Is this true?

There is a self-procalimed ex-occultist called Bakajika Muana. He says very bad things about the Church. For example, that in Nairobi, JPII made a forged Bible called Jerusalem, which misses verses from I and II Cor. Moreover, he said that many saints were Satanists or Rosicrucians, which is a heresy similar to Protestantism. If somebody lives in Nairobi or in Kenya, I would thank his/her answer.

Guy’s crazy. No it’s not true.

I have the Jerusalem Bible and it leaves nothing out and is a beautiful translation.

Likely this man is a “King-James-Onlyist” (see And, no, saints are not satanists.

I’m living in Kenya. In Kenya most people own bibles and would discovery it very easily.
However, there are versions that have some differences but not the Jerusalem Bible.

Professionally, and in life, its always good to thoroughly understand an issue before taking sides. To be so sure, I’d get a Jerusalem Bible in Nairobi and confirm. A good judge would do the same.
Lets also check what is his basis of his claims.
Lets also check your claim of “heresy similar to Protestantism”. I’ll appreciate your response so that we be of the same mind and conclusion.

This is not true. The Jerusalem Bible is here, worldwide, and is ACCEPTED by the Catholic Church. Look in the front, and it will have the nihil obstat.

There is always the possibility of a misprint. One of the first editions of the King James bible left out the word “not” in the commandment, leaving the readers with: Thou shalt commit adultery.

Usually this sort of egregious error is quickly found and the books they can get back destroyed.

The guy claims that the forged Bible also misses Apocalypse.

If you have seen The Jerusalem Bible you would know these claims are total nonsense. If you haven’t seen one go into a store selling them and have a look.

Is this just a mere coincidence?
According to this guy, the forged “Jerusalem Bible” was conceptualized on an alleged Papal meeting in Africa in 1985.
The New Jerusalem translation was released in 1985.

Conceptualized in 85… and then released in 85? This guy has no idea of the lead times for the publishing process, let alone the amount of time it takes to produce a ‘revised version’ of an existing text!

In any case, the Jerusalem Bible was first published in 1956; its first English-language edition appeared in 1966. In 1973, the French-language Jerusalem Bible was revised. These revisions, translated, became the New Jerusalem Bible.

Your friend, it seems, is a conspiracy theorist of mean rank. :shrug:

I think the guy is talking about the New Jerusalem Bible, which came out in 1985. The original Jerusalem Bible was called for by Pope Pius XII in 1943 and published in English (following a 1956 French publication) in 1966.

The New Jerusalem Bible was a revision to the original text inspired by a 1975 revision (three years before JP2) to the French version. It was not commissioned by any Pope, although it was approved for liturgical use.

The original Jerusalem Bible was the first Catholic Bible to be translated directly from original languages instead of the Latin Vulgate (although there is speculation that the English version was translated more from the French than original languages). As a “first attempt” by Catholic scholars to do a direct translation, it contained many questionable attributes, which were largely corrected in the “New” version (much as the Revised Standard Version corrected many aspects of the Standard Version (AKA King James ).

I’ve never heard of missing verses in either translation, though it’s possible that some passages are numbered differently (much as the twelve commandments are grouped/numbered differently to form the Ten Commandments, leading to some confusion as to whether commandments are omitted).

The NJB was controversial for it’s expanded use of “inclusive language” to limit perceived gender bias (such as substituting “people” for “men” where applicable).

However, if someone wants to complain about a Catholic Bible because of gender inclusiveness, the New American Bible (1970) is a much more attractive target. The NAB goes so far as to add words for inclusiveness (for example, “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers”).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit