add and take away books from the bible,, when it clearly states... donot add or taketh away from the bible.catholics do it, mormons do it,,, why? do this and run the risk?
2007-09-29 17:26:28 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Catholics never do it.
2007-09-29 17:34:01 · answer #1 · answered by Perceptive 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The phrase in the Bible that says that has been historically shown to have actually been written BEFORE several books in the Bible
Given that fact, you would have to claim that anything written after that verse in the Bible, historically and not just how it was arranged, would all be false.
That little scripture has sooo been misinterpreted. You arent to add or take away from Gods teachings that isnt his word. Do you really think in all of history and all over the world that the Bible is all that the prophets ever had written down and is all that God ever wanted to say???????????
We are talking about a very small section of history in regards to a very small section of people. Dont you think God would have revealed himself and his laws to anyone else living on the planet?????
The old church chose what to put in that Bible. I do believe that was in in the Bible is true, if its the correct translation, because I dont beleive God allowed the people that organized the Bible to include false doctrine. But we know that they left out scripture from the original organization of the Bible.
2007-09-29 17:41:32 · answer #2 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic Bible always had the deutero-canonical texts in them. The full Canon of Scriptures was laid down in 384 A.D. Before that, what is known as the Bible were separate documents in the possession of various churches around the Mediterranean.
It was the Protestants who removed the following parts of the Bible.
The Wisdom of Solomon - because it exalted reason as well as faith.
Tobit - Because the Protestant view of the role of angels was contrary to this book.
The Book of Judith - Because of its portrayal of virtuous women as strong, clever, and independent.
First book of the Macabees - Because of the prophecy that the Romans would take up the cause of the Church (i.e. Roman Catholic???)
Second book of the Macabees - Because it described the nature of purgatory. Oh, and it tells the place where the Ark of the Covenant is buried. Indiana Jones should have used a Catholic Bible!
The last part of Esther - again, because it portrays virtuous women as strong and clever.
The last part of Daniel - because it shows that even elderly men can be foul and corrupt. It's also the first account of detective work with Daniel as the first detective.
Even the Epistle of James almost got tossed. Martin Luther called it "an epistle of straw."
The most horrible new Protestant omission I have seen is in the NIV, where they butcher the first Epistle of John. I John 5:7. It is a major reference about the Holy Trinity. It should read:
"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
In the NIV, it reads:
"And there are three that witness:"
It's like an incomplete sentence.
The most accurate English translations I have seen are the King James version for Protestants, and the Douay-Rheims version for Catholics (all books included).
2007-09-29 17:56:20 · answer #3 · answered by Robin Runesinger 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the PROTESTANTS removed books from the Bible as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Christian Church
"The Term Apocrypha in the Old Testament
Regarding the Old Testament, originally all Christians had the same canon (list of books) of the Old Testament, the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures known as the "Septuagint" (LXX). The Septuagint was widely considered by the earliest Christians to be an inspired translation and was the Old Testament of the Church. The Latin translation of the Bible (called the "Vulgate," which originated with St. Jerome around the year 400) also included books found in the Septuagint. Around 100 AD the Jews rejected the Septuagint Greek translation in favor of using Hebrew only, primarily because Christians used the LXX. The rejection included about 10 books and portions of books found in the LXX but that hadn’t been in use by Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine. The Christians continued to use the complete LXX, since the apostles used it. The Greek LXX (in the East) and the Latin Vulgate (in the West) were the undisputed versions of the Christian Old Testament for about 1,500 years.
But in the 16th century some Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther, decided that the additional Old Testament books that formed part of the LXX but not used by Jews should not be in the Bible, since the Jews had decided not to include them. Luther first separated and later removed these from his German version of the Bible in 1534 and called them apocrypha, since he determined they should not be part of the canon of Scripture. That term is used to designate books rejected from the canon of Scripture.
The Catholic Church, in response, affirmed the inspiration of these books at the Council of Trent (1545), but called them deutero-canonical, which means they have a secondary status, but are still scriptural. However, for the Orthodox Church, these 10 books of the Old Testament, which Protestants call "apocrypha" and Catholics call "deutero-canonical" have always been and still remain canonical Scripture. The Protestant Old Testament canon contains the fewest books, just 39. Since Protestants publish most English-language Bibles, these books are usually omitted from the Bible entirely or are found in a separate section in the back of the Bible or between the two Testaments. If it is a Catholic Bible, such as the New American Bible or the Jerusalem Bible, most of these books are incorporated without distinction into the Old Testament, but not all of them. Thus, Orthodox Christians have the oldest and most complete canon of the Old Testament, 49 books. "
2007-09-29 17:34:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anne Hatzakis 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Babe...
The King James Version and almost every other version of the Bible are just a small portion of what has been written about Jesus from around his time.
There are about 30 books that were not included in the Bible.
2007-09-29 17:31:02 · answer #5 · answered by iColorz 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Bible is not the written word of God -is was inspired by God and as time goes the bias of the various people in Authority will dictate what is edited out.
The long lost Gosphel according to Mary is one example.
.
2007-09-30 00:01:15 · answer #6 · answered by Rai A 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When the books in the bible were written there was no bible so that mean when it says not to add to it, it is talking about that particular book.
2007-09-29 17:30:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The King James Bible, has not been changed
Man call them selves, making it easy er to read, but they are some times is changing the meaning, of some of the verses. If you want to be able, to get the true meaning, use the origenal King James .Study Bible.
2007-09-29 17:42:44 · answer #8 · answered by Herb E 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Bible was originally put together by Rome (ie. The Catholic Church). It is the Protestant denominations that take away from it.
2007-09-29 17:31:26 · answer #9 · answered by Tasha 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The first "bible" was the Marcian bible and, for instance, only included the Gospel of Mark. Is that the bible you use? No, then I guess you're guilty, too.
I guess you should say, that *ALL* religions choose the myths they want to follow.
2007-09-29 17:30:00 · answer #10 · answered by Daniel T 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
There is no divine protection for the Bible.
That was only given to the last book written in Arabic.
.
2007-09-29 17:28:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋