Deuterocanonical Books Removed from KJB

  • Thread starter Thread starter mo3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mo3

Guest
The original King James Bible had the Deuterocanonical Books. Sometime in the 1800’s, they were removed.

I don’t have a copy of the original KJB so how can I prove it? Is there some place on the web that has the original KJB version?
 
I have an actual hard copy of the KJV apocrypha. There is more in there than the 7 deuteros. Here is a website I found that has the text. I don’t know if the site is reliable or not. Perhaps what you need is a photocopy or picture of a table of contents in a original KJB. I’d think you might find that on the web somewhere.
 
Thank you for the info. I think most Evangelicals don’t realize the original King James Bible included these books. This is important info to help defend our faith.
 
mo3 said:
Thank you for the info. I think most Evangelicals don’t realize the original King James Bible included these books. This is important info to help defend our faith.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this helps you defend your faith. While yes, they were included, I don’t recall any of the reformers accepting them as inspired.

Can you explain how this helps you defend your faith?
 
I guess that it proves the Bible have been tampered with in the past.
Is also a good way for a non christian to attack the Bible as whole. Proving that some people were willing to put and pull books out of the Bible in the past.
 
I believe the date was 1829 when they were finally removed. It was part of a deal to provide low cost Bibles if the provider was allowed to remove the offending (in the minds of the providers) texts.
 
if the DC where not inspired… why then do you find NO bible prior to luther, and after say 400 AD that did NOT have them…

Why doesn’t the Orthodox agree with he Lutheran cannon. The cannon Luther proposed was first seen by, well, Luther…

Why is it that Luther’s decision to single handedly remove these books not questioned, And why is it that people think that One man over 1100 years after the cannon was established could question it.

In Christ
 
Calvinator said:
I don’t see how this helps you defend your faith. While yes, they were included, I don’t recall any of the reformers accepting them as inspired.

Can you explain how this helps you defend your faith?
Click to expand...
The so called “Bible believing Christian” looks inside the bible to see what is there. If the DC’s are there, they will think of them as inspired irregardless of what the reformers thought. If the DC’s are not there, they definitely believe they are not inspired. Also, when you ask them “who” had the authority to remove them from the Bible, it poses a difficult question that directs them towards questioning Sola Scriptura.

Once this is challenged effectively, they should be more open to the Catholic position on the Bible.
 
Martin Luther did not just randomly eliminate the books instead of using the greek version of the bible known as the septuagint, he switched to the jewish canon of the Bible. Septuagint is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews of the dispersion and the sacred writers of the New Testament used the serptuagint version (when they quoted from the Old Testament) which contained the deutrocanical books and passages.The Old Testament was not officially defined by the Jews until the threat of Christian heresy. Its wide diffusion of Christian writing led the Jews of Palestine to convene the council of Jamnia… Their criterion for accepting books for the Bible were the book had to conform to the the Pentateuch, could not have been written after 400 BC,and had been written in Hebrew and in Palestine. Tobit and Judith were excluded as they were written in Aramic. 1Maccabees, 2Maccabees and Wisdom were written in Greek. Sirach was written after 500 BC and Baruch was written in Babylon. Some fragments of these books were found on the dead sea scrolls. After about one thousand one hundred years, the issue of Christian canon of Bible re-appeared during Reformation in sixteenth century. Martin Luther in his German translation placed the seven books as appendix and did not considered them (following Jerome) equal to the other 39, but still useful and good to read. He also disliked Esther and also did not consider 4 books of New Testament (Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation) equal to the other 23. Most of Protestant Old Testament now excludes those 7 books, while some may have them inserted between Old and New Testaments. The majority of Protestants do not regard them as inspired and call them Apocrypha. Thus they consider only 39 books as inspired which agrees with 24 books of Hebrew Bible (the difference in number comes from different way of dividing books). As a response to Reformation, Catholic Church held an Ecumenical Council at Trent where one of the decision was reaffirming the canonicity of those 46 books. The main reason why Protestants reject deuterocanonical books is they support teachings peculiar to Catholic Church, like praying to the dead (2 Mac 12:45-46) and almsgiving for sin expiation (Tobit 12:9). Didn’t mean to just keep going on and on sorry (1st post and I heard this info from my priest at a class on church history).
 
heisenburg said:
if the DC where not inspired… why then do you find NO bible prior to luther, and after say 400 AD that did NOT have them…

Why doesn’t the Orthodox agree with he Lutheran cannon. The cannon Luther proposed was first seen by, well, Luther…

Why is it that Luther’s decision to single handedly remove these books not questioned, And why is it that people think that One man over 1100 years after the cannon was established could question it.

In Christ
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that every bible after 400 had the deutero’s. Can you give me a source for this?

Why doesn’t the orthodox canon agree with yours?

It is completely false to assume Luther was the first to reject the books you call the deutero’s. In fact, your own church did not settle the matter until Trent. Up until then, the books were in dispute.
 
mo3 said:
The so called “Bible believing Christian” looks inside the bible to see what is there. If the DC’s are there, they will think of them as inspired irregardless of what the reformers thought. If the DC’s are not there, they definitely believe they are not inspired. Also, when you ask them “who” had the authority to remove them from the Bible, it poses a difficult question that directs them towards questioning Sola Scriptura.

Once this is challenged effectively, they should be more open to the Catholic position on the Bible.
Click to expand...
That isn’t how it works. If they were included in my Bible, I am quite sure my ministers would be pretty non-ambiguous as to their standing.
 
Calvinator said:
I’m not sure that every bible after 400 had the deutero’s. Can you give me a source for this?

Why doesn’t the orthodox canon agree with yours?

It is completely false to assume Luther was the first to reject the books you call the deutero’s. In fact, your own church did not settle the matter until Trent. Up until then, the books were in dispute.
Click to expand...
Actually, the matter was settled at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 300s. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Canon in the face of Protestant reformers. This is a common misconception.
 
Rolltide said:
Actually, the matter was settled at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 300s. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Canon in the face of Protestant reformers. This is a common misconception.
Click to expand...
Was a catholic free to reject the deutero’s after Carthage and Hippo?

BTW. newadvent.org has this to say:
“The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”
 
Calvinator said:
I’m not sure that every bible after 400 had the deutero’s. Can you give me a source for this?

Why doesn’t the orthodox canon agree with yours?

It is completely false to assume Luther was the first to reject the books you call the deutero’s. In fact, your own church did not settle the matter until Trent. Up until then, the books were in dispute.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox accept the 27 NT books Protestants and Catholics accept.

They have three additional OT books that Catholics don’t accept–1 Esdras, III Macabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Here’s an Orthodox site that explains the canon of Scripture from their POV:
serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm
The “Protestant” Old Testament in Antithetical to Christian Truth. When Protestant Western Christians reviewed the canonical books of Scripture, they adopted the “Hebrew Canon” accepted by the Jews since 100 AD.
Click to expand...
The so-called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books (found in “Catholic” and “Orthodox” versions of the Bible) were a problem for Jews living after the time of Christ, since they often very clearly prophesy concerning Our Lord, and indicate His divinity.
Click to expand...
Some of the books were also problematic for both the Jews and the Protestants because they make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation. In fact, the Orthodox Fathers cite passages quite effectively to discuss the Church"s understanding of the role of the Theotokos.
Click to expand...
Also, they only scriptural reference to praying for the dead is found in a Deuterocanonical Book: viz., Maccabees.
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books were rejected from the “canon” of books indicated in the Jewish Scriptures. This canon was formally pronounced by a rabbinical council at Jamnia (c. 100 AD), which stated that all canonical Scripture had to have been written: in Palestine, in Hebrew (not Greek), and more then 400 years prior (300 BC) to that time.
Click to expand...
In addition, the authorized Hebrew “translation” was at variance with the accepted Septuagint Greek versions, which had been prepared by 72 translators working in Alexandria Egypt.
Click to expand...
This is significant, because the Apostles, who were the authors of the New Testament, as well as the early Church Fathers, frequently cite passages only found in the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament that have significant differences in meaning from the Hebrew. Moreover, they frequently cite passages from the “Apocryphal” books of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Also, here is a chart of the OT Biblical canons. All the ancient churches accept the 7 deuterocanonical books.
bombaxo.com/canonchart.html
 
The Canon of Scripture has been reaffirmed numerous times as needed to refute the latest heretics.
 
flyersfan1088 said:
The Canon of Scripture has been reaffirmed numerous times as needed to refute the latest heretics.
Click to expand...
Could a Catholic reject the deuteros between say 400 ad and the council of Trent and remain a good and faithful Catholic?
 
flyersfan1088 said:
The Canon of Scripture has been reaffirmed numerous times as needed to refute the latest heretics.
Click to expand...
The fathers at Trent had to vote on what to accept and what to reject so obviously there wasn’t binding declaration earlier. If there were, there wouldn’t have been a vote.

So, why did the council fathers need to vote on which books to include if they were re-affirming what was already known and why did some of the fathers reject them at the council?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top