R
rinnie
Guest
How can people say that they have everything they need in the bible, especially when they dont have all of the books. What about what was taken out, how do you account for that. I just dont understand.
- Status
A
allana
Guest
i understand what you mean, there are many protestant churches who
base their teachings and preachngs on the bible only, the incomplete one like the King James Version. It all has to do with Luther and his belief that ‘good works’ are not necessary to our salvation so he took out 7books and part of Esther.
However, the Catholic Religion can still be proved by their incomplete bible.
(i cant remember the site address, but google search for ‘THE CATHOLIC RELIGION PROVED BY PROTESTANT BIBLE’ and you will see how the protestant bible demonstrate the doctrines of the Catholic Church)
base their teachings and preachngs on the bible only, the incomplete one like the King James Version. It all has to do with Luther and his belief that ‘good works’ are not necessary to our salvation so he took out 7books and part of Esther.
However, the Catholic Religion can still be proved by their incomplete bible.
(i cant remember the site address, but google search for ‘THE CATHOLIC RELIGION PROVED BY PROTESTANT BIBLE’ and you will see how the protestant bible demonstrate the doctrines of the Catholic Church)
T
teancum79
Guest
Making a claim to the Bibles completeness is an effective means to disallow anything else. Though I’ve meet more than one person who says “all you need is the bible” and here have a book about the bible so you can understand it.
R
ralphinal
Guest
T
thecoach
Guest
You forget the fact that those books were not canonical in the Jewish canon either, giving doubt to their inspiration.
R
rinnie
Guest
But here is the thing that I cant understand, not being smart, how can they know that the Catholic bible was here first, and turn around and accept some of the books and deny the others, wouldnt they want to know why they were taken out. I mean myself if i was a protestant i would ask myself, or my Church why did we do that. Again not to cause trouble or fight, it would just bug me that they were taken out. surely it had to be questioned, see what I mean. what kind of answer could they have been given, Especially since luther did know scripture ( I will give him that to be smart enough to take those certain books to work into his plan) did in fact take them out. And how did one man who had no apostolic authority get away with this. Now as far as Jewish canon i cant see how that could be a big deal to a Christian because the Jews deny Jesus as being God. But do you see what i am saying? How can today as smart as people are, and especially bible study still in fact just ignore that.
T
thecoach
Guest
Since the Old Testament is the Hebrew Canon, what better people to rely upon?
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes I can see what you are saying the OT was totally the word of God you have no fight from me there, but then again Jesus fullfilled the OT and taught us the NT. And Jesus left us the Church. And the Church is who has all of the books now, the NT even tells you that. So would that not be even more proof that the Church holds the real truth. What other Church has written oral and tradition but the CC.
T
thecoach
Guest
The only thing is the OP question was about missing books. Those are all of the OT, so any NT revelation does not apply.
C
CBS
Guest
The early Church Fathers, and most likely the Apostles and Jesus himself, did not use the Hebrew OT, they used the Greek Septuagint, which had the seven Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.
The only people who used the Hebrew OT back then were non-Christian Jews. It was the Reformers that decided to use the Hebrew OT and drop the Septuagint and Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.
There are non-Catholic edition Bibles that still have the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books like the 1611 King James (the only “Authorized Version,” the KJV on store shelves now is nothing like the original 1611) and some non-Catholic Revised Standard Versions.
The only people who used the Hebrew OT back then were non-Christian Jews. It was the Reformers that decided to use the Hebrew OT and drop the Septuagint and Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.
There are non-Catholic edition Bibles that still have the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books like the 1611 King James (the only “Authorized Version,” the KJV on store shelves now is nothing like the original 1611) and some non-Catholic Revised Standard Versions.
A
Archus
Guest
Not to mention that the Protestant church sees itself as the ‘Reformed Church’, so that it doesn’t matter what came before, they think they ‘made it better’
J
jblake
Guest
thecoach;:
1 Esdras;
2 Esdras;
3 Mac;
4 Mac;
Psalm 151;
Epistle Ladocians;
To mention a couple of books that are considered by one branch of Christianity, but not by Catholic Christianity.
xan
jonathon
PrMan
1 Esdras;
2 Esdras;
3 Mac;
4 Mac;
Psalm 151;
3 Corinthians;
Epistle Ladocians;
To mention a couple of books that are considered by one branch of Christianity, but not by Catholic Christianity.
xan
jonathon
C
CBS
Guest
Well the reason the Protestant/Reformers dropped those books were because they were uncomfortable with doctrine that didn’t align itself with their beliefs like purgatory, praying for the dead, etc.
They used the Palestine Canon as a reference for why they should be left out in later Canon.
However, the one huge factor against Protestants is that by choosing the Hebrew OT over the Septuagint they leave out many messianic prophecies that the non-Christian Jews purposely left out.
They used the Palestine Canon as a reference for why they should be left out in later Canon.
However, the one huge factor against Protestants is that by choosing the Hebrew OT over the Septuagint they leave out many messianic prophecies that the non-Christian Jews purposely left out.
R
rinnie
Guest
But see thats kinda my point, how can you not question, and then when you find out that the Catholic bible was the original, especially when it says no books should be added or taken out,and then you know that they had to have been taken out, not think something just isnt right here. I just cant understand how this luther held so much power over people. who was he to have this authority,and get away with it. I just can understand it. especially today when the truth cant be denied. It just doesnt make sense. where is their defense?
D
dosdog
Guest
“Eventually, some Jews rejected the Septuagint in favor of another Greek translation before, ultimately, rejecting any Greek translation as authoratative. The Hebrew text of the Hebrew bible would not be fully stabilized until the work of a group of Jewish scribes, the Masoretes, in the early Middle Ages; this became known as the MasoreticText. In addition to finally fixing the text, they added the vowels, (Hebrew does not use seperate letters to indicate vowels), divisions, punctuations, and musical notations that govern the liturgical readings of the Torah.”
Creating Judasim–History, Tradition, Practice -
by Michael L. Satlow - Satlow is an editor of Brown Judaic Studies and chair of the History and Literature of Rabbinic Judaism section of the Society of Biblical Literature, and previously taught at Indiana University, the University of Virginia and the University of Cincinnati before arriving at Brown in 2002. During the 2006/7 academic year he will teach “Judaism,” “Early Jewish Prayer,” “The Beginning of Judaism,” and “The Jewish Lifecycle.”
amazon.com/Creating-Judaism-History-Tradition-Practice/dp/0231134894/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1886218-0658854?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186820215&sr=1-1
1952 – [Feb.] Bedouin discover 30 fragments of other scrolls in Cave 2, including Jubilees & ben Sirach in the original Hebrew.
– De Vaux locates Cave 4 less than 200 yards from Khirbet Qumran. 15000 of fragments of 574 mss. found including Aramaic versions 1 Enoch & Tobit, a scroll of Samuel that was closer to the Greek Septuagint than the official Hebrew text & fragments of a copy of the Damascus Covenant, a text that had been discovered in 1896 in the geniza of old Cairo synagogue.
The Peshitto
The earliest manuscript of this Syriac Vulgate is a Pentateuch dated A.D. 464; this is the earliest dated Biblical manuscripts; it is in the British Museum. There are two New Testament manuscripts of the fifth century. In all, the Peshitto manuscripts number 125 of Gospels, 58 of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, and 67 of the Pauline Epistles.
newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm
Catholic Epistle
The name given to the Epistle of St. James, to that of St. Jude, to two Epistles of St. Peter and the first three of St. John, because, unlike the Epistles of St. Paul, they were addressed not to any particular person or church, but to the faithful generally after the manner of an Encyclical letter. Though addressed to particular persons the other two Epistles of St. John are also styled Catholic, because they have always been grouped with the epistles bearing that name.
newadvent.org/cathen/03453a.htm
Erasmus’ Greek manuscript basis. Erasmus’ final 1535 edition still relied upon no more than six Greek manuscripts, the oldest (but least used!) of which was from the tenth century. Though Erasmus did in later editions of his work consult the Complutensian version of the Greek New Testament, Metzger is able to truthfully state
bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#3
The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not. apostate.com/2.0/english-bible-versions
Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript – but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS). skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
The Bible was not originally inspired with divisions by chapter and verse. The ancient manuscripts didn’t have them. One man, Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, started to do this from 1244 to 1248 A.D. He did this while creating a concordance of the Latin Vulgate, in order to help people look up verses of the Bible. But the typical modern chapter divisions were apparently devised by Stephen Langton, who was an Archbishop of Canterbury in England. He started to do this around 1227 A.D. The Wycliffe English Bible did use them, as it was circulated in 1382. biblestudy.org/question/biblever.html
E
Eileen_T
Guest
The Jewish canon of the OT wasn’t established until after the Council at Javneh, long after the establishment of Christianity. By that time they had lost any authority by rejecting Jesus.
The only authority that can thus be recognised is the Christian Church, which set the Canon of Scripture to include the Deuterocanonical books that Luther chucked out, on his own authority. Don’t forget that he also wanted to exclude the Epistle of James.
After 1500 years, who gave Fr Luther the authority to do what he did?
Don’t forget that if it were not for the Catholic Church, no Protestant would even have a Bible to read.
D
dosdog
Guest
MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611
Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 -2 Esdras 1
Mat 27:43 -Wisdom 2
Luke 6:31 -Tobit 4
Luke 14:13 -Tobit 4
John 10:22 -1 Maccabees 4
Rom 9:21 -Wisdom 15
Rom 11:34 -Wisdom 9
2 Cor 9:7 -Ecclesiasticus 35
Heb 1:3 -Wisdom 7
Heb 11:35 -2 Maccabees 7
Matthew 6 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.
Ecclesiasticus 7:14. Be not willing to make any manner of lie: for the custom thereof is not good. 7:15. Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.
Matthew 23 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?
2Esdr 1:30 I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.31 When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. 32 I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.
Luke 14 13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; 14 And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.
Tobias 4:7. Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee 8. According to thy ability be merciful.
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection.(Heb. 11:35). If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, during the Maccabean persecution
D
dosdog
Guest
And here is one for you Mormons
2 Machabees 1 36 And Nehemias called this place Nephthar, which is interpreted purification. But many call it Nephi.
2 Machabees 1 36 And Nehemias called this place Nephthar, which is interpreted purification. But many call it Nephi.
T
thecoach
Guest
You smugness is so high I can barely take reading your post! The Jes have NO authority regarding their OWN Scriptures because they arent Christian??? I am sorry, but such posts as yours make ever more grateful no only for leaving the church, but also for using my experiences to debunk the church.
- Status