Christian Question

[curlymae29]

As we know the result of sin is death.

So it is assumed that Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they hadn't disobeyed God and ate of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil

But....isn't the result of sin an eternal death? Not the physical death.

Genesis 3:22-24 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

My question:

Would they have lived forever?

[ckerr4]

The way I read it is that if he had eaten from the tree of life, then he would have lived forever (and Eve too if she had done so).

I'm assuming it would have been a one time thin, not a trait that would have been passed on.

That's always my first reaction.

[janelle]

I think they would have lived forever and all their desendents would have lived forever as well. No sin then no death. Death is a very sad thing for humans to endure so if Adam and Eve did go on to a place like heaven then they would have ascended into it like Jesus did from earth to heaven.

[angelinwaiting]

I agree with janelle...I think they would have lived forever if they had been obediant..

[janelle]

Can you imagine Adam and Eve and all their decendents being obedient when the devil was tempting them so much? Someone had to mess up somewhere at sometime with free will. Maybe Adam and Eve were stronger than all of us with no sin in Paradise yet, but even they messed up. I got a few questions to ask God someday. LOL

[BeanieLuvR]

Originally posted by angelinwaiting
I agree with janelle...I think they would have lived forever if they had been obediant..

Me too.

[samzmom]

Hi Curly!!!

I believe that there was no sin and death until the fall and that Adam and Eve's act of disobedience is what allowed death to enter the world. Jesus, as the second Adam, lived the perfect life that we could not (because of the decision made by Adam, as the "corporate head" of the human race.)"

The result of sin is deffinately an eternal, spiritual death but we also see that the result of sin can be physical...murder, disease, addictions.

I think that they would have lived forever. Love ya, Coe<><

PS...MrsP is looking for ya. ;)

<img src=http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/linie/smiley-linie-001.gif>

If you can't be grateful for what you have...be grateful for what you are spared.

"I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked." Psalm 84:10

[MommyG3]

I agree with Janelle too.

[janelle]

And I believe Mary was the second Eve. She was born without original sin so she was able to be the mother of God (Jesus) and to nurture him in her womb--a sinless place for Jesus to grow. And when she gave birth to Jesus she had no labor pains like Eve wouldn't have had any labor pains. But after sin came into the world pain came with it. Mary was spared that pain as all women whould have if sin hadn't come into the world. And I believe she remained a virgin her whole life. How Jesus was born is a mystery but she didn't lose her virginity.

[ladybreaker]

A. they would have lived forever-walking with god in the garden of eden.
B. there would be no decendents--no sin=no lustfull thoughts=no sex
C.believe it or not,it was all in god's plan to defeat satan that adam and eve would eat from the tree of life and sin!

why???????he needed more than adam and eve to wage war with satan when the end times are upon us.hell was filled with satan's legions and the fallen angels he took from heaven with him

ladybreaker

[ladybreaker]

one more thing--mary was not a virgin her whole life!!Jesus had many brothers and sisters born after him!!!!!and all women--including eve--suffered the pain of childbirth.it was in the curse from god when they ate from the tree of life.

[janelle]

I'm talking about what the Catholic church teaches. Mary was ever virgin. In the days of Christ, cousins were also called brothers and sisters.

Mary did not suffer pain at child birth because she was the new Eve and born without original sin so she could nurture Jesus in her womb. After Adam and Eve commited sin all their desendents were born with sin. That was the punishment of Adam and Eve's sin. Adam had to labor by the sweat of his brow and Eve would bring forth children in the pain of child birth. It's in the bible.

But God had a different plan for Mary when He chose her to give birth to His Son. Jesus was to come into this world just as any other human but he wasn't born from a human man but conceived by the Holy Spirit using Mary as His earthly mother.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception. This is greatly misunderstood even by some Catholics. Mary was born without the stain of original sin so she is called The Immaculate Conception not Jesus. Jesus was born from a virgin---"virgin birth". No human man was involved and she was ever virgin. She bore Jesus without pain of child birth since she wasn't burdened by the sin of Adam and Eve.

When Jesus was dying on the cross he looked to one of his apostles believed to be John and said to him behold your mother about Mary and said to Mary behold your son about John. That is to tell John that from that day forth he was to take Mary into his house and take care of her as though she was his mother. No need to do this if he was already her son or had other sons.

This shows Jesus's great love for his earthly mother Mary to say something about her from the cross while he was dying. We love Mary so much because Jesus loved her so.

[ladybreaker]

ummmmmmmm...........ok..........my bible is very different from yours then.i never knew they would be different??ie:i read the king james version of the holy bible.where it states that mary had many more children with joseph and all women,from eve on,have and will suffer the pain of childbirth.and,that jesus is the son of god--not joseph,hence--born of the virgin mary.like i said before:no sin=no sex=no kids.mary was a virgin UNTILL she gave birth to jesus.HE is the immaculate conception--not her.he was fathered by god.

[janelle]

Yes the Catholic bible has more books to it than the Protestant bible. Some books where gotten rid of with the Reformation. Also we rely on Doctors of the Church who have studied the Jewish people and debated all this hundreds of times. What does the bible mean when it says this and this. The Imaculate Conception is not the same as virgin birth. The church thinks more of sex than to call virgin birth an immaculate conception. Sex is not dirty. Sex is sacred within marriage. Sex is so sacred it produces children, life.

So Mary being born without stain of sin on her soul is immaculate. Of course, Jesus was born without sin since He is God and cannot sin or be nurtured before birth in the inviorment of sin. Inside of Mary. He was born without original sin as well. But he was conceived by the Holy Spirit using Mary as the means to be born as a human. Both human and divine.

We believe Mary had no other children and remained virgin, ever virgin. I can look this point up and see just why we believe this is so. I can assure you we do have a very important reason we believe this. I'm just not a scholar on all of the churches teaching but I don't have to be since I can find the answers so easily. But the church does not teach something without a very good reason for it. Scholars have studied these things forever and the best minds who ever lived have opened the bible to us for understanding.

[ckerr4]

Ladybreaker, here's an interesting site that explains it from a Catholic point of view:

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm

Dogmas of Our Lady

The four principal dogmas relating to the Blessed Virgin Mary are:

Her title as Mother of God
Her Perpetual Virginity
Her Immaculate Conception
Her Assumption into Heaven
Bibliography


Mother of God
It is often the case that one would hear the title of "Mother of God" as applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary disparaged as "Mariolatry" or blasphemy. Such an attack is normally coupled with the opinion that Catholics give too much honour to the Virgin Mary, and that She is not so important because little is said of Her in Sacred Scripture. What justification, therefore, can there be for such a title?

In the first book of the Old Testament we read the following: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen. 3, 15). This verse, called the "protoevangelion," is the first promise of the redeeming Messiah. The woman in this verse is the Virgin Mary, Her offspring is, of course, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Despite the fact that there is distinct controversy among Biblical scholars as to whether the text should read "she", "he" or "it shall bruise"(or crush), the meaning is the same, as it is through Her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Virgin Mary crushes Satan.1

Genesis 3, 15, together with the following passages, form the basis for venerating the Virgin Mary as Mother of God:

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, His name shall be called Emmanuel (i.e., God with us)" (Is. 7, 14 [Douai]);

"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Is. 9, 6);

"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women" (St. Luke 1, 28 [Douai]);

"(St. Elizabeth to Our Lady) And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?" (St. Luke 1, 43);

"...for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (St. Luke 1, 48);

"...Woman, behold your son...(Son) behold your mother" (St. John 19, 26-27);

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail" (Rev. 11, 19). The Ark of the Covenant was a symbolic type of the Virgin Mary. The original Ark was overladen with gold and contained within itself a pot of manna, Aaron's priestly rod, and the two tables of the Ten Commandments (Heb. 9, 4). It was overshadowed by a propitiatory, or mercy seat, upon which God Himself dwelt (the Shekinah) between two statues of Cherubim (Exod. 25). It was forbidden for anyone to touch the Ark on pain of death. The Virgin Mary, in comparison, was a greater Ark, being a human creature immaculately conceived who carried within Her womb not simply the symbols of Christ, but Christ Himself. God, likewise, overshadowed Her, when the Holy Spirit conceived Christ within Her. Being a perpetual virgin, no one could, or did, "touch" Her. Joshua prostrated himself and venerated the Ark for hours (Josh. 7, 6). As "Joshua" means "Jesus" we have a type of Jesus venerating a type of Mary. Applying this to the New Testament figures themselves, it symbolically represents Jesus Christ paying veneration to His Mother.2

"A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (Rev. 12, 1);

"And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne" (Rev. 12, 5);

"Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 12, 17).

The Church distinguishes clearly between dulia, or "the homage of veneration," and latria, which signifies "the worship of adoration." Veneration is paid to the Saints; a higher form of it, called hyperdulia, is given to the Virgin Mary; but adoration is given only to God. Any attempt to give adoration to a creature would certainly be idolatrous - but the Catholic Church has never given it. She adores God and God alone.

Most Protestants abhor the title of "Mother of God" because to them it insinuates that Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary existed before God, and that God only came into existence after being born from Her. Such, of course, is an absurdity. In fact, the term "Mother of God" was defined by the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) in response to the Christological controversy ignited by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. Nestorius asserted that in Christ there existed not one divine Person with two natures, human and divine, but two Persons, one human and one divine, with two natures, human and divine. Further, these two persons were not hypostatically united, but separate, the human being insignificant compared to the divine. Consequently, the Virgin Mary, as She supplied only Christ’s human flesh and not His divinity, was only mother of Christ’s humanity and therefore in no sense could be called Mother of God. The Church, upholding that Christ was one divine Person only, and noting that Mary was the mother of this divine Person (St. John 19, 25), defined dogmatically that She could properly be called "Mother of God":

"If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the Holy Virgin is Mother of God, because she bore according to the flesh of the Word of God when He became flesh: let him be anathema."3

St. Cyril of Alexandria would continue defending of the title "Mother of God" in the years after Ephesus:

"The Word, then, was God, and He became also Man; and since He was born according to the flesh for the sake of mankind, it is necessary that she who bore Him is the Mother of God. For if she did not bear God, neither is He that was born of her to be called God. If the divinely inspired Scriptures name Him God, as God having been made man and incarnate, He could not become Man in any other way than through birth from a woman: how then should she who bore Him not be the Mother of God?"4

For the past fifteen centuries the Church has steadfastly continued to bestow the title "Mother of God" upon the Virgin Mary:

"Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. Then began the fulfillment of the splendid promise made by God to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should one day be blessed; for Mary, whom we truly proclaim and venerate as Mother of God, because she brought forth Him who is at once God and man, was descended from King David."5

"The Virgin Mary…is acknowledged and honoured as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer."6

"Glorious Theotokos…"7

"Called in the ‘the mother of Jesus,’ Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her Son, as ‘the mother of my Lord.’ In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly ‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos)."8

[ckerr4]

cont...

Perpetual Virginity
In the Bible we read the following passage:

"Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this? And they took offence at him" (St. Matt. 13, 54-57).

According to Fundamentalists, it appears clear from this passage that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters, and that the Virgin Mary did not remain a virgin all Her life. Yet, the Catholic Church asserts that the Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during, and perpetually after the birth of Christ (Ante partum, in partu, post partum), a belief re-asserted during the first decades of the Protestant reformation:

" This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity."9

The Catholic answer to this apparent contradiction is long and detailed, but decisive. There existed no special word in Hebrew or Aramaic for "cousin." The word "brother" is used in these languages generically, and does not necessarily imply children of the same parent. There are many examples in the Old Testament when the word brother was applied to any kind of relations: nephew (Gen. 12, 5), uncle (Gen. 29, 15); husband (Songs. 4, 9); a member of the same tribe (2 Kgs. 9, 13); of the same people (Exod. 2, 21); an ally (Amos 1, 9); a friend (2 Kgs. 1, 26); one of the same office (1 Sam. 9, 13).10

A number of distinguished Catholic commentators, including St. Thomas Aquinas11, actually hold that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. A vow of virginity would help explain why the Virgin Mary was so perplexed after the Angel Gabriel announced to Her that She was about to bear the Messiah. According to contemporary Jewish custom, marriage was in two stages. The first stage, or betrothal, was when the marriage was effectively made. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had concluded this stage. Sexual relationships after this point were not considered as fornication. However, we know that nothing of this kind had yet taken place between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ("How can this be, since I am a virgin?" [St. Luke 1, 34]). The second stage of marriage was the social formality of the public celebration. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph in all probability had to forego this second stage due to their flight to Egypt, nevertheless, this fact did not impugn the validity of their marriage.12

A further Protestant objection is founded on St. Matthew 1, 25 which states that St. Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus." It is argued that this passage implies that the Virgin Mary had other children by St. Joseph after giving birth to Jesus. It would be well here to reproduce the footnote commentary on St. Matthew 1, 25 from the Douai-Rheims version of the New Testament:

"St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8, 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return anymore. Also Isaias 46, 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be?...God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued?"

Further, according to the Jewish Law a child was designated as "first-born" irrespective of whether there were yet, or ever to be, subsequent children born to the same mother. This is gathered from Exodus 13, 2, which required that "every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel" be consecrated to God forty days after their birth.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: "Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: "There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome." Who is this "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?" Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the "mother of Jesus," as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as "mother of Jesus." Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: "James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James" (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the "brothers" of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. This was St. Jerome's assertion in the early fourth century:

"Suppose that the Brethren of the Lord were Joseph’s sons by another wife. But we understand the Brethren of the Lord to be not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, his mother’s sister."14

St. Augustine was no less strident in his defence of the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity:

"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."15

It would be forcing credibility to believe that the Virgin Mary and Her older "sister" both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died the Virgin Mary would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older "sister," explaining why She was travelling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word "brother" being used to refer to a first or second cousin.

It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord’s life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving His Mother to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.16

[ckerr4]

And about the differences in the bibles:

List of books in the Catholic bible:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi


Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

This is the list of books in the New American Bible, which is a pretty standard Catholic bible. Here is the preface to that bible:

Preface to the New American Bible




On September 30, 1943, His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued his now famous encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu. He wrote: "We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text."




Early in 1944, in conformity with the spirit of the encyclical, and with the encouragement of Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to the United States, the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine requested members of The Catholic Biblical Association of America to translate the sacred scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form of the text, and to present the sense of the biblical text in as correct a form as possible.





The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate. In view of the relative certainties more recently attained by textual and higher criticism, it has become increasingly desirable that contemporary translations of the sacred books into English be prepared in which due reverence for the text and strict observance of the rules of criticism would be combined.





The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that "correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books," but that, "with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that "all Christians may be able to use them."





The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.





Where the translation supposes the received text--Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be--ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. But for those who are happily able to study the original text of the scriptures at firsthand, a supplementary series of textual notes pertaining to the Old Testament was added originally in an appendix to the typical edition. (It is now obtainable in a separate booklet from The Catholic Biblical Association of America, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064.) These notes furnish a guide in those cases in which the editorial board judges that the manuscripts in the original languages, or the evidence of the ancient versions, or some similar source, furnish the correct reading of a passage, or at least a reading more true to the original than that customarily printed in the available editions.





The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek.





The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944,1 19452 ). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.





The translation of Sirach, based on the original Hebrew as far as it is preserved and corrected from the ancient versions, is often interpreted in the light of the traditional Greek text. In the Book of Baruch the basic text is the Greek of the Septuagint, with some readings derived from an underlying Hebrew form no longer extant. In the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel (3:24-91, chapter 13 and chapter 14 [these are Azariah, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon respectively in WORDsearch]), the basic text is the Greek text of Theodotion, occasionally revised according to the Greek text of the Septuagint.





In some instances in the Book of Job, in Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zechariah there is good reason to believe that the original order of lines was accidentally disturbed in the transmission of the text. The verse numbers given in such cases are always those of the current Hebrew text, though the arrangement differs. In these instances the textual notes advise the reader of the difficulty. Cases of exceptional dislocation are called to the reader's attention by footnotes.





The Books of Genesis to Ruth were first published in 1952; the Wisdom Books, Job to Sirach, in 1955; the Prophetic Books, Isaiah to Malachi, in 1961; and the Historical Books, Samuel to Maccabees, in 1969. In the present edition of Genesis to Ruth there are certain new features: a general introduction to the Pentateuch, a retranslation of the text of Genesis with an introduction, cross-references, and revised textual notes, besides new and expanded exegetical notes which take into consideration the various sources or literary traditions.





The revision of Job to Sirach includes changes in strophe division in Job and Proverbs and in titles of principal parts and sections of Wisdom and Ecclesiastes. Corrections in the text of Sirach are made in Sirach 39:27-35; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44:1-17 on the basis of the Masada text, and in Sirach 51:13-30 on the basis of the occurrence of this canticle in the Psalms scroll from Qumran Cave 11. In this typical edition, new corrections are reflected in the textual notes of Job, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach. In the Psalms, the enumeration found in the Hebrew text is followed instead of the double enumeration, according to both the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate texts, contained in the previous edition of this book.





In the Prophetic Books Isaiah to Malachi, only minor revisions have been made in the structure and wording of the texts, and in the textual notes.





The spelling of proper names in The New American Bible follows the customary forms found in most English Bibles since the Authorized Version.





The work of translating the Bible has been characterized as "the sacred and apostolic work of interpreting the word of God and of presenting it to the laity in translations as clear as the difficulty of the matter and the limitations of human knowledge permit" (A. G. Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 6, [1944], 389-90). In the appraisal of the present work, it is hoped that the words of the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu will serve as a guide: "Let all the sons of the church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected."





Conscious of their personal limitations for the task thus defined, those who have prepared this text cannot expect that it will be considered perfect; but they can hope that it may deepen in its readers "the right understanding of the divinely given Scriptures," and awaken in them "that piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, who from the throne of his majesty has sent these books as so many personal letters to his own children" (Divino afflante Spiritu).

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

I have seen the books listed by other names or by other spellings, but this is a pretty standard list.

[ckerr4]

Just wanted to add that there are other books or fragments of books that are considered apocrypha by Catholics as well, but are sometimes studied as related to biblical lit, such as Susanna, Azariah, Manasseh, and Bel. (Although, I think that all those except for Manasseh are included in part in Daniel)

[janelle]

Thank you ckerr4 for doing so much research!!!

My hubby and I disagree on the birth without pain issue. He says the church does not sanction that as true, they do not know the exact way Jesus was born but I was there when the priest was teaching about it. My hubby said the priest said one saint taught this but it has not been sanctioned by the church.

Since I'm a woman I was very interested in this part, of course, and that is how I understood it. I even asked the priest to say it again so I think this is what he was saying and to me it makes really good sense.

But the exact way Jesus was born is only known to the ones who were there and in the bible only Joseph and Mary were there. In the scheme of things this isn't as important as the fact that Jesus was born.

[ladybreaker]

thank you for so much info!!i have printed it all out and plan to study it more!i had no idea the huge difference in the catholic bible compared to mine and find it really interesting!!

ladybreaker

p.s. where would i buy a catholic bible??

[ckerr4]

hmm, some towns have Catholic bookstores, like Christian bookstores. I know my old hometown did. Otherwise, I don't know if you could find one in a regular Christian bookstore. Maybe a regular bookstore, a big one like Borders or Barnes and Noble. Or online, if all else fails.

To be honest, I think a lot of Catholics use the Protestant bible too. (shh, don't tell my priest, lol). I know that I stil have my great-grandmother's KJV, and that's what I would use normally.

I think it's interesting too:)

[janelle]

Yes, you would need to go to a Catholoic book store for a Catholic bible usually. A Christian book store will have the King James version.

Any Catholic church usually have bibles you can buy but these are usually family bibles and are big and fancy for recording births in. Look online under bibles---Catholic.

some web sites to go to for a bible could be---

http://www.ewtn.com/index.htm

http://www.catholic.com/

http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/freebies.html

And this last one I found is the bible for free if you want to copy it off which would take lots of time and paper.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

[janelle]

http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

This web site talks about the Aprocrypha which are the other books found in the Catholic bible and usually not in Protestant bibles.

They are---The Apocrypha: Revised Standard Bible

Psalm 151 (Apocrypha)
Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha)
Susanna (Apocrypha)
1 Maccabees (Apocrypha)
2 Maccabees (Apocrypha)
3 Maccabees (Apocrypha)
4 Maccabees (Apocrypha)
Sirach (Apocrypha)
Baruch (Apocrypha)
Tobit (Apocrypha)
Bel and the Dragon (Apocrypha)
Azariah (Apocrypha)
Epistle of Jeremiah (Apocrypha)
Prayer of Manasseh (Apocrypha)
4 Ezra OR 2 Esdras (Apocrypha)
Judith (Apocrypha)
Additions to the Book of Esther (Apocrypha)
1 Esdras (Apocrypha)