Why did King James remove those books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deanna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Axion:
No The Council of Trent was a Catholic Council that confirmed the seven books as being a full part of the Old testament canon. Some Protestants allege that the Council of Trent inserted the seven books into the Bible, but this is untrue. The full 73 book bible (as opposed to the protestant 66 book version) was laid down by the Councils of Rome and Carthage in 382 and 397 AD.

The King James Bible was quite a latecomer in 1611. There were even attempts translate the bible into Anglo Saxon as early as the 9th century. As has been said the King james bible originally contained all the books. Only as late as the 1820s did most protestants decide to eliminate the seven books entirely. You can still get KJVs with the seven books. And the books are still used in the Anglican lectionary.
Click to expand...
The facts I posted came straight from an article from a Catholic magazine. Maybe I should check their sources.
 
40.png
Axion:
Only as late as the 1820s did most protestants decide to eliminate the seven books entirely. You can still get KJVs with the seven books. And the books are still used in the Anglican lectionary.
Click to expand...
True, but they are listed as an “appendix” as “The Apocrypha”. This as I recall, is same procedure used by Luther, since he didn’t consider them as part of inspired Scripture.
 
40.png
StratusRose:
The facts I posted came straight from an article from a Catholic magazine. Maybe I should check their sources.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps you misread?
 
Sorry to add to the confusion just when things are starting to look tidy, folks, but I was under the impression that Luther removed James and Revelations ONLY. I heard on EWTN from Fr. Mitch Pacwa that the deutocanonical books were later removed by the PRINTERS of the Bible and their removal has no basis in theological or scriptural discourse at all.

But I see above that the reformers spoke against the 7 “extra” Catholic books?

Just want to check…
 
Even the extremely anti-catholic Geneva Bible contained the Apocraphya/Deuterocanonicals. The enitre reason why King James comissioned a new Bible Translation is because of the commentaries it contained. Not only were they anti-catholic, but they were anti-monarchy. The Puritians published this Bible and it is the translation that the Pilgrims brought to America on the May Flower. The King James Bible did not catch on when it was published in 1611, people still prefered the Geneva Bible. It did not catch on until much later, since then, the Geveva Bible has nearly been forgotten today.
 
40.png
StubbleSpark:
Sorry to add to the confusion just when things are starting to look tidy, folks, but I was under the impression that Luther removed James and Revelations ONLY. I heard on EWTN from Fr. Mitch Pacwa that the deutocanonical books were later removed by the PRINTERS of the Bible and their removal has no basis in theological or scriptural discourse at all.

But I see above that the reformers spoke against the 7 “extra” Catholic books?

Just want to check…
Click to expand...
Fact is, Luther rejected eleven books of the Bible. I’ll try to find his prefaces for the NT books, written for his German Bible, and will post them. He removed Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and 7 OT books plus parts of Esther and Daniel and separated them from “the scriptures” in his German translation, placing them at the back – with the pages unnumbered – as an appendix.

Following the tactic of Luther, these OT books were placed in an appendix in the original KJV and were later dropped. Lutherans had by then restored the NT books to their rightful place, but the OT books were not considered “scripture” to Luther’s followers.

JMJ Jay

JMJ Jay
 
** many Protestants I know use the King James Bible. Who was King James, and what authority did he have to produce a Bible?**

James I reigned as king of England from 1603 to 1625. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, and he had been king of Scotland before succeeding to the English throne at the death of Queen Elizabeth I. He was prompted to produce an English Bible because of the poor and tendentious copies being circulated in England. He feared these could be used by seditious religious and political factions. His authority was one usurped from the Catholic Church, beginning with his predecessor King Henry VIII. Henry had broken with the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the Church in England, which soon enough became the Church of England. You could say James had no more authority in biblical matters than any head of state, basically none. What authority would a “George Bush Bible” have? The true authority and safeguard over Scripture was and has to be the Catholic Church, to which Christ gave his authority. No secular authority has any rightful authority over the Bible. 🙂
 
StatusRose,

It’s hard to imagine a Catholic magazine having an article that lists as “facts” the fiction you listed. What magazine, and what issue?

As another poster said, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the canon that had been established by the Councils of Rome and Carthage in 382 and 397 AD.

And, as Exporter mentioned, there were other versions in English long before the KJV. I think that the Venerable Bede, who died in 735, worked on translating at least parts of the Bible into English.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
StatusRose,

It’s hard to imagine a Catholic magazine having an article that lists as “facts” the fiction you listed. What magazine, and what issue?

As another poster said, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the canon that had been established by the Councils of Rome and Carthage in 382 and 397 AD.

And, as Exporter mentioned, there were other versions in English long before the KJV. I think that the Venerable Bede, who died in 735, worked on translating at least parts of the Bible into English.
Click to expand...
He died while translating the Gospel according to St. John into English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top