Burning of Bibles, burning of Qu'rans

One argument you’ll hear from Muslims is that Christians burned their Bibles, and so, they can’t fault Muslims for the burning of the Qu’ran. This is a “you too” fallacy, and, like most fallacies, is based on misinformation.

The burning of the Bibles in the 1500s was not the Catholic Church burning Scriptures left and right but was the destruction of mistranslated Bibles. These Bibles were seriously flawed; they contained heresies and rewritten verses. So the Church, to protect her children from error and heresy, burned them. The Bible was already compiled by this time (the canon of the Scriptures had been defined c. 100 AD), so the Church was not - as some believe - destroying books in order to control what went into Scripture.

Many of these had no notes whatever, but were the text alone. When did 66 books cease to be inspired, merely because seven others were not thought to be & were therefore (often) not included ? If mistranslation is a reason for burning Bibles, every Catholic Bible on earth - and every other - should be committed to the flames: the fact is, that no such thing as a perfect translation exists; translators always have to do their best, which is never perfect. The Church did not burn enough Bibles, if the reason that which you give.

The Church’s policy in Bible-burning has no purpose, if it was ***not ***that of “control[ling] what went into Scripture” - that is a very good description of the reason for that practice: “control” sums it up nicely. It is very feeble to applaud the action of the Church, and not its motives for that action. By praising the end achieved, you are committing yourself to praising the means to attain that end. Fundamentalists are willing enough to insist that the Flood covered the entire globe - but they become very coy about taking responsibility for all the animal turds defecated by the larger beasts they say were on the Ark. An honest Fundamentalist takes responsibility for all the turds that are the result of his belief - Catholics should take responsibility for all the turds that result from praising the burning of Bibles.

As for the Sixtine Vulgate of 1590, which left out at least four verses of the Bible, it fully qualifies to be burned like those others, for it was “seriously flawed”.

The burning of books is not an intrinsic evil. So no, the Church did not justify the means with the end, and neither am I. If the Church had burned the books for an evil purpose, or if it had burned the original Bible, than it would be evil. But the Church did neither.

Oh but it is. Burning books is actually about burning ideas, and that is not far from burning people thinking those ideas.

That’s a real stretch. Also, how can you call something an “intrinsic evil” without even believing in the existence of evil?

<<When did 66 books cease to be inspired, merely because seven others were not thought to be & were therefore (often) not included ?>>

There are not just 66 books in the Bible. In this you are incorrect.

The REAL question is why did the Latin and Protestant churches exclude some of them? (Yes, the Latin Church did that very thing.)

FWIW, when the KJV first appeared, radical Puritans called it The Devil’s Bible and burned it in the streeets.

These will help you Cluny:


As to why the Puritans burned the KJB, you’ll have to ask them via research :wink:

I call the burning of books evil. Not because some transcendent “Evil” exists but because I regard the action itself as evil.

One day for your sake i hope they put a handle on reality. that way you might be able to get a grip on it.

Reality like this (last time, books were burned in my country):

I’d rather avoid a reality like that or being grabbed by those guys…

Burning did boooks did not allow hitler to convince his people to
Invade poland
murder millions of jews, Catholics gypsys etc.
enslave half of europe
murder millions of russians
lead a entire country down the path of destruction.
books just aren’t that important.
And if it did. Its a warning to us all about letting a bunch of atheists run a country.

No, but if you need to burn because you fear their ideas, it tells a lot about how weak your own ideas are.

And if it did. Its a warning to us all about letting a bunch of atheists run a country.

96% of all Germans back then were Christians. :rolleyes:

I don’t how often I have heard that unhistorical assessment, I suppose due to a good propaganda people do not know better, otherwise I had to call it a LIE. But it is futile to present facts, they only block the beloved view on reality.

The difference is that the Pope has the authority to order something like that, but who gave the authority to Uthman to do what he did…

Burning of Holy Bible and Quran? By whom? Is the Holy Bible burnt by Muslims, and vice versa than its wrong, but if its by the respective authority than why?

Also I would appreciate if someone share with me why Holy Bibles have 73 and 66 books respectively in different denominations and why the 6 books are missing from most Holy Bibles.


Sure 96% may have been chrsitians. But 96% of the population wasn’t running the running the country, now were they?:smiley: Facts are facts nazis were atheist. and it was the nazis who drove germany down the path of murder and destruction. Sorry . No propaganda or lies here. just facts and reality.

Other people have their own subjective opinions as well. The kind of “evil” you refer to amounts to nothing more than an inconsequential personal preference.

Well, I’d say about 1/3 of all Germans were Nazis back then, so at least 88% of them had to be Christians.

You mean CHristians like Ted Kennedy or Barrack Obama etc? And no in no way am i saying they are/were nazis. I’m saying that yes they say theyare/were Christian. But their actions didn’t really show it. And please we all know the view nazis took on christianity. Just because one is born into a christian family. doesn’t mean they are CHristian. And your stats don’t make sence. Because if 98% of germans were christian. That makes roughly say 9 out of ten germans were christian. SO how do you get that 88% of nazis were christians if only 1/3 of germans were nazis? Becuase you leave out such questions as. Did these people give up their faith when they joined? did they still have their faith when they joined the party?
Because as i said being a Christian wasn’t excatly benifit in the nazi party. And you know this.You’re really only implying hopefull thinking err i mean your own opinion there.Which is the basic operandi of Atheists.

I know, that Hitler ordered Goebbels and Bormann to re-enter the Catholic Church. I know, that “Gott mit uns” (God with us) was engraved on the buckle of a German soldier. I know, that the only contract the 3rd Reich signed with another state still in place is the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican. The list could be continued.

You mean Goebbels the pagan? Or bormann the man who forbid his servants (maids cooks etc) to even go to a shop owned by Catholics? bormann hated the catholic church. You’re german i think you said. So surely they must teach you this in school? And as far as Gott mit uns goes. Which God are they talking about? since many of them were pagans.
Reichskonkordat? is that the contract The vatican signed with hitler in 1933? The one where they sought to ensure the saftey and freedom of catholics in germany?
"Cardinal Pacelli said as much in August 1933 to Ivone Kirkpatrick, the British minister to the Vatican: “The spiritual welfare of 20 million Catholic souls in Germany was at stake, and that was the first and, indeed, only consideration” in agreeing to the concordat. The Holy See “had to choose between an agreement on [Nazi] lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich"
So to sum up. goebbels was a lunatic (wasn’t they all? ) who was obsessed with neo paganism. bormann hated the church probably more than he hated the Jews. As i believe he once said. “once the jews are dealt with. we will turn our attention onto the Catholics.”.
And the pope signed the “contract” with the nazi party. In a hope that Catholics will be able to keep some form of freedom. A contract which .”After the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918, the Holy See had tried to sign a concordat with the Weimar Republic but did not succeed. The sticking point was the church’s insistence on state support for Catholic schools and for Catholic religious instruction in the public schools. This stipulation was not acceptable to Weimar’s parliament, especially to its Socialists, who held that it violated the separation between church and state. So don’t start down the "hitlers pope " route with me. Cause you do know what the author of that book job wasduring ww2?

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