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

Protestant Or Catholic Bible Right

Which Bible is the right one? That containing 66 books, called Holy Bible or the Catholic one? Who has the right to decide which is right and on what bases?

Moderator - Take the Bible History Bible Quiz. It answers this question well.

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Emmanuelle on 7/5/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (13)

Post a New Blog

cluny, It is not any broken promise, for I have posted: "I am going to cease further replying to you until you truly seek the truth, and when you decide to become one of these then you too will become gladly communicated by me." And as witnessed, you are not quite there yet. Therefore as to the books, chapters and verses which you questioned, I suggest that you Look them up.
---Eloy on 2/7/11

\\Cluny, you can find the Torah quoted in the prophets and the writings, and you can find the gospel quoted in the Acts and the Apocalypse.
---Eloy on 2/7/11\\

Again, Eloy, you broke your promise never to reply to me any more!

BTW, Eloy. I'll bet you cannot say, WHERE, giving Books, Chapters, and Verses quoted from the Gospels, these quotes from the Gospels are given elsewhere in the NT. I shall wait with itnerest.

**Cluny: "Only the ORTHODOX have the full OT."

So? You don't believe most of it!
---jerry6593 on 2/7/11**

Wrong, jerry.

I just don't believe YOUR interpretation and application of it.
---Cluny on 2/7/11

Cluny, you can find the Torah quoted in the prophets and the writings, and you can find the gospel quoted in the Acts and the Apocalypse.
---Eloy on 2/7/11

Hebrew Old Testament: Beginning, Names, Called, Isolation, Words, Yehoshua, Sophtim, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Melechim, II Melechim, Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkiel, Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obadiah, Yonah, Michah, Nachum, Habakkuk, Xephaniah, Heggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Praises, Proverbs, Iyob, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Kohelet, Esther, Danyal, Ezra, Nechemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles:
Greek New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation.
---Eloy on 2/7/11

Cluny: "Only the ORTHODOX have the full OT."

So? You don't believe most of it!
---jerry6593 on 2/7/11

\\The Torah is considered the whole o.t., and not just the 1st five books: likewise the Gospel is considered the whole N.T., and not just the 1st four books\\

Only by people who don't know the meanings of words.
---Cluny on 2/7/11

Emanuelle, The Torah is considered the whole o.t., and not just the 1st five books: likewise the Gospel is considered the whole N.T., and not just the 1st four books. The Torah may be called the TaNaK, being 3 divisions: Torah = the Law, & Nebiim = the Prophets, & Ketubim = the Writings: likewise, The Gospel may be called the GaZA, being 3 divisions: Gennisi eulogos = the Gospel, & Zoe = the Life, & Apocalypse = the Prophecy.
---Eloy on 2/6/11

\\the Protestant Bible has the same Old Testament as the Jewish Torah.\\

This is NOT TRUE, as "Torah" means the Five Books of Moses--whose generally accepted titles, btw, come from the LXX!

\\Which proves nothing. By the way, the majority of Christians accept these "extra" books as genuine parts of Scriptures, as did the Ancient Fathers.\\

These so-called "extra books"--and the Orthodox canon has even more--were part of the OT that got translated as the LXX, and were not excluded until the Rabbinnical Synod of Jamnia, a good TWO GENERATIONS after the birth of the Church.

Actually, both the Protestant and CAtholic Bibles are incomplete. Only the ORTHODOX have the full OT.
---Cluny on 2/5/11

---We might (who knows) find that they fit perfectly with the rest of scripture (I have no idea, I have never read them so don,t ask me)

But dont speak till you know
---Jonah on 2/2/11

I absolutely agree Jonah. Ive considered reading them myself just so I dont rest on the doctrine of other men. Ive only read Enoch so far. I saw nothing against scripture. It only seems to bring greater detail to the story of Gen 6.
---CraigA on 2/2/11

Unlike what the Moderator says, I will differ, and say:


We might (who knows) find that they fit perfectly with the rest of scripture (I have no idea, I have never read them so don,t ask me)

But dont speak till you know
---Jonah on 2/2/11

Two points made that the majority of Jews did not accept JESUS so we should not accept their view on the true Torah and that Most Christians accept the extra books.

Neither one is a proof. The Jews who rejected the extra books lived before JESUS came. The majority can be wrong.

Now I have read the entire Dewey Bible and most of the Jerusalem Bible including the Apocrapha. I only found that they tend to use large words and not that they are bad translations. While this has changed most Catholics were told not to read their Bibles when I was young. Only priest could tell them what it meant. So the problem is not the translation.
---Samuel on 2/2/11

Leslie: 'Catholic Bible is FULL of ERROR.'

Do you mean it is full of error in the books it Shares with the Holy Bible

Clearly not

PS: Have you actually read it to say that? Because I hear accusations that, when I read things to check if they are true, are mere imagination!
---Jennifer on 2/2/11

The Greek Septuigent translated in Egypt had these extra books in the Old Testament and they were accepted as being part of scripture by the Roman Catholic church but not by the Jewish people.

---Samuel on 2/1/

The same Jewish people who had not accepted Jesus Christ!
---Ruben on 2/2/11

"these extra books in the Old Testament and they were accepted as being part of scripture by the Roman Catholic church but not by the Jewish people." (Samuel)

Prior to the first century, they were accepted (as well as other books) as Scriptures by most Jews. The African Jews, for example, has always accepted these "extra" books as Scriptures. The Eastern Churches that was never part of Rome, have always accepted, to one degree or another, these books.

"the Protestant Bible has the same Old Testament as the Jewish Torah."

Which proves nothing. By the way, the majority of Christians accept these "extra" books as genuine parts of Scriptures, as did the Ancient Fathers.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 2/1/11

The Greek Septuigent translated in Egypt had these extra books in the Old Testament and they were accepted as being part of scripture by the Roman Catholic church but not by the Jewish people.

So the Protestant Bible has the same Old Testament as the Jewish Torah. The RCC has according to them added these extra books.
---Samuel on 2/1/11

Cluny: you quoted 1 Kings 22:22, abot the lying spirit.

It is possible that God ALLOWED a spirit to lie, but it does not mean God wants ALL spirits to lie
---Peter on 2/1/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

Eloy, i was refering to the bibles and not doctrines. sorry if that was not clear. i myself read the Jerusalem bible i read the oecomenical bibl i read the NKJV and KJV, they all agree... it is the users of the translations who usually disagree and not the versions. and yees somethimes some things are more clear in one version then the other. but then again, would you burn the KJV because it translates in one passage a word into unicorn? a beast that is not existing. translation are translations and they all need upgrading by Christ founded scolars.
---andy3996 on 1/21/11

\\In Judith 9:10,13, it says that God,assisted Judith in the telling of lies.\\

Rahab the harlot also lied to hid the Hebrew spies, and is called "righteous" in Hebrews 11.

1 Kings 22:22
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

In other words, God approved of angels lying to people.
---Cluny on 1/19/11

andy, the catholic chuch with their "books", is not the Christian church with the Holy Scripture. We differ 100%, for we Christians worship Christ alone and obey only his Commandments, but catholics do not, and they have their idols and will have their own nonInspired writings to lead them astray.
---Eloy on 1/17/11

The Holy Spirit wrote the Holy Bible, and mere men wrote the Catholic Bible - who is God and knows ALL things, and who is and does not? The Holy Bible says it is the TRUTH (John 17:17), the Catholic Bible is FULL of ERROR. Which one will you go with?
---Leslie on 1/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

to all non-catholics. Protestantism does not neglect the non-canon books found in the Catholic Vulgata, and by no means rejects them, however protestantism does not concider them sufficient to teach or establish doctrine, we do acknowledge it's value in matters of admonishing.they are also called deutero canon (secondary to the canon)and should be studied for moral reasons.
can anyone explain to us the true vision of the roman church without adding emotionalism? it will be found that we do not differ that much amongst eachother.
---andy3996 on 1/17/11

The Holy Bible containing 66 gathered books is proven to be "inspired", meaning, "God breathed" or "spoken by God". And the other so-called bibles are proven not to be inspired, because their manmade writings clearly contradict the dictations that have already been given by God. There is a large difference between "Holy" scripture, and "unholy" writings. The catholic book contains false doctrines of reincarnation, of praying for the dead, of dead saints interceding for the living, and of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, etc. which clearly contradict the Holy Scripture.
---Eloy on 1/15/11

The early church's acceptance of the Biblical New Testament canon:

1) Valid authorship- the scripture had to be written by an Apostle, or a holy man inspired by God.

2) Right doctrine- the scripture had to be in accord with Jesus' commandments and teachings.

3) Date written- the scripture had to be written between 5 B.C.(from Christ's birth), and 29-30 A.D.(soon after Christ's death and resurrection). The N.T. began to be recorded by Matthew in 5 B.C., and finished by John around the 3rd decade A.D.

4) Usage- the scripture had to be accepted and read in the Christian temples around the Mediterranean and Palestine and the Middle East.
---Eloy on 1/15/11

The Protestant Bible is right. The Protestant Reformer William Tyndale was an excellent English Bible translator, a martyr burned at the stake for his labor.

My testimony--- I used to read modern versions. I became suspicious that the New American Bible (and other translations) had Roman Catholic translators involved. I also read brochures claiming that the NIV deleted certain verses. I became all the more suspicious.

I gave up modern versions (including Westcott-Hort's critical text 1881) and became a KJV-onlyite for years.

Then I came across William Tyndale's Bible translation (during a hard time in my life). And wow! King James and the KJV-only preachers can never take away the 1560 Geneva Bible from me anymore.
---Kev on 1/11/11

Send a Free Marriage Tract

Eloy, absolutely their is nothing wrong with the Christian denomination. However, there are many of the denominations who interpret the scripture in the wrong way and draw a false doctrine in it. Which we are to discuss to open our perspective on what we believe and scrutinize the truths about it. Thus we will not be mis leaded in our faith in the Lord
---jude on 10/16/07

.emcee, Please stop promoting that RCC religion, rather then Christ. There is nothing wrong with Christian denominations as long as the N.T. of the Holy Bible is their source which they follow.
---Eloy on 10/15/07

Andrea, the Apocrypha are the books that the Catholic Church declared to be not inspired and not to be included in the Canon, the Jews had this authority prior to Jesus.

But, the Deuterocanonical books are not apocryphal. Their canonicity was not certain until the canon was officially defined in the fourth century. This is true of the books in both the old and new Tesaments. The Book of Revelation was left out of a few early versions of the Bible, as was James and Hebrews and a few others.
---lorra8574 on 10/12/07

Emcee, you got me. I am not qualified to answer your question, I'm not a psychologist. Blessings to you.
---InimicusStultitiae on 10/12/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

Inimicus::Still does not explain why they are different in Interpretation, like 2 men standing side by side each with his own thoughts may even look the same.But one is a man of God the other is NOT.God made us to His image and Likeness.HAS MAN turned that around by His behaviour.Why did God Say "Iknow my sheep and mine know me"We allow satan to exploit us with his sugar coated explainations, interpretations -see the result DENOMINATIONS!The RCCis universal taught by the HOLY SPIRIT.
---Emcee on 10/12/07

I never thought the RCC said these were inspired. It was my understanding that the apocraphy had historical value only. Even to the RCC.
---Andrea on 10/12/07

Emcee, there doesn't seem to be any difference of opinion between Protestants and Catholics over which books should appear in the New Testament. Both recognize the same 27 books.
---InimicusStultitiae on 10/12/07

1. The books contained in the Apocrypha were never considered by the Jews to be part of the Old Testament.

2. None of them are written in the Hebrew tongue. All the other books of the OT are.

3. None of them claim to be inspired by God.

4. They were not used by the early Christians for the first 400 years.
---trey on 10/12/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

Apocrypha (continued):

5. They were not canonized until 1546 (Council of Trent).

6. They contain error:
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
compare to:
1co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Would you like more errors?

Hope that helps,
---trey on 10/12/07

If you hold up a real paper one dollar bill side-by-side to a counterfeit paper one dollar bill, they may look greatly alike, but they are not, for they are completely different, one is real and one is fake. And the wheat and the tare, and the sheep and the goat may look greatly alike, but they are not, they are opposites. So too is the Holy Scripture compared to unholy writings, one is from God and the other is not.
---Eloy on 10/12/07

Words can be tested for virtue and known whether they are truly from God or not. Please Read- Psalm 19:7-11+ 34:8+ 119:129-160, Isaiah 8:10,20, Jeremiah 14:14,15+ 23:21,22+ 29:31+ 30:2, Isaiah 55:6-11, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 7:15-20, John 8:47+ 10:3-11, I John 4:6, Galatians 1:8,9, Hebrews 4:12, II Peter 1:21.
---Eloy on 10/12/07

The correct Bible is the one that reveals Christ. His love. His redeeming power. His sacrifice. His desire to be at one with us.
---dan on 10/12/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

Ramon, I would point out that not being included in some lists does not eliminate canonicity as a possibility. The lists grew over time as more books circulated and as more communication allowed for better understanding of what belonged and what did not. There are seven complete books and three portions of books from the New Testament that also failed your test and should be excluded from the Canon, if you really want to go that route.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Inimicus Stultitiae::If they are the same why the division & dissention.Who is Protesting who?who broke away?
---Emcee on 10/11/07

Irenaeus was quoting Daniel 13 in his writings against the heresies of his day. Clearly, his version of the scriptures is a little different from the Protestant versions today, and the Jewish scriptures of his day. But Irenaeus was Christian not Jewish and he used the Scriptures used by Jesus who claimed that the Law and the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13 and Luke 16:16), not some 400 years earlier as some try to claim.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

The Protestant Bible does contain the Word of God, just not all of it. The worst Protestant translations were confiscated and burned by the Catholic Church, but there have been many good Protestant translations since that time. Unfortunately, there is no longer a universal Christian authority that can prevent biased or modified translations from being produced by cults seeking to profit from Christianity.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

Iranaeus also quoted Baruch at length but called it Jeremiah, as it was common to merge the two together. The Book of Daniel also quotes Baruch and identifies it as Jeremiah. Baruch was clearly in the scriptures in the early Church, although I do not know when the Jews removed it.

Jews counted their books together to get a desired number, Josephus counted 22 books and others 24, but these could include any number of books lumped together..
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Cyprian of Carthage:
"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, 'I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth' [Daniel 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]

Personally, I love the stories of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon from Daniel, they are incredible. The latter is also great for kids.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Up until the Synods of Hippo and Carthage, the Canon was not officially proclaimed, although there existed many general lists previously - some of which excluded some of the New Testament along with some of the Old Testament - Revelation was not initially accepted and is one of seven Deuterocanonical books from the New Testament.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

During the time that Jerome was translating the Vulgate, the canon was in the process of being decided. In the end, the Latin Vulgate included all of the Deuterocanonical books from both the OT and NT.

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wisdom 12:12]" (Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

Irenaeus 189 AD Against Heresies 4:26:3
"...they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Daniel 13:56].
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Alex and Helen I would suggest you to read the arguments of Ramon for you to learn about the Historical events in the Canonization of the Bible and read some other books about it. So that you would defend your arguments convincingly, and not just because of what your denomination is teaching about.
---jude on 10/11/07

Irenaeus 189 AD Against Heresies Continuation of previous quote "...You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous" [Daniel 13:52, citing Exodus 23:7 for the last line]
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Ramon, Jerome may not have put any apocrypha in the Vulgate, but he did include the Deuterocanonical books of the OT. He just did not translate them from the Hebrew because they were not preserved in the Hebrew (but six of the seven were found in the Hebrew among the other Hebrew scriptures in the caves at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls). The Deuterocanonicals were in the Greek Septuagint which was used by the early Christians, even though some were not certain of the canon as it had not been defined yet.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

Ramon P2: Jerome "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:2968, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. . . . /3
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

Ramon P3: Jerome 'I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, This is not the time to discuss such matters" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).'

This quote is not about the seven books but of the extra bits found in Daniel and Esther.
---lorra8574 on 10/11/07

The Protestant and Catholic New Testaments are the same -- no additions or deletions. That's what's most important.
---InimicusStultitiae on 10/11/07

Helen you took them out of the canon..they were canonical..You continue to lie and in general spread evil nasty ideas....shame on you...The Catholic Bible is the fundies decided you didnt want to follow certain books, so you took them much for sola scriptura once again.
---alexia on 10/11/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

The correct Bible is the one containing the 66 Books. The catholic Bible has the added books which are not canonical.
---Helen_5378 on 10/11/07

#5.Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate.The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity).But Jeromes Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.Cyril (born about A.D. 315)"Read the divine Scriptures namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated"(the Septuagint)
---Ramon on 8/10/06

#4.Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy!!, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are NOT placed in the number of the canonical."

According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.The Council of Jamnia rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
---Ramon on 8/10/06

#3.Jerome (340-420)
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, NOT for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon.

Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15).
---Ramon on 8/10/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

#2.Josephus(a well-known historian from the Biblical era) excluded them from his list of sacred scripture. He felt they were lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin.

Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
---Ramon on 8/10/06

Jack. Where you been?Jerome regarded them as being valuable for ecclesiastical values only not as canonical.Augustine, another quoted Church Father by the Catholics, is often claimed to have endorsed them, yet he admitted Judith was not in the canon as received and accepted by the Jews, and when reference was made to 2 Maccabees in an argument, he replied they were hard put to resort to a book not in the same category as those received and accepted by the Jews (Ibid., pp. 176-177).
---Ramon on 8/10/06

**They were Rejected by some early church fathers.**

But not all. Some rejected the book of Revelation.

Be specific. WHO rejected the Apocrypha? Give their names, and if possible, quotes from their writings to prove your point.
---Jack on 8/3/06

#2.The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter(7:17)Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach that morality is based expedience. In other words it is right to sin in some situations.

They were Rejected by some early church fathers.The book of Sirach teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin(3:3,10)Surely the doctrinal and historical errors in the apocrypha are clear evidence against the divine inspiration of these books.
---Ramon on 7/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

Jack. The books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)!
---Ramon on 7/13/06

These verses are not from Isaiah, but from the INSPIRED book of the Wisdom of Solomon (given in the KJV), and are clearly a Messianic prophecy.

I might add that there are geographical, biological, and historical errors and anachronisms in the proto-canonical books, too.
---Jack on 7/7/06

Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.
Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
Such things they did imagine, and were deceived; for their own wickedness hath blinded them.

Ibid, 19-21
---Jack on 7/7/06

He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion.
We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of ht ejust to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.
Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall hapepn in the end of him.

Ibid, 15-17
---Jack on 7/7/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; becase he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressions of our education.

He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.

He was made to reprove our thoughts.

Wisdom 2:12-14 KJV
---Jack on 7/7/06


Be specific.

Give the actual errors in the Apocrypha, give Book, chapter, and verse from the King James version of these errors (yes, the Apocrypha is part of the KJV), and give what are the correct facts.

Remember, Rahab the Harlot lied to save the Hebrew spies that came to Jericho--and was called righteous. And Lot impregnated his own daughters, but is likewise called righteous.
---Jack on 7/7/06

Jack.#2.There are Historical, anachronisms, and Geographical errors in the Apocrypha. Not to mention the fictitious statements which not only contradict the Canonical scriptures, but also themselves.Even early Catholic Church leaders who were familiar with the Hebrew texts clearly distinguish Canonical and Apocrypha writings. To the Jews were committed the oracles [logion],and it was this inspired text which was preserved by them.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
---Ramon on 7/7/06

Jack.They are many errors in them.They are many faily tales in these books.Some of the teachings in these books are colored and some are immoral.In Judith 9:10,13, it says that God,assisted Judith in the telling of lies. Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach that morality is based expedience. In other words it is right to sin in some situations.Wisdom 11:17 teaches that God made the universe out of pre-existing matter instead of "ex nihilo" as Genesis 1:1-2, John 1:1-3 etc states.
---Ramon on 7/7/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

Part III--

It simply boils down to this:

You can accept the WHOLE Bible.

Or you can have a Bible with a great big HOLE in it.
---Jack on 7/6/06

Part II--

This Rabbinical Synod was attended by the spiritual children of the Pharisees--the very people who rejected Jesus, and whom He called "fools, blind guides, whitewashed tombs."

It's not just the Roman Catholic Church that accepts them. The Anglican Communion accepts them, hence they are part of the ORIGINAL KJV.

So do all of the ancient Apostolic Churches of the East.

It's just a minority of Protestant Christians who reject them.
---Jack on 7/6/06

Ramon, please give SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of the errors in these books.

FWIW, they were translated as part of the Septuagint some two centuries BEFORE Christ, and were not REMOVED from the Hebrew CAnon until the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia in 90 AD, which was a good two generations after the birth of the Church.
---Jack on 7/6/06

Annie. The extra books in the Catholic Bible has errors in them. Thats why non-Catholics dont accept those books. Those books has too many errors that not only it conflict with other books in the bible but also confilct with themselves. In one of the extra books we are told that God help a man to sin. They are many other errors in these books. The only reason why the Catholic Church added those books is because they had no support for their false doctrines.They had to "find a way" to add those.
---Ramon on 7/6/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

If you read enough of either Bible...Protestant or Catholic... you will grow in the knowledge of your Lord and Saviour. You're going to have a ton of questions. So, regardless of which you use, I suggest starting with the 4 Gospels and ending with the 4 Gospels. As long as you keep Jesus and His completed work on the Cross central, you will do well.
---daphn8897 on 7/6/06

I'm a new Christian, but I thought that the other books (that are included in the catholic bible) had things that conflicted with the other 66 books and that is why they were determined to be not of the Lord (the Lord does not conflict His word). Is that incorrect?
---Annie on 7/6/06

Strange how the perfect, inerrant KJV of 1611 right up until about 100 years ago had the apocrypha in it. I've read the Apocrypha and find it quite enlightening. But I'm satisfied with the 66. All this really shows us how we need to live by the Spirit of the word and not the letter of it.
---john on 7/6/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.