I am almost done reading the bible. I want to read the books that are in the Catholic bible now. What can I?

Question

expect to learn/read about. Why are these books Not in the Christian bible?

i am impressed with everyone's knowledge. thank you all very much. i am sorry, i really didn't know catholics were christians too.

Answer 1

You mean, "Why are these books not in the protestant Bible", because a Catholic Bible IS a Christian Bible.

The answer: Because Martin Luther says so. When you boil it down, the only proof that these books are not equal to the other books in the bible is simply the word of Martin Luther, and no more.

They are called the Apocrypha. The list of these books are as follows:

* 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
* 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
* Tobit
* Judith
* Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
* Wisdom
* Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
* Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
* Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
* Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
* The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
* Prayer of Manasses
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees

You can read them in any Catholic Bible. Here is a link to my favorite, as it is written in the same language as the King james version:

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=63&lang=2

However, if it is hard for you to understand, you may want to get another Catholic Bible, such as the New American Bible.



---P.S. Never mind my link, just read the link Quailman posted. It is easier to read than mine.
http://www.ishwar.com/christianity/deuterocanonical_apocrypha/

Answer 2

Um, the term "Christian" refers to all denominations that believe in the divinity of Christ, and follow the teachings of Christ This includes most so-called "Protestant" denominations, Catholics, Eastern Rite or Greek Orthodox, Mormons, etc.

The differences in the various bibles depends on a number of different factors, and many differences are in the translations from the original texts, and indeed the supposed validity of specific texts. Some denominations feel that particular texts simply don't meet their standards of validity

Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox churches include more books in their Old Testament canons than Protestants. Protestants refer to these additional books as the Apocrypha and consider them to be "outside books" that nevertheless are valuable for instruction and spiritual edification.

Answer 3

As you know, there were all kinds of different kinds of scripture canons floating around during the time of Our Lord, but the first time that the seven deuteros were specifically excluded as a group was during the Council of Javneh in in 90 AD, when rabbis compiled the definitive Hebrew canon of scripture. You will of course agree that this is not binding for Christians, but why hold such a council? To stop Christianity from moving into Judaism's "territory", that's why! Javneh also made definitive pronouncements on the Gospels. The point of this Council was to stop Christianity from spreading in Israel, and the best way to do so was to remove books that deeply reflected the practices of Christians. Many Jews converted to Christianity after reading the Deuteros, and Jewish leaders wanted to stop this.

As to the Septuagint--how do you explain the fact that two thirds of OT quotes came from the Septuagint? Even if the Apostles didn't use it exclusively, the fact that they used it most of the time seems to acknowledge the fact that they didn't see any glaring, major errors in it, like the inclusions of non-inspired books. And think of it this way--of all the OT manuscripts available at the time, dozens of writers living in different places at different times all seem to have this one in common at least some of the time, something that no other manuscript can make a claim to. They also never gave instructions that seven OT books ought to be excluded.

True, we don't know when and by whom the Septuagint was written, but we don't know that about the Book of Hebrews in the NT either. (for a further defence of the septuagint, read here http://ecclesia.org/truth/defense.html).

As to Patristic acknowledgement, Protestant scholar JND Kelley seems to acknowledge that regardless of what was added to bibles before the 3rd century, the deuteros, like the books that we agree are inspired, were virtually never left out.

Why was the canon only finalized at the Council of Rome in 382? It is a longstanding Catholic tradition (and, it seems, a directive of the Holy Ghost) that things are not infallibly defined until they either are abused, or popular demand means its written infallibility would be beneficial. If everyone had the same canon of scripture, the Church wouldn't have defined things, since they don't do these things when they are unnecessary. Also, none of the Church fathers exclude these books. Athanasius accpeted them, and several absolutely uncanonical books, and Origen said they shouldn't be used in debate, but The Church fathers (with the exception of Jerome, who conformed to the popular view after a better look at these seven books) no Patristic writer seems to exclude the deuteros.

Now let's look at what happened during the Reformation. Martin Luther, being quite irate with abuses being perpetrated by many Catholics, re-defined the canon to better suit his own beliefs. He took out the seven OT books, as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He did so with no precedent other than a few early writings by Jerome that were later recanted, and a the Jewish council of Javneh. Also, the removal of these 4 NT books clearly demonstrate his inability to produce an unbiased, correct canon. Other Protestant reformers decided to put the four NT books back in, but followed Luther's OT canon, again without precedent.

Eventually, many Protestant scholars began trying to rewrite history, making the outrageous claim that they were added at Trent. Anyone who has read the decrees of Trent knows that isn't true.

In short, there was never a real line drawn between the seven deuterocanonicals and other books in Christianity before Martin Luther removed them for purely doctrinal reasons, and those who argue that they are not inspired need to more clearly draw some kind of distinction between these and the other books before the arguments become truly feasible.

Answer 4

The bible was made by Catholic bishops who wished to put the holy writings in a single book. They chose which writings made it into the bible and which didn't.
When the church started breaking off into different denominations, the Protestants did some editing and removed the books that they thought the Catholic church failed to edit. They felt that these books were extras and did not truly represent God's holy writings.

Answer 5

Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Protestant Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The books are named: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.

The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm
http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html

The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God

Answer 6

Its not too complicated.

First, a history lesson for background knowledge.

Way back, in something like 70 BC(working from memory here), seventy Jewish scholars decided to translate the Torah(Christian's Old Testament) into Greek, because there were many Jews who spoke Greek as their native language. They called their translation the Septuagint and it included the deuterocanonical books(aka the Apocrypha).

After Jesus ascended into Heaven, the Apostles tended to use the Septuagint for personal study and to explain their beliefs to others. In 90 AD, however, Christian-Jewish relations had diminished to about nil, and at that time Jews officially banned Christians from synagogues(at that point, many Christians considered themselves Jews, just Jews that believed the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus) and they officially defined what was, for them, Scripture. This proclamation did not include the deuterocanonical books. However, the Christians did use these books.

Fast forward to the sixteenth century. Martin Luther was translating the Bible into German, and he, with his new theology that believed in faith and scripture alone, didn't believe that those books were inspired. Interesting historical texts, yes, but not worthy to be called Scripture. He believed this about the deuterocanonical books for two reasons - he disagreed with many statements made in these books(one that stands out in particular is the implication of praying for the dead and Purgatory in II Maccabees), and he because of this fact felt that if the Jews had no reason for them, neither should Christians. Therefore, he removed those seven books as well as four from the New Testament and put them in an appendix in the back of his Bible, with an introduction that more or less stated what was said before - that these books were not inspired, but were interesting nonetheless. (Later reformers put the New Testament books back because they were uneasy with taking those books out - they had, in their mind, a more valid reason to take out the deuterocanonical books out because the Jews didn't use them, but they had no real reason to remove the NT books in question.)

Soon after, the Catholic Church underwent the Council of Trent, which aimed at correcting the various abuses of the Church that led to the Protestant Reformation. One of the things that happened at the Council was that the Church officially declared what was to be included in Scripture. Before this point, it was more or less a given that the books you see today in a Catholic Bible were inspired and part of the Bible, but they made it official at the Council of Trent. As you may have guessed, the Church included the deuterocanonical books as sacred, and the result is the Protestant Bible having seven fewer books in their Bible. (The Church did NOT add these books in - they were generally accepted as part of Scripture at the time. They just made it official.)

Answer 7

The only thing I know about one of those books, if I told you, it would be like "giving it away".

I'll say this much, though. The Bible mentions only two or three angels. One of the catholic books mentions a another on top of that.

Answer 8

They are mainly historical works that contain the missing times between OT and NT time, they deal mainly with the later Persian era, Alexander the Great, his successors, and the Jewish Revolts, and the stories associated with them. Martin Luther took them out of the Bible, when HE claimed the mantle of the new Prophet, but that isn't saying much.

Answer 9

i'm sure others have said this but.... the Catholic bible IS a christian bible. the protestants took them out during their reformation/protest period. IMHO they removed them becasue they "backed up" CAtholic doctrine AND made following the "rules" more difficult.

Answer 10

They are the same. Some catholic bibles have a "prayer" section in the back but it will be the same although a lot of catholic bibles are printed in Old English which can sometimes be harder to understand.