The Holy Bible.................curious?

Question

Many people say Catholics have a different Bible to Christians.

Can you please tell what that Bible is, I thought there was only one Bible, The Holy Bible, so which one do we have?

The Protestants deleted books, we put the Bible together

Desiree, long story, no I did not die, someone faked my death and it was not me, God knows I am telling the truth

We did not add any extras, other Religions took them away!

Answer 1

Very good point, SusanJ. I'm LDS, and as you may know, we LDS are accused of "adding books" to the Bible as well, lol.

Everyday people so easily misinterpret scripture when they don't have the guidance of a prophet of the Lord.... one who has experience in hearing and obeying the Lord's voice.

I read a book in my teens called "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" that logically narrowed it down rather well. Either the Catholic church is true, and has never deviated from truth.... and protestants (and LDS) are rebels. Or the Catholic church is not true, has apostasized from truth, and therefore the protestants still have no authority to teach the "truth" as none of them have had a prophet to restore that which was lost through Apostacy.

The assumption made by many Christians is that the Bible contains all truth... but the Bible doesn't actually say this, Luther did. And Luther never claimed to be a prophet... he led reformation according to his own understanding of the Bible... (see Prov. 3: 5). Actually, the Bible states that the Holy Spirit will reveal all truth (see John 16:13). The problem is that it takes a great deal of spiritual maturity and experience to begin to understand how to recognise the voice of the Holy Spirit. (Thus comes the need for prophets to guide the "lambs".)

There are no protestant religions that have any logical claim to the authority and knowledge of God to teach "the truths of God". Only the original church (if it has remained in its pure form all these years) or a church restored through direction revelation from God could have any claim to be the Lord's true religion. Which one is it?

The Lord has always had a prophet leading his people. This is shown in every dispensation throughout the Bible, except for when the Lord himself was preaching and ministering... and even then there was the Biblical prophet, John the Baptist, who lived at the same time as the Lord.

I can't see much Biblical evidence for the claim that there is no need for modern day prophets. Wouldn't there be much less contention between Christians if we all had one prophet, truly led by the Lord?

Answer 2

The Old Testament of the Bible is the same as the Jewish scriptures that were written in Hebrew. These scriptures were completed in their finally form around 450BC and are called by the Jew's the Torah.

In the 200's BC, a translation of the Hebrew scriptures was made into Greek. This would become the most commonly used translation in the early church, as most of the early Christians were non-Jews who spoke/read Greek.

This Greek version included nine books (or additions to books) that date from that time period. Most deal with a revolt against the Greek empire at the time lead by the Maccabees. This books have never been considered scripture by the Jews.

When the Bible was translated into Latin in the early 400s, the translators included those books in a separate section located between the Old and New Testament referred to as the deutro-cannon. They were considered to be important, but not "inspired scripture". They are not used in Catholic ritual or reading. Because Bible were all hand copied until the 1400s, most Bibles did not include those books.

The early Protestant Bibles versions did not include those books. What they did include were notes and commentaries which were often very anti-catholic. To prevent Catholics from reading those Bibles (or actually the notes), in the mid 1500s the Catholic church official added the deutro-canon books to their Bible. This way they could ban Catholics from reading all the Protestant Bibles since they "are not complete".

Those additional books are still found in many of the Bibles printed by the Catholics (but not all).

Answer 3

Hi SusanJ,
Originally, the Bible was very similar to what the protestants have today. They have 66 books. The Roman Catholic Church had the same books. In 1546, the Council of Trent decreed that the Old Testament should have several extra books. These were books that per the Talmud, the Jewish rabbis considered to have an obscure origin or perhaps even heretical. The Roman Catholic church declared an anathema (Damned to hell) to anyone that did not accept as sacred the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts.
Though perhaps not admitted by the Catholic Church, the Apocryphal books gave ammunition against the protestant reformation by giving support for various doctrines that were in contention. (eg. purgatory, praying to saints and Mary, indulgences,etc.)
There are various reasons they are not accepted by many non-Catholics.
-For one thing they were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries of the church.
-They were not written in Hebrew, the language used by prophets and historians of the O.T.
-They do not claim to be the inspired word of God.
-They contain teachings that are very contrary to far more accepted books of the bible
There are more reasons (see sources below),but hopefully this has cleared things up a bit.

WHY DO PEOPLE ASK A QUESTION IF THEIR MIND IS MADE UP AND THEY FEEL THEY ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER?
Study your history. Read the links below.

Answer 4

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants REMOVED seven deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther.

They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Christianity. They were read by Jesus and quoted in the early Christian writings, such as the Didache.

The likely reason is that some of the deuterocanonical books did not support Protestant theology. For example, we read in Maccabees that we should pray for the dead, which supports the teachings of the original Church about purgatory.

The Catholic New Testament is exactly the same as the Protestant New Testament.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 5

Christians believe in the Holy Spirit because Christ said the Holy Spirit would remain with us (after the Resurrection). But it seems your point is to cast skepticism at Benny Hinn. Please bear in mind that he is a man. He is not God, nor is he the Holy Spirit. That some find him a channel through which they can understand the power of the Spirit is a wholly separate matter, but one that I don't sense you seriously want to examine. If you ever do want to actually experience the Holy Spirit, please know that the only way you will ever "feel" His presence is to first have a relationship with God and His Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the third member of the trinity, and, as with the aforementioned members, you have to ask for His indwelling. God (in all His forms) is a gentleman. He won't force his way into resistant hearts, or insist on going where He isn't sincerely wanted. Nor is He a parlor amusement. Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you (James 4:8). Being a spectator on others' experiences is NOT the same as having the relationship and experience for yourself.

Answer 6

The catholics have several catholic Bibles. All of them were translated by catholics only. Non-catholic versions were translated by a diverse team of Bible scholars from different denominations. The latest catholic Bible is the New American Bible. All catholic Bibles contain several of the apocryphal books, which are not found in other translations. These books did not pass the original test of canonicity and were not part of the Bible. However the catholic church used these books through out their history. In about 1550 (approximately- I don't want to look it up) the catholic church officially added these books to their Bibles. Some Protestant (so called) denominations also use these books, but very few.
The canon of scripture contains 66 books.

Answer 7

There are 15 recognized versions of the Bible. The Douai version of the Catholic one, King James Version. Coptic, and so on. But remember the key term here is Version.

It is a guide and a great history book to use it otherwise is beyond our limited intelligence.

Answer 8

Catholics have the NAB (generally) it has the orginal books of the bible that we have had for 1500 or so years.

Protestants carry a few versions, generally the KVJ is used, it does not have the same books the NAB does.

Answer 9

Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting—that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called 'the Song of the Three Children', (Daniel iii., 24-90, Douai version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more con­servative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture—'an Epistle of straw' he called it, 'with no character of the Gospel in it'. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonoured the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel). The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his Biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott's The Bible in The Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgment—of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and when­ever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste—as, for example, that 'it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins', 2 Mach. xii., 46—well, so much the worse for the book; 'throw it overboard', was his sentence, and overboard it went. And it was the same with passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain, and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St Paul's doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith', and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word 'only' after St Paul's words, making the sentence run: 'We are justified by Faith only', and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may, indeed you are bound to cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself. No Pope, no Council, no Church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. And the result we have seen in the corruption of God's Holy Word.

Answer 10

I have a small version of the Douai (sp)

The Catholic version has books which aren't included in the Bibles of other denominations because it can't be sufficiently proven that those extra books belong. And what I read of Macabees (sp) it isn't in harmony with the rest of the Bible.