What are the books that protestants took out of the Bible?

[Chellow]

Well the point here is that the Catholic church isn’t the final authority on Scripture. God is.

No question about that, the question is did your church have the authority some 125 years back to remove this books?

 

[SyCarl]

And Jesus clarifies this in Matthew 5:31-32. This is not the only OT passage Jesus says had been misapplied. Reread the Sermon on the Mount. If this nullifies Sirach, then does Mtt 5:27 nullify Exodus? Everything must be applied consistently. If you throw out Sirach for this reason, then Exodus must go too.

In Exodus divorce was allowed. Sirach goes farther and recommends it. Would God inspire someone to recommend something He hates? Malachi was written before Sirach.

“For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”
(Malachi 2:16 NASB)

 

[CAS64]

No question about that, the question is did your church have the authority some 125 years back to remove this books?

My church didn’t remove them, they redifined their purpose. Did you think that our Bibles don’t contain these books? Looks very much like you are stereotyping all Protestants. Very bad habit to get into.

 

[CAS64]

In Exodus divorce was allowed. Sirach goes farther and recommends it. Would God inspire someone to recommend something he hates? Malachi was written before Sirach.

You are absolutely right. I believe it is Sirach 25:26, I could be wrong. “If your wife disobeys you, divorce her.”

 

[Chellow]

My church didn’t remove them, they redifined their purpose. Did you think that our Bibles don’t contain these books? Looks very much like you are stereotyping all Protestants. Very bad habit to get into.

I maybe, but you told me by your post that you don’t have this books in your cannon.

 

[Peter_J]

What about the books that the Orthodox church has that you don’t? Are those not guided into the Bible by the Holy Spirit?

I guess the short answer would be “No”, but I’m not really sure what the Catholic arguments and apologetics are on that question.

 

[Chellow]

My church didn’t remove them, they redifined their purpose. Did you think that our Bibles don’t contain these books? Looks very much like you are stereotyping all Protestants. Very bad habit to get into.

Hay no augment here to redefine by removing books, the question is who has authority to redefine like you said.

 

[Peter_J]

the question is did your church have the authority some 125 years back to remove this books?

It is?

 

[CAS64]

I maybe, but you told me by your post that you don’t have this books in your cannon.

We don’t define them as inspired Scripture therefore they cannot carry the full authority as the books of Scripture. We however do read from them in our lectionary when they come up in it and do recognize them as useful for history.

 

[Chellow]

It is?

English Bible History

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

Got go sleep Nite all.

God Bless you all.

 

[CAS64]

English Bible History

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.

Got go sleep Nite all.

God Bless you all.

Which Protestants are you talking about? This statement is not at all accurate in all instances of Protestantism.

 

[CWBetts]

That’s a joke.

Do you need me to list every Scripture that says that we are to obey authority, and that the final authority is the Church, and that not everybody is given the ability to inallibly interpret Scripture? The Catholic Church is most definitely the Church of the New Testament.

 

[CWBetts]

In Exodus divorce was allowed. Sirach goes farther and recommends it. Would God inspire someone to recommend something He hates? Malachi was written before Sirach.

I said it once I will say it again, Jesus calrifies this teaching. Not only in Matthew chapter 5, but also Chapter19.
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I mean I could be misinterpreting the Scriptures, I’m not infallible like you Protestants are.
This is very clearly in reference to Sirach.

 

[SyCarl]

I said it once I will say it again, Jesus calrifies this teaching. Not only in Matthew chapter 5, but also Chapter19.
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I mean I could be misinterpreting the Scriptures, I’m not infallible like you Protestants are.
This is very clearly in reference to Sirach.

My mistake. Divorce was permitted in Deuteronomy not Exodus. Jesus is clearly referring to Deuteronomy, not Sirach, because He refers to Moses. Again, there is a big difference in permitting divorce and actually recommending and advising it.

 

[Peter_J]

2 Maccabees has Antiochus Epiphanes dying on 2 occasions.

and

The discrepancy is recognized in the Haydock Commentary which offers a rather feeble explanation.

Good point. I believe, however, that discrepancies of that sort can be found in the Bible regardless of whether you include the Apocryphal books. What about the death of King Saul in 1 Samuel 31:4, in 2 Samuel 1:2-10 and in 2 Samuel 21:12?

 

[Jean_1958]

Hi,

I have just purchased a KJV 1611 Edition which contains the Apocrypha. My question is why the later editions of the KJV left out the Apocrypha? Do you think it was for political reasons, theological reasons or just to save money on printing costs? Thank you.

Jean

 

[SyCarl]

Good point. I believe, however, that discrepancies of that sort can be found in the Bible regardless of whether you include the Apocryphal books. What about the death of King Saul in 1 Samuel 31:4, in 2 Samuel 1:2-10 and in 2 Samuel 21:12?

They are not quite the same. 1 Samuel 31:4 is the actual account of Saul’s death. 2 Samuel 1 is someone telling David what happened. That someone need not be telling the truth. Perhaps he felt David would reward him for killing his enemy. 2 Samuel 21:12 can be explained as Saul losing his life at the battle of Gilboa with the Philistines , which is where he did die. 2 Maccabees involves two entirely different locations.

 

[Peter_J]

Sirach counsels divorce contrary to the rest of the Scriptures.

That hinges, however, on interpreting “Cut her off from thy flesh” to mean divorcing her. Seems to me that “Cut her off from thy flesh” could also be understood as a less permanent form of punishment than divorce.

 

[SyCarl]

That hinges, however, on interpreting “Cut her off from thy flesh” to mean divorcing her. Seems to me that “Cut her off from thy flesh” could also be understood as a less permanent form of punishment than divorce.

I already quote the Haydock Commentary to that effect. The Catholic Commentary on the Scriptures says:

1. Divorce her. ‘Flesh’ means family; before divorce they had been ‘in one flesh’ (Gen_2:24).

 

[CWBetts]

My mistake. Divorce was permitted in Deuteronomy not Exodus. Jesus is clearly referring to Deuteronomy, not Sirach, because He refers to Moses. Again, there is a big difference in permitting divorce and actually recommending and advising it.

I will attribute your response to the simple fact that you cannot let yourself believe the Catholic Church could actually be right.