?
Lv 6

Christians, If the bible is the inerrant word of god, explain this?

Catholic Bibles contain seven more Old Testament (46) books than Protestant Bibles (39). Catholics refer to these seven books as the “deuterocanon”[1] (second canon), while Protestants refer to them as “apocrypha,” a term used pejoratively to describe non-canonical books. Protestants also have shorter versions of Daniel and Esther. Why are there differences?

Update:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_na...

go to the site, dont be lazy. it means you dont care about your word of god if youre lazy

39 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Protestants have fully accepted each and every one of the 27 books that the Holy Spirit inspired Catholics to select for the New Testament over 1,500 years ago..

    The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.

    The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.

    The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.

    After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.

    The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

    The Christian Church filled with the Holy Spirit did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 + 27 = 73 Books total.

    1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon.

    The books that were removed supported such things as

    • Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)

    • Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7)

    • Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)

    • Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)

    The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.

    Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

    With love in Christ.

  • 9 years ago

    Your skeptics site had way too much to address in this short space. I will address your question above though. God inspired different men to write the holy scriptures. The differences in the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible are insignificant. All Christians accept the Bible by faith. The God of the universe is able to get truth across to all people who choose to come to Him and learn from Him, whether they use a Catholic Bible or Protestant. God sends us a Helper -- the Holy Spirit -- who actually imparts to our spirits Biblical truth. Even if there is a discrepancy or mis-translation, God is able to teach anybody who seeks Him through His Word. The Bible was spiritually written, and there-fore is spiritually discerned -- with our Helper. God is not worried about insignificant differences. What really matters is coming to know Him in a really personal way. When I first picked up the Bible (Catholic New Testament) Jesus came to life in those pages -- and I loved Him and felt I knew Him personally, same as I know my own family members. I got a real revelation of the love of Jesus and it was a totally radical life-changing experience.

  • 9 years ago

    The Catholic Church is founded upon the Twelve Apostles: the original, close followers of Christ. The first Protestant Church was founded in the 16th Century- 1517-21 by Martin Luther King.

    I can only logically assume some messages in these excluded Books did not befit the 'reformed' thinking of Protestants, otherwise why else not include them?

    Of course out of every 'scripture' in existence one must select to create a book that bears some sense of practicability in use and lack of overbearing repetition.

    I just found something in my bible: 2 Edaras 7:75 "Then I said, "Sir, may i ask what happens when we die..." continues on to...

    2 Edaras 7: 77 "After all, you have a treasure of good works stored up with God Most High, which will not be shown to you until the last days".

    This very message contrasts the belief of Protestants. 'stored good works' is against their teaching of "Sola Fide"- Faith alone will lead to salvation.

    Council of Florence in 1430's (Almost a 100yrs before Protestant Church) the Church discussed the: deuterocanonical books. AND

    "The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three Synods of Carthage (393, 397, 419) all confirmed the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in the Canon of Sacred Scripture." [Source bellow] This is exceedingly long prior Protestantism and Christians accepted them as Canon of the Church. Of course the vast majority of Christians accepted them because Catholicism was the only Christianity at this time.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The Catholic bible is the complete bible with all 73 books. The Protestant bible only has 66 because Martin Luther removed 7 of them.

    The books Protestants will call the Apocrypha are actually called deuterocanonical books. The Catholic bible also include chapters in the books of Esther and Daniel not found in the Protestant Bibles. They will say Catholics added them but they have always been in the Bible.

    They can be found in the Greek Septuagint bible used by Jesus and the Apostles and the Codex Sinaiticus bible, the oldest surviving bible. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4739369.stm

    They are also found in the dead sea scrolls. Kind of hard to say Catholics add them when the dead sea scrolls are from the 2nd century B.C.

    The only record of Hanukkah is in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees.

    Peace be with you

    <<<Devout Catholic>>>

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint - which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament - contained the Apocrypha ( The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometimes f o l l o w i n g the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent, 1545 - 1563, canonized these books.

    As well, church fathers like Iraneaus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria used the Apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.

    Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, NO New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as Holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books.

    Attention, Jesus and His disciples virtually IGNORED these books. And that is something that would not been the case if they had considered them to be inspired...do not you agree?

    Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers, notably Origen and Jerome, who DENIED their inspiration. Further, even though the early St. Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he REJECTED these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.

    The Jewish Council of Jamina ( they met in A.D. 90 ) rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    1) a term used pejoratively to describe non-canonical books

    Not necessarily. The Anglican Communion, for example, still uses the entire English Protestant Apocrypha in their standardized religious services, including 2 books NOT found in Roman Catholic Bibles. My point: your claim of what Protestants think of those Scriptures is not true for all Protestants.

    2) Why are there differences?

    a) Different source texts.

    b) Different Christian sects consider different Scriptures to be "inspired"

    http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_scriptures_d.h...

    You might also be interested in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which includes many Scriptures not found in any of the above Biblical canons.

    Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

  • love
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Revelation knowledge and understanding comes from the work of the Holy spirit. We are sealed with the spiritual gift of God the moment we believe the word spoken into our lives. God does all the work of salvation. God confirms his existence within men by the acts of the spirit. Christianity is a spiritual journey. The notion of a spirit that teaches guides and instructs is too much for most people. Jesus breathed on the disciples and said receive the Holy spirit. Skeptics are so caught up in what they can hear see and touch. God's word is tangible evidence. God's word is the unseen that gives us hope and encouragement. Even if we act as if we do not care. It is God that cares and Jesus comes to dwell within us always. What is laziness when God said it ,so his will be done in us as it is in heaven.

    Source(s): God is not limited to Catholic and Protestant counsel or sects. God reveals his word with the work of his spirit within those he chooses.
  • Judith
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Of course it is not inerrant, however it is remarkably accurate and inspirational and spiritually useful. Jesus used metaphors which the people could relate to, a mustard seed is one of those things. Yes it can be a tree. This is a perfect example of why Jesus taught in metaphors and parables, because those who are spiritually in tune get the message, while others just get a story and worry about the size of seed. Matthews genealogy is Joseph's line, although they knew Jesus was the Son of God, nevertheless, Joseph WAS Jesus LEGAL father, thus Jesus is the legitimate heir. Luke shows genealogy to Mary. I am surprised you did not ask about straining at a gnat.

  • 9 years ago

    Just to please you, I did go and it had 456 questions on it, presumably with answers to each of those questions, none of which I think has any relevance to my life or God.

    However, there is one question that I am quite sure it doesn't have an answer to: How does a person who God sent to Hell get out? I personally think it is easier to avoid going there than to try and get after you've been sent there.

    Just as you have to account for your life to God when you die, so will I, and if I chose to not go to a website that looks suspiciously like it doesn't honour God, then I doubt God would have held me to account for being lazy over it; on the other hand, you, my friend, made choices that strongly suggest a diligence and effort to dishonour God.

    I leave you to ponder what sort of fate beholds you when you die ... or do you think it won't happen to you?

  • 9 years ago

    In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. We know this because it is quoted in the New Testament. This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the AKJ originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration.

    The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians was decided in the Jewish Council of Jamnia because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ.

    Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose Canon but the Church deferred that decision to Christ and the disciples and it is clear through biblical research, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by the first century Church and quoted in the NT Scriptures. The fact that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that accused our Lord that resulted in His crucifixion suggests the source of this confusion as from the father of lies who led the Pharisees to accuse Christ and petition for His punishment. It is another way that Satan divides the body of Christ and separates the faithful denying Christ’s prayer that we all be one in Christ through His Church. The Christian Church has always used the Septuagint as Canon and never the truncated version of modernist Protestants.

    Some Protestants erroneously believe that Catholics added to the Bible with the Deuterocanonicals but this shows an ignorance of their own history and the history of Christianity as witnessed by Christ’s Church. The facts are that the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals and even considered strongly to remove some of the NT books currently in use by Protestants and Catholics. Fr. Martin Luther was in favor of removing the book of James because it conflicted with His heretical man made doctrines of the “Solas”, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The heretic Ulrich Zwingli wanted to remove the Gospel of John because of its teaching of the commandment to Eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood which contradicted his view of a real absence of Christ instead of a real presence in the Eucharist. Even Fr. Martin Luther could not endorse such a departure from Scriptures and deny that Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

    In Christ

    Fr. Joseph

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.