2007-09-11 02:53:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Was he an ancestor of Lex Luthor? I mean, spellings do change over the centuries. If so, this could explain his arbitrary action.
Didn't he go on a diet of worms? Weird!
2007-09-11 05:29:43 · answer #1 · answered by Namlevram 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sheeseh!! Where do people get their Church History from?? Bubble gum wrappers???
An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534.
During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”
Read something besides the Internet for some real history is my suggestion.
2007-09-11 03:03:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
As Father K correctly responded, Luther did not remove nay books, only created a separate section for certain books, named it "Apocrypha", and declared that these books were not inspired but still worth reading. According to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, it was not until the Geneva Bible (an English version) that (some) bibles were published without these books. The complete Geneva Bible does include these books, however.
Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com
2007-09-11 11:36:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It grow to be the authority of the Catholic Church which desperate on the seventy 3 books of the Bible - the authority of Peter given by ability of Christ Himself. 18 And so I say to you, you're Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall no longer be triumphant against it. 19 i will provide you the keys to the dominion of heaven. 14 despite you bind in the international would be sure in heaven; and despite you loose in the international would be loosed in heaven." From Matthew financial disaster sixteen. Martin Luther bumped off those books by way of fact he had a diverse concept. That grow to be not extra valid than in case you or I did an identical situation by way of fact we had a diverse concept.
2016-12-13 06:08:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was the Scottish bible society that removed them. Luther put them in an appendix in order to justify his beliefs. an added the words faith alone.
2007-09-11 03:15:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can only guess those 7 books did not fit his agenda.
2007-09-11 03:01:37 · answer #6 · answered by joe s 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because those seven books were not part of the original canon. They were added later; if I'm not mistaken, they were added in about the 15th or 16th century.
2007-09-11 03:02:52 · answer #7 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Which ones? He removed none, as far as I know.
2007-09-11 03:01:10 · answer #8 · answered by Jed 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋