Why did Protestants remove books from the Bible?

[SecretOfFatima]

Dr Ray makes a valid point about, why did Protestants remove books from the bible?

Click Play to view short video (2:26 seconds long)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRpAcIt-vT4

Enjoy!

 

[Skripper]

That's the $64,000 question. But haven't you heard? According to popular, revisionist history it was the CATHOLICS who "removed" books from the Bible. Go figure.

 

[SecretOfFatima]

That's the $64,000 question. But haven't you heard? According to popular, revisionist history it was the CATHOLICS who "removed" books from the Bible. Go figure.

Please don't confuse them anymore then they already are.

 

[Skripper]

Please don't confuse them anymore then they already are.

I'm sorry.

 

[InTheCloud]

I the fundie subforum I saw an ingnoramus post a lie borrowed from "christian aswers" (the commanden about false witnessing does not apply to True Christians (R)) saying that the Church added them in Trent in 1546.
So the Orthodox did follow a council 500 years after they broke with Rome? Because they have the Catholics OT books and some more too!
The reason why the Protestants, who claim to follow the Bible more that those apostates Catholics and Orthodoxs do (even if they follow mutilated Bibles) took those books from the Bible because they disagreed with doctrines sustained in Scripture there, like praying for the dead, the intersession of the saints, praying to angels. In fact they were trying to get the Epistle of James out of the Bible because the conflict with the faith alone teaching, and Revelations. Maybe they should have took Revelations out of their Bibles. That would have spare us of endless Rapture talk and harlot of Babilon insults. Sadly Phillp Melachton prevented it.

 

[stephenc]

Why is "Enoch" not in? After all, Peter refers to it in one of the letters. Is there another place in "letters" where "Enoch" is "dissed" as being nonsense?

(I'm sure I could find this out some other place, and that it's been asked before, but thought it might be an interesting "tangent" to this thread...)

 

[Fantine]

The reason the apocryphal books are not universally accepted is because they are not extant in Hebrew and are not part of the Jewish Old Testament.

Although they were only universally added to the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent, they had appeared in many copies of the Bible as early as the 4th and 5th centuries. Eastern Rite Churches also include these apocryphal books in the Bible.

And, apparently, the early King James Bible also included these books in a separate section for apocryphal books.

 

[Gwendolyn]

And, apparently, the early King James Bible also included these books in a separate section for apocryphal books.

The 1611 version included them in an appendix at the back.

Luther decided that he didn't agree with the deuterocanonicals. He had his own reasons, of course, but the reason that those books had been included in the Christian canon roughly since Nicea I was that the Jewish people had indeed been using them for praying and teaching around Jesus' time. They were later excluded from the canon based on various criteria - things like, they were composed in the diaspora lands, they were written in Greek instead of Hebrew, etc. Not for their theological falsity.

It just makes me quite sad that the Protestants do not receive the fullness of Christian Scripture. It seems a shame, considering how highly they regard it.

 

[DeutscheDame]

good to see why our bible has been "fixed". never knew these things as my family is always been catholic. i no speak good english. hope i understand.

Gott segnen Sie,
helga

 

[Antigone]

Maybe they should have took Revelations out of their Bibles. That would have spare us of endless Rapture talk and harlot of Babilon insults.

Indeedy. Rapture Ready is one of the scariest places on the internet I've ever seen.
And what's that thing about not judging people? I think there's something in the Bible about that too. Conveniently skipped time after time.

 

[D'Ann]

That's the $64,000 question. But haven't you heard? According to popular, revisionist history it was the CATHOLICS who "removed" books from the Bible. Go figure.

Yup... I have been told this by some Protestants. I grew up Protestant and didn't even know that there were 7 books removed from my King James version. I wish that I had knew that there were 7 books removed because especially at that time, I would of wanted to read them and memorize them. I loved memorizing scriptures during the teen years.

I love Tobias and the Maccabees... and all of them. Don't know why they were removed from the Bible other than they helped prove and confirm our teachings on Purgatory and other teachings.

Why would Luther remove them? I believe that Luther sincerely and truly believed that those books were not part of the inspired Word of God and I also believe that he had an ax to grind towards and with the Catholic Church.

I won't bash Luther though because I can never know what was truly in his head or heart at that time. Praying.

 

[D'Ann]

I the fundie subforum I saw an ingnoramus post a lie borrowed from "christian aswers" (the commanden about false witnessing does not apply to True Christians (R)) saying that the Church added them in Trent in 1546.
So the Orthodox did follow a council 500 years after they broke with Rome? Because they have the Catholics OT books and some more too!
The reason why the Protestants, who claim to follow the Bible more that those apostates Catholics and Orthodoxs do (even if they follow mutilated Bibles) took those books from the Bible because they disagreed with doctrines sustained in Scripture there, like praying for the dead, the intersession of the saints, praying to angels. In fact they were trying to get the Epistle of James out of the Bible because the conflict with the faith alone teaching, and Revelations. Maybe they should have took Revelations out of their Bibles. That would have spare us of endless Rapture talk and harlot of Babilon insults. Sadly Phillp Melachton prevented it.

I also think that I heard that they were trying to remove parts of Revelation out of the Bible as well as the Book of Solomon too... and I think Titus as well.

 

[Lady Bug]

Do Catholic Bibles today contain the extra books that the other Bibles don't have? Also, if I am not mistaken, are those extra books called the Apocrypha? Other sources make it sound as if the Apocrypha was bad or somethingI'm not sayin' that though.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Do Catholic Bibles today contain the extra books that the other Bibles don't have? Also, if I am not mistaken, are those extra books called the Apocrypha? Other sources make it sound as if the Apocrypha was bad or somethingI'm not sayin' that though.

What Protestants call the "apocrypha", Catholics call the "deuterocanon". To us, "apocrypha" means an entirely different set of writings that are not in the canon of Scripture.

Catholic Bibles include the full Biblical canon of 72 books. Seven books were removed in the 16th century when the Protestant movement took hold. (I won't criticise Luther, either - he was a man very plagued by many things.) Though, really, it isn't seven full books - parts of Daniel were removed, as were parts of one other Old Testament book. Why someone decides to remove part of a book of Scripture, I have no clue.

All 72 books were preached, taught, and read as Scripture for the 1500+ years that Christianity had existed until the Protestant Reformation unfortunately saw the demise of many long-standing "T"raditions and "t"raditions.

 

[stephenc]

I won't criticise Luther, either - he was a man very plagued by many things.

Neither would I. I greatly admire his personal struggle, particularly with his own consciensce.

 

[SecretOfFatima]

The reason the apocryphal books are not universally accepted is because they are not extant in Hebrew and are not part of the Jewish Old Testament.

Although they were only universally added to the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent, they had appeared in many copies of the Bible as early as the 4th and 5th centuries. Eastern Rite Churches also include these apocryphal books in the Bible.

And, apparently, the early King James Bible also included these books in a separate section for apocryphal books.

Hi Fantine,

For those who do not know this, the orignal Catholic Bible uses the famous Septuagint greek version of the Old Testament which dates from around the year 200BC. However the protestant OT uses the hebrew version discerned during the Jewish canon that was agreed around the year 100AC.

In my opinion the criteria used to discern what books should have been part of the OT during the Jewish Cannon around the year 100 after Christ is something we should all be studying very closely...

I have heard the 5 criteria points used to discern which books were to be included and I also disagree with them...
For example, one of the criteria points used to discern which books should have been included was that if the book had not been written in Hebrew then it could not have been inspired by GOD, if it was in Greek it could not have been inspired by GOD... the way I see it, Unless something in the other books or even Jewish tradition stated this believe, then this criteria surely is not grounds for those books not be inspired.

My understanding is, if I'm correct to say this for example the macabees books cover about 200 years of history, if one takes them out then there is 200 years of history missing.

 

[D'Ann]

Neither would I. I greatly admire his personal struggle, particularly with his own consciensce.

Yes... exactly. I do think especially near the end of his life, he was truly in mental and physical and emotional as well as spiritual pain.

 

[Rhamiel]

I like the part at the end where he siad if he did not believe the Holy Spirit acted in the cannonization proccess then really what is the Bible

 

[D'Ann]

I like the part at the end where he siad if he did not believe the Holy Spirit acted in the cannonization proccess then really what is the Bible

I truly believe that near the end of his life, he realized what he had done and deep down inside... I truly believe that he felt remorse. He was very conflicted. He had so many struggles inside his head. I would not want to walk in his shoes because of the suffering and pain that he must of gone through... throughout his life.

 

[Rhamiel]

Neither would I. I greatly admire his personal struggle, particularly with his own consciensce.

Originally Posted by stephenc
Neither would I. I greatly admire his personal struggle, particularly with his own consciensce.

I have no admiration for the man at all, he wanted things to be on his own terms and he blashphemed the Church and the office of the Pope, he really got the ball rolling on the shattering the Church into splinters, aslo tha ended the idea of "christendom"