[raccoon1]

I've noticed this... I have both a "Catholic" Bible and a "protestant" bible. In the Catholic Bible, they include the books of Apocrypha: Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.

I was just trying to figure out what caused Luther to remove these books? Why did he figure they weren't worth reading? And why do many claim that they were "false" books nowadays?

I think they have some very good teachings within them. In some ways, I prefer my Bible with the Apocrypha rather than the one which omits them.

Originally Posted by raccoon1

I've noticed this... I have both a "Catholic" Bible and a "protestant" bible. In the Catholic Bible, they include the books of Apocrypha: Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.

I was just trying to figure out what caused Luther to remove these books? Why did he figure they weren't worth reading? And why do many claim that they were "false" books nowadays?

I think they have some very good teachings within them. In some ways, I prefer my Bible with the Apocrypha rather than the one which omits them.

The reason would be that those books have been deemed non God inspired.

Luther never said they were not worth reading, he said actually that they were good for reading just not God inspired.

I would say that the reason they are looked upon today as non canical would be the content of those particular books do not match up with the rest of scripture.

Now luther is no authority himself. He also wanted to remove revelations and hebrews as well as other books.

It is my belief that the bible looks the way it does because God intended it to look the way it does.

I also think (I may be wrong) that catholics do not look upon those books as God inspired either.

God Bless

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Daniel

It is my belief that the bible looks the way it does because God intended it to look the way it does.

Daniel, I feel it is my position to have to point out that you would (and could) say that however the bible looked.

Originally Posted by Brad

Daniel, I feel it is my position to have to point out that you would (and could) say that however the bible looked.

Indeed i would sir. The bible is the way it is because God made it that way. The bible was written by holy men as they were lead by God as they penned. The bible was put together by a group of peoples that God called at that time to put it together that way.
The truth we have today is directly from God. this is my belief.

The books of the Apocrypha have some obvious differences than the Canonical books. I don't believe you see in them the inspired element, as mentioned above; for example, the writers don't convey that "thus saith the Lord:" they don't write with the spirit of power and authority we see in the books of the bible itself. There is a lack of that certain quickening element that yeilds spiritual "Life" in you. I have seen and felt that. The themes I believe do not focus on Christ the Savior really. And I have been made aware of other differences I can't think of at the moment, but that do click to me as I have read some of those books.

I really beleive that the content in the Canon is truly inspired and also that God had the ability to inspired which books would be included. I may come back later with more differences, but I am with the opinion at this time that it's ok to read the other books, and there are others beside the Apocrypha, but I don't take them as concretly as the Inspired Word, the Bible.

But what about the book of Enoch? That one is a curiosity. I have read some. It has been said that the writer was told that what he wrote there was not for that time, that generation but for a much later one near the resturn of Christ. I've also read that this book was thought to be completely lost for a long time but resurfaced in the 1700's I think, which causes people to wonder about such a resurfacing in this later time. This book did seem to me to perhaps be inspired. I can say too much really though.

[winsome]

Originally Posted by raccoon1

I've noticed this... I have both a "Catholic" Bible and a "protestant" bible. In the Catholic Bible, they include the books of Apocrypha: Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.

I was just trying to figure out what caused Luther to remove these books? Why did he figure they weren't worth reading? And why do many claim that they were "false" books nowadays?

I think they have some very good teachings within them. In some ways, I prefer my Bible with the Apocrypha rather than the one which omits them.

Originally Posted by Daniel

The reason would be that those books have been deemed non God inspired.

Luther never said they were not worth reading, he said actually that they were good for reading just not God inspired.

I would say that the reason they are looked upon today as non canical would be the content of those particular books do not match up with the rest of scripture.

Now luther is no authority himself. He also wanted to remove revelations and hebrews as well as other books.

It is my belief that the bible looks the way it does because God intended it to look the way it does.

I also think (I may be wrong) that catholics do not look upon those books as God inspired either.

God Bless

The Bible has contained the deutercanonicals (what you call apochrypha) since the canon was defined the end of the 4th century and are still in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

As you say Luther had no authority to remove them and neither does anyone else.

Luther also wanted to remove James (an "epistle of straw" he called it) because none of these fitted in with his theology.

As PreacherGirl said:

I really beleive that the content in the Canon is truly inspired and also that God had the ability to inspired which books would be included.

And God did inspire the early fathers who defined the canon to include these books.

[SeraphimH]

At the time of the Councils when the canon of Scripture was determined, and indeed, during the time of Christ, the books in circulation were mostly in Greek. Hebrew was a dying language, because of Jewish diaspora. The Septuagint is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Pentateuch into Greek, the official language of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). The word septuaginta means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars translated the Pentateuch (Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC.

The Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon (Masoretic text) and exclude the additional books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their canon while Orthodox Churches use all the books of the Septuagint. Anglican lectionaries also use all of the books except Psalm 151, and the full Authorized (King James) Version includes these additional books in a separate section labeled the "Apocrypha".

The Masoretic text, the Hebrew version of the OT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries AD. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early second century, it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BC) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is often quoted in the Christian New Testament. The most differences are in the prophecies of Christ in the prophetic books of the OT, such as Isaiah.

The older Septuagint contains a far better translation, no deviation, and the full canon of Scripture of the OT. It was ratified by the Ecumenical Councils along with the NT canon.

[NotFinishedYet]

Originally Posted by raccoon1

I've noticed this... I have both a "Catholic" Bible and a "protestant" bible. In the Catholic Bible, they include the books of Apocrypha: Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.

I was just trying to figure out what caused Luther to remove these books? Why did he figure they weren't worth reading? And why do many claim that they were "false" books nowadays?

I think they have some very good teachings within them. In some ways, I prefer my Bible with the Apocrypha rather than the one which omits them.

Rocky, Luther wasn't the only one who excluded some noteworthy things. In studying this past year the formation of the Biblical canons and Jewish OT, I found the criteria for inclusion/exclusion enlightening. Inspiration of the Spirit was not a definitive reason; books that were considered "inspired" were actually left out. Continue your search for truth and you will come across many different texts that are not in the Bible (J, C or P) that will reveal God's truths to you. But that's just my opinion. Peggy

[joedelsy]

If the Roman Catholic Church did not agree with any testimony in ANY writings or if it didn't fit their purpose or meet their personal benefits, then they were not included in the Holy Bible. There are several hundred scriptures that "they" felt that were not worthy to be in their Bible.

[raccoon1]

Originally Posted by joedelsy

If the Roman Catholic Church did not agree with any testimony in ANY writings or if it didn't fit their purpose or meet their personal benefits, then they were not included in the Holy Bible. There are several hundred scriptures that "they" felt that were not worthy to be in their Bible.

Oh, I understand that. However, there are still some extreme conspiriacies surrounding such things as the Gospel of Judas, most recently "found," along with the other "gospels" that have been found in recent decades. I figured I would start focusing on these books that were initally canonized and then later removed.

I've been starting to look into things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Judas, etc. While some of them are quite interesting, there are others that may be faked, albeit quite convincingly.

Thank you all for the insights. I will continue studying.