Catholic Bible vs King James and others

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ruffian1964
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ruffian1964

Guest
I am wondering why The Catholic Bible has books in it that Luther decided to remove- or maybe the better question is WHY did Luther remove those books? I have heard the sarcastic remark that Luther had to remove these books to justify his own teaching, but I am sure protestants have a much more complex explanation. A woman at work keeps telling me how many bibles she owns and I want to ask her so bad why she has to have so many but I want to approach the subject in a more Christian way to get her to honestly question why her Bibles are lacking all the books.
 
Ruffian1964 said:
I am wondering why The Catholic Bible has books in it that Luther decided to remove- or maybe the better question is WHY did Luther remove those books? I have heard the sarcastic remark that Luther had to remove these books to justify his own teaching, but I am sure protestants have a much more complex explanation. A woman at work keeps telling me how many bibles she owns and I want to ask her so bad why she has to have so many but I want to approach the subject in a more Christian way to get her to honestly question why her Bibles are lacking all the books.
Click to expand...
Two good sources on this are…

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church

“5 Myths about 7 Books”
 
I have heard the sarcastic remark that Luther had to remove these books to justify his own teaching
Click to expand...
No sarcasm. He also removed the Epistle of James because he couldn’t justify James 2:24 with Sola fide.

List of references in the NT to the deuterocanon - scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
List of quotes from the Septuagint used in the NT, proving that the apostles approved of the deuterocanon - scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

The Protestant justification is that the Jews rejected the contested books. Though this was at the same council where they also decided Jesus was not the Messiah.
 
EphelDuath said:
No sarcasm. He also removed the Epistle of James because he couldn’t justify James 2:24 with Sola fide.

List of references in the NT to the deuterocanon - scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
List of quotes from the Septuagint used in the NT, proving that the apostles approved of the deuterocanon - scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

The Protestant justification is that the Jews rejected the contested books. Though this was at the same council where they also decided Jesus was not the Messiah.
Click to expand...
So Protestants accept Jewish TRADITION?

What is that… irony?
 
EphelDuath said:
No sarcasm. He also removed the Epistle of James because he couldn’t justify James 2:24 with Sola fide…
Click to expand...
That’s a myth.

Luther did not remove any of the NT books. He did in fact believe that the books you guys call deutero’s were non-inspired.
 
EphelDuath said:
List of quotes from the Septuagint used in the NT, proving that the apostles approved of the deuterocanon - %between%
Even if you were correct and the books you call the deutero’s were canonical. The above argument has some problems.

a.) The apostles never quoted the books as scripture. For example, they never prefaced a quote or reference from the books in question with “It is written…” or “Thus saith the Lord”.

b.) Even if they are quoted, Paul quotes from pagan sources and we both agree that Paul didn’t think they were inspired.
Click to expand...
 
But I do believe, maybe I am wrong, that Luther attempted to remove James,the same as he did Revelations. However they were thrown back in under pressure. He wound up actually changing the words in James to just make it fit his agenda. Wasn’t it “by Faith” and he added “by Faith ALONE”? Is that correct? If it is correct, then I would like especially for Calvinator to explain from his view WHY Luther found it acceptable to ADD the word “alone” to scripture which had already been the Word for how many centuries? I fail to understand why on earth the Holy Spirit would have allowed Christs Church to preach the false teachings for 1500 years after all Christ was pretty insistent that that would NOT happen. This is where I went astray for so long thanks to protestant theology. If the Church went astray then Christ lied- which means he was NO Christ. He either meant what He said or He didn’t. You can not have it both ways- and THAT is the deciding factor for me in the long run. There for, protestants do not have a leg to stand on. If you believe the Church went astray then you really take away from your Lord and Savior which you claim to so dearly put all your trust and love in.
 
Calvinator said:
That’s a myth.

Luther did not remove any of the NT books. He did in fact believe that the books you guys call deutero’s were non-inspired.
Click to expand...
As a former Lutheran (Orthodox now): Luther called James an epistle of straw. He also doubted Hebrews and Revelation and I think Jude. His objections did not stand among his followers.
 
Calvinator said:
Even if you were correct and the books you call the deutero’s were canonical. The above argument has some problems.

a.) The apostles never quoted the books as scripture. For example, they never prefaced a quote or reference from the books in question with “It is written…” or “Thus saith the Lord”.

b.) Even if they are quoted, Paul quotes from pagan sources and we both agree that Paul didn’t think they were inspired.
Click to expand...
Let’s make it easy:

NO Christian manuscript WHATSOEVER of the OT lacks the deuterocanonicals. NONE.

These all predate the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuigent readings against the Masoretic, and Hebrew versions of e.g. Sirach (which, btw is commented on in the Talmud, although rejected later from the Jewish canon).

Also the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, how do you justify it without Maccabbees?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Let’s make it easy:

NO Christian manuscript WHATSOEVER of the OT lacks the deuterocanonicals. NONE.

These all predate the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuigent readings against the Masoretic, and Hebrew versions of e.g. Sirach (which, btw is commented on in the Talmud, although rejected later from the Jewish canon).

Also the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, how do you justify it without Maccabbees?
Click to expand...
a.) I hate to be dense, but what do you mean by “NO Christian manuscript WHATSOEVER of the OT lacks the deuterocanonicals. NONE.”

b.) You have thrown out some supposed facts but how does what you say, even if true, establish canonicity?

c.) Hanukkah celebrates a historic event that is mentioned in Maccabees. A book need not be inspired to relay historical information.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
As a former Lutheran (Orthodox now): Luther called James an epistle of straw. He also doubted Hebrews and Revelation and I think Jude. His objections did not stand among his followers.
Click to expand...
Okay, can you give me the entire quote or would you rather just proof text it (like you just did) and leave it at that?

Regardless, he included the books in his translation.
 
Calvinator said:
a.) I hate to be dense, but what do you mean by “NO Christian manuscript WHATSOEVER of the OT lacks the deuterocanonicals. NONE.”
Click to expand...
Meaning no manuscript (and the Reformation happened after printing), of the OT, produced by anyone who believed in Christ omitted the deuterocanonicals from the OT section of the Bible, nor from their lectionary (the majority of our MSS come from these).
b.) You have thrown out some supposed facts but how does what you say, even if true, establish canonicity?
Click to expand...
If you trust the copyists enough to transmit the text, then trust them in the text they transmitted, which included the deuterocanonicals.
c.) Hanukkah celebrates a historic event that is mentioned in Maccabees. A book need not be inspired to relay historical information.
Click to expand...
No, but a religious holiday needs an inspired commandment.
 
Calvinator said:
The other poster said something that wasn’t true. I corrected the mistake. Luther didn’t remove James.
Click to expand...
biblegateway.com has the 1547 Lutheran Bible for anyone who would like to check it out. I’m sure there are other resources regarding Luther’s “translated from Greek to German in 10 weeks” miracle Bible as well.

Luther inserted “faith ALONE” in Romans, but did not remove James altogether, although he did criticize it as a “right strawy epistle” as I recall.
 
Ruffian1964 said:
But I do believe, maybe I am wrong, that Luther attempted to remove James,the same as he did Revelations. However they were thrown back in under pressure. He wound up actually changing the words in James to just make it fit his agenda. Wasn’t it “by Faith” and he added “by Faith ALONE”? Is that correct? If it is correct, then I would like especially for Calvinator to explain from his view WHY Luther found it acceptable to ADD the word “alone” to scripture which had already been the Word for how many centuries? I fail to understand why on earth the Holy Spirit would have allowed Christs Church to preach the false teachings for 1500 years after all Christ was pretty insistent that that would NOT happen. This is where I went astray for so long thanks to protestant theology. If the Church went astray then Christ lied- which means he was NO Christ. He either meant what He said or He didn’t. You can not have it both ways- and THAT is the deciding factor for me in the long run. There for, protestants do not have a leg to stand on. If you believe the Church went astray then you really take away from your Lord and Savior which you claim to so dearly put all your trust and love in.
Click to expand...
It was Romans Luther changed. James 2 has commonly had “faith alone” as a valid translation; that presented a problem for Luther.
 
Calvinator said:
The other poster said something that wasn’t true. I corrected the mistake. Luther didn’t remove James.
Click to expand...
** “He did in fact believe that the books you guys call deutero’s were non-inspired.”**

This is what I was commenting on when I wrote:

But that was only one guy’s uninspired opinion.

May I add, King James did condense the Bible - for HIS version…

And who authorized him to do so? He & Calvin & Luther & Henry VIII came along many years after the Bible was completed.

Reader’s Digest condensed the Bible even further a few years ago, but sales weren’t that great. People are entitled to their opinions, but it doesn’t mean they’re right, or even remotely divinely inspired.

Doesn’t Revelation expressly forbid adding to or subtracting from its Books?

How much blood has been shed, only because a few people decided they knew better?
 
Calvinator- please respond to me on the question which I asked. I think it was very simple.
 
I’m really enjoying this discussion. I hope it retains the air of repectful debate I’ve seen so far, though I know that both sides will not budge much.

Wikipedia, While maybe not the best source had this to say about Luther’s view on new testiment Books.
Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”
He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.
Click to expand...
The reason I highlighted the last line is this.
I assume that Protestants believe that Luther was inspired by the Holy Spirit to save Christ’s Church from a the “corruptions” of the Catholics, and that his translation of the Bible, was also divinely inspired.
There is also evidence that he did want to remove some of the books (including revelation) from the NT but was prevented by others in the movement.

But - If his translation and the protestant reformation movement was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it seems highly unlikely that he would later change his views on some of the books. It throws the underpinnings of the changes out the window. (IMHO)

Just my 2c.

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top