73 books of the bible versus 66? Help/explanation?

[adf417]

Yes. For example Luther removed the Book of Maccabees because of the verses where they pray for the dead and therefore support the existence of Purgatory.

I really think this is a misrepresentation of Luther. Im sure he wanted to remove this Book and others but in fact did not do so. His bible included it. The removal came later.

Peace!!!

 

[Symphorian]

So did everyone else pretty much just follow Luther’s lead, then, when other denominations formed, cause it was what they knew?

The Church of England retained liturgical use of the Apocryphal Books where such readings can be found in Morning and Evening Prayer. The Morning Prayer canticle Benedicite, omnia opera comes from the Apocrypha. (The Song of the Three Holy Children.) Canon Law of the Church of England states that Bibles used in its churches must contain the Apocrypha.

Between 1645 and 1660 however, the Church of England and the Book of Common Prayer effectively did not exist. Both had been reformed out of recognition. In their place was the Commonwealth ruled over by the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell and the Directory of Public Worship was used in churches. Use of the BCP (which was regarded as being too ‘Romish’) was made illegal and readings from the Apocrypha were forbidden.

When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 the Book of Common Prayer was also restored and subsequently revised to produce the 1662 version which is still used in the Church of England to this day.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Fair enough. Luther started the process then.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

No controversy at all. The original bible had 73, the Catholic bible today has those same 73. It will continue to have those same 73 in the future no debates.

look up the approved Catholic bibles, and then research them online. Those 7 will be in there or its not a Catholic bible.

Would recommend the free app called verbum.

I have in my possession an 1883 KJV. It has those 7 books. I believe the last version of the KJV to have them was the 1886 KJV.

I have shut down many Protestants by bringing them to my house and showing off my 1883 KJV with those 7 books. You should see the look on their faces. It is priceless.

 

[anendlesswaltz]

Oh that’s so cool! I remember seeing a very big very old looking bible at an antique shop once. I wish I’d at least grabbed a photo. I don’t even remember the edition.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

yeah and the very first protestant bible called the “bear bible” had them too…history is remarkably eye opening isn’t it?

 

[BartholomewB]

I have shut down many Protestants by bringing them to my house and showing off my 1883 KJV with those 7 books. You should see the look on their faces. It is priceless.

But surely they are placed in a middle section titled The Apocrypha, not in their (Catholic) canonical order? For example, Tobit and Judith after Nehemiah and before Esther.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

The Bear Bible was first published on 28 September 1569, in Basel, Switzerland.[18][19] The deuterocanonical books were included within the Old Testament in the 1569 edition.

this was just off wikipedia for a quick response

 

[anon91549587]

hey Ridge , does the 1883 happen to have feast days inside? I am curious to know if the 1611 has them.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

But surely they are placed in a middle section titled The Apocrypha, not in their (Catholic) canonical order? For example, Tobit and Judith after Nehemiah and before Esther.

Yes, Is the Order relevant?

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, Is the Order relevant?

Yes, I think the order is relevant. For example, if I bought a Bible and when I opened it, expecting to see the books in their usual order, beginning with Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, I found that the publisher had rearranged them in alphabetical order, beginning with Acts, Amos, and Baruch, my reaction would be to say: That’s the wrong order!