Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Differences Between Catholic True Bible And Protestant False Bible.


Catholic And Protestant Bibles
The Old Testament
The Protestant Old Testament omits several entire books and parts of two other books. To explain how this came about, it is necessary that we go back to the ancient Jewish Scriptures. The
Hebrew Bible contained only the Old Testament and from its Old Testament it excluded seven entire books - namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Machabees - and parts of Esther (10:14 to 16:14) and Daniel (3:24- 90; 13; 14).
These books which are missing in the Jewish Bible came to the Catholic Church with the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint Version they are placed among and given equal rank with the other Old Testament books as in our Catholic Bible today. Since the Hebrew is older than the Septuagint Bible, the list of books in the former is called the first canon or collection while the catalog of books in the latter is called the second canon or collection. The seven additional books are found only in the second collection and always associated with it.
Jewish opposition to the additional books of the second collection was due to the circumstances in which the Jews lived and to the spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ the Jews - because of the captivities, persecutions and antagonisms from outside nations became more and more conservative and looked with increasing suspicion on anything that was new. Since the additional books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek - the language of paganism - they naturally aroused the opposition of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this translation of the Old Testament.
The Protestants of the sixteenth century objected to the additional books because of the doctrinal teachings of these books. The Second Book of Machabees, for example, contains the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (12:39-46). The book of Tobias teaches the importance in the eyes of God of good works. The Protestants could not reject some without excluding all of the additional books. Hence, in drawing up their list of Old Testament books they went back to the first collection of Biblical books of the Palestinian Jews. They removed the additional books, which had been in the Bible up till 1517 and placed them at the end of the Bible in a special appendix. In addition, they labelled them as "apocryphal" (spurious, uninspired), a designation which helped to lower them in the estimation of Protestant readers.
The Lutheran and Anglican Bibles still carry these books in the appendix or give them at least a secondary place. But the other Protestant churches reject them entirely. In 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided not to print or handle Bibles that contained the additional books and not to aid financially companies that published Bibles containing them. As a result these books have practically disappeared from Protestant Bibles.
The Catholic Church has always considered these books as inspired and of the same rank as the other Old Testament books. Her attitude is based upon the following facts:
1) The Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. In fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint.
2) Some of the New Testament writers made use of the additional books themselves, particularly of the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul's favorite volume. The Epistle of St. James - to take another example - shows an acquaintance with the Book of Ecclesiasticus. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the additional books, did they not thereby approve the entire Septuagint collection?
3) The additional books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the book of Judith, and quotes from the additional sections of the book of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers.
4) The oldest Christian Bibles in existence (Codex Vaticanus, etc.) contain the additional books intermingled with the rest, just as we find them in the Catholic Bibles today.
5) The oldest Christian lists of Biblical books contain the additional books. In 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council issued a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Bibles.
6) Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries - especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries - furnishes among others the following illustrations from the additional books: Tobias with the fish (Tobias 6), Susanna (Daniel 13), Daniel and the dragon (Daniel 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:49), Habacuc and Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel 14:35).
In conclusion, let us point out that since they follow the synagogue in their rejection of the additional books of the Old Testament, the Protestants should in all logic follow it in its rejection of the New Testament and of Christ Himself.
The Apocryphal Books
The Protestants often designate as "apocryphal" those seven books and those sections which their Bibles omit from the Old Testament. The Catholics object to this title. These books are regarded by the Church as inspired. They formed a part of the Bible of united Christendom before the Protestant revolt, and Christian antiquity was practically unanimous in regarding them as of divine origin.
But what, then, do Catholics mean by "apocryphal" books? The word "apocryphal" is derived from the Greek "apokryphos" and means something hidden or secret. The religious books of ancient pagans were called Apocrypha because they were kept carefully concealed in the temple and shown only to full-fledged members who were wholly initiated into the mysteries of religion. Books forged by magicians were also called Apocrypha because they were thought to contain hidden secrets.
Gradually, however, the word "apocryphal" came to have a very specific meaning. It came to be applied to a class of books, which pretended to possess divine authority and Scriptural rank but which never succeeded in obtaining a place among the books of the Bible. These Books were composed during the last two centuries before Christ or during the early centuries of the Christian era. The authors remained unknown or wrote under a fictitious name. Some of these books contain false and heretical doctrines, others aim at satisfying a foolish curiosity about Biblical personages, others strive to edify. Their value lies in setting forth, by contrast, the superior character of the inspired books and in furnishing to the Biblical scholar interesting information about the customs and conditions of the times.
The apocryphal books are divided into two groups - into the Old and the New Testament apocrypha. a) The Old Testament apocrypha supplement the inspired Old Testament books with fictitious stories about some patriarch or prophet, forged Messianic prophecies, or pious exhortations and precepts. Examples of this group are the Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, Ascension of Isaias, etc. b) The New Testament apocrypha strive to supplement and amplify matters either briefly mentioned in the inspired books or omitted entirely. Their favorite topics are the Infancy of Our Lord and His sojourn on earth after the Resurrection. They contain much that is silly, legendary and dis-edifying. The portrait of Our Lord contradicts in many respects that of the Gospel, and their accounts of Him contain much that is doctrinally unsound and heretical. As many as fifty Gospels, twenty- two Acts, and many Epistles and Apocalypses were known to have belonged to this group at one time.
The New Testament
The Protestant New Testament contains the same books as the Catholic New Testament. Although Luther showed great hostility to St. James's Epistle because of its doctrine of the necessity of good works and contemptuously called it an "epistle of straw," he clearly saw that he had no more reason for excluding that book than he had for rejecting the other books of the New Testament. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic New Testament arise from changes in specific passages in various books of the New Testament.
In the passage from I Corinthians 11:27, "Whosoever shall eat this bread OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord," the Authorized Version (AV) of King James replaced "or" by "and." Inspired by doctrinal and anti-Catholic bias, the editors purposely changed the text in order to remove the argument for communion under one kind. Today all Scriptural scholars agree that "OR drink the chalice" is the correct reading. Modern critical Protestant editions of the Bible - the Revised Version and the Standard Version - have rejected the reading of the Authorized Version and restored the old or Rheims-Douay reading.
A further deliberate change in the interest of the Protestant doctrine on original sin is introduced into several passages. The Reformers, as we know, maintained that human nature was essentially corrupted by the Fall. Man's intellect is positively darkened and his free will destroyed.
In I Corinthians 7:9 where the Rheims-Douay Version reads: "If they do not contain themselves, let them marry"; the Authorized Version changed the passage to read: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry." The same Authorized Version changes "do not" to "cannot do" in Galatians 5:17: "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary to one another, so that you do not the things that you would." The aim of the editors in both instances was to introduce into the Scriptures the false Lutheran doctrine concerning the total depravity of human nature because of original sin. St. Paul is made to affirm that a Christian cannot lead a stainless virtuous life. The critical editions of the bible, however - the Revised and Standard Versions-refused to adopt this reading and returned to the reading of the Rheims-Douay.
To the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13, the Authorized Version adds the doxology or the long ending: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." The Revised Version, however, as well as all critical editions, omit this doxology - and correctly so. The doxology is not a part of the Lord's Prayer. It is not found in St. Luke's version of the Our Father.
In St. Matthew's Gospel, the intimate connection between verses 13 and 14 shows that the original text had no clause between the two verses. The long ending is not found in two of the oldest extant Bibles - namely, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus. In the course of time, however, the doxology began to appear on the margin or was written in the text with red ink, until finally in some later manuscripts it becomes a part of the Bible. According to the almost unanimous opinion of scholars the doxology is an interpolation which worked its way into some Bibles from the early Christian liturgy.
The King James Version (AV) also adopted the Protestant form of the Gloria in excelsis Deo in Luke 2:14. Before considering the intrinsic merits of this reading, let us compare it with the reading in the Revised Version (RV) and Standard Version (SV) and in the Rheims-Douay Version (RD):
AV - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."
RV and SV - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased."
RD - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will."
These quotations show that the reading of the Revised and Standard Versions and that of the Catholic Bible are substantially the same. Hence we need consider only the AV reading and the RD reading. The Protestant version of the Angelic hymn consists of three clauses, the Catholic version of two clauses. The Catholic version is better attested because it is found in the oldest and best extant Bibles. Internal reasons likewise favor the RD reading. In the Protestant version we should expect ant "and" before the third clause. The RD version gives us two parallel clauses, each containing three ideas parallel to the other:
In the highest . . . glory . . . to God.
On earth. . . peace . . . to men of good will.
Opinions are divergent as to the interpretation of the phrase, "men of good will." Does "good will" signify a disposition or quality of the soul? If it does, the angel announces his tidings of peace to the well-disposed among men. This view is open to two objections: first, nowhere in the New Testament is the Greek original of "good will" used to signify the state of men's will in relation to God; second, this interpretation robs the message of its grand, comprehensive mercy. Christ died for all men and sent a message of peace to all men. God by the giving of His Son has shown His mercy to the whole world. The good will of God as it proceeds from God is universal, for He wishes all men to be saved. In every sense, therefore, the message of peace was to all men. Men are called "men of goodwill" in the sense that they are. men enjoying the benevolence of God, the objects of God's redeeming will, or of His will - to save them all.
Discussion Aids
Set I
     1. What seven books, and parts of two others, were not found in the Hebrew Old Testament?
     2. When were these seven books added to the Greek Old Testament?
     3. Why were the Jews opposed to these seven books?
     4. Why did the Protestants of the sixteenth century object to these books?
     5. When did these books definitely disappear from Protestant Bibles?
     6. Give five reasons why the Catholic Church accepts these books.

Set II
     1. Were the Protestants justified in labelling these books as "Apocryphal"?
     2. What was the meaning of the word "Apocryphal"?
          a) in ancient times?
          b) in the last two centuries before Christ?
     3. Discuss the author, purpose and value of the apocrypha.
     4. Describe the Old Testament apocrypha; New Testament apocrypha.
     5. When is the term "apocryphal" used in an objectional manner?

Set III
     1. Why was Luther opposed to St. James's Epistle?
     2. What change did the King James Bible introduce into I Corinthians 11:27?
     3. What changes introduced by the King James Bible were inspired by the Reformers' doctrine on original sin?
     4. Was the long ending, which Protestants today add to the Lord's Prayer, contained in the first and oldest Bibles?
     5. What is the correct division and interpretation of the Angelic Hymn, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will"?

Religious Practices
     1. I will always be grateful to the Catholic Church for preserving for me the priceless treasures of truth contained in the additional books of the Old Testament.
     2. I will imitate Tobias by manifesting outwardly through good works the faith that is within me.
     3. I will heed the lesson of II Machabees 13:46 and pray frequently for the dead.

Back

--------------------------------

I found this somewhere online tonight - Feb 25, 2013 - And I thought it was so good, well written, and informative ,....I reprinted it here via copy and paste without permission ,..but it's so good,..I don't care ! I was googling 'Differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles" ,... plagiarism be damned !

Friday, February 8, 2013

Beatles 'REVOLVER' (1966) REVIEW I wrote @ Amazon.Com

The Beatles Revolver ( 1966 ).





This album, released in one of rock music's most pinnacle years - and a very testing important make or break time for the Beatles themselves too - Shoots right straight out of the cannon immediately with two of the Beatles most all time Greatest Songs ,...those two being of course the riveting majestic Taxman with it's heavy guitars ,..as the classic 'lead off track' ( and to set the pace for lead off tunes to come for years from other bands )  ,..AND FROM GEORGE NO LESS ?? ( Strangely for a Lead Off - Where's John ?? ) !! - followed by Paul's mini-epic violin-laced monster Cut Elinore Rigby ,... but after these two dynamic lead off tunes,..things begin to go bad and quick ( a first for the mighty Beatle albums collection  ) immediately for the band as they lay out a confusing and almost lost way collection of works - many of which have nothing to do with each other ( and are too short in minutes,.. ) ,..or far too much ,..and always in a bad worst Way !! John's dreary acoustic  "I'm Only Sleeping" begins the carnage early ,... I don't care what the scared and defending critics say ,...THIS IS A BAD BEATLES SONG ,...AND I DON'T LIKE IT MUCH ,... I find myself turning it off,.. the same way I would turn off an Early Beatles Cover tune on their many many early albums, and curiously seeking out their 'originals' along with the throngs of other smart fans !! It is indeed a somewhat 'Innovative" idea for it's time ,... YES indeed admittedly ,..but it is not as remarkable or memorably brilliant as it might have been and could have been ,.... Things move in a bad way from there too as the George 1966 Version of his Sgt. Pepper '67 better track 'Within you Without You' ,..... "Love You too" is a tepid demo ,..Yes, very innovative - Like 'Tomorrow Never Knows" ( And others here are ) is too ,... but a weak-ish track indeed ....and YES: undeniable too ,... 

,....And 
One of the things about Revolver that probably Fucking gauls me the most is that while other bands were getting into the garages in 66' and creating a raw blues infused hard rock sound ( Think The Standells, the Moving Sidewalks, Count Five,.. etc,..) or getting sophisticated bluesy and deep ( The Animals) or getting creatively weird and energetically dynamic ( The Who A Quick One ) .. the Beatles were busy doing 'this' Over-Produced shit and stunningly with the usually Great George Martin twiddling the console knobs  ,..and Yes, the many weak McCartney tracks here on this record ( For No One, Good Day Sunshine, Got to get you into my Life, Here, there, and Everywhere) are only marginally worse than the sheepish Lennon Losers like Dr. Robert ,.,
Yes, there is some good news everywhere on Revolver that most critic people won't and or can't deny ,... "And your bird can Sing' is excellent even though miserably dreary uptemp rrrrock ... and even unusual for John - a very busy guitar driven impressively arranged and well played song instrumentally as it backs up the Beatles Humble Claim as Numero-Uno with in-your-face angst and applom  ,..and it is a somewhat stunning winner smack in the middle of this album ,..that makes the whole album better for it - and really work !!,..still, AYBCS would probably not measure up on Rubber Soul or even 'Help' as being as good as a track as those on those records - that being said, it is very respectable Beatles indeed !
George's "I Want to tell You" is a pleasant surprise !! A Good solid song - and quite melodic and Garage-ish heavy too ,..but no way is it in the league of Harrison's finest works ! John's "She Said She Said" is a novel instant classic and today an almost beyond well produced-Garage rock n roll relic of a better music time long ago !! These two songs show Beatle growth and maturity ,..that sadly ended there ,..and the Beatles never later expanded upon ,..as there was no time as they almost immediately went into work and Production on the far superior to this 1967 Gem "Sgt Pepper",... On a scale of one to ten ,..I only give Revolver a very generous 6 ,..or even a five and a half ,....because this album could have been so much better !! 'Had it maybe been Produced By Pete Townshend and Eric Burdon !! In closing I will say that the "American Version" of Rubber Soul is way better ( So too is the British Version unfortunately  ) ,..and today, looking back,..the Beatle's Revolver Period seems like their weakest era - a trough,... ,...a time when the Beatles were giving up and no longer cared as much ( and that's really what they were at the time as they quit playing Live as they had to .....due to being dog-tired ),..( Note: funny to see now that it was after just two or three short brief Beatle years of fame ) { Today's bands last much longer - and today's bands probably 'should' quit earlier ,..as they certainly are in no league with the likes of the Mighty Beatles !! } ,...Anyway,... There is nothing on Revolver even close to as amusing as the Who's Happy Jack ,..or has the power and message of 'Substitute' ,... What Revolver 'IS' though ,.'is' very innovative,... this album is easy to take for granted as there is some impressive Production and stuff everywhere,.. ( Paul's ideas are laden with horns, Pianos, strings, etc,..Bizarre for that time  ,..like for example GTGYIML ,,..this song sounds like 1967 already and I hate to Say !! ....bad song and all !! What this album clearly shows me,..is the Whole thing was one big 'demo' for Sgt. Pepper, as it pointed way to what the Beatles' "Future" might sound like ... even though, really ,..and weirdly ,..this recording sounds nothing at all really like Pepper,.. or basically any Beatle releases to come after it ,...
I like Magical Mystery Tour Much more ,.. and yes, frankly ,..the White Album too of course ,..though it is indeed unfair to compare these eras,... The White Album has moments that can strike some as let downs while being good in general as a whole over-all while,.. ,..as so too can the tedious Satanism of Pepper ,..and of course the Beatles very under-rated Let it Be ,..I find to be better than this one too somehow,... it's just something about the atmosphere ,..i don't know,..

Oh Sorry ,... I almost Forgot,..the Beatles Brilliant 'Yellow Submarine" is somehow a part of this album in history strangely ,..and REALLY IS one solid reason why they say Revolver is so damn great !! This way-ahead of it's time silly but masterful song sounds like 1968 already !! ( Or maybe the confusion of looking back in time and seeing it re-released in 68' with the Soundtrack for the said Movie has miffed me ,..and others too ) ...

Oh well ,...maybe I should move it now up to 7 ,..from 6 ,..

HOLD ON !!!

I take it all back ,...THIS 'IS' A GREAT ALBUM NOW !!

A Classic !! BUY IT !! 

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED !!

===========

Final Notes;

The McCartney Junk that is ALL OVER THIS album is virtually unforgivable and John's amazing 'Tomorrow Never knows' ( weirdly the first track recorded in these sessions ) cannot save it ,.... Oddly, GEORGE Turns out to be SOMEHOW the - not so reluctant too - ....STAR of this album !!

This album explodes off to a Great Start ,..but then stumbles ,.. a first for the Beatles  ( Just think about the brilliance of Beatles For Sale '64 and songs like "What Your Doing" and "Every Little thing"  ) ,.. and I find myself listening to Revolver often quite attentively more as a yearning hopeful guilty pleasure than a thorough enjoyable musical experience like say a Sgt. Pepper listening would do,..

This Album is no White Album - not even close - and there is nothing on it as killer as 'I Am the Walrus" either ,... and Rubber Soul - before it - blows it completely away ,....

But all in all ,... this album had to be made ,..and exactly as is ,..to get from point A to point C and D ,.. in other words, the Beatles 'had to' take weird chances and experiment -,... to get to Sgt. Pepper and the White Album later,..,... and they did that here !!