2006-08-02 23:46:03 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Please elaborate more David.
2006-08-03 00:00:18 · update #1
The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same.
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, 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 Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint.
1500 years later, Protestants decided to change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.
With love in Christ.
2006-08-03 17:37:56 · answer #1 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic Old Testament includes all of the books that were translated from Hebrew into Greek about 100 BC. The protestant reformers decided to leave out anything where they couldn't get access to the Hebrew. Tyndale's translation was based upon the protestant approach. The King James Old Testament makes use of Tyndale's translation and leaves these out. However, some editions include a later translation of these (plus one not included in the Catholic version) as Apochrypha.
There is also a difference in the numbering of the Psalms. The Catholic version is based upon Jerome's Latin translation. Luther decided to split one and join two together so there's a discrepancy in the middle. Neither of them realised that there's a big chunk of Psalms that is repeated - so both systems of numbering are pretty arbitrary.
The New Testament is the same. There are some other translations that leave out the Epistle of James.
2006-08-03 07:06:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is the dictionary meaning for,"Version "? Should I pay you with a version of the US currency?
In the bible, it is written, this is the word of GOD, nothing shall be added, and nothing shall be taken away.
Christens believe the bible was written under GODS authority.
The bible is Christian official authority.
According to the bible, man may not change/add or take away one word from it. Today many reasons are given to altering the text. Some say it does not relate to the times of today. That would mean that the perfect GOD, made errors, did not know what HE was writing, so man needs to correct GOD to make it right! Got to be some issues here.
If the bible is GODS word, then a version of it has to be an affront to GODS authority and HIS word! Not only that there are so many differently worded bibles that none of them read the same line for line. talk about man messing things up!
They all have their reason but all of them are an affront to what is written about not changing the WORD!
Notice, according to history, changes to the word began after 1400AD, and became more prevalent as all the different faiths were organized. If you are going to be different, you have to have your own book! Never mind that the one who started the first, walked on water, rose from the dead, and is in heaven. Those are the required credentials to start a church! Know anyone else with those credentials?
2006-08-03 07:33:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Generally the deuterocanonical and apocryphal books are omitted from the Authorised (King James) version but included in Roman Catholic editions. The psalms are also numbered differently in Roman versions, giving 151 instead of 150: I'll explain why if you really want to know!
2006-08-03 06:56:22 · answer #4 · answered by David 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic Bible has additional books that are not recognized as authentic by the KJ.
2006-08-03 06:52:27 · answer #5 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
King James took some of the stories out. He claimed Divine Right of Kings. In other words, since he was born to the right woman, the Queen, he had a RIGHT to change the bible as he saw fit.
2006-08-03 06:50:32 · answer #6 · answered by damndirtyape212 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many similarities (being as King James was catholic)
But there many "traditions" in the Catholic version (AKA the christianization of pagan practices)
2006-08-03 06:51:09 · answer #7 · answered by opie with an attitude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the Roman Catholic Bible has additional books, called the DEUTEROCANONICALS - which are not found in the King James Version
2006-08-03 06:50:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are some minor differences that changes the perspective of some important biblical myths.
2006-08-03 06:52:49 · answer #9 · answered by Gersin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Different editors mate. You might as well belive in a daily news paper. Christians huh? They just cant see how silly they look, can they.
2006-08-03 07:14:58 · answer #10 · answered by andy2kbaker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋