What books were removed from the Bible and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Learner1969
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Learner1969

Guest
Is the Catholic Bible complete and why did Protestant/EO Churches take away from the Bible?
Revelation 22 18/19 must surely mean something!
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Bible is complete.

Luther relegated books to an appendix because they have information in them that disagreed what he thought was right. (Especially in regards to praying for the dead / forgiveness of sins) Later on, he used the post-Biblical Jewish canon for the OT as justification for rejecting certain books. (Never mind the fact that Jesus repeatedly quoted directly from the version of the OT used in the Catholic Canon, that didn’t matter to Luther.)

Later on, those books were removed entirely when King James commissioned a translation.

So, long answer short, those books were removed due to the pride of one scrupulous monk who thought he knew better than the collected efforts of the Church’s greats minds.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
So, long answer short, those books were removed due to the pride of one scrupulous monk who thought he knew better than the collected efforts of the Church’s greats minds.
Click to expand...
So he won’t be going to paradise then
 
We can’t say that. That is God’s prerogative.

We can make objective assessments of his actions and determine if they were good or evil, but we can’t know his heart / if he was mentally ill. Hence, we cannot say that he is damned, no matter how much his observable actions may make that seem likely.
 
The Protestant Churches did not remove books from the Bible. They all would not be able to get together and make a decision like that. The KJV Bible and other Protestant Bibles had translators who included the “Apochrypha”. The decision to remove books was made by the publishers. It is publishers who regularly come up with new translations that are “easier to read” (but may water down the message). A smaller, easier-to-read Bible is easier to sell.
 
Orthodox canon isn’t fixed in the same way it has been for Catholicism since Trent, but their traditional canon has all the books in the Catholic canon plus a few additions like 3 and 4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The shorter canon is more or less a protestant thing.
 
The Catholic Mass contains a daily ready from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Those four gospels contain plenty to consider and meditate upon.
 
While I agree it was wrong for the Protestants to disregard the books they did, the verse cited in the OP has nothing to do with that. It is referring to taking anything out of the book of Revelation specifically.

Remember, the Bible isn’t really one book, but a collection of many books.
 
Last edited:
There were councils in Rome, Hippo and Carthago during 380-400AD that decided upon which books that were to be included in the canon. Trent agreed to previous councils and the only change is that the books are divided into chapters and verses which they weren’t before. No difference to the content.
 
The warnings of Revelation 22:18-19 are very serious and sobering.
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
Click to expand...
Revelation 22:18–19 (NABRE)
ANDREW OF CAESAREA: The curse against those who falsify the divine Scriptures is terrible, since the daring insolence of such self-willed persons can deprive them of the blessings of the coming age. In order that we might not suffer that lot, he testifies to us who listen neither to add nor to subtract anything.
Click to expand...
Andrew of Caesarea (early sixth century). Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He produced one of the earliest Greek commentaries on Revelation and defended the divine inspiration of its author.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
The Catholic Bible is complete.

Luther relegated books to an appendix because they have information in them that disagreed what he thought was right. (Especially in regards to praying for the dead / forgiveness of sins) Later on, he used the post-Biblical Jewish canon for the OT as justification for rejecting certain books. (Never mind the fact that Jesus repeatedly quoted directly from the version of the OT used in the Catholic Canon, that didn’t matter to Luther.)

Later on, those books were removed entirely when King James commissioned a translation.

So, long answer short, those books were removed due to the pride of one scrupulous monk who thought he knew better than the collected efforts of the Church’s greats minds.
Click to expand...
Actually, they were included in the original King James and weren’t removed until the 1800s…200+ years later.
 
HeDa said:
There were councils in Rome, Hippo and Carthago during 380-400AD that decided upon which books that were to be included in the canon. Trent agreed to previous councils and the only change is that the books are divided into chapters and verses which they weren’t before. No difference to the content.
Click to expand...
The earlier councils affirmatively named the canon, you’re completely right about that.

But debate about some portions of it, particularly the Antilegomena (basically the last half of the NT) would continue until canon was declared in the negative and thus closed at Trent.
 
Genesis315 said:
the verse cited in the OP has nothing to do with that. It is referring to taking anything out of the book of Revelation specifically.

Remember, the Bible isn’t really one book, but a collection of many books.
Click to expand...
Right. The books in the Bible never refer to each other or are applicable one-to-the-other. 🤣
 
I will repeat something I mentioned in a few similar threads.

How can you possibly fully understand Ephesians 6:10-17 without referring to Wisdom 5:15-23? There is a wealth of Old vs New and fulfillment in those verses.

Particularly useful in today’s environment.
 
Are you saying the book of Revelation foretold the existence of the Bible?
 
Last edited:
They are the

Deuterocanonical books which are the seven books Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch plus the additional texts in Esther and Daniel that are found in the Catholic Old Testament b

Read more below on how to defend Catholic canon of Bible.

.

https://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical.html

John
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
Are you saying the book of Revelation foretold the existence of the Bible?
Click to expand...
Two thoughts:
  • If the Book of Revelation is capable of foretelling (in apocalyptic form) the events of the end-times, is it incapable of foretelling the events of a couple hundred years in its future, when the Bible canon was being developed?
  • If the Book of Revelation is part of the Bible, then why is it reasonable to suggest that “adding or removing” from this one book is not allowed, but but doing the same to any other book of the Bible isn’t prohibited?
🤔
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top