Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Dec 18, '10, 10:43 pm
TracyR TracyR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 7, 2010
Posts: 119
Religion: Roman Catholic - finally at peace
Default Why were books taken out of the Bible?

See, this was something I didn't know until actually , recently before I began RCIA class.
Why were these books taken out of the Bible for Protestants?
Could someone elaborate on that? Protestants claim that the Bible is whole and they follow it yet they take books out?

I've just started reading some of these books I never read before and for the life of me don't yet understand why they were taken out. I'll admit. I feel cheated and lied to that's for sure.
  #2  
Old Dec 18, '10, 11:01 pm
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,158
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Protestants thought the OT should use the same books the Jews use. Of course just because a group uses books now, doesn't mean it was always thus limited.

Also the Reformers didn't originally take them right out, they segregated them into their own section. The complete removal is a later innovation of Protestants.
__________________
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
  #3  
Old Dec 18, '10, 11:08 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,589
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyR View Post
See, this was something I didn't know until actually , recently before I began RCIA class.
Why were these books taken out of the Bible for Protestants?
Could someone elaborate on that? Protestants claim that the Bible is whole and they follow it yet they take books out?

I've just started reading some of these books I never read before and for the life of me don't yet understand why they were taken out. I'll admit. I feel cheated and lied to that's for sure.
Martin Luther translated the bible into German and placed some of the books in the Apocrapha (as non-canonical but useful historical writings). I read that bibles were first published in America without the Apocrapha, because it was more profitible.
__________________

  #4  
Old Dec 18, '10, 11:10 pm
CEM5's Avatar
CEM5 CEM5 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2010
Posts: 1,336
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyR View Post
See, this was something I didn't know until actually , recently before I began RCIA class.
Why were these books taken out of the Bible for Protestants?
Could someone elaborate on that? Protestants claim that the Bible is whole and they follow it yet they take books out?

I've just started reading some of these books I never read before and for the life of me don't yet understand why they were taken out. I'll admit. I feel cheated and lied to that's for sure.
Dear TracyR,

God bless you for searching for the truth and journeying with RCIA. I will post several posts explaining the History of the Bible that will answer your question. I had already posted those in another thread, but will add them here for your easy access:

I will post the following first, and in a subsequent post, more on the history of the Bible.

Bible is without error. - in matters on Faith and Morals, in that truth necessary that God wanted us to know for the sake of our salvation.

The Bible must be read with understanding the various styles of writing (poetry, legends, allegory, prophecy, and such) and with knowledge of the customs of the people during those eras that the various books of the Bible were written.

Not understanding these customs and beliefs of the ancient writers of the Bible can make it appear that there are contradictions in the Bible. For example, ancient Hebrews during the time of Abraham still held the belief that there were many “gods”, but believed that the God of Abraham was the true God. The belief that there was only one God developed over time and this is reflected in the books in the Bible. Additionally, in the infancy of knowledge, they held that God was also a cause of disaster – if you were obedient to the Lord, you prospered; if you committed sin, you were “punished” by God and disaster would befall you. The belief that evil was attributed to Satan (or the devil) developed over time as they came to understand that evil was not attributed to God: God was good, benevolent and all loving, nevertheless, He is a just God.

The reader must learn as much as possible what the author intended behind these writings.

Look at context. Do not take one verse without looking at the whole picture. For instance: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22: In this passage many people leave out the part where it indicates that husbands are to serve their wives and even die for them just as Christ served and died for his beloved Bride, the Church.

Understand meaning of original language: In the Hebrew and Aramaic language there is no word for first cousins. They would use either “the son of the sister of my father” or just “brother” to depict the close blood ties of this relationship. Today in some cultures this still holds true.

example, the Greek words, adelphos “brother”, and adelphe “sister”.

Ex., Gen 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” however, Lot is the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother, making Lot, what we call in today’s terminology, his nephew. Gen 11:26-28

The same holds true for the word “hate”: The Semitic language had no word for “hate” as we understand the English word, and actually means to “love less” in the Semitic language. Therefore it is important to understand the original meaning of the written words since to be mistaken can lead to misinterpretations, and consequently to false doctrines.

Understanding literary forms: They are part of our daily experience, which can be true to life but not necessarily historical. Example: Genesis has two stories of creation, both written during different periods in time, with different authors. The older version is 2 Genesis. Understanding that Genesis was not intended to be a scientific factual history of creation, but was based on “legend”, and 1 Genesis was written in the poetical style to state a truth of creation: That all things came to be through God, the Creator, who created all things “good”, and gave an explanation for the cause of sin and death in the world. True science is never in conflict with Christian teaching.

By reading Scriptures properly and reverently, one can get to learn about and know about God. Proper interpretation of Scripture is left to the magesterium of the Church who have been properly instructed. That doesn't mean people can't know proper interpretation on their own - they just have to be sure they have not improperly interpreted them, for there are many passages difficult to fully understand without proper explanation. This is even mentioned by St. Peter the Apostle and first Pope, (see 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16).

Just as people need learned instructors to teach them properly how to "do" math, and further progress onto learning and understanding more difficult equations, so too do people need proper religious instructors who know what they are teaching to others. One doesn't just automatically know how to do physics and calculus, without being instructed; so too one doesn't just automatically know about God and His will without being properly instructed. Those who sincerely seek God and wish to understand His word will be led by the Holy Spirit to find out who God is and be led to reliable experts in the Church who have studied sacred Scripture, its languages, cultures, archaeology and traditions. The use of private interpretation is not forbidden, nonetheless, we must always test those revelations against the teachings of the Church so as not to go off tract.

Regardless, we must always remember that the Bible is the beloved word of God that shows His tremendous love for mankind and shows us, through Jesus, the way to eternal salvation, thus eternal life with God in heaven, where our true home with God awaits us.

Blessings,
CEM
__________________
Psalm 91:11--For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  #5  
Old Dec 18, '10, 11:14 pm
CEM5's Avatar
CEM5 CEM5 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2010
Posts: 1,336
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

My second post is about the history of the Bible, and I will have to continue in more posts.

The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Scriptures in the Bible, which was written, under the guidance (or inspiration: “God breathed”) of the Holy Spirit (see 2 Tim 3:16), by various inspired men: Prophets, kings, (David, Solomon), Priests, and Apostles (who were taught by Christ the meaning of all Scripture, see Luke 24:45). Jesus spoke Aramaic, and parts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic, however, it was mainly written in Koine Greek - the vernacular language of that time (not modern Greek as we know it today). The "Greek" Bibles of latter years are not the original Koine Greek but rather more modern Greek translations.

As the vernacular language changed from Greek to Latin, the Bible was in turn translated so that the population could understand the Scripture in their own language. As Priests traveled to other countries, Scripture was then in turn translated to that country’s vernacular language. In the case of Germany, there was no written language, and it was from the Church that the written language came to be (among other nations as well). The first English Bible was written by a monk (Caedmus) in the 7th century (600's).

The first Middle English Bible was written in 1582 by the Catholic Church in Douay, and later completed in 1609/10 in Rheims. This is the Douay-Rheims Bible. The King James Bible was completed in 1611, and at first contained all the Books of the Canon of the Bible. Those other "Bibles" written by such people as Wycliffe, and Luther for instance, were not proper Bibles. They changed and translated the Bible according to their own thoughts, going so far as to discard whole books, chapters, verses, and even adding words. Today, the Protestant Bibles are not the complete, original Scriptures. It is only the Catholic Church that has protected and safeguarded the Canon of Scripture and still has the complete Bible. We also have the original letters of the Apostolic Fathers (those who were taught and even ordained by some of the Apostles). Additionally, the Early Church Fathers’ letters collectively quote almost the entire New Testament Scriptures. Thus we know that the Scriptures were not changed by the Church, but by other men opposed to the Church who thought they knew better than the Apostles and Church Fathers.

Here are some facts:

Before anything was ever written the stories of God were transmitted orally for centuries. The people of God had no written language then.

The Pentatuch (The "Law" or "Teachings", also called the Torah by Jewish people) were first written around 1.300 by Moses. He wrote the Commandments, but other teachings were still oral and committed to memory. Moses was "Educated in all the learning of the Egyptians" Acts 7:22, and in Ex 24:4 "Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord", (These were pertaining to laws and ordinances of God - not all the five books of the Pentatuch, for Moses was busy leading the people through the desert and never entered foot into the Promised land.)

Among the oldest parts of the Bible (first written) were the Psalms, written by King David, around 1000 - 900 BC). Later parts of the Bible were written over a period of hundreds of years by various authors who were inspired by God: the Writings (Ketuvim) and the Prophets (Nevi'im).

After the dispersion of the Jews, (when the 10 Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were conquered by the Assyrians and therefore became the “10 lost tribes of Israel” for they were assimilated into the Gentile nations), the Hebrew language became almost non-existent among the remaining 2 tribes of Benjamin and Judah: Only the Priests knew the Hebrew language, and when they read in the Temple from the Torah, someone had to translate what the Priest read aloud into the vernacular language: Greek. (That was the common language spoken then, and these "Greek" Jews were known as Hellenistic Jews.) Under Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy Philidelphus, were commissioned 70 Jewish scholars (Scribes) who carefully translated the Hebrew into the Greek written language so the Jewish people could have access to their Scriptures in the language they understood now. This was later to be known as the Septuagint, or simply LXX, which means "seventy" in Greek.

to be continued...
__________________
Psalm 91:11--For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  #6  
Old Dec 18, '10, 11:14 pm
CEM5's Avatar
CEM5 CEM5 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2010
Posts: 1,336
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

continued:

This is the version of the Scriptures that all Jews used for centuries and of which even Jesus and the Apostles quoted from. When Jesus read Scripture in Temple (as the New Testament records) it was from the Septuagint that He read from. There are numerous quotes from the Septuagint mentioned in the New Testament, that the Protestants won't find in the butchered version of the Old Testament because they have discarded seven books and several chapters and verses from the Old Testament in the Reformation period.

After Jesus' death and resurrection, the Septuagint was the only written Scripture and the New Testament, the "Good News of Jesus Christ" (Gospel), was transmitted ORALLY. It was proclaimed aloud to all and there was no New Testament yet that was written. About 20 years after the death/resurrection of Jesus, Paul's letters were the first words written, about 50 AD. Mark's gospel was the first Gospel written (around 65 AD), Matthew's was the second, (around 80 AD), Luke's gospel was the third, written around 80 - 85 AD, and John's gospel was written around 90 - 100 AD, with his book of Revelation being the last book of the Bible ever written. Jesus also spoke Aramaic, and parts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic. Koine Greek was the language then, and is not the same Greek spoken or written today, just as Old English and Middle English are not the same as today's written and spoken English.

Now, during this time, many converts to Christianity was occurring, (not only Gentile converts but many Jewish converts as well - recall in Acts during Pentecost, there were about 6000 converts from Judaism to Christianity in one day alone!!). Around 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and all religious artifacts taken away never to be heard of again, and this was essential for Jewish Temple worship. With no Temple, there was no sacrifice anymore, nor were the Temple Priests able to perform their services anymore. So, around 100 AD a group of rabbis, who vehemenently opposed Christians (were "enemies of Christianity" - see Acts 5:17-19), Sadducees who did not believe in life after death, the resurrection or angels, gathered in a small ancient town (Jamnia, see Jabneh) and there they rendered a whole new version of the Old Testament. They removed those books from the Septuagint that pointed to the divinity of Christ, life after death, praying for the dead (as found in Maccabees), and one translator, Aquilla, even changed the word "virgin" (parthenos) in Isaiah 7:14 and rendered it to read "a young woman" (neanis) shall conceive, thereby changing the prophecy of Jesus' virginal birth. This butchered "bible" is known as the Jamnian canon (or the Palestinian canon), and took several hundred years to complete fully. During this time another Talmud was being made, and is more extensive today, and known as the Babylonian canon, so even among Jewish peoples, there are various sects and beliefs now. They are not united and some believe in angels, life after death and so on, whereas others do not. This altered Bible has seven books missing:
- Tobit
- Judith
- 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees
- Wisdom
- Sirach
- Baruch

Some chapters of the book of Daniel were discarded along with some verses here and there from the old testament.

All these books/chapters and verses/words were in the Septuagint, and to this day, this is what the Catholic Church continues to use as its Old Testament - the same one the early Jewish people used and the same one Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted from.

The Holy Spirit was no longer guiding the Temple Priests - this Holy Spirit was promised by Christ to guide the Church, His beloved Bride, to all truth, so the rabbis of Jamnia had no authority to change the Scripture of the Septuagint, nor did they have the authority to deem any books part or not part of any canon of Scripture.

So, for centuries the letters of Paul and the other Apostles and their followers were circulated and copied and used as part of the teachings, and read during Mass. Mass is a word that comes from the Latin: missa = to be sent. And Jesus "sent" His Apostles into the world to spread the good news, and "do this in remembrance of me" - the Eucharist, which has never changed and always remain doctrine since Jesus is the one who established this sacrament. Even though the original manuscripts do not exist, we have the original manuscripts of the Apostolic Fathers (those who were taught by and ordained by the Apostles, such as St Clement of Rome who was consecrated by St Peter, and St Ignatius who was a student of St John) who collectively quote the almost the entire New Testament in their letters!

to be continued...
__________________
Psalm 91:11--For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  #7  
Old Dec 18, '10, 11:16 pm
CEM5's Avatar
CEM5 CEM5 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2010
Posts: 1,336
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Around 367 AD the Books of the New Testament were put together, and in 419 AD, they were officially promulgated by Pope Boniface at the Second Council of Carthage. OT = 46 books (Septuagint), NT = 27 books for a total of 73 books.

During this time the common language (the vernacular) was becoming Latin, and therefore the Greek was no longer being understood by the masses of people. St. Jerome was a very learned man, knowing Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic among other languages, and he took the original manuscripts of the Scriptures (Old and New), for they still existed then, and carefully and painstakingly translated from the originals, into the Latin language. Jewish Scribes even visited him in the desert because of his knowledge. This is the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible that is still in existence today and is still one of the official versions of the Bible. (the Septuagint is the official Old Testament of the Church). It was completed 426 AD.

The first English (Saxon) Bible was translated by a monk: Caedmus in the 7th century (600's AD).

The Bible was translated into many languages -- of which some countries (Germany for example) first were introduced to a written language of their own. Before these priests./monks came, they had no written language. Every Church had at least one complete Bible.

For about 1500 years there was no question of the validity of the canon of the Bible or that the Catholic Church was the true Church - the Bride - of Christ. Then along came some men who thought they knew better than the Apostles, better than the Church, and even in some cases, more than Jesus! Luther wanted to get rid of several parts of the New Testament - such as the Book of James (which he called an "epistle of straw" - you can read his own words in the books he wrote), and he even wanted to get rid of the book of Revelation. He did manage to change Romans 3:28, and added the word "alone" which changed the passage and along with that change of his, came a new and dangerous doctrine: by Faith Alone. That is why he especially hated the book of James for in this book James tells us we are not saved by faith alone! We are saved by works, for "faith without works is no faith at all, but is dead".

The Reformers (no doubt in their continued ignorance) then took the Hebrew Bible - that butchered version, and used it for their own bible, discarding the Holy words of the canon of the Septuagint. So that is why the Protestant Bibles are lacking and missing such important books - they turned their Bible into one that was rendered by the Jewish rabbis, as described in the N.T. as "enemies of Christianity".

During this time the Catholic Church was persecuted by the supporters of the Reformation and in France, since Latin was no longer the vernacular language, and (Middle) English was, the Church was the first to translate the Bible into Middle English: The Douay-Rheims Bible, 1582, completed 1609/10. The King James Version of the Bible (written by King James who had no authority from God) was translated in 1611, AFTER the Catholic Church had already translated the Bible into English!! This KJV had only 66 books, not the complete 73 books.

Because of the questioning of the Catholic doctrines (which the Protestants also discarded - they don't have the seven sacraments, some only have two, if that), and the questioning of the Bible, in 1546 at the Council of Trent, the Canon of the O.T. and N.T. was definitely fixed, (even though it was already officially promulgated - it became Doctrine), and the Nicene Creed (which was already known as the proclamation of Faith since the 300's AD) was also accepted officially (as Doctrine) as the basis of Catholic Faith, as well as the seven sacraments (since Protestants rejected these).

Hope this helps, and God bless you.

P.S. We know without doubt that Paul’s letters were the first letters written around 50 BC, and the latest written Scripture was the Book of Revelation, around 100 BC by St. John the Apostle. All N.T. books were written prior to that date. There is no question about that. Additionally, even though the original manuscripts have disintegrated and no longer exist, we do have the original manuscripts written by those who were ordained and/or taught directly by St. Peter, and St. John, and are known as The Apostolic Fathers, and the Early Church Fathers (those who were taught/ordained directly by the Apostolic Fathers), and collectively, they quote almost the entire New Testament (which were the letters written by those Apostles, - or scribed, such as Mark scribed for Peter), and they exist today. Recall too, that St. Jerome in the third century used the original manuscripts of the Old Testament as well as the original manuscripts of the New Testament which he very carefully translated into the Latin “Vulgate” bible.
__________________
Psalm 91:11--For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  #8  
Old Dec 19, '10, 12:26 am
Bohm Bawerk Bohm Bawerk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: August 30, 2010
Posts: 2,104
Religion: Atheist.
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CEM5 View Post
Dear TracyR,

God bless you for searching for the truth and journeying with RCIA. I will post several posts explaining the History of the Bible that will answer your question. I had already posted those in another thread, but will add them here for your easy access:

I will post the following first, and in a subsequent post, more on the history of the Bible.

Bible is without error. - in matters on Faith and Morals, in that truth necessary that God wanted us to know for the sake of our salvation.

The Bible must be read with understanding the various styles of writing (poetry, legends, allegory, prophecy, and such) and with knowledge of the customs of the people during those eras that the various books of the Bible were written.

Not understanding these customs and beliefs of the ancient writers of the Bible can make it appear that there are contradictions in the Bible. For example, ancient Hebrews during the time of Abraham still held the belief that there were many “gods”, but believed that the God of Abraham was the true God. The belief that there was only one God developed over time and this is reflected in the books in the Bible. Additionally, in the infancy of knowledge, they held that God was also a cause of disaster – if you were obedient to the Lord, you prospered; if you committed sin, you were “punished” by God and disaster would befall you. The belief that evil was attributed to Satan (or the devil) developed over time as they came to understand that evil was not attributed to God: God was good, benevolent and all loving, nevertheless, He is a just God.

The reader must learn as much as possible what the author intended behind these writings.

Look at context. Do not take one verse without looking at the whole picture. For instance: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22: In this passage many people leave out the part where it indicates that husbands are to serve their wives and even die for them just as Christ served and died for his beloved Bride, the Church.

Understand meaning of original language: In the Hebrew and Aramaic language there is no word for first cousins. They would use either “the son of the sister of my father” or just “brother” to depict the close blood ties of this relationship. Today in some cultures this still holds true.

example, the Greek words, adelphos “brother”, and adelphe “sister”.

Ex., Gen 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” however, Lot is the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother, making Lot, what we call in today’s terminology, his nephew. Gen 11:26-28

The same holds true for the word “hate”: The Semitic language had no word for “hate” as we understand the English word, and actually means to “love less” in the Semitic language. Therefore it is important to understand the original meaning of the written words since to be mistaken can lead to misinterpretations, and consequently to false doctrines.

Understanding literary forms: They are part of our daily experience, which can be true to life but not necessarily historical. Example: Genesis has two stories of creation, both written during different periods in time, with different authors. The older version is 2 Genesis. Understanding that Genesis was not intended to be a scientific factual history of creation, but was based on “legend”, and 1 Genesis was written in the poetical style to state a truth of creation: That all things came to be through God, the Creator, who created all things “good”, and gave an explanation for the cause of sin and death in the world. True science is never in conflict with Christian teaching.

By reading Scriptures properly and reverently, one can get to learn about and know about God. Proper interpretation of Scripture is left to the magesterium of the Church who have been properly instructed. That doesn't mean people can't know proper interpretation on their own - they just have to be sure they have not improperly interpreted them, for there are many passages difficult to fully understand without proper explanation. This is even mentioned by St. Peter the Apostle and first Pope, (see 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16).

Just as people need learned instructors to teach them properly how to "do" math, and further progress onto learning and understanding more difficult equations, so too do people need proper religious instructors who know what they are teaching to others. One doesn't just automatically know how to do physics and calculus, without being instructed; so too one doesn't just automatically know about God and His will without being properly instructed. Those who sincerely seek God and wish to understand His word will be led by the Holy Spirit to find out who God is and be led to reliable experts in the Church who have studied sacred Scripture, its languages, cultures, archaeology and traditions. The use of private interpretation is not forbidden, nonetheless, we must always test those revelations against the teachings of the Church so as not to go off tract.

Regardless, we must always remember that the Bible is the beloved word of God that shows His tremendous love for mankind and shows us, through Jesus, the way to eternal salvation, thus eternal life with God in heaven, where our true home with God awaits us.

Blessings,
CEM
I just passed by this and I find it quite interesting. Are you a biblical scholar by any chance?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
  #9  
Old Dec 19, '10, 1:28 am
CEM5's Avatar
CEM5 CEM5 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2010
Posts: 1,336
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohm Bawerk View Post
I just passed by this and I find it quite interesting. Are you a biblical scholar by any chance?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Hello Bohm Bawerk,

I don't consider myself as such, I just love learning and reading (some might call erudite ). I am a certified Catechist and teach RCIA though.

blessings of God to you,
CEM
__________________
Psalm 91:11--For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
  #10  
Old Dec 19, '10, 3:24 pm
rev kevin's Avatar
rev kevin rev kevin is offline
Banned
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 14, 2009
Posts: 2,546
Religion: yes I have a religion
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

I came upon a Bible that is called "The Complete Bible."

In the OT section there are 53 books.
5 books are called "The Pentateuch."
12 books called "The Historical Books."
5 "Poetical Books."
17 books of "The Prophets."
and 14 books called "The Apocrypha."

The NT section has the same has 27 books in it.

With the OT and the NT combined the "Complete Bible" contains 80 books.
7 more books then the Catholic Bible has.
14 more then the Protestant Bible has.

Now according to this Bible both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible's are missing books.
  #11  
Old Dec 19, '10, 4:10 pm
panner panner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: December 7, 2010
Posts: 77
Religion: Catholic, leaning Protestant
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyR View Post
See, this was something I didn't know until actually , recently before I began RCIA class.
Why were these books taken out of the Bible for Protestants?
Could someone elaborate on that? Protestants claim that the Bible is whole and they follow it yet they take books out?

I've just started reading some of these books I never read before and for the life of me don't yet understand why they were taken out. I'll admit. I feel cheated and lied to that's for sure.
I found through research that no book that was consider scriptural by the early Church Fathers were taken out. The Apocrypha was placed in the middle between the Testaments and later by King James were removed entirely but until Trent there was always a question of the validity of the Apocryphal Books by it appears many scholars throughout history. I have a Protestant Bible somewhere that has the extra books and I am sure one can still find them on the internet.

Here is Jerome (He put together the Vulgate) take on the books:

Quote:
Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.
  #12  
Old Dec 19, '10, 5:10 pm
cooterhein cooterhein is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 25, 2010
Posts: 654
Religion: non-Catholic
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CEM5 View Post
The ancient OT was not the version that Jewish people use today.
Are you saying the Jewish canon of today contains material that is not in the Protestant OT? If so, I don't believe that's accurate.

Quote:
As for the Eastern Orthodox church, they broke away from the Church that Christ established, which has the Vicar of Christ (Pope), and the Eastern Orthodox church, although tracing her roots to the Apostles (because at one time she was in union with Christ's true Church) has broke away - thus the great Schism.
See, I heard something a little different. What I heard was that one morning during Mass at the Hagia Sophia, papal legates inturrupted it by walking in and laying excommunication papers at the altar. That doesn't sound a whole lot like "breaking away." It sounds a bit more like the West cut them loose, and in an overly insensitive manner, at that. In any case, it's not like the Greek tradition concerning the contents of the Septuagint snapped into existence after the Schism. If you reject ancient Church tradition on the basis of a Schism that happened a solid 1,000 years later, that would be the very definition of anachronistic.

Remember that the translation of the Septuagint was in progress well before Jesus was even born. Also remember where it happened- it was largely completed in Greece and other Greek-speaking parts of the world. This process was nearly complete by the time Revelation was written.

Quote:
See, there is only ONE Church that Christ left for us on earth that He promised to be with "always" and to guide, and to where we are to have disputes settled. This Church has the succession of the Pope in it beginning with Peter in an unbroken succession to this day with Pope Benedict XVI.
There really isn't any evidence that Peter had any kind of "last-say" authority over the entire Church during his lifetime, and tangential evidence suggests that he didn't even have universal jurisdiction over Rome, where Christianity was still quite illegal and largely practiced outside the city walls. The assertion that Linus actually succeeded Peter is another one that's insufficiently supported by historical evidence, and to a certain extent, it's something that you are (at least for now) being asked to take on faith. But you can't realistically expect me to do the same.

Quote:
The Eastern Orthodox church has no Pope: Instead they have Patriarchs (of Constantinople), so they are not the Church that Christ established and put in charge of our souls.
Of course they don't have a pope; that stopped when a pope excommunicated them when he didn't really have to. Despite this, the organization of these bishops more closely resembles how bishops functioned in the first millennium of Christianity. This is in general keeping with the East-West rule of thumb: Since the first millennium, the East has kept everything exactly the same, and the West claims continuity while making some changes and calling it "development."

Quote:
Only the Catholic Church and those in union with her are Christ's Bride. This is the Church that Christ's Holy Spirit guided to make the canon of the Bible (in place BEFORE the schism), and of which the Holy Spirit still guides to this day as promised.
We do agree that the Holy Spirit guides His Church, but we don't agree that He protected the ECF's from error when determining the canon of the NT. I do believe they got it right with God's help, but He was not protecting them from error- nor did those men or any of their contemporaries believe He was.

Additionally, it wasn't until Trent that the entire canon of Scripture (and the OT in particular) was officially set in stone by the CC. There had been an agreed-upon NT canon for many centuries by that time, and Trent was more of an affirmation of the deuterocanonicals against what non-Catholics were using in the West. However, there wasn't an official OT canon prior to the Schism or prior to Trent. Sure, everyone in the West was using the Latin Vulgate. But what do you think the rest of the Catholic Church was using at the time? How about in Greece? I'll bet they were using....the Septuagint, which was in Greek, and the New Testament, which was also in Greek. Makes sense when you're in Greece, right?

And how many books do you suppose the Greeks included in their Septuagint? Well....since they are the ones who gave you the Septuagint, it does seem a little cheeky to call them "their" Septuagints. It might be more appropriate to call it "The Septuagint," which Jerome (against the advice of Augustine) actually did not use to create the Latin OT translation, though seven of the ten "things that are read" were included. But why only seven? And why not Psalm 151? The question remains, and there isn't a really good answer.

I mean, there are answers that involve re-affirmations of your identity as "One" and "True." There are answers that declare for yourself a special office of being the decider who officially decides things. But there aren't any really good responses that actually answer the question. Just deflections.
  #13  
Old Dec 19, '10, 5:43 pm
Bluegoat Bluegoat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Posts: 5,016
Religion: classical Anglican
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

I think it is worthwhile to note that the canon of scripture wasn't really considered completely fixed by the Catholic Church until after the Reformation, and there was discussion up until then about the status of various books. Luther and the other reformers weren't way out in left field by weighing in on that discussion.

The idea of a fixed canon that is very clearly defined is really more important to Protestantism than it is in a Catholic or Orthodox setting, so it makes sense that they would tend toward a more conservative view of what was canonical.
  #14  
Old Dec 19, '10, 5:51 pm
BlueShadow123's Avatar
BlueShadow123 BlueShadow123 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 1,716
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

One of the reasons is because back then the churches would take peoples money by claiming that donating to the church would save you or help you through the 'saving' process. The catholics see it as a process, and it surely is but you do not need to necessarily give all your money to a church especially if you're poor to become saved. A lot of the churches took their money and conned them to give it to the King. Luther didn't like it.

But theres a lot of reasons why he took them out.
  #15  
Old Dec 20, '10, 6:56 pm
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,534
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: Why were books taken out of the Bible?

Quote:
=Bluegoat;7380878]I think it is worthwhile to note that the canon of scripture wasn't really considered completely fixed by the Catholic Church until after the Reformation, and there was discussion up until then about the status of various books. Luther and the other reformers weren't way out in left field by weighing in on that discussion.
This is true.


Quote:
The idea of a fixed canon that is very clearly defined is really more important to Protestantism than it is in a Catholic or Orthodox setting, so it makes sense that they would tend toward a more conservative view of what was canonical
This not entirely true, at least from a Lutheran perspective, though I understand your point. The Lutheran Confessions do not list the canon specifically . Technically, for Lutherans, the canon remains open, though in practice the D-C's would not be used to establish doctrine.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8474Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: SueZee
5153CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4427Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3759Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: James_OPL
3330Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3286Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3225Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3114For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Weejee



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:39 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.