Why was the book of Judith taken out of the King James version of the bible?

Question

It's placed between the book of Tobit and the book of Esther.

I think King James also plucked out Tobit.

My bible has it, yours doesn't.....shouldn't you be reading absolutly everything originally included in your bible if you go word for word, take it literally, analyze, and study your bible so much?

Judith is a historical book. It's a story about how God delivered the Jewish people through the instrumentality of a woman.

Aren't you missing out?

sparkleso: the canon included all the books I have in my bible....that's the point.
Why did King James remove this?

LOL Brother Micheal: all the contradictions and outrageous things in the bible and the Protestants nitpick about that!?

What about the meantion of works according to how you are judged in Revelations?
Works are also meantioned in other books as a GOOD thing, I don't know how in the world you people misinterpreted that one!

Answer 1

When the Protestant revolt began, they came down to changing the Bible as well. The first KJV Bible from 1611 did have the deutrocanonical books, but when they decided to go with the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, these books were not in it.
The 6 books are: The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The Wisdom of Solomon
The Book of Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]
The Writings of Baruch
The First and Second Books of the Macabees
Two Chapters of Daniel and the Song of the Hebrew Children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:25-90)

The first Bible was officially canonized in 397 a.d at the Council of Carthage. This is when the Catholic Church decided to go with the 72 books to put together the Bible.
These 72 books were taken from the Septuagint. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars who translated and wrote them. These scholars translated the Hebrew into the greek because the Hebrew language was not used as much anymore in that part of the world, Alexandria, Egypt in the years 300-200 b.c.

After the Bible was officially canonized in 397, it was hand copied and it took many months just to produce one Bible.
In 382a.d., St. Jerome and others translated the Bible into Latin,which was the language of the day.It took 20 years to do that. It was called the Latin Vulgate Bible translation-(the Latin "commonly known" Bible)

Then in 1454-55, Johannes Gutenberg made the first Bible printed with moveable type.

The New Testament writers wrote in Koine Greek, the language of the common man in the first century A.D. The first complete English Bible was not produced until John Wycliffe produced his in the fourteenth century. He translated from the Latin Vulgate which was the most widely used version at that time.

In 1611 the King James Version was published to provide a Bible which could be used by both Anglicans and Puritans. It had all 72 books.

The first King James Bible published without its Apocrypha (Deutrocannonical books) section appeared in 1640.

Answer 2

The Book Judith, tobit and Lillith was from the Gnostic Mystical New Age gospels and are not consistent with the rest of the other 66 Books. They were NEVER part of the original Bible. Were not taken from the original Hebrew or Greek translations or the Latin Vulgate! Revelation 22:18...

Answer 3

Do a study of what was let into the canon, and what books disqualified themselves for a number of reasons. Lets say for a minute, that just maybe the Bible IS the inspired word of God, penned by men long ago. That doesn't mean, that other great books were also being written, right? I mean, there are LOTS of other authors, always have been, writing lots of various things. The books in the bible, didn't just happen to make it in, or some powerful guy, take some, and leave others out. There is a great reason why some originally let in, may have been taken out, I assume you mean the catholic bible, for one, etc. See, if the book has too many inconsistencies, with history, say, then it just disproved itself. Another, could differ with the accounts, that WERE included, because they were eyewitness authors, too many times removed. Others, were complete fakes, and given names, that were not their own, but sounded great at the time. This is a VERY small sampling of reasons why. But it is a start.
Cloe, I am not sure that you are exactly right on your additional details comment. I mean no disrespect, but I find the opposite to be true. There were more than one "council" that voted on these things. We could be referring to different things. But a more thorough study, would surely give more light on the situation. Would you want a book in your bible, that maybe was not supposed to be in there? It could still be an AWESOME book, but perhaps, not inspired, is my point. One more thing, it wasn't just king James, it was those he appointed. He would be first to say, he didn't know for sure, and "hired" the "experts" on the matter, during that time. He had amazing resources at his fingertips. He set out a "commission" of sorts.

Answer 4

Or quantity 4. They have been inspired via God of the doctrines of certainty and observed the misguided books and elected to take them out. For in case you stick to the types set up from Genesis in the path of the full scripture, that the Messiah replaced into promised to Adam and Eve in the backyard and comprehend that this promise is the salvation of guys, then all the books bypass with the comparable topic. If, even nonetheless, you're blinded via the non secular spirit that for the time of easy terms evokes the showering of cups and the rites of ceremony then you definately will continuously desire to brush aside the certainty and stick to after the failings which will by no ability cleanse the soul.

Answer 5

Because some of the reformers that consolidated the King Jimmy didn't like what Judith and Maccabees 1 and 2 had to say.

If you took out Genesis, evolution wouldn't contradict the Bible. I still wouldn't believe that I descended from a monkey!

Answer 6

7 cannonized books were removed from the King James and some other bibles...

Evangelicals tend not to accept the Septuagint as the inspired Hebrew Bible.

I agree with you as to why they were removed. Some of the best readings are in Ecclesiasticus.
.

Tobias
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Machabees I & II


.

Answer 7

Why study just the books in your version of the Bible, why not the other books that were omitted?

There were many more books that were omitted than included, so all of you Bible lovers should be happy that there's even more out there for you to learn.

Answer 8

Because the Jews took it out way before Christ was even born. It has false teachings.

Answer 9

Errors in the Apocrypha


The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church? The following references can be verified at http://www.newadvent.org/bible.


Problems in the Apocrypha

When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Magic:
Tobias 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

The Apocrypha also teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:
Tobias 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobias12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Macabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Can anyone truly except that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.



Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.

Answer 10

The council of Nicaea decided to leave it out because it suited their purposes. Our Bible is only comprised of documents they felt were important or suitable.

Makes ya think doesn't it.