I was cheated by my bible!


#1

Yeah, I bet you guys knew about this too. How long were you guys planning on waiting before you mentioned that your bible has more books than this pitiful protestant version?! Here I am trying to get a better understanding of christianity, and I don’t even have the full christian text because some books were arbitrarily identified as apocryful (i dunno about that spelling) and therefore heretical or some nonsense. So what books am I missing? Anything ELSE I should know? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves:tsktsk:

:smiley:
Sennacherib


#2

Well, we also say the rosary, go to mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation and believe in the resurrection. :eek:

Hopefully the fact that the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible did not really come as a huge shock to you. I mean, it’s not exactly a big secret. :smiley:


#3

[quote=Wormwood]Yeah, I bet you guys knew about this too. How long were you guys planning on waiting before you mentioned that your bible has more books than this pitiful protestant version?! Here I am trying to get a better understanding of christianity, and I don’t even have the full christian text because some books were arbitrarily identified as apocryful (i dunno about that spelling) and therefore heretical or some nonsense. So what books am I missing? Anything ELSE I should know? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves:tsktsk:

:smiley:
Sennacherib
[/quote]

Your missing Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, Sirach(also called Eclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, and parts of Daniel. If you want to realize what you are missing read chapter two of Wisdom and you will see a great prediction of Christ.


#4

[quote=Wormwood]Yeah, I bet you guys knew about this too. How long were you guys planning on waiting before you mentioned that your bible has more books than this pitiful protestant version?! Here I am trying to get a better understanding of christianity, and I don’t even have the full christian text because some books were arbitrarily identified as apocryful (i dunno about that spelling) and therefore heretical or some nonsense. So what books am I missing? Anything ELSE I should know? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves:tsktsk:

[/quote]

Hey! If it was easy to be a Catholic, everyone would be one. Can you imagine how angry Protestants are when they find out they have to read MORE???


#5

Hopefully the fact that the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible did not really come as a huge shock to you. I mean, it’s not exactly a big secret. :smiley:

Well I can tell you more than a few people that DON’T bring it up. I heard someone say the book of tobit…I asked what bible they were talking about…to my surprise…christian…catholic even.

Your missing Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, Sirach(also called Eclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, and parts of Daniel. If you want to realize what you are missing read chapter two of Wisdom and you will see a great prediction of Christ.

That is kind of a lot to edit eh? Now I have to get a new bible, you guys no my weakness…you could say anything you wanted if you quoted from those books. It was in the book of tobit…tobit 14:3 i believe…and the lord said, agnostics will be next to the furnace in hell…I wouldn’t know the difference…This will not do!!

Hey! If it was easy to be a Catholic, everyone would be one. Can you imagine how angry Protestants are when they find out they have to read MORE???

I’m not even christian and I’m angry! (that is kind of a strange statement :slight_smile: ) What kind of reasoning would they have used to edit the bible 1500 years later? Can you do that? Ok I am also tossing Deuteronomy, Job, Daniel, Kings, Corinthians, Amos, Psalms, and parts of Luke I don’t like, and starting my own church…anyone with me? Our church can be founded on " a better understanding, through less information".


#6

Wormwood, you sure are an interesting character! :wink:


#7

[quote=Wormwood]Well I can tell you more than a few people that DON’T bring it up. I heard someone say the book of tobit…I asked what bible they were talking about…to my surprise…christian…catholic even.

[/quote]

Ohhh, I love the Book Of Tobit. You even get a bit of a romance story here as an added bonus. The Angel Raphael plays matchmaker. So sweet. :love:


#8

[quote=Wormwood]…, and starting my own church…anyone with me? Our church can be founded on " a better understanding, through less information".
[/quote]

Yo, That’s a great idea. You could call it “Typical Protestant Church”.
:rolleyes:


#9

[quote=Chipper]Yo, That’s a great idea. You could call it “Typical Protestant Church”.
:rolleyes:
[/quote]

LOL. :rotfl: :rotfl: I almost wet my self.


#10

E.E.N.S.Wormwood, you sure are an interesting character!

Well thanks? I don’t know if that is a “good” interesting or a “restrained for my own good” interesting, but thanks either way :wink:

jrabs
Ohhh, I love the Book Of Tobit. You even get a bit of a romance story here as an added bonus. The Angel Raphael plays matchmaker. So sweet. :love:

See?!! I have no way to know if that is real, or if jrabs is just messing with me :mad: .
Curse you all with your fancy “complete” bibles …might as well toss the cliff notes and get the real thing…you haven’t heard the last of Wormwood :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

[quote=Wormwood]Well I can tell you more than a few people that DON’T bring it up. I heard someone say the book of tobit…I asked what bible they were talking about…to my surprise…christian…catholic even.

That is kind of a lot to edit eh? Now I have to get a new bible, you guys no my weakness…you could say anything you wanted if you quoted from those books. It was in the book of tobit…tobit 14:3 i believe…and the lord said, agnostics will be next to the furnace in hell…I wouldn’t know the difference…This will not do!!

I’m not even christian and I’m angry! (that is kind of a strange statement :slight_smile: ) What kind of reasoning would they have used to edit the bible 1500 years later? Can you do that? Ok I am also tossing Deuteronomy, Job, Daniel, Kings, Corinthians, Amos, Psalms, and parts of Luke I don’t like, and starting my own church…anyone with me? Our church can be founded on " a better understanding, through less information".
[/quote]

What a wonderful example of ignorance this thread has developed into! Let’s all laugh at the Protestant Bible, in the name of Christ! Hee hee, haw haw! Give me a break…

For your information, the “editing” didn’t happen 1500 years later. The differences lie in the “official” Jewish version of the Scriptures, which were revised around 100 A.D., to NOT include some of the books found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. It is the official Jewish Scriptures that the Protestants have based their Bibles on, while the Catholics have based theirs on the Septuagint, which, as I stated above, has more Books.

Since we would all agree that the whole of Christianity has its roots in Judaism, could it be, just maybe, that the Protestants have it right, since their Bible is based on the “official” Jewish canon?

Hee haw, hee haw!


#12

[quote=Wormwood]See?!! I have no way to know if that is real, or if jrabs is just messing with me :mad: .

[/quote]

Oh Wormy, I would never play with your mind. :nope:
Pure romance - read it and see.


#13

[quote=mhansen]What a wonderful example of ignorance this thread has developed into! Let’s all laugh at the Protestant Bible, in the name of Christ! Hee hee, haw haw! Give me a break…

For your information, the “editing” didn’t happen 1500 years later. The differences lie in the “official” Jewish version of the Scriptures, which were revised around 100 A.D., to NOT include some of the books found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. It is the official Jewish Scriptures that the Protestants have based their Bibles on, while the Catholics have based theirs on the Septuagint, which, as I stated above, has more Books.

Since we would all agree that the whole of Christianity has its roots in Judaism, could it be, just maybe, that the Protestants have it right, since their Bible is based on the “official” Jewish canon?

Hee haw, hee haw!
[/quote]

Uh!, The original KJV versions were published with all the same books as the Catholic Version. It wasn’t until later that they were dropped. I think your theory is lacking. In fact the Anglican church of England still uses the KJV which includes all the so called apocryphal books.

Hee haw!:stuck_out_tongue:


#14

:thumbsup:… the girl is sensible, courageous, and very beautiful; and her father loves her dearly …

… he fell deeply in love with her, and his heart became set on her …

… she was set apart for you before the world existed …

Tobit, chapter 6


#15

[quote=mhansen]Since we would all agree that the whole of Christianity has its roots in Judaism, could it be, just maybe, that the Protestants have it right, since their Bible is based on the “official” Jewish canon?
[/quote]

Why would the Christian church be subject to the Jews after the coming of Christ and establishment of his Church? They rejected the Messiah, maybe we should do that too? I disagree with your assessment that we would be subject to their canon after the fact that the church was already established through the Apostles. Also if you look at the process on how they qualified their canon, they might have to add 1 of those apocryphal books after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls…


#16

[quote=Matt16_18]:thumbsup:… the girl is sensible, courageous, and very beautiful; and her father loves her dearly …

… he fell deeply in love with her, and his heart became set on her …

… she was set apart for you before the world existed …

Tobit, chapter 6

[/quote]

Thanks…see? Beautiful and romantic. :love:


#17

[quote=Chipper]Uh!, The original KJV versions were published with all the same books as the Catholic Version. It wasn’t until later that they were dropped. I think your theory is lacking. In fact the Anglican church of England still uses the KJV which includes all the so called apocryphal books.

Hee haw!:stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

No sir, my theory is not lacking. I understand which versions of the Bible were printed with which books. The fact remains that the Protestant version of the Bible is based on the official Jewish canon, regardless of when it was officially “adopted.” On the other hand, the Catholic Bible is based on the Septuagint, which is NOT official Jewish canon.

The “additional” books found in the Septuagint were dropped from official Jewish Scripture around 90-100 A.D. That is historical fact. If the Catholic Church wishes to continue to view these books as canon, even though Judaism does NOT, that’s fine. Nobody says they can’t, and that’s not my decision. Many Protestants have decided to go with the offical Jewish canon because (as I stated before) Christianity has its roots in Judaism.

Please, feel free to look it up. The people on this thread made it seem like it was the Protestants who arbitrarily took the books out, when in fact it was done by the Jews centuries ago.

Mike


#18

Wormwood,
Did You Know, that the 1609 version of the Kings James Version had the 7 books. However by 1630, the seven books were taken out. I had heard this from quite a few apologists. It was under the English Church that took the books out.

Another reason is because after the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D., the Jewish religious wanted to elimiate any book that dealt with the resurrection. SO with this in mind, this became a starting point in deciding which books of the OT were to be taken out in the 1630’s.


#19

[quote=Ziggy] They rejected the Messiah, maybe we should do that too? I disagree with your assessment that we would be subject to their canon after the fact …
[/quote]

In addition I would like to add that it can be proven that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, not the hebrew.

But, hey this is modern times and people do what they want, including telling Jesus he was wrong for quoting the Septuagint.

:eek:


#20

[quote=Ziggy]Why would the Christian church be subject to the Jews after the coming of Christ and establishment of his Church? They rejected the Messiah, maybe we should do that too? I disagree with your assessment that we would be subject to their canon after the fact that the church was already established through the Apostles. Also if you look at the process on how they qualified their canon, they might have to add 1 of those apocryphal books after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls…
[/quote]

Nowhere did I say that you HAD to be subject to Jewish canon. Open your eyes, please, and look instead of letting your prejudices speak for you.

If you don’t want to follow Jewish canon, then why have any of the OT books in there at all? Your logic escapes me.


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.