We sometimes get so caught up with the ways in which God’s Word is being compromised in North America that we forget about what’s happening in other countries! An AiG supporter sent us a Roman Catholic Bible from Argentina, along with a letter expressing her concerns. The Bible is in Spanish, but this supporter just happens to be a certified Spanish–English translator. She wrote that this particular Bible, released by the Sociedad Bíblica Católica Internacional (SOBICAIN) and revised in 2005, is the “official” Bible used in Latin American countries today.
The number of references in this Bible to evolutionary ideas and the denial of biblical authority in this Bible is staggering. I wanted to make you aware of the compromise that’s going on in the Catholic church in Latin American countries. It’s important to note that these are just some of the areas of compromise in this Bible.
The introduction to Genesis insists, “Genesis means ‘Origin,’ but in the first chapters we should not look for a scientific document about the origins of the universe.” The introduction states the following:
We should not look here for historical or scientific data, since those who composed this chapter wanted to teach very different realities. … It is the Word of God, but let’s not read the text as if it were giving us “the” Christian understanding of the universe.
If the Genesis creation account is not “the” Christian understanding of the universe, then what is? Actually, this Bible translation answers that question as well—it says the best understanding for the universe is evolution!
The universe, say the authors in their introduction, took “millions and billions of years” to form. After the authors describe how evolutionary ideas came about, they write, “Where are we trying to get with this? Simply that a vision of the world in evolution fits perfectly with the Christian notion of time and of the ‘ages’ of history.”
I’m not sure what “Christian notion of time” they are referring to, but it certainly isn’t the Creation Week of Genesis 1. These commentators sound like they’re promoting the day-age theory or something like it.
The authors continue, stating that “Thousands of generations were necessary for our humanity to appear.” They pose the question, “When and how did man appear?” Of course, they don’t turn to the One who was there when man appeared for the answer. Instead, they turn to evolutionary beliefs.
No one can answer that question precisely. During long centuries man almost did not change the face of the earth. His lifestyle and the creations of his spirit barely distinguished him from the anthropomorphic primates from which he came.
There you have it: man evolved from primates. Evolution may not be able to answer precisely where man came from, but God’s Word can, because God was there! He created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib.
So far, we’ve not even made it past Genesis 1:1 in this Bible, and we’ve already seen millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution promoted. But the compromise doesn’t stop there. Look at what these authors have to say about the Fall in Genesis 3.
This story does not intend to teach that the sin of the first ancestor destroyed an ideal state that was then present; instead it indicates what things could be like if men did not fall into a certain temptation.
In regard to the Flood account in Genesis, the authors note, “Again, a beautiful story, an ancient tale from the times of Solomon, to which the priests of the 4th century added passages less interesting that we have put in italics.”
The AiG supporter who translated this for us writes, “Notice that the words they put into italics constitute the entire account of the wickedness of mankind, God’s judgment on mankind, His instructions for Noah to build an Ark, His warnings regarding the upcoming Flood, and His covenant with Noah.” These are supposedly the “less interesting” passages? It’s virtually the entire account!
What’s more—the authors indicate in their introduction to Genesis that the Genesis accounts were actually taken from Babylonian myths and poems and “profoundly transformed” into what we have today. No wonder they consider the Flood account not very “interesting”—they don’t seem to believe it actually happened!
At the end of the book of Genesis, these authors included supplemental notes. Under the section titled “The Bible and Evolution,” they write the following:
The story does not pretend to tell us how the human race began, and for that reason it cannot be in conflict with science. What has the pre-history of the human race been? The Word of God does not have the answer. God leaves that for us to investigate, and that’s what scientists do. … God wanted the evolution of living things to give origin to Man, who, in reality, is first in His plan.
Unfortunately, the compromise continues in this Bible—but the above gives you a taste of what the notes in this Bible teach!
It’s sad to see that these commentators are willing to trust man’s pagan religion of evolution and millions of years over the Word of God, and will even go so far as to say that God’s Word “does not have the answer” to the origin of man.
I’ll never forget what my father used to say about study Bibles. He would say, “When you use a study Bible, always remember the notes are not inspired like the text—and the text is always the commentary on the notes!” Well—applying this to the Roman Catholic Study Bible referenced above shows it fails because the text of Genesis judges the notes to be erroneous!
Sadly, the belief in evolution and millions of years has permeated churches and cultures throughout the world. What a reminder that we need to see AiG resources and teaching in other countries to counter the false teachings of the culture and much of the church.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,