or joined a study group online too, and ran comparisons...

For a few extra bucks you could buy a kindle and get all the classics free of charge, plus a mountain of other classics too...probably better than most contemporary stuff to be honest, that seems rather shy.

Still, I hope you enjoy! There is nothing like having it in your hands, a tangible thing, I do understand that...:)

Story_Bud

well i had read through only a little bit of the bible online just to see how others compared to douay rheims and im glad i purchased it! I really dont thing i am being charged much to be fair others online are much dearer for the exact same copy, sure others where cheaper but i felt this is really the one i wanted! Downloading wouldn't feel right and i cannot wait to have it in my hands .. it is something i will hold close to my heart !

Onesimus

Story_Bud wrote: »

well i had read through only a little bit of the bible online just to see how others compared to douay rheims and im glad i purchased it! I really dont thing i am being charged much to be fair others online are much dearer for the exact same copy, sure others where cheaper but i felt this is really the one i wanted! Downloading wouldn't feel right and i cannot wait to have it in my hands .. it is something i will hold close to my heart !

In any case Story Bud it is always money well spent. I hope you enjoy it. I have it also in latin and it cost me above the 60 euro mark did the latin one and ya know what? I never read it. You know why? because I cant speak fluent latin lol but my Wife can so.... She tried teaching me before and I became frustrated with it. :mad::D

The douay rheims is the best translation because apart from the often difficult ''thee thys and thous'' in it, even a child a could read it as its just pure plain simple. And God is a God of simplicity.

God bless
Onesimus

Story_Bud

Ya thanks i had a look at some verses from the douay rheims and it didnt seem difficult at all like you said plain simple
Haha i had seen the latin translation on the website its 70 euro now but i wouldn't have a chance of ever understanding it.Dont give up hope anyway man may have spent 60e on it but there still time to pick up the language

.. Hopefully my awkward sleeping patterns from the last two weeks will go away

Goodnight And God Bless

Doc Farrell

If you are not sleeping well it sounds like your mind might be over stimiulated, in over drive. If I can give you some advice it wold be to take your bible studies one slow step at a time. It's very important to find someone kind and wise to discuss your questions with. Take your time, eternity isn't going anywhere.

Story_Bud

no man its not that its just over the last two weeks i didnt have to get up early for school so i was sleeping in a lot and couldn't get to sleep at normal time so i was inclined to stay up a lot later than usual and it seems to still be with me even after i returned to school but im sure it will go back to normal soon

The Quadratic Equation

Story_Bud wrote: »

well i had read through only a little bit of the bible online just to see how others compared to douay rheims and im glad i purchased it! I really dont thing i am being charged much to be fair others online are much dearer for the exact same copy, sure others where cheaper but i felt this is really the one i wanted! Downloading wouldn't feel right and i cannot wait to have it in my hands .. it is something i will hold close to my heart !

I'd say you bought a quality copy that will last for life, and therefore it's actually a bargain, if you read and study it will be the best €55 you ever spent.
€55 would not even pay for one night on the piss.

wolfsbane

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards the formal definition of the canon, the debate (and the formal decrees) in the church revolved around identifying the canonical works, rather than on identifying the exact text of those works. In a world in which the texts existed in manuscript form only, agreeing the exact text might have seemed a bit of a stretch. And, remember, the Christians were coming from a Jewish background which was well used to dealing with scriptures which existed in a variety of forms and variations (and indeed translations); they didn’t see this as a huge problem.

Identifying the text of a canonical work has always been the work of biblical scholarship, rather than of formal teaching. The question scholars ask is not “were these particular words inserted by the original author?” - many of the canonical texts have more than one author, and many went through a significant complilation/redaction/editing process beforing being received as canonical, but “do these words form part of the text received as canonical by the Jewish people (for OT works)/the church (for NT works)?” And, since reception as canonical is itself a process which can stretch over a long period, the question need not always have a simple yes/no answer.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the Council of Trent “defended” the comma. I don’t think the comma was a matter of dispute between the Catholics and the Reformers. Trent defined the canon as the works as “contained in the old Latin Vulgate”; I don’t know whether the status of the comma was uppermost in their minds when they framed these words, but the comma does not appear in editions of the Vulgate prepared before around 800, which makes it at least arguable that the comma was not included in the dogmatic definition. But the comma certainly appeared in editions of the Vulgate which were current at the time of the Council, and continued to appear until relatively recently so, if it was arguable, it doesn’t appear that the argument was advanced very strongly.

There doesn’t appear to have been any controversy about this until the nineteenth century. This is probably because the comma was included in the King James Bible which (at least in the English-speaking world), was enormously influential among Protestants. By the nineteenth century, however, scriptural scholarship was much further advanced, and more and more translations were issued which omitted the comma, or bracketed it, or relegated it to a footnote. According to Wikipedia, the first official Catholic pronouncement dealing explicitly with the comma came only in 1897, to the effect that it was “unsafe” to dispute the comma. This was followed in 1927 by a ruling that the comma could be disputed. There has never been an explicit teaching that the comma is, or is not, canonical.

Thanks for that good detail.

I took my understaning of Trent's position from the Wiki article:
Council of Trent
The Vulgate was given an official capacity by the Council of Trent (1545–1563) as the touchstone of the Biblical canon concerning which parts of books are canonical. When the council listed the books included in the canon, it qualified the books as being "entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition". There are 76 books in the edition authorized by the council: 46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, and three in the Apocrypha. This decree was clarified somewhat by Pope Pius XI on June 2, 1927, who allowed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute, and it was further explicated by Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.
The council then went on to cite Sacred Tradition in support of the Vulgate's magisterial authority:
Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

Note especially the quote from Trent: "entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition"

Surely that would have included the Comma, as it was part of the text read in the RCC at the time?

*********************************************************************
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Peregrinus

wolfsbane wrote: »

. . . Note especially the quote from Trent: "entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition"

Surely that would have included the Comma, as it was part of the text read in the RCC at the time?

“As they have been used to be read in the Catholic church” includes not only what is currently read (as of the date of the Council of Trent), but what has been read at all times since the Vulgate translation was produced, down to the (then) current time. Hence it includes both the earlier versions of the Vulgate, which omitted the comma, and the later, which included it.

And I think the additional words “as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition” suggests that, if there is a discrepancy between different versions of the Vulgate (as, on this particular matter, there was) then the older editions (presumed to have been less corrupted by transcription and copying errors) are to be preferred over the later. And, of course, the older editions omit the comma.

Story_Bud

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I'd say you bought a quality copy that will last for life, and therefore it's actually a bargain, if you read and study it will be the best €55 you ever spent.
€55 would not even pay for one night on the piss.

Ya i just received it there certainly a very large and thick bible i am glad i have bought this and not a smaller pocket sized version money well spent and i wouldn't waste my money on drink

The Quadratic Equation

Story_Bud wrote: »

Ya i just received it there certainly a very large and thick bible i am glad i have bought this and not a smaller pocket sized version money well spent and i wouldn't waste my money on drink

Thats the easy bit done, now the next bit is where most people fail : reading and studying it in full. Just because you have one, doesn't mean it will sink in by Osmosis or by casually reading just a few odd books and chapters.

wolfsbane

Peregrinus wrote: »

“As they have been used to be read in the Catholic church” includes not only what is currently read (as of the date of the Council of Trent), but what has been read at all times since the Vulgate translation was produced, down to the (then) current time. Hence it includes both the earlier versions of the Vulgate, which omitted the comma, and the later, which included it.

And I think the additional words “as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition” suggests that, if there is a discrepancy between different versions of the Vulgate (as, on this particular matter, there was) then the older editions (presumed to have been less corrupted by transcription and copying errors) are to be preferred over the later. And, of course, the older editions omit the comma.

OK. But I'm surprised that the RCC hasn't been able to identify the correct text of Scripture.

I understand why the rest of us must struggle to do so, but with Apostolic Succession and Papal Infallibility I should expect one pronouncement sufficient to identify the true text. If infallible ruling can be given on the Immaculate Conception of Mary and other subjects, surely the identity of the Bible text ought to be likewise certain?

******************************************************************
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Peregrinus

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK. But I'm surprised that the RCC hasn't been able to identify the correct text of Scripture.

I understand why the rest of us must struggle to do so, but wAith Apostolic Succession and Papal Infallibility I should expect one pronouncement sufficient to identify the true text. If infallible ruling can be given on the Immaculate Conception of Mary and other subjects, surely the identity of the Bible text ought to be likewise certain?

The claim of the Catholic church to infallibility is certainly an extravagant one but, despite this (or perhaps because of this) it is a charism exercised sparingly, and with great care.

But it doesn’t seem to me that this is a particularly Catholic problem. Never mind the exact text of the Gospel of John; ask yourself how do any of us know that any version of the Gospel of John is inspired scripture? (And of course you could ask yourself the same question about any other book of the bible.)

Sure, if you go into a bookshop and buy a nice leather-bound book with “Bible” in gold letters on the spine, the Gospel of John will be in it. But we hardly rely on the authority of the printer or publisher to decree that this work is scripture inspired by God.

Remember, there was a time in the early church when the Gospel of John did not exist. And there must have been a time, after the Gospel of John was written, when some Christians either hadn’t heard of it, or doubted its inspiration by God, or simply treated it as a reliable record without ever asking themselves if it was inspired by God. And the text itself makes no claim to divine inspiration or scriptural status.

The fact is that we regard it as scriptural because, in time, the church came to discern that it was a text inspired by God (and that other texts, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, were not.)

In short, even the most fervent sola scriptura Protestant Christian, in treating the Gospel of John as inspired scripture, is placing his faith in the tradition of the church. Without that tradition, he has no basis on which to name the Gospel of John (or anything else) as scripture. By proclaiming his belief in the authority of John as scripture, he is - implicitly if not explicitly - treating the tradition of the church on this particular question as reliable and inerrant. There is no possilbility in his faith that John is not scripture, because the church - guided by the Spirit - cannot have erred in discerning it to be scripture.

Right. So now turn your question around. Given that the church had - and still has, presumably - the authority and gift of discerning scripture, why didn’t the church explicitly discern a specific text as scriptural, rather than simply naming a text which existed in numerous manuscripts with many variations?

The answer must be, because the Spirit did not inspire the church to do that.

And, even if you accept the Catholic understanding of how the church’s authority is exercised through the office of the Pope, if the spirit doesn’t inspire the church to canonize a particular text, why would we expect the Spirit to inspire the church to canonize a particular text through the pope?

wolfsbane

Peregrinus wrote: »

The claim of the Catholic church to infallibility is certainly an extravagant one but, despite this (or perhaps because of this) it is a charism exercised sparingly, and with great care.

But it doesn’t seem to me that this is a particularly Catholic problem. Never mind the exact text of the Gospel of John; ask yourself how do any of us know that any version of the Gospel of John is inspired scripture? (And of course you could ask yourself the same question about any other book of the bible.)

Sure, if you go into a bookshop and buy a nice leather-bound book with “Bible” in gold letters on the spine, the Gospel of John will be in it. But we hardly rely on the authority of the printer or publisher to decree that this work is scripture inspired by God.

Remember, there was a time in the early church when the Gospel of John did not exist. And there must have been a time, after the Gospel of John was written, when some Christians either hadn’t heard of it, or doubted its inspiration by God, or simply treated it as a reliable record without ever asking themselves if it was inspired by God. And the text itself makes no claim to divine inspiration or scriptural status.

The fact is that we regard it as scriptural because, in time, the church came to discern that it was a text inspired by God (and that other texts, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, were not.)

In short, even the most fervent sola scriptura Protestant Christian, in treating the Gospel of John as inspired scripture, is placing his faith in the tradition of the church. Without that tradition, he has no basis on which to name the Gospel of John (or anything else) as scripture. By proclaiming his belief in the authority of John as scripture, he is - implicitly if not explicitly - treating the tradition of the church on this particular question as reliable and inerrant. There is no possilbility in his faith that John is not scripture, because the church - guided by the Spirit - cannot have erred in discerning it to be scripture.

Right. So now turn your question around. Given that the church had - and still has, presumably - the authority and gift of discerning scripture, why didn’t the church explicitly discern a specific text as scriptural, rather than simply naming a text which existed in numerous manuscripts with many variations?

The answer must be, because the Spirit did not inspire the church to do that.

And, even if you accept the Catholic understanding of how the church’s authority is exercised through the office of the Pope, if the spirit doesn’t inspire the church to canonize a particular text, why would we expect the Spirit to inspire the church to canonize a particular text through the pope?

Yes, I accept John's Gospel as infallible Scripture on the basis of the historic testimony of the Church (and the internal witness of the Spirit). We can see it was received from the beginning. But you confuse the Church with the RCC. John's Gospel was received as Scripture long before Rome grasped for power.

My problem remains: why would the Spirit move the pope to infallibly proclaim other matters, but leave us without a clear definition of all the Biblical text, the very word of God?

Just musing, for as you know, I regard the RCC claims to infallibility as entirely bogus. ISAW's comment on the comma Johanneum set me wondering.

*****************************************************************
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Quadratic Equation

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I accept John's Gospel as infallible Scripture on the basis of the historic testimony of the Church (and the internal witness of the Spirit). We can see it was received from the beginning.

So why do you ignore many other teachings of the early church and follow 16th Century German invented personality cults and political agendas ?

PDN

For goodness sake! Wolfsbane and Quadratic Equation, take your Protestant/Catholic squabble to the the thread designated for that purpose.