Who decided to take out 7 original books to make the Protestant bible ?

Answer 1

The reason that the Protestant English Bible doesn't carry the Apocrypha is this:

Jesus said, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

Notice that Jesus discussed the law, the prophets, and the psalms. In the Hebrew Bible (which Jesus would have used), there are twenty-two books, which are broken into those three sections. Another ancient witness to this fact is the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. In his writings, he speaks of the Hebrew Scriptures as having twenty-two books with the same three divisions as well. If you compared the Hebrew Scriptures to our Protestant Old Testament, you would see that the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scriptures are equivalent to the thirty-nine books in the Protestant Old Testament.

The difference is in the breakdown. For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, I and II Samuel are considered one book. As are I and II Kings. Joshua, Judges and Ruth are one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are also one book. Ezekiel and the minor prophets are one book. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah are one book. I and II Chronicles are one book.

Nine of these books are called writings, four are called the latter prophets, four are called the former prophets, and five are called the Law of Moses, for a total of twenty-two books. Therefore, none of the Apocryphal books are considered Scripture in the Hebrew Bible. Our Protestant Bible follows this same pattern.

Another thing that Jesus said was, "...this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that was shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who died between the altar and the sanctuary..." (Luke 11:50-51)

Jesus had been speaking to the religious leaders of His day, and called them into account for all of the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zechariah. Abel's blood was the first to be shed (in Genesis) and Zechariah's blood was shed in Chronicles (the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures). Although Zechariah's blood is not the last to be shed chronologically, it is when you look at it in the order of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, Jesus was speaking of the first and the last blood being shed according to the order they appear in the Hebrew Scriptures. In effect, Jesus was calling the Old Testament complete (without the Apocrypha).

Answer 2

The books and portions removed are known to us as the Apocrypha, well known to early Christians from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. They were excluded by a rabinnical council at the end of the First Century CE because no Hebrew versions of the books could be found. But Christians still accepted them.

Late in the Fifth Century, when Jerome was translating both the Jewish and Christian scriptures into the common language, Latin, he discovered the Hebrew problem. Not sure how to resolve it, he separated the material in question into a separate section, calling it the "Apocrypha" ("Hidden").

Then, in the 16th Century, when Martin Luther took on the abuses that had crept into the Church, and was excommunicated for his efforts, he began to look for ways to delegitimize Roman authority. By appealing to the Bible, he was able to establish a theology that proclaimed salvation was only accessible by God's grace through faith, not by any human effort. With this idea he was able to undercut the intermediary institutions of Rome, characterizing them as the "traditions of man".

But there were some problems. Not all of the scripture agreed with this idea. For example, the letter of James strongly suggested that "works" were necessary for salvation. Luther didn't much care for James but explained that James was simply pointing out that works were a manifestation of underlying faith. Other scriptures were more problematic, particularly the apocrypha, which showed a post-Exilic theological sophistication and some Greek influences. In 1 Maccabees 12, the Jewish commander orders prayers and a sacrifice for soldiers who died wearing the emblem of an idol. This implied that prayers for the dead were efficacious, an intermediary position Luther could not tolerate. It was then a simple matter to reject the entire apocrypha as uninspired, thus eliminating the problem.

As to whether that decision was appropriate, it depends on whom you ask.

Answer 3

Actually it was more like 14 books.

They believed the Catholics were being biased when they put them into the original Bible.

The Bible is a series of writings. The Pharasees determined which of the ancient writings to be included in the Tanakah

The Nissien Council decided which of the new testiment writings were to go into the Bible.

The council was certainly political and as with the Constitution of the US it was written and re-written by committee until you had a draft that would past the voting process of a majority.

It is certainly also possible removing the books was another poltical move by King James and his committee.

All the books basically exist and anyone can go read them.

You decide if they are approriate or not.

Answer 4

" The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Macabese 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iranians, Tortellini, 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. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable Origin and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early 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 Jamie, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Obit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 5

You speak of the Apocrypha. These books were not inspired by God. As in the book of Tobias ( 6:5 -7 ), where an angel tells how to perform a magic spell, i.e. driving away demons by putting a small piece of a fish's heart on the ashes of a fire.
Or in 2 Macabees, where it tells of making a gathering of money as an offering for the sins of the dead.

Money is not and never has been, nor ever will be an offering for the sins of the dead, and magic is an unbiblical concept that has no place in scripture. The fact that some catholic Bibles have the apocrypha included in them does not surprise me in the least. It brings into question the catholic church's self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian church, at the very least.

Answer 6

Non-canonical stuff, previous testomony. some is powerful, yet some iffy. the suitable is stuff like Ecclesiasticus. yet even there you get verses that say undesirable issues approximately women individuals, that's thoroughly incorrect. that is not interior the Jewish canon of the previous testomony, when you consider that they form of desperate to reject each and every little thing after a undeniable shrink-off element (a super form of the books have been written in Egypt, and the particularly some innovations owe extra to Greek philosophy than classic Biblical perspectives). So the protestants are merely following the Jewish canon, and rejecting late books of questionable authenticity. some Bibles nonetheless comprise them, yet they're pronounced as 'apocrypha', while catholic bibles oftentimes have them as a 2d canon. there is a few incredibly zany stuff in there, extraordinarily eg pertaining to to Daniel, eg "the tale of Bel and the dragon".

Answer 7

Martin Luther decided to take out 7 books from the Bible (around 1517) which was accepted by Catholics (Christians) since they year 400 a.d. Catholics still use the very same Bible that's been used the longest and accepted by the early church.

Answer 8

That would be the Septuagint.
A group of 70 Bible Scholars who reviewed the texts and compared them with one another.
The 7 books were eliminated for a variety of reasons.
Among the blatant ones were that authorship was in question, and topics like mythology were interwoven into some of the books.
Others were deemed to be contradictory, or inconsistent with the rest of the 66 books of the Bible.

Answer 9

The prophet (pbuh) himself.

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned."

Answer 10

You may be speaking about the Apocrypha. These were not considered inspired books by the protestant groups.