ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Catholic Bible History

Is the Catholic bible history the same as other bibles that were created and if not when did the bibles become different and why?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Maggie on 5/4/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



These books were translated as an ORIGINAL part of the KJV, and can still be found in the KJV version. Every English version of the Bible contained them UNTIL the New American Standard Bible of the 1960's, which is VERY late to start omitting them, don't you think?
---Jack on 1/31/08


Henry, the human race is full of evil history and that includes the Reformation churches too. Some of it was so bad that I have met Christians that have denounced all of the Reformers and their resulting churches and have decided to stand alone - trouble is, that is not what Jesus was praying for.
---lorra8574 on 6/23/07


TS, Cat got your finger??
---lorra8574 on 5/31/07


MikeM., you're not the old, T.S., correcto.

You're the new and unimproved TS, same lingo, same favorite blogs, same everything as MM.
---Catfish on 5/24/07


i am not this TS person
---MikeM on 5/24/07




TS, Forget that I am a Catholic, leave the Church out of this. I have been discussing the Canon based upon my own research, not merely by what my Church says. So bashing my Church is really not helping your case. Deal with what I have said to you. Person to person. I have challenged your credibility, may be you are just the victim of your own church traditions, but if you have a defence I would rather read that, than have you tell everybody that I am wrong because my Church did something in the past.
---lorra8574 on 5/24/07


AD HOMINUM attacks are made when ones arguments, points are failing, its a classic fallasy. rather than addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the person, or latin,'argumentum ad personam,' consisting of personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument, instead of making substantive retorts, laking the ability to do so.
---MikeM on 5/24/07


MikeM, I stand corrected. You are quite right on Moses and I knew that, but just forgot briefly. In any case, I doubt Adam wrote anything, although I do not know for certain who wrote what wrt all the scriptures. Human penmanship is less important than divine authorship to me.
---lorra8574 on 5/24/07


TS/MikeM., you wrote

"What I note, again and again, is that bloggers here absolutly NOT deal with the subject itself, but attack the person(ad hominum) change the subject(non-sequitor) or bail. Luther once guaged the hate of so many against him as that what he was saying must have validity to it. "The more they run and are angered in Rome, the more I know I am on to the truth."-Luthe
---MikeM on 8/24/06"
---Harris on 5/24/07


TS/MikeM., you wrote

"Liara are you and Rebarb his clanging kin?
---TS on 5/23/07"
speaking of Lorra and Ruben.

"Did you finish high school? Try some classes in basic geology, archeology, orogeny, 101; then we can talk."

Will Kate Batts be waiting for you on the other side, MikeM.?
---Harris on 5/24/07




TS alias SLCguy, Mike.M., yeah it's you.
You have the nastiest mouth, only one other mouth simpatico with yours.
---Harris on 5/23/07


TS/SLCguy, MikeM. is mormon, but everyone thinks you're SDA, that's how simpatico all cultish beliefs are.
---Harris on 5/23/07


interesting, the end of Deutoronomy discribes Moses death. Genesis had many writers before being edited by Ezra.
---MikeM on 5/23/07


Clanging cymbol, are MikeM.'s kin?
The more I think about it, the way you twist words to call names - it must be you.
SLC Guy - are you TS. You're in agreement with another clanging cymbol here, TS you gotta be MikeM.
---Harris on 5/23/07


If TS is in agreement with you, you should examine your heart. It means something is very wrong.
---Harris on 5/23/07


Liara are you and Rebarb his clanging kin?
---TS on 5/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Eloy, were you aware that the Pentateuch was most likely put to paper by Moses? Genesis goes beyond Adam's life span.
---lorra8574 on 5/20/07


Ruben, there is a noisy gong and clanging cymbol around here. The Truth is what matters. Satan is the prince of lies, and master of liars.
---lorra8574 on 5/19/07


Ruben: Wrong again. The Council of Trent simply added Books Considered uninspied for 1500 years to her canon as part of the counter-reformation. Against advice of Chief Vatican Historian. Right about the time she was thinking of new ways to torture conversion out of people. Defend satan if you want to, your sin remains.
---TS on 5/14/07


Tom, that is true. And between the Babylonian captitive and the birth of Christ, the Jews did not all return to Jerusalam to stay. The Diaspora Jews traveled and lived abroad. They lived all over the place, including parts of Africa. Paul could speak Hebrew and also Greek, he was a Roman citizen from Tarsus in addition to being a Pharisee. Many of the Diaspora no longer spoke or read Hebrew which is why the LXX became so necessary, and why is was so hard to get rid of amoung the Jewish people.
---lorra8574 on 5/12/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Adam first learned the alphabet and to write. The first scriptures were records of interactions between God and man, and what God dictated to man to write down in order to share with all succeeding generations. Under the enemies influence, man was guided to write falsehoods and attribute them to God's words, when in fact they were not from God at all. Today we have a surfeit adulterated Bibles, and forgeries, and so-called "holy Books" for just about every imagination of man and of demonic work
---Eloy on 5/12/07


TS-Thank you for showing that they were "Heretical" for 1500 years until Rome needed to hide her status as Antichrist.


Wrong again ts, the Council of Trent in the 16th century had to reaffrim that the Bible with were put together in the 4 century is correct. The Protestant Reformation were taking 7 books out....
---Ruben on 5/12/07


Lorra,
To expand a little on your point regarding Greek vs. Hebrew scriptures. As I'm sure you know after Jews returned from Babylon many spoke Greek. Large Jewish populations were Greek speaking in Alexanria and Rome circa 200BC. That is why the LLXX was commonly used by Jews including Jesus and His disciples. This is similar to the need for St. Jerome to translate into Latin so common people could understand as the common language changed again to Latin.
---Tom on 5/11/07


Jack: Thanks for correcting me. As you stated the Catholics refused those Books all the way until the 16th Century rather than the 14th as I had stated.

Thank you for showing that they were "Heretical" for 1500 years until Rome needed to hide her status as Antichrist.
---TS on 5/11/07


Send a Free Christmas Ecard


**The KJV did and Catholic Bibles do contain the Deuterocanonical books of both the Old and New Testament.**

Lorra, I understand your sensitivity in the distinction between "Deuterocanonical Books" and "Apocrypha."

I (and others) use the terms as synonmys and refer to other writings, when I must, as "Pseudopigrapha."
---Jack on 5/10/07


** Jack: King James does not include the Apoccrypha that Rome kept out of the canon until the 14th Century.**

Wrong in this--both parts of your statement--as in so many other things you say, TS.

The historical truth of the matter, which may mean nothing to you, is that the Council of Trent did not meet until the SIXTEENTH century, when it declared these disputed books are part of Scripture, and they were translated and published originally AS PART of the KJV of 1611.
---Jack on 5/10/07


Tom, thank you. And while the canon was discussed at Jamnia, the canon was still not settled for the Jews. There was a tendancy to reject all things Greek, but that was easier for the Palestinian Jews. The Book of Sirach was especially popular and remained in use in their liturgy for nearly a thousand years after Christ. The Canon was still open at the time of Christ and each sect has its own idea of what might belong to it, not all sects agreed.
---lorra8574 on 5/9/07


Lorra,
Your knowledge of bible history is impressive. I would add that the deuterocanonical books were deleted by Jews at the council of Jamnia I believe late second century. Some of their motivation was to remove the books that were converting Jews to Christianity.
---Tom on 5/9/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Jack, with respect, neither the KJV or any Catholic Bible contain the apocrypha. The KJV did and Catholic Bibles do contain the Deuterocanonical books of both the Old and New Testament. It is important to distinguish between them because the apocrypha are the books rejected by the Catholic Church, some of which were also previously rejected by the Jews.

The Jews have since rejected the deuterocanonical books along with Christ and may label them as apocrypha, but we are NOT Jewish.
---lorra8574 on 5/9/07


Jack: King James does not include the Apoccrypha that Rome kept out of the canon until the 14th Century.
---TS on 5/9/07


** The Muratorian Canon is a translation from a Greek original of about 170AD. It is effectively where the King James Version comes from.**

The full KJV contains the Apocrypha.

Now, do you want the WHOLE KJV? Or a KJV full of holes?
---Jack on 5/9/07


For those who may be interested, the Muratorian Fragment is an early version of a potential NT Canon, not the whole canon of scripture and it is close to being the complete NT, but it is not exact. Protestants would have to add a couple of Apocalypses and remove Hebrews. Matthew is not mentioned, but this is only a fragment. Many letters from that period and earlier discuss a large number of books both from the NT and the OT, nothing was settled but there were favourites in various communities.
---lorra8574 on 5/8/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


One last thing. The KJV and all Catholic Bibles have the same NT canon, so anyone raising the issue of the Muratorian Canon is blowing smoke. Further, it is more of a discussion and shows that the canon was far from being universally settled. More can be found about this particular canon by just "googling" it.
---lorra8574 on 5/8/07


The Muratorian Canon is a translation from a Greek original of about 170AD. It is effectively where the King James Version comes from.

It is Older than any of the Catholic versions being sold as gospel in this blog thread.

The Current Catholic Bible added Apocryphal Books in the 14th Century some 1200 years after Apostolic Canon of the early Church to defend traditions of Idol and Mary Worship and attempted to alter the Book of Daniel identifying Rome as the Beast.
---TS on 5/8/07


Ruben doesn't know. At least you are honest on that.
---Bob on 5/8/07


Actually it's true. The Catholic Church is full of evil history. Go look it up. Catholics are blind.
---Henry on 5/8/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


** Jack, your wrong! Catholics murdered Protastants, at that time because the Catholic Church perverted the Word of God. **

Protestants did the SAME THING to Roman Catholics when they got the chance, and on PRECISELY the same grounds.

Speaking as an Orthodox, we got it from BOTH sides.
---Jack on 5/8/07


Christ plays just a small part in the Catholic Church.


What part is that?
---Ruben on 5/7/07


Jack, your wrong! Catholics murdered Protastants, at that time because the Catholic Church perverted the Word of God. Most of you Catholics are lost. Your foundation is not on Christ. Christ plays just a small part in the Catholic Church.
---cal on 5/7/07


Not to be a nitpicker, but while the Septuagint was most definitely used by the early Christians up to the fourth century, and is the foundation used for the NT, and continues to be considered valuable. Jerome used the Hebrew scriptures (with consideration of the LXX format) for the non-Deuterocanonical books for the Latin Vulgate which was used primarily by Catholics between the fourth century and the Reformation.
---lorra8574 on 5/7/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


** The Septuagint was the version of the old testament used by all Christians until the 1500's.**

The LXX was translated some 200 years BEFORE Christ, so you can't blame adding the Apocrypha on that nasty ole pope feller.

It represented what was accepted as the Jewish Scriptures at that time.

These books were not DROPPED by Jews until 2 generations after the Church started.
---Jack on 5/7/07


Part 2:

The Masoretic text was not stabilized until the 12th century AFTER Christ. The LXX represents an OLDER text than that. Father late, don't you think?

Until the discovery of the DSS, the oldest OT mss were in the LXX.
---Jack on 5/7/07


The Septuagint was the version of the old testament used by all Christians until the 1500's. There are over 300 OT verses quoted in the NT that come from the Greek OT (Septuagint). This is what is in the Catholic bible. If it was good enough for the writers of the NT its good enough for me.
---tom on 5/6/07


**
I'm happy to clarify and be more precise, ALL English Bibles were originally published with the Apocrypha as part of them up through the NASB of the 1960's.**

Correction: "as part of the up UNTIL the NASB..."
---Jack on 5/6/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Frank, I can also vouch for the Book of Wisdom and its most perfect prophecy of Christ. Have you never wondered why the historical books in your Bible just mysterious stop some 400 years before Christ? The closer in time to Christ's birth, the more developed the doctrines and prophecies became with respect to Christianity. Jesus is not an alien bringing new teachings, He taught what He has always taught with a few upgrades. What came before was preparation for the new covenant. Matthew 11:13.
---lorra8574 on 5/6/07


Frank, The Pharisees did use at least some of the Deuterocanonical books because Paul was a Pharisee and used the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body to pit the Pharissees (who believed the doctrine) against the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection of the Body. The Sadducees had a smaller canon that did not include any books with this doctrine (the Palestinian canon is also lacking in this area).

Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:6; Hebrews 11:35.
---lorra8574 on 5/6/07


Frank, I can answer your question and the answer is yes. In fact one key NT doctrine is found first in Maccabbees. The martyrs spoken of by Paul in his Hebrews "Hall of Faith" discourse (C11) and recorded in Maccabbees died with the hope of the Resurrection.
2 Macc 7:9 "And ..., O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life."
---lorra8574 on 5/5/07


** The statement that all the Bibles carried the Apocrypha until - what was it? 1960? - is simply historically inaccurate.**

I'm happy to clarify and be more precise, ALL English Bibles were originally published with the Apocrypha as part of them up through the NASB of the 1960's.

The arrangment of the books is of no particular significance. Russian Bibles usually have John as the first Gospel.
---Jack on 5/5/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Kyle::You are entitled to your opinion,as I am.But the power is not in the kjvBut in the power of the word of God KJV was transalated & something was lost.Mat16:17-19speaks the truth where did God create the other denominations Can you produce evidence of what you say?
---Emcee on 5/5/07


P2: Martin Luther was the first to decide that if he could interpret scriptures, he could also decide what belonged in them. Not everyone agreed entirely, but Luther was able to remove some OT books that were troublesome to his newfound theology. He also tried to remove seven more books from the NT, including James and the Book of Revelations. Over the next few decades, we can expect that the Protestant canon of scripture will be revisited again and revised.
---lorra8574 on 5/5/07


Just gotta reply to Jack. Yes, the original KJV did contain the Apocrypha. However, it was placed between the Testaments and not considered as part of the canon. The statement that all the Bibles carried the Apocrypha until - what was it? 1960? - is simply historically inaccurate. I have a 1906 copyright study Bible (and several others even older) which does not carry the Apocrypha. From where does your statement originate? I've never heard this before reading it here.
---ed on 5/4/07


Jack, do all of these books line up with the rest of the Bible? Do any of them contradict the Gospels?
---Frank on 5/4/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


People were murdered by the Catholic Church, because they did not believe everything in the Catholic Bible, and tried to disprove it. Many were burned at the stake. This happened mainly between the sixteenth and seventeenth Century. There are many lies in the Catholic bible, that don't agree with scripture. You will find power in the King James Bible.
---Kyle on 5/4/07


The Catholic Bible is older and its history is part of the history of the later Protestant versions. The time of the Reformation began in an interesting era. One little known element (overshadowed by less pleasant elements) is that this was an age of openness with many copies of the Bible being available to so many more people due to the invention of the printing press. Many more people were studying the scriptures and producing their own ideas of what they meant.
---lorra8574 on 5/5/07


It's not a case of "Catholic Bibles" becoming different, but PROTESTANT Bibles becoming different when certain books (frequently called "Apocrypha" or "Deutero-canonical) were omitted by some Protestants in the sixtheenth century, which was rather late.
---Jack on 5/4/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.