Destination Heaven: Lessons Taught on the Path Home

By Marion Dearman

Journeys have a beginning and an end, but so much more happens along the way. Becoming lost in life's everyday moments can often discourage and frustrate us so that we lose sight of our final destination. Author Marion Dearman in Destination Heaven writes of moments in her life that God used to strengthen her faith. As you read her book, learn how God takes each day with its laughter, joy, and sorrow to build a stronger relationship with him if we will just be still and listen.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Jun 14, 2018
• ISBN: 9781641409582

Book preview

Preface

This work is mainly concerned with the silly modern assumptions about the New Testament which are provided with seemingly logical proofs but in reality, are based on inaccurate readings and false assumptions about the New Testament and its authors. These assumptions were formulated from the mid nineteenth century till now. Most of these theories can be found in the cooperative work involving various Christian denominations called the New American Bible, but also found in the notes of most other new versions of the bible. The quotations used in this book come from the latest version of the New American Bible unless specifically given a different explanation. In this book, we will address those assumptions as they are expressed in the notes and wordings used in the New American Bible but these same false assumptions underlie most important modern translations of the bible such as the new Divine Name King James Bible, New King James, Easy English Bible, English Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and the New American Standard Bible.

The New American Bible, in several editions, contains many problems for all Catholics and all other readers. It was first translated during the heyday of ecumenism through cooperation with many non-Catholics. Yet ecumenical progress has been dismal, and the English-speaking Catholic now reads basically a non-Catholic–oriented Bible, even in its latest revision. It is basically a general Christian Bible. Many of the views, notes, dates, and transliterations of the Protestant orientation were voted in, even to using wording from unapproved sources as the official text contrary to the Church Council’s decisions, including the Council of Trent and both the Decree on Ecumenism and Dei Verbum, which insist on steadfastly holding to the faith. Any Catholic is now faced with reading sections contrary to those absolutely approved by the Church. Stephen J. Hartdegen and James A. Hickey (archbishops of Washington) and Most Rev. Daniel E. Pilarczyk, president of National Conference of Catholic Bishops—the imprimaturs (who sanctioned this by their Nihil Obstat) for the newest edition—should obstat such problems. This book will review some of the New Testament problems.

Other problems are the claims that the oldest manuscript found to date is bound to be a better copy than newer such manuscripts and that if several manuscripts agree, they are a better copy than an opposing manuscript. But a younger or newer manuscript may be a more perfect copy of one still unfound but even older. Agreement between several manuscripts does not make them better but only better preserved and more popular. By these standards, the oldest and best preserved are probably the Qumran Scrolls; clearly these assumptions are unacceptable, unproven, and indeed false. Origen, Sts. Eusebius and Jerome sought to reconcile the many textural differences and difficulties in the texts. Also, these revisions assume there must be one perfect original from which all others were derived. This is also false logic (for example the possible double endings in the two gospels show possible editing by their authors after they were first written); there could be several different originals. Then too some people made personal copies from memory, and such were prone to errors. Also, people are human and, like Jonah, may deliberately and stubbornly write against the workings of God. The original two books by Moses and Joshua may well have been mistranslated from Egyptian hieroglyphs into the oldest Hebrew consonant alphabet and latter in the more modern versions before the writing of the Pentateuch or Torah (Thus the Israelites grew impossibly from some 75 moving to Egypt to the 1.5 million plus total in the Mosaic censuses 430 years later). Also, customs, spellings, meanings, idioms, traditions, and the Mosaic Law, and even language, changed over those millennia. These changes probably caused many misunderstandings and editing mistakes. Then too at the time of the Pentateuch composition, it is very doubtful that only a single original was written. Possibly several were written together and each subject to the interpretation of the actual scribes and their own slants on the Word of God as a Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, or Deuteronomic partisan, or even a budding Prophetic, Essene, or lay-traditionalist and the later Pharisaic party, etc. Someone such as Ezra had to speak the paragraphs to be written. Then he formulated the next several paragraphs while the scribes wrote their first paragraphs as they remembered and understood from their own fervent perspective and their knowledge and their own spelling. (There were no dictionaries.) Also, there was no side-by-side proofreading by dozens of scribes to assure each was an exact copy of the others. Such comparison is the only way to provide exactitude, yet multiple errors could not be changed even with such a comparison. Which is the right and true copy? Another problem is the fatigue factor. One can easily script a dozen pages, but possible mistakes rise exponentially with every additional page, and we are discussing thousands of pages, then we must add the recopying errors over the ages. Probably there was no perfect original but especially not over the centuries. Also, the prophets (and their disciples) wrote the newer prophetic books in their own prophetic orientation, but were the temple copies exactly word for word as those prophetic writings or as the Qumran copies? Even the best-intentioned copyists make mistakes or will correct seeming errors according to their understanding of the Word of God (as was done in these revisions of the New American Bible).

Were the Jerusalem books exactly the same as the Septuagint translation? (Remember: "In place of Jehoiachin the King of Babylon appointed his uncle Mattaniah king" (2 Kings 24:17), but the Hebrews had no word for uncle, showing this as an obvious mistranslation compared to the proper Hebrew of 2 Chronicles 36:11 which correctly translates as his brother.) Were the Jerusalem books of 300 BC exactly like the first originals from about 550 BC? Were the Jerusalem scrolls at the time of Jesus the same as the earlier Jerusalem originals, or even the then synagogue copies? Were they the same as the Essences’ scrolls now called the Dead Sea or Qumran Scrolls? Were they the same as the later biblical scrolls of the Jews as brought back from Persia and beyond in the centuries after Jerusalem became a Roman colony? We know St. Jerome could not find good Hebrew sources to translate and had to revise his work from the Septuagint [LXX], casting sincere doubts on other such manuscripts based on the Hebrew. Fallible human nature was bound to make differences among all these copies, and these revisions acknowledge those differences by claiming the oldest should be the best or, when several older agree, the agreeing text must a better reading and closer to the original (see the note on John 1:34 for an example of different copies). They also use brackets for doubtful authenticity, meaning that the actual wording of various texts is indeed different! (They question 1 Peter because its quotes use the LXX text, but authors used available resources. No author or reader had biblical libraries! Actually, the most likely truth is that all five 1 and 2 Peter, James, Jude, and Hebrews were originally written in Hebrew since they were basically addressed to those extreme and thus heretical Christians who insisted that the Mosaic Law be followed in all details and wrote their own gospel in Hebrew. This is explained in chapter three. Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James were translated by a very competent Greek speaker but 2 Peter and Jude were but poorly translated [at a later time?]. The result of those translations put all the quotations into the Septuagint [LXX] as the accepted official text of the times, since Greek was used by most Christians.) These are illogical assumptions and guesstimates based on the now unknown and unevidenced. The arguments over better or the best manuscripts are silly and useless and subjective without objective proof unless the actual originals are found and verified. Then too the Law of Moses evolved and changed over time and so did the scriptures as well as the thoughts and understandings of them. In the time of King Josiah, only one Book of the Law [of the Lord], 2 Chronicles 34:14, a.k.a. Book of the Covenant [of Mount Ebal] (ibid. 34:31—other references are, Exodus 24:3–4; 24:7; Deuteronomy 28:58; 29:20; 29:26; 31:9–11; 31:24-29; Joshua 1:8; and 23:6—) was found in the temple, now claimed as the source of Deuteronomy. We know Joshua (and later King Josiah had someone) read this old book in its entirety out loud before the people in just a couple of hours (Joshua 8:34; 2 Kings 23:2), as had Moses even before Joshua’s additions (Joshua 24:25–26). (Note: it had to be read out loud because the people could not read.) Still later Ezra read out of the book from daybreak till midday, in the presence of the men, the women, and those children old enough to understand; and all the people attended attentively to the book of the law (Nehemiah 8:3). (He seems to only have read parts of the book.) But such outloud reading is most impossible with the present, far-longer Deuteronomy. It differs substantially from the Book of Law at the time of King Josiah, let alone at the time of Moses or Joshua. So, the scriptures did change. Moses and Joshua wrote only one other book, The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14 and indirectly mentioned by Exodus 17:13–14) where God specifically mentions that the war against Amalek be written in a book apparently distinct from the Book of Law, a.k.a. Book of the Covenant: "The Lord said to Moses: Write this down in a book as something to be remembered, and recite it to Joshua."

Then contrary to all Church tradition, Council rulings, and writings of those early Church Fathers, this revisers’ Bible loudly proclaims the Synoptic Gospels were written after 70 AD without providing serious logical or physical proofs (no originals exist to carbon-date), and it further proclaims the epistles of Peter, James, Jude, and John, and also Hebrews, were written by pseudo-authors and that Matthew did not write Matthew, and even Revelation is denied as John’s, while some even deny his gospel as well. All these assumptions are again stated without undeniable proof! These ideas and personal guesstimates fly in the face of all evidence, the traditions, and Council rulings—the internal evidence of the books themselves or from other New Testament books and early Christian writings as well as the rules suggested by both the Decree on Ecumenism and Dei Verbum. The Church Fathers’ traditions are more important in establishing the truth of the apostolic writings than such guesstimates, just as the traditions written in Genesis, Exodus, and other biblical books establish those early stories centuries before they were later written. Few Israelites were literate, and thus the stories were told and retold and remembered by word-of-mouth traditions. This fact is the real reason why neither the Apostles were told to write nor did Jesus write the New Testament for us. The common man on the street had no way to read such writings. These positions naming pseudo-authors as the real authors are totally contrary to the Church’s teaching on the subject and also to the early traditions claiming these as the works of the Apostles with Sts. Mark and Luke writing for Sts. Peter and Paul. The Church saw these as inspired books because they were the actual works of the Apostles. The Church maintains that they are apostolic writings (Dei Verbum 20 and Council of Trent, see Appendix A) and not those of their disciples or pseudo-authors as now claimed in this Bible. Those claims leave only thirteen epistles by St. Paul as not attacked either as to authorship or by date or both. The real logical consequences of such attacks are that the Church was wrong in Council (not infallible since, if wrong about those books, it has to also be wrong about the dogma and traditions explained in them); and indirectly, they claim those books are not inspired precisely as non-apostolic writings, opposing the very reason why the Church claimed them as inspired!

Further, it claims both the lesser James and Jude ("Judas, not the Iscariot" [John 14:22]) were real brothers of Jesus and also that these were not the Apostles named James and Jude aka Thaddeus; and then inconsistently, this Bible turns around to claim this same Judas as the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 2:13). (If they were Jesus’s real brothers, how could Judas be the son of James?) Since this Bible translates or rather transliterates or interpolates most other instances of the word brother as nephew or kinsman or uncle, those statements are now absolutely unacceptable. The continued use of brother for Jesus’s cousins emphasizes a far closer, real, brotherly relation than if the actual word brother had been retained throughout this Bible without any transliteration. St. Papias’s tenth fragment and Hegesippus’s fragments show James and Jude were sons of the other Mary (Matthew 27:61; 28:1) and Clopas, St Joseph’s younger brother. St. John, as Mary’s nephew, had to take her into his own home to care for her after the deaths of St. Joseph and Jesus (John 19:27). (Traditionally, Clopas should have taken her in as the new household patriarch after the death of St. Joseph [Mark 6:3, see The Holy Family]—indicated by the son of Mary instead of son of Joseph and by Jesus now being the carpenter instead of St. Joseph. Clopas also was one of the brothers (John 7:5) who did not believe in Jesus. Here, the word brothers has the real Hebrew meaning of uncles and all members of the patriarchal holding.) Clopas makes his sons take her as unmarried and unrelated back to Jesus (Matthew 12:46–47, Mark 3:31–32, and Luke 8:19–20). This boomeranged as two became Apostles and later Simon, a third, became the second bishop of Jerusalem, and all four brothers received the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost (Acts 1:14; 2:1–4). Mary of Clopas no longer was Mary’s sister-in-law as "his mother’s sister" (John 19:25) at the cross since Clopas had disowned Mary, yet Mary of Clopas was Jesus’s aunt through his adoption (in Hebrew fostering) by St. Joseph. This example about brother was emphasized here to show that the doctrine of the Ever-Virgin Mary is now compromised in this version of the Bible. Brother elsewhere in the New American Bible is constantly changed into near non-fraternal relatives, and by that same logic Jesus’ cousins should also have been named as his cousins but not as his brothers. Yes, the text is in Greek, but it was written by Jews like St. Paul and by the Greek St. Luke who had studied under St. Paul and read the Jewish scriptures and thus learned and accepted the Jewish tradition of brothers as close non-fraternal relatives (similar to the tradition still in Greece and the Balkans today). This is totally adverse to the stated aim of this Bible A particular effort has been made to ensure consistency of vocabulary (see page 1291). It is an inconsistent translation of adelphos. But more importantly, it now defies and destroys the doctrine of the Virgin Mary for readers of all faiths.

When the Vulgate Latin and LXX of John (19:25) are compared to the old Syriac Peshito aka Peshitta text (all now preserved from about 400 AD although much older copies of each have existed), we glimpse that Mary’s sister actually was Mary Salome, the mother of James and John and aunt of Jesus (St. Papias’s tenth fragment, Levirate); it appears that our text may have lost an and (retained in the Peshito) through a copyist error or through a deliberate removal under a gnostic error, which permeated the early Church. That error held that Mary Salome and Mary of Clopas were but one woman, married to two different men—Salom or Salmon and Clopas—as hinted at in the very old book Salome: Matron Saint of Midwives used in the Esoteric Church where everybody is interrelated and married as part of the Davidic family. Even the editor in the last part of St. Papias’s tenth also implies this same gnosticism. Yet Papias’s fragment itself contradicts that gnostic error by defining four distinct gospel persons named Mary: Mary, the Mother of Jesus; Mary Salome, the mother of James and John and an aunt; Mary the wife of Clopas, the mother of James, Judas (Thaddeus), Simon, and Joseph as another aunt; and Mary Magdala. The other Mary [of Clopas]—the former sister-in-law—now appears as the sister in place of Salome in our version of John 19:25. This minor copyist’s error changed the original meaning of the text from Salome to Mary of Clopas being the sister. Yet the Latin and Greek still allow the possibility that St. John was listing four different women as per the Peshito since the grammar does not absolutely exclude such a meaning. Careless personal copies from faulty memory also account for many such textural differences.

These are some of the problems as we review this New Testament. Not everything is wrong. Certainly, the modern English is a definite improvement, most of the time. But the general attitude opposes Catholicism with implied anti-Catholic doctrine and tradition. Every such more modern view should have also documented the traditional Catholic view. Also, without original texts, there simply is no evidence opposing the tradition that all New Testament books, other than St. John’s, were actually written before 70 AD. And the actual New Testament text should have been the translated Latin vulgate as per the Council of Trent and per "especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate" (Dei Verbum, 22). The different Greek readings should have been in the notes to conform to this official position at least in the Catholic Bible. The Septuagint (LXX) is the accepted text of the Old Testament. This Bible makes these questionable other readings the real biblical text, and only sometimes are the Latin translations explained in the notes. These are contradictory positions! Who chose this dilemma for us Catholics? These problems absolutely dilute Catholic doctrine and traditions contrary the Decree on Ecumenism and Dei Verbum. Both of them tell the Catholic theologian to stand "fast by the teachings of the Church."

What is most maddening is that these modern hypotheses have no factual basis and only show pretend and made-up evidence to make us believe they are the truth. This pretend evidence consists mostly of misdirection or deliberate falsehood without thorough study of the actual historical facts, of what the original authors are really saying, and what their actual position and words implied when the books were written or what their statements actually truly mean and prove. No rigorous logic and no real scientific proofs were attempted. The arguments are simply based on maybes without any valid consideration of the opposing evidence. It is all very poor science indeed.

One final note before everyone thinks I am totally opposed to this New American Bible. I am not. I use it and read it myself constantly. I enjoy the modern English, which does add eagerness to the reading and in general adds to the understanding of what is written. The same was true when I used to read the New Testament in Latin (in my younger days). At first, it was a great pain and took forever to finish. Yet then after several readings, it became more intelligible and strangely added insights into the words and sentences that I otherwise would not have discovered or understood. If I had not read the New American Bible, there would be no way that I could have stumbled over these present problems. But they are problems for the Church, the believing laity, and all Christian readers. Even if the editors and the commission behind these voted decisions think their ideas are worthwhile, it behooved them to not simply give those opinions and assumptions but to give the whole story, including those traditions and examples and wordings in the Bible itself that contradict those same ideas. Do not be one-sided but provide the whole truth and all sides. I do not oppose such ideas, but they should be provided to the public explaining the real old traditions and their bases as well as any modern ideas and how they themselves came to those conclusions. But please, please be more careful and reasoned with such assumptions.

signature

W. W. J. van Leeuwen

Everton, Arkansas

All rights reserved with extensive revisions through 2016.

Chapter 1

General Historical Comments as a Frame of Reference

(Following the ancient rule of scholars, we name the gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and epistles by addressees as in 1 and 2 Corinthians or as 1 and 2 Peter.)

The following old conventions were also used in this book:

It uses Apostles for the twelve selected by Jesus with Matthias replacing Judas the betrayer (Acts 1:15–26) and St. Paul as selected by Jesus later (Acts 9:1–16). This makes the distinction between these thirteen and all the others who are simply called apostles or ordinary messengers or disciples or missionaries.

It uses Church for that church started by Jesus and instituted through the Apostles and their disciples through the Church Fathers to the Catholic Church of today. The word catholic is nothing special and simply means universal in the Roman west whereas orthodox was used in the Greek east admittedly with minor religious differences for centuries.

It uses Church Fathers for the early leaders of the Church from the Apostles to around 400;

It uses Church Council decisions as those considered to be universal council decisions of the Church in particular those recognized within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the early Church where the first such was the Council of Jerusalem around 48-49 AD. These have nothing in common with the annual meetings, synods, conferences of bishops, conventions, or councils of the Baptist, Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. They are special and hence the capitalization.

The first Jewish believers were those who had faith in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 3:6 and 16; 4:10, 12 and 30; 5:41; 8:16; 10:48; 26:9-10) The Apostles were told to stop teaching in that name,to stop speaking in the name of Jesus, and they were rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer for the sake of the name (Acts 5:28, 40, and 41). A few years later these people were known as followers of the Way (Acts 9:2; 18:26; 19:9 and 23: 22:4; 24:14 and 22). And only later after 45-48 AD did they become known as Christians (Acts 11:26 26:28). So for a short time they were known as the followers of the name of Jesus then as those of "the Way" and finally simply as those called "Christians."

I have added emphasis in several quotations by bolding or underlining the particularly important phrases.

Warning: Other Christians Ecumenically Involved in these Revised Editions

The preface to the 1986 edition of the New Testament states on page 8:

This revision, however, like the first edition, has been accomplished with the collaboration of scholars from other Christian churches, both among the revisers and on the editorial board, in response to the encouragement of Vatican Council II (Dei Verbum, 22).

That preface thereby very poorly indicates that non-Catholic views and translations can be expected in all notes and in the translation, itself, and were in fact voted in by the larger non-Catholic majority. But Catholics are never warned about such non-Catholic positions and views anywhere in this Bible. So all readers are left with false interpretations in this Bible and of the faith and, by implication, of the actual Catholic views. Such positions would be acceptable if the editorial board had also accompanied them with the traditional Catholic views and/or with proper warnings. The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on Ecumenism, states:

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

This is one failure of these revisions, and thereby, it leads astray both our priests and all other readers by stating these false views and impressions as the accepted Catholic truth. This is especially wrong since many of these other views are but theories, guesses, opinions, and assumptions without any conclusive proof, and so these views cause very serious problems in this Bible and especially for its Catholic readers.

This also shown by Dei Verbum (Decree on Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Second Vatican Council under Pope Paul VI in 1965)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

18. The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

20. Besides the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament also contains the epistles of St. Paul and other apostolic writings, composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which, according to the wise plan of God, those matters which concern Christ the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more fully stated, the saving power of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the Church and its marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold.

22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which is called the Septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.

23.The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies.

24. Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation.

25. It devolves on sacred bishops who have the apostolic teaching to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels.

These quotes from Dei Verbum and the Decree on Ecumenism intend and indicate:

Traditions of the (early) Church are equally important as the scriptures, and together, the two form a unified revelation from God. Scriptures must be carefully considered in the light of those traditions. The scriptures were undefined (no New Testament and no canon for the older books) for the early Christians; they relied solely upon tradition as St. Paul warns the Thessalonians, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours and Shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they have received from us" (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6) and again They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:42; Dei Verbum 10). See also Dei Verbum 24. Of equal authority with the written word is that of oral tradition. St. Historia ecclesiastica (Hist. eccl. or Ecclesiastical History), III, 39 explains how St. Papias tried to learn the oral traditions; and Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians urged them to follow the traditional examples of Christians (and ancient Jews), to which must be traced certain citations of the Sayings or Words of our Lord and the Apostles not found in the scriptures (such traditions are ignored in these revisions).

The Church has always traditionally held the gospels as really written by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as expounded by the Council of Trent in 1546 (see Appendix A; Dei Verbum 18) [but not accepted in these revisions].

All of the New Testament was written by the Apostles (apostolic writings), with Sts. Mark and Luke writing for Sts. Peter and Paul (see again Appendix A; Dei Verbum 18) [but not accepted in these revisions]. The Church only accepted actual apostolic writings as New Testament books and thus other good books, such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, and other epistles were rejected as not inspired per 2 Peter 3:16 precisely because they were nonapostolic i.e. not written by the Apostles.

The old Septuagint texts and other Eastern translations are to be considered the original texts but especially the vulgate Latin (see again Appendix A; Dei Verbum 22). This does not mean the Septuagint text of the Jews back around 300 BC but rather the text available to the Apostolic and early Church, when all Christian writings except for Matthew and those five epistles sent to the extremely Mosaic Christianswere basically in Greek and the Hebrew texts were destroyed or unavailable through the destructions of Jerusalem in 70 and 135 AD and other persecutions. Besides, most were unable to read such Hebrew texts. Most likely, several different versions of the Septuagint were in vogue throughout the Roman world and beyond at that time through copyists’ errors and mistaken ideas and faulty memory and mistranslations. For example, St. Stephen says,

The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran, and said to him, ‘Go forth from your land and [from] your kinsfolk to the land I will show you’" (Acts 7:2–3).

But in conflict, we also read,

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to go to the land of Canaan. But when they reached Haran, they settled there (Genesis 11:31).

Clearly these two stories about the same events differ substantially. So too

The time the Israelites had stayed in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12:40 and 41),

but St. Paul says,

With uplifted arm he led them out of it and for about forty years he put up with them in the desert. When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance at the end of about four hundred and fifty years (Acts 13:17–20);

but Genesis 15:19–21 in opposition lists ten nations to be destroyed for that inheritance without even counting the Philistines. Adam and Eve had three sons and no daughters yet the two sons, Cain and Seth, married and had descendants (Genesis 4:17 and 26). Only later did Adam have other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Hagar birthed Ishmael when Abram (later named Abraham) was eighty-six (Genesis 16:16), yet when Isaac was born, he was one hundred (Genesis 21:5), but he placed the child Ishmael (at 14) on Hagar’s back, who still later walks away from Ishmael so as to not watch the child die (Genesis 21:16). Then the listed ages and genealogies, in the Septuagint texts add up to 5,228 years from Adam to Jesus, but the Hebrew texts show 3,992 years, while the Samarian texts show 4,293 years. Similarly, we have the statement, "In place of Jehoiachin the King of Babylon appointed his uncle Mattaniah king" (2 Kings 24:17). This cannot be an accurate translation from the Hebrew into the Septuagint since the Hebrew had not such word as uncle, and the Hebrew wording actual was his brother per (2 Chronicles 36:11). The Syriac Peshitta (in its oldest still existing version from around 400 AD) states, Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala versus our version of John 19:25, that old text thereby corresponding to Jesus’s mother and the three women in Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40. St. John certainly would not have denied the presence of his own mother. These are but eight examples to show that there were different versions of these books even at the beginnings of the Church. Also, many quotes were given from faulty memory and from imperfect translations and from imperfectly remembered Hebrew texts, which again contained some such errors back to 600 BC and earlier times (these revisions presume that perfect copies exist).

These revisions also ignore the Latin versus other Septuagint texts and other eastern translations, and thus it ignores Dei Verbum 22 and the Council of Trent about the special place of the Vulgate Latin and "that suitable and correct translations are made" is a duty placed on the Church(Dei Verbum 22) but ignored in this Bible. The translations should be suitable and correct, and not just from any original texts since there were many such with various subtle differences. Many false religious groups and devout Christians made their own copies for their own avowed purposes, such as those Christians who later called themselves the Hebrews and wrote their own gospel, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, and changed meanings through their own slanted religious views similar to some of the Essence communities’ books found in the caves at Qumran. We no longer know for sure which texts were used by the Apostles; in fact, it is almost certain they too used texts that were different from place to place. (These revisions ignore the special place of the Latin and other early eastern texts and the possible slanted errors made by copyists. It is impossible to know which are the exact texts to translate. These revisers and we can only guess.]

The problem is that most of these old texts do not compare word for word even among the many Greek texts. So, which manuscripts should be used for translation? This Bible simply believes and accepts that the oldest manuscript is the best and/or the most often-occurring text is the best. But these attitudes are not honest research. The oldest manuscript could be a copy of someone’s poorly written personal text whereas the newer manuscript might be an exact copy of the original as written by the Apostles and their scribes or as the preserved LXX of apostolic times and perhaps written originally as the Septuagint text in Alexandria around 300 BC, whereas the most popular could easily be copies of faked or changed manuscripts. We have no good way now to tell them apart as in our above example of John 19:25 (these revisers’ theories are neither reliable nor proven nor substantiated).

The traditions of the Church can be studied and found in the writings of the early Church Fathers (Dei Verbum 23) and in the New Testament itself. These provide insights in scriptural studies as to when and by whom the New Testament was written and its meanings. These traditions and the evidences as provided by these early fathers and the New Testament itself are almost totally ignored by these revisions. Unless modern theories can provide absolute proof that these earlier traditions and evidences are wrong, these revisers should not be allowed to distract us with such wild assumptions. We will disprove many of these wild theories by the real evidence available to anyone who stops to think (the revisers’ assumptions are not reasonably and logically researched and should be omitted versus early traditions and real evidence in the New Testament).

The bishops must see to the "suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books." That oversight was carelessly and not fully followed in these revisions and their included notes by the provided imprimaturs who did not fully research the given texts and notes. They simply accepted under pressure from stress and overwork (they expected these revisions to provide such suitable instructions).

"If these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them" (Dei Verbum 23) shows cooperation is desired but giving non-Catholics dominating voting power, which in fact was veto power as was done in these revisions, is not cooperation but subjection and appeasement, giving the non-Catholics full control and domination over what was actually written. This dilutes the Catholic faith and traditions so as to include these other Christians and fails to follow theDecree on Ecumenism.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

The traditions mentioned above in A. are adhered to and expounded through the early Church. Tertullian, who was born about 160 in Carthage and later around 211-213 became a heretic himself, shows how one can tell the churches following apostolic traditions versus those of other heretics (see his quote in Chapter Four on False Teachers). St. Irenæus (aka Irenaeus) of Lyon, who was martyred for the faith per Gregory of Tours and more or less a contemporary of Tertullian, mentions repeatedly the traditions of the Apostles in his works Adversus haereses ("Against Heresies") as at 3.2.2:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge.

He has similar quotes at 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and at 3.3.3 he even lists all twelve bishops of Rome starting with St. Peter and ending with Eleutherius of his own times. Similarly, St. Eusebius in his historical work Historia ecclesiastica or Church History aka Ecclesiastical History shows similar lists for all the major apostolic churches up until his time some fifty to one hundred years later showing these churches to have continued in the traditions of the apostles and these traditions are still adhered to now as the earlier statement from the Second Vatican Council showed.

Basically, these revisions of this our Bible partially followed these ideas (A. through H.) but consistently missed the truth through lack of deep-enough study of our Catholic faith, early church fathers, church history, church traditions, and also all available evidence in the New Testament itself. These failures make for a dilution of the faith so as to include other Christians, but the Decree on Ecumenism clearly warns us against such dilutions. Did these people use only the parts of Dei Verbum and the Decree on Ecumenism that appealed but ignored those opposed to their view of the faith or perhaps their view of unity through ecumenism? Who is right, they or the Church?

The other problem is that many assumptions given as facts all ignore the traditions and the history of the early fathers without ever really having a solid logical reason to contradict them. These assumptions and hypotheses fly, of course, directly in the face of Occam’s razor—or as first expressed in Latin, the Lex Parsimoniae.

Also, there are many transliterations rather than true translations similar to those the Church rejected in the translated Roman Missal, which were finally again revised in 2010 because of those too gross transliterations. Then too the ecumenists’ goal of unity through a common Bible has fallen far short of its idealism. The goal was laudable. But the means was poorly and illogically executed, leaving us with poorly researched assumptions that are easily disproved by the New Testament, the early fathers, traditions, historical records, and by logical attention, to all the given details rather than only those parts that agree with such assumptions.

In the preface to the revised edition of the New Testament of 1991, two statements stand out: "The primary aim of the revision is to produce a version as accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation" (page 5) and "A particular effort has been made to insure consistency of the vocabulary (page 6). I question that with a simple example. Why is Συμεών (phonetically Sumeón) in Acts 13:1, 15:14 and 2 Peter 1:1 translated as Symeon instead of Simeon" as everywhere else in this Bible (in both the New and Old Testament) and as it was usually translated in all previous versions both Catholic and Protestant? Admittedly, some previously used Simon (Σίμων) in these three places from the Latin rather than the Greek. But the Latin usage was truly right in a unique way since the name for both was originally the Hebrew , which phonetically (right to left) is Shimon. So why inconsistently introduce a brand-new third name Symeon, which neither existed in the Hebrew nor in the Greek nor in the Latin? Is that accurate and faithful? How accurate is it since according to Strong’s Greek Concordance, only the word Συμεών is used throughout the Bible? Is it consistent? How consistent is it with the rest of that Bible using Simeon? Does it help the reader, the public reading, or the student? (See chapter 5, Symeon, Simeon, and Simon: What a Joke!).

But the real problem goes much deeper. When you make a committee of ministers of many religious groups and then vote by committee, it is impossible to have a Catholic Bible, even when published by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and even when they add The Succession of the Popes as a part of the book or the Decree on Ecumenism as in the previous revision. The simple truth is that such broad religious input makes it a general Christian Bible, which contains good points for all but really satisfies no one (hence the other new versions of King James, New American Standard, and the Knox Bible). This Bible contains many theories and assumptions that are basically WAGs and GI-GOs without seriously considering and thoroughly disproving original traditions and history and without accurately researching both con and pro for each such assumption or hypothesis.

I will supply here a simple example of what happened here locally back in the early seventies. One Catholic wrote a Letter to the Editor about the frustrating illegality of buying liquor in this area. Immediately, a number of preachers, Baptists, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, etc., jumped on him: Drinking was a sin, The Jews did not know how to make wine, Jesus would never have made the best wine, just grape juice, The Jews had no wine, only grape juice, etc. It was obvious these people had no real idea of how wine was made or the opposite of how in the world it might be possible for the Jews to keep only grape juice without it fermenting. Unless you can, can the juice and hermetically seal it in a container without air and bacteria, but especially without yeast, it will ferment and/or deteriorate and become undrinkable. But the best example is that the Jews ate unleavened bread only during the feast of Unleavened Bread and were not allowed any leavening in the house during the entire feast, yet they ate leavened bread for the rest of the year. What caused the leavening? Yeast. How did they get it? Well, you leave your dough out and knead it and in a few days, the yeast in nature starts to work on it. Or if you have wine or beer or raisins, you make your dough using them for starters. But anyways, if you have ever bought ripe red grapes or ripe black plums, you can see nature’s yeast on the skin as a somewhat very thin grayish layer, especially where the fruit was moist from the dew. That is, when the Jews (or anyone else) trampled the grapes in the winepress, they were not only squashing the grapes but also thoroughly mixing the yeast throughout. So, when they poured the mash into the new wineskins (Jesus’s words) and sealed them with strong sinews, the nature’s yeast worked on the grape juice and made it into wine, which the alcohol preserved from corruption under slight pressure. So absolutely, they had wine; it could not be otherwise. It was the only drinkable liquid they could obtain and save from the grapes. They had no way to hermetically seal grape juice! How could God demand that the priests entering the tent of meeting were forbidden…to drink any wine or strong drink (Leviticus 10:9) if the Jews had no wine or strong liquor? A fourth of a hin of strong drink (Numbers 28:7) was to be offered as daily burned offering. These would be very stupid and nonsensical rules indeed if the Jews had no alcoholic drinks!

Some would object But drunkenness is a sin, and Jesus would not have allowed anyone to sin! Yes, drunkenness is a sin, but just drinking for pleasure and a social get-together is not drunkenness; only drinking to excess will lead to drunkenness! Dancing and card playing are pleasurable but are not themselves evil or sinful. "While David and all Israel danced before God with all their might, with singing, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets" (1 Chronicles 13:9; and also 15:28–29). Yes, I know, sometimes they can lead to sin, such as fornication or adultery or uncontrolled gambling, but human pleasures are not sinful in and of themselves; only in how we use them or arrive at them (with our will) can they be sinful.

I know this argument did not win over those antidrinking preachers, and they firmly continue to read the wine mentioned in the Bible as simple grape juice without studying the history and the real traditions of the Jews. Of course, those preachers also ignored that Noah was drunk on his own grape juice, He drunk some of the wine, became drunk (Genesis 9:21), and that Lot’s daughters made Lot drunk on wine on several occasions so that they too could raise families (Genesis 19:32–38). After all, Jesus would not have contributed to drunkenness; Jesus would not have given scraps to the dogs (the Canaanite woman’s daughter) since he "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:26 and 24).

The whole point here is to show that a deeply thorough study of the Bible proved how illogical that theory of Jews not having wine really is. The same can and will be said of the many other illogical theories, assumptions, and hypotheses written by these committee members into what was to have been a Catholic Bible but is a Protestant Bible or actually a general Christian Bible instead. It is past time that we Catholics write our own Bible without all these silly frills and theories. We should not let non-Catholics lead us astray from the truth and true interpretation of the books written for us by our Apostles and Sts. Mark and Luke.

In repetition, the Second Vatican Council in its Decree on Ecumenism states,

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

We must stand for the faith and not dilute the faith and the traditions of the Church by allowing our separated brethren to write their theories as though they are ours and the Church’s, especially for our own Catholic readers. We can work with them, but we have to have the Church position solidly explained especially for the Catholic reader and without dilution.

I have appointed you as the sentinel for the house of Israel, when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them from me. When I say to the wicked, You wicked, you must die, and you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood (Ezekiel 33:7–8).

We are responsible if we do not warn those others of God’s house of errors! That cannot be done in a voting committee. That is the main error of a general Christian Bible, such as the New American Bible. You cannot perform your responsibility of preventing errors when your voice is drowned out by the overwhelming votes of the opposition. Our Catholic positions were drowned out by the opposition on the committees, resulting in this their general Christian Bible.

And the Church and the faithful suffer because of the attempted cooperation with our separated brethren to obtain a Christian Bible. Jesus did neither tell John to go and appease and work with nor receive with open arms the other extortionist who did not walk with them. No, He told him to let the man be (be tolerant of him; leave him alone) (Mark 9:38–40). Appeasement can only dilute theology and dogma. Jesus certainly did not tolerate the scribes and Pharisees and their false interpretations. Jesus did not preach a watered-down Christianity. No, He gave it to them straight.

Historical Facts

Originally, the gospels, but especially Matthew, was known as the χρησμοί (oracles or sayings of the Lord or words of the Lord) [Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 3.39.16; see also pages 168 and 185ff]. Later, Matthew became known as the Book of the Genealogy. The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (Strong’s Concordance 2098 phonetically reads, "evaggelion), meaning good news," occurs seventy-six times in the New Testament and was later applied to all four writings—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as the good news for all mankind, and that made them the gospels in English or the evangeliums in other languages.

Lack of Exact History and Exact Biblical Dates

There is very little history available from the time of the writing of the New Testament. Many documents were destroyed in Jerusalem (70, 117, and 135 AD) and later in Rome and Palestine during violent persecutions. Also, papyrus, parchment, and ink were very fragile and easily destroyed by bugs, fungus, bacteria, and the more humid climates of locales other than the Judean wilderness without careful preservation. The early Christians were too busy preaching and avoiding persecution and also expecting the Lord’s return immediately and momentarily, so they saw no need to preserve those early writings for the future, and they were used only for encouraging the faithful. Why preserve for the future when the Lord is coming during our lifetime? Many books were also destroyed during the various persecutions starting with the Jewish persecution at the death of St. Stephen. We do not even have a partial listing of the Jewish Christians martyred during this violent persecution. Of the very early church leaders’ writings, only fragments remain when their works were quoted by later Christians without quotations marks showing exactly where the actual quote starts and ends. This is most sadly true of the period up to 150 AD. Only the New Testament, a few other epistles, and the Didache, and The Shepherd of Hermas were saved in their entirety, but with copyists’ errors, as many were simply personal copies from memory or personal (inaccurate) translations from the Hebrew. Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius established a school or college at Caesarea for the expressed purpose of reconciling and saving the older manuscripts and the writings of the early Christians. Thus, Caesarea became a center of Christian learning at the time. Origen compared the scriptures in different languages side by side in his Tetrapla (including Matthew in Aramaic) and prepared theology in his Hexapla. Thus, these fathers, together with St. Jerome and others, made Palestine the center of Christian learning for almost two centuries and gathered the various scriptures as well as recording the history and traditions of the early Church. Much of this learning was destroyed by the savage persecution in Palestine at the time of St. Eusebius,