Catholic Bible vs. Protestant Bible | The Bible

Perhaps the most noticeable thing about the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles are the number of books that are included. Catholic Bibles include what is called the ""Apocrypha,"" which means the ""hidden."" There are fifteen books that come from what we might call the Inter-Testament period, and they only appear in the Catholic Bible. The Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures don't include the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament, and Protestant Churches generally accept only the books that are in the Hebrew scriptures. The Apocrypha does occur in a thing called the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Old Testament, and all except for one book. And so, the Catholic Church accepts all those books as part of their Old Testament. Now, what are these fifteen books? Well, they are all different kinds of literature. Some are meant to be historical in nature, others are wisdom, kinds of literature, and poetry and stories. To me, some of the most significant are the stories of the Maccabees, of Judaist Maccabees. And then, that time of trial and struggle against the Hasmoneans, the Greeks. And so, even though they're not included in the Protestant Bible, they are still very important pieces of literature. And we have much in common in spite of this little difference.

[Enigmatik]

Christians lived 1500 years with the Catholic Bible before Martin Luther decided to go back to the Jewish canon. He also wanted to exclude the book of James and Revelation because they did not suit his theology.

[sweetsweatyfeet]

I'm finally glad to hear a Christian focus on the commonality of Catholics and Protestants instead of the constant bickering, fighting and condemnation between two factions that in essence and substance have much more in common than they do in difference.

[jakeh]

Jesus and the apostles quoted multiple times from the Septuagint which shows they accepted its canonicity.

[WarriorWomanWaWo]

1) Protestants claim Sold Scriptura and say that Catholics embellish scripture, and that we are saved by faith alone. Yet, one example is that
James 2:24 is VERY clear that we are NOT saved by faith alone. Why do protestants ignore this, and the other 4 passages that state similar?
Also, "Faith" is believing in something... Even Demons believe in Jesus... One must demonstrate faith by stepping into it. This is what active faith is... True Repentance and Faith is what Christ asks of us. It's not enough just to say "I believe Jesus died on a cross"
2) Jesus CLEARLY states "
in John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" and yet Protestants still claim it is only a mere symbol of Christ Body and Blood... Jesus doesn't say "This is a SYMBOL of My body"! Jesus feeds our spirit with His Body and Blood. That was the purpose of The Last Supper. That we share in eating His Body and Blood

[davidgoldfield]

Pastor Coombs, Your video mentions that the Catholic Bible contains fifteen additional books. First, the Catholic Bible contains all of the books from the original canon, some of which were removed much later from Protestant Bibles. However, the difference in the number of books is actually seven books and not fifteen. This is an inaccuracy in your video. The amount of books in a Catholic Bible can easily be proven by examining any Catholic Bible and is one that you should correct on your video.

[jydoctober]

I just read Tobit and Judith. Great stuff. Some theologians believe these and the other books were taken out by Martin Luther because he didn't believe they supported his way of thinking. I'm not sure about any of that, but I find these books to be very interesting.

[alfonstabz]

the bottomline is the Catholic Church decide what books to be included in the bible. then after 500 years luther decide to exclude some not to his liking..

[voxangeli]

Question: What is then the reason why Martin Luther removed the 7 apocryphal books of the Old Testament?
Did he prefer the canon of the Jewish group that killed Jesus Christ, rather than the Septuagint that the early Christians and the Early Church Fathers used?
Didn't Martin Luther made a mistake on this, or was he right?

[georgepenton]

Who gets to decide which books belong in the Bible and which ones not? The Catholic Church does, because Jesus gave the Church teaching authority.

[andyecheandia]

The CHURCH put together the Bible through the inspiration of The SPIRIT. the Protestants, who did not exist when the Canon was assembled, took it on their OWN authority to edit these books out.

[tessa]

Yeah the Church accepts the Deuterocanonicals because they were in the Septuagint, which was the canon used by Jesus and the Apostles, and there is evidence in the NT that they occasionally referenced passages from the Deuterocanonical books. In 2 Timothy 3:16, when St. Paul said that "all scripture is inspired by God, and useful for teaching..." he was referring to all the OT scripture, and this would have included the Deuterocanonicals. There is no reason to believe they are not inspired, so Protestants shouldn't be following the lead of a disgruntled 16th century priest on this matter. Martin Luther had also attempted to remove several New Testament books such as James, Jude, Hebrews, & Revelation.

Some schools of Jews ended up rejecting the Deuterocanonical books near the end of the 1st century. One reason that the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonical books was because they were written in Greek, and they couldn't find originals in Hebrew. Fortunately, we now know they were originally written in Hebrew because older fragments of the Deuterocanonical books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they were written in Hebrew!
Another big reason that some 1st century Jews rejected the Deuterocanonical books was that they contained prophecies that supported Jesus as the Messiah, and the early Christians were successfully converting many Jews to Christianity. The Jews were strongly anti-Christian at the time, so to trust the authority of Jews in the early A.D. centuries to help determine the Christian canon is absurd. It's wiser to trust the scripture always held as inspired by the Church & Christians for many, many centuries before Martin Luther came along.

Here is a prophecy of the coming Messiah found in the Book of Wisdom:

12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
(Wisdom 2:12-20)


These are the books & chapters missing from the Protestant Bible canon:

From the Book of Esther, 6 chapters were removed (10:4 - 16:24).

From the book of Daniel, a big part of chapter 3, and the entire chapters of 13 & 14 were removed.

The seven entire books removed from the Protestant Bible are: Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach (also known as "Ecclesiasticus, " or "Ben Sira"), & Baruch.

[Kitiwake]

Luther and the Anglicans cut seven books from the scriptures which had come from the tradition of the Catholic Church for 1, 200 years.

[thomasmcewen]

The protestant Hebrew(Aramaic) Canon did not exist until after 600 AD too late for Christ, and the apostles, if you accept this OT over the Septuagint why not accept the same Messiah these rabbi's choose in their third rebellion Simon bar Kobha against Rome? the Catholics refused because their Messiah was Jesus and for this they in 135AD were ejected from the synagogues.

[musicrock_]

While people fight each other which bible is true, millions of dollar profits is making by printing bible and selling it.
Reality is, some people make money by fooling other people. Life is short, find the truth then truth will set you free.. Don't wasting time.

[Alekosdw]

Orthodox / catholic Christianity = true Christianity

[sdnlawrence]

A "thing called the Septuagint" ?
That thing is the Scripture that the Jesus read from in the synagogue. Not to mention the Scripture of the early church for centuries and it was always part of the canon until printers decided to save paper and ink early in the reformation. It's also the OT used in the Orthodox Church for over 2, 000 years. People should read it. It's also the most accurate text and the one biblical scholars use.

[cloudskipper]

To kxmode - Please bear in mind that when Paul spoke those words to Timothy, the entire NT had not been written yet. Therefore at the time, ..he was referring to the OT books. So by your logic, one could say that the NT is not inspired of God, ..which of course is false. The early christian church had no NT in written form for almost the first 400 years of christianity!! By the way, ..I think Maccabees is an excellent book.

[harryallenpearce]

They were removed by Martin Luther because they disagreed with his personal doctrine.

The end.

[truman]

The 1611 King James version included the Apocrypha.

[AngelDeJesusOrlando]

Fact: The Original KJV Bible of 1611 had what Protestants call the Apocrypha. It was only at a later date the these books were removed.
WHY? If the word of God is the word GOD? Why not accept all the word of God if the Motto of "SOLA SCRIPTURA" is to be applied? It does not fit the Theology of the Protestant Reformation.
So I have one question. Who Built or started your church, Jesus or Man? If you say Jesus, than you must be Catholic. If you say Jesus but say that your not Catholic, then that is a Lie. A Man, Martin Luther, not Jesus, started the Protestant Reformation, and other men started the other denominations that are out there today.