What is the difference between the Protestant and Catholic Biblees?

[JacquelineDeane55]

All I know is that the Catholic Bible has some more books than my Protestant Bible has. That's all I know.

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

All I know is that the Catholic Bible has some more books than my Protestant Bible has. That's all I know.

46 books in the OT (7 extras)
same 27 books in the NT

The listing:

Books of the Bible

 

[com7fy8]

Hi, Jaqueline

Not all non-Catholics have the same books. There are Protestant groups who have the Apocrypha which Roman Catholics have.

 

[JackRT]

There is no single canon of scripture for ALL Christians and I am not speaking of just the Catholics and Protestants.

 

[A_Thinker]

Catholics have seven extra books in their Old Testament, which the Jews chose not to include in their Canon.

Protestants chose to follow the Jews in this, but Catholics, and some other Christian groups, chose to include them.

 

[CrystalDragon]

There is no single canon of scripture for ALL Christians and I am not speaking of just the Catholics and Protestants.

Thinking that over, I understand why people can doubt Christianity from that.

 

[com7fy8]

There is no single canon of scripture for ALL Christians and I am not speaking of just the Catholics and Protestants.

Thinking that over, I understand why people can doubt Christianity from that.

There are people who look at divisions and use this as an excuse or an argument to reject all which God has for us through Jesus.
@JacquelineDeane55 Yes, there are people who can claim Christianity is wrong because it has so many division groups; but I offer they are not being even basically wise, if they use what is wrong in order to evaluate all which is so good, of Christianity. Satan's kingdom has set up divisions so he can have people use this as an excuse; we do not have to control Satan and his kingdom's foolishness.

But there are people claiming to be Catholic who claim that their way is right, and that there can be only one group who is right and therefore all the non-Catholics are elsewhere and their divisions are giving Christianity a bad name.

But if any group congratulates itself as being the only real Christian group, this self-claiming does not prove they are what they say. You can discover what the Bible says and discover how God in you has you living all He means by His word; this will make clear how Jesus is right and who His examples really are.

So, then . . . like I offer > it is foolish to look at what is wrong and false, and use this as an excuse to reject what is right. But this is what people do > they say look at all the divisions, then they excuse themselves from submitting to God so we can find all He really has which is so better than any humanly limited group can show and tell.

Yes, people can use what is wrong to judge what is right, so they can have an excuse to get out of doing what God requires which is right. So, in case certain groups claim to be Christian but they do not do things right, I would not judge Christianity by this, Jacqueline.

It could be interesting and helpful to find out why each group includes the Apocrypha or does not. And do not go only by their claims of being right, but see if and how their reasons really help you to know God and find out how to love the way Jesus wants us to become all-loving.

There are people whose group will have a certain belief or practice, and it is different so they can say, "Look, we are the ones who have this and no one else does; and it is essential; so you have to join us." But how much do their things help us to become pleasing to God the way Jesus is > 1 John 4:17, Ephesians 5:2, 2 Corinthians 2:14? And how well do their ways help us to become all-loving . . . as His family (Ephesians 4:31-32, Ephesians 4:2) and in reaching with hope (love "hopes all things" < in 1 Corinthians 13:7, Hebrews 5:2) to ones who do not know Christ and how God's love has us loving (Matthew 5:46)?

My personal experience is that a number of groups and people give much attention to how they are right, but they do not feed me example (1 Peter 5:3, 1 Timothy 3:1-10) of how to become in God's love. And I personally have not gotten anything, really, out of the Apocrypha, but I have not stayed there long to give it much of a chance; because my attention needs to stay with scriptures which are feeding us how to become with God and how to love > be careful, then, how you let people guide your attention; trust God to guide you > "continually" (Isaiah 58:11, Colossians 3:15).

I keep finding that any scripture in the Old Testament and New Testament can help me to find out more how to relate with God and please Him and how to be and relate in His love. By Old Testament I mean the books which are before the Apocrypha.

One simple reason, if I remember right, for ones not accepting the Apocrypha, Jacquelyn, is none of them are quoted by Jesus and our New Testament writers. But, like I say, it can be sidetracking to only try to find out who is right; plus, in case none of the ones disagreeing is right, you could get really in a problem . . . of trying to figure out which wrong side is right, when none of them really are.

So-o-o - - - I would keep my attention with how any scripture helps me to know and please God and love any and all people the way Jesus wants, while relating as His family with His followers who are examples of how to relate in His love. Any real scripture can help us with this.

 

[JoeP222w]

All I know is that the Catholic Bible has some more books than my Protestant Bible has. That's all I know.

In August of 1546, at the Council of Trent, Rome added the Apocryphal books to the Bible, primarily in response to the Reformation, to justify Rome's false doctrines on Purgatory, Indulgences and Marian doctrines and other false doctrines.

 

[frettr00]

In August of 1546, at the Council of Trent, Rome added the Apocryphal books to the Bible, primarily in response to the Reformation, to justify Rome's false doctrines on Purgatory, Indulgences and Marian doctrines and other false doctrines.

Catholic Bible 101

 

[Steve Petersen]

Even among the books that are part of both Bibles there are differences. The Catholic Bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In August of 1546, at the Council of Trent, Rome added the Apocryphal books to the Bible, primarily in response to the Reformation, to justify Rome's false doctrines on Purgatory, Indulgences and Marian doctrines and other false doctrines.

False. At the Council of Trent they actually removed a couple books; though it did affirm the canonicity of most of the Deuterocanonical books. Trent didn't add anything. This is why the Roman Catholic Canon is smaller than the Orthodox Canon. Trent did with some of the Deuterocanonicals that Luther did with all of the Deuterocanonicals--placed them in an appendix as Apocrypha.

The question of the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals is a complicated one, which is not made easier by spreading misinformation about history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Erose]

In August of 1546, at the Council of Trent, Rome added the Apocryphal books to the Bible, primarily in response to the Reformation, to justify Rome's false doctrines on Purgatory, Indulgences and Marian doctrines and other false doctrines.

Not true in the slightest. The Council of Trent CONFIRMED what writings are Sacred Scripture. Somewhere in the 18th-19th century Protestant publishers REMOVED these writings from their Bibles to save printing cost, thus the Protestant Bible of today.

 

[Erose]

False. At the Council of Trent they actually removed a couple books; though it did affirm the canonicity of most of the Deuterocanonical books.

No it didn't. The Sacred writings recognized as "canonical" in the West, has not changed, and was not changed at Trent.

Trent didn't add anything.

True

This is why the Roman Catholic Canon is smaller than the Orthodox Canon.

Not true either. The Catholic Canon has all the writings in it confirmed by both local and Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox have a much more complicated understanding of canonicity that we do in the West.

Trent did with some of the Deuterocanonicals that Luther did with all of the Deuterocanonicals--placed them in an appendix as Apocrypha.

Not true either. You can blame this one on St. Jerome, not on Trent.

The question of the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals is a complicated one, which is not made easier by spreading misinformation about history.

Not really that complicated. The term "Deuterocanonical" is an apologetic term used to differentiate these writings from the Jewish canon, and it is a fairly recent invented term. The official position of the Catholic Church is that all the books of the OT possess the same status liturgically. The order of hierarchy of Scripture in Catholicism is the Gospels have primacy, then the rest of the NT and then the writings of the OT.

 

[Erose]

Even among the books that are part of both Bibles there are differences. The Catholic Bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah.

You are correct on the longer version of Daniel, but the book of Jeremiah is the same. Our Bible does possess a longer version of Esther though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No it didn't. The Sacred writings recognized as "canonical" in the West, has not changed, and was not changed at Trent.

True

Not true either. The Catholic Canon has all the writings in it confirmed by both local and Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox have a much more complicated understanding of canonicity that we do in the West.

Not true either. You can blame this one on St. Jerome, not on Trent.

St. Jerome placed the Prayer of Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, it was Pope Clement VIII that moved it into an appendix. That was a change to Jerome's Vulgate.

So, sure, Trent wasn't responsible here, it was Clement VIII that removed the Prayer of Manasseh from 2 Chronicles--where it had been in the Latin West since the 4th century--to a separate appendix.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JoeP222w]

Not true in the slightest. The Council of Trent CONFIRMED what writings are Sacred Scripture. Somewhere in the 18th-19th century Protestant publishers REMOVED these writings from their Bibles to save printing cost, thus the Protestant Bible of today.

Your knowledge of history is very much in error.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You are correct on the longer version of Daniel, but the book of Jeremiah is the same. Our Bible does possess a longer version of Esther though.

Thanks for setting me straight!

 

[Erose]

Your knowledge of history is very much in error.

I don't think so. Research when the writings in question were removed from the Protestant Bible.

 

[Erose]

St. Jerome placed the Prayer of Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, it was Pope Clement VIII that moved it into an appendix. That was a change to Jerome's Vulgate.

So, sure, Trent wasn't responsible here, it was Clement VIII that removed the Prayer of Manasseh from 2 Chronicles--where it had been in the Latin West since the 4th century--to a separate appendix.

-CryptoLutheran

Okay, not sure if this was the case or not, so I'll take your word for it.

Anyway the Prayer of Manasseh has never been considered canonical in the West; and it is classified as apocrypha.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Approved RCC Bibles since 1983:

Approved Translations of the Bible

Non-RCC Bibles: all the rest!

Most scholarly Bible:

New American Standard Bible - Wikipedia

The New American Standard Bible is considered by some sources as the most literally translated of major 20th-century English Bible translations[4] According to the NASB's preface, the translators had a "Fourfold Aim" in this work:

1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.[5]