Jehovah's Witnesses: About your Bible versions?

You seem to be very ignorant of the origin of the Bible and its history. The following may help you from my blog:

In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. We know this because it is quoted in the New Testament. This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the AKJ originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration.

The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians was decided in the Jewish Council of Jamnia because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ.

Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose Canon but the Church deferred that decision to Christ and the disciples and it is clear through biblical research, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by the first century Church and quoted in the NT Scriptures. The fact that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that accused our Lord that resulted in His crucifixion suggests the source of this confusion as from the father of lies who led the Pharisees to accuse Christ and petition for His punishment. It is another way that Satan divides the body of Christ and separates the faithful denying Christ’s prayer that we all be one in Christ through His Church. The Christian Church has always used the Septuagint as Canon and never the truncated version of modernist Protestants.

Some Protestants erroneously believe that Catholics added to the Bible with the Deuterocanonicals but this shows an ignorance of their own history and the history of Christianity as witnessed by Christ’s Church. The facts are that the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals and even considered strongly to remove some of the NT books currently in use by Protestants and Catholics. Fr. Martin Luther was in favor of removing the book of James because it conflicted with His heretical man made doctrines of the “Solas”, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The heretic Ulrich Zwingli wanted to remove the Gospel of John because of its teaching of the commandment to Eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood which contradicted his view of a real absence of Christ instead of a real presence in the Eucharist. Even Fr. Martin Luther could not endorse such a departure from Scriptures and deny that Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

Note: You will never find the Church or any Catholic Christian trying to disprove anything in the

Bible. Why would we write the New Testament of the Bible and canonize the entirety of the Bible and then try to disprove anything it says. We do however try at every opportunity to set people straight on their private interpretations of the Scripture which is actually forbidden in God's Word. Instead it should be understood within the community of the Church established by Christ, the Catholic Church. After all it is the Church with the fullness of truth and is truly the bulwark and foundation of the truth as the Bible states. I suspect you would not agree with the Bible when it disagrees with your private prejudice.

Note: I reread your commentary and could not find these points you claim to have been made. What did you claim from the Bible that needs to be refuted? Perhaps you should review what you wrote.

Yun, while the RCC has many doctrines that are totally from pagan beginnings there are things about them that isn't completely evil. They did write their encyclopedia and now it is open so anyone can view it and do research in it. Most just choose not to. Therefore, they don't care enough about God or his son, Jesus to "continue making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord". The RCC has no problem putting down in writing all the things they are doing wrong. Why? Because they know that their followers are too lazy to do the research.

Anti-Christ simply means opposers of Christ. Which means, yes, the Pope is an Anti-Christ but so are atheists, Buddhist, Hindus, and this list goes on and on.

As for using the same Bible for reference in our versions is a no brainer. The Catholic church is an old religion. They were the ones who banned Bibles during the dark ages, No one could own a Bible other than the church. People were burnt to death, beaten, tortured, publicly humiliated, spit on, put in stocks, stoned, whipped etc. if they were found with a Bible. So, just exactly where were we to find one at if not at the Catholic church. Sure there were other writings around such as the Koran and Torah but these do not have the Greek Scriptures in them,.

This is nothing but a rant.

What I've gathered from this "question" is this: "Catholics don't agree with me. Therefore, they must be twisting the history. Deny, deny, deny."

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

"First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon while falling short of the Orthodox canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as Apocrypha)." Oops!

And where is your proof that the Bible was around during the 100s? Where? That's what I thought. The Old Testament maybe, but not the Christian Bible.

I'm not a Catholic by the way.

Are you saying Jesus was wrong for using the Hebrew Scriptures?

And while I do believe Witnesses think the church has prostituted herself, never have I heard the pope described by any Witnesses as the "Anti-Christ" but hey...I'm getting used to being told what it is I believe in here!

Gee, I never thought about that. Much less do I have a sixth grade education and have barely overcome every addiction I could bury myself in and finally somehow managing to fly out of the sewer just to land, like a fly on this book that some bum threw away and lo and behold what do you know, it turns out to be something blessed and from the heavens above. I absorb it and eventually am able to even think of myself as something more than just a fly stuck in the muck. Feeling saved I find it to be related to people who, like me, have managed to pull themselves up and into the light of a better life. And that is what I see when I see any of them walking up and down the streets. People who are trying to better their lives. Much less be concerned about things like the pictures of Shangrila with the kids picnicking with the lions and all when we reach Glory. That is milk. The real Meat is reality and we all are products of it in one way or the other.

Not to mention that the Bible itself was compiled by the Catholic Church from its own writings and for its own use.