why did Martin Luther tear off the books from the original compilation of the Bible?

Question

is it because those books didn't agree with what he prefers to believe?

why do Bible-fundamentalists use that incomplete version if they are really seeking for truth to spread to people?

he tore off certain books.

Answer 1

Yes. Certain books did not fit with his particular theology. He wanted to leave out the Epistle of James for the same reason, and it's why he referred to it as "a book of straw". He also was said to have commented that he wished the Book of Esther had never been written.

Answer 2

yet differently to look on the region could be to state that Rome filled some spurious books (the Apocrypha) interior the Bible that have been by no potential interior the unique Bible interior the 1st place. Luther and the reformers bumped off them for stable reason. Jesus quoted the prophets yet no longer the Apocrypha. Paul favored to cite a Cretan quite than the Apocrypha (Titus a million:12). The prophets do no longer quote the Apocrypha. Orthodox Jews basically understand the regulation, the Psalms and the Prophets: 39 books. No apocrypha for them. Open up Isaiah and count quantity the chapters. Sixty-six, like a King James Bible. examine financial disaster 39. Now examine financial disaster 40 and be conscious the abrupt replace in tone. Thirty-9 books interior the previous testomony, twenty-seven interior the hot. The Bible itself defines its contents in Isaiah. Luther and the reformers have been putting issues right now. Rev. 22:18, Prov 30:6

Answer 3

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed "the certain, main books of the New Testament." In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.

Though there are no quotes that tie these books directly to the NT, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life." Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (, 53). The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Answer 4

I am not exactly sure what you mean however, if you are speaking of the apocrypha, the truth is this, "The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible."

His dislike of the book of James is well known as he misunderstood James' statement about "faith without works is dead" James was saying in essence, "don't talk prove it".

However, Luther should not be put on a pedestal. He did some great things but was also... well lets just say off in some areas...

Answer 5

You mean he desecrated the HOLY BIBLE????????????
I did not know that!