why is it that protestant bibles (which reject the duterocanonical books) called “the bible” but catholic bibles which include them are called “the catholic bible” since it was the protestnat reformers who removed them shouldn’t the bibles which do not have them be called “the protestant bibles” and the ones which retain them called “the bible” since the origional official canon for the church as defined at the councils of rome, hippo, and carthage had them listed? I hope that makes sence…
This is the case only in largely Protestant America. In Catholic countries, the situation would be reversed.
Let’s make the change.
Depends on the version or translation too - as far as I’m aware the Douay-Rheims Bible has always just been a ‘Bible’ rather than a ‘Catholic Bible’.
Since “bible” simply means a collection of books I have no problem with the KJ & other such butchered ones calling themselves bibles But when they add “Holy” to the it that make me have to say “It’s cut up & diced up. You have cut out some parts & added words to other parts. It is a bible, but not THE Bible” :banghead:
When one of my friends was carrying a bible, I looked at the cover(had a very strange name) and I look at the Index and said, “that’s a Protestant Bible.” And my friend is just like “what?” “Protestants don’t have all the books in their Bible. They have a different number of books from Catholics.” And my friend just goes on oblivious.
I’m sure I really care whether the distinction is made with Protestant or Catholic, just as long as I know I’m reading a Bible that is 10 books nearer and many words closer to the original script. When my friend’s go to “bible” studies at another’s home, I just throw off the little agitation I have and try to respect that they are Protestant. Sometimes its hard.