I've heard there are other books to the Bible that aren't actually published in it, and that the Catholic church is the one who decided which one to publish. I'm not a Christian, just asking out of curiousity, but is this true? Also, how'd they decide which ones to put in if it's true? Did they just put in the ones they agreed with?
2007-02-17 13:48:37 · 9 answers · asked by nikki 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Actually the Catholic church didn't have anything to do with it. The Catholic Church only began to get organized around the 4th century. The various councils that came together to identify which books were divinely inspired, were made up of a variety of churches, and all they did was identify those books that were already considered to be inspired. The books of the Bible had been recognized long before those councils. One of the criteria was that the book be know to have apostolic origin. A number of books were rejected because they were known to be pseudoepigraphic (that is, not written by the author claimed in it). Examples: Gospel of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas.) These books were written much much later than the actual New Testament books.
2007-02-17 13:56:02 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic Church wrote the new testament, and compiled and codified the entire canon of scripture, prior to the end of the 4th century.
Then they translated and published the Bible in Latin, which was at that time, the common language of the entire Roman Empire, and most of the known world.
The Bible was eventually translated by the Church into at least 14 different languages.
It was the late day protestant reformers who decided, around a thousand years later, to change things, in order to suit their new and strange ideas.
Martin Luther added his own words to the scriptures, disputed and threw out others he didn't like, including entire books, and the other reformers followed suit.
Of course, they had absolutely no divine authority to do any of this.
Jesus founded, authorized, and empowered only one church, the church that has been known as Catholic since 107 AD, and even Martin Luther admitted that if it wasn't for the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible.
If your Bible isn't a Catholic one, with all the original books included, it is not an authentic one.
And if anyone attempts to interpret scripture without the benefit of 2000 years of authentic Catholic scholarship, tradition, and divine truth, they're not very likely to be successful.
Case closed.
2007-02-17 14:43:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You speak of the Apocrypha. These books, such as Tobias, Judith, 1&2 Macabees, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch are NOT inspired by God, and not without errors. They also promote witchcraft (such as in the book of Tobias 6: 5 -7 where an angel supposedly teaches that burning a fish's heart will drive away devils). They also teach that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. Salvation by works is NOT Biblical, and has no place in the Word of God. it also teaches in 2 Macabees that money can be an offering for the sins of the dead. Not Biblical. No business being in the Bible. The King James version of the Bible is the most read, and easiest to understand of all the scriptures. Likewise, the NIV loses much in the more modern translation. Much is changed in meaning through this 'modernizing' of the Scriptures, and this is why I use the KJV. It is the infallible Word of God. The Apocrypha does not fall into this category. Things such as making penance for others sounds like catholic doctrine to me. Little wonder that the catholic church includes the Apocrypha in some versions of their Bibles.
2007-02-17 14:14:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, this is not true. The 66 books we use today are the same ones used by the early church around 100 A.D. There are many writing that have to do with religious subjects that were never part of the Bible. The Catholic church officially added the apocryphal books to their version of the Bible around 1660 at the council of Trent.
But no, there are no other books other that the 66 in use today.
2007-02-17 13:55:28 · answer #4 · answered by Terrence J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They put in the books that appeared to be inspired.
However, the Catholic church has books in their Bible that the reformation left out of theirs.
The reason for that is, for 400 years before Christ, there is no record of God having interacted with His people, so the books about that era would be considered to be history, but not inspired.
The books of the Apocrypha were not written until 150 to 200 AD.
The reformation decided to have only books written by those who witnessed Jesus, or Paul who was commissioned to preach in the name of Jesus, and started many of the first century churches.
grace2u
2007-02-17 13:59:29 · answer #5 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do some research on the Apocrypha - which are Gnostic books that were left out of the latest version of the Bible. You may also want to considering taking a look at previous versions: The Vulgate, The Septuagint.
2007-02-17 13:58:12 · answer #6 · answered by taa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, it's true. There are books like "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Book of Enoch", and others that were just turned down at some point or another. Go research the Dead Sea scrolls, Apocryphon, Ecumenical Councils.
2007-02-17 13:51:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh yeah. Agreed with, ya think. Surely you jest. Religious people would not do something like skew data in their favor.
2007-02-17 13:55:11 · answer #8 · answered by fifimsp1 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ask the pope because all else is speculation.
2007-02-17 13:51:41 · answer #9 · answered by Tribble Macher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋