Protestant vs Catholic Bible (Catholics have MORE BOOKS!)

Protestant vs Catholic Bible. What is the difference between Protestant and Catholic bibles? Catholics have more books of the Bible. Protestants REMOVED 7 books from the Bible!

FOLLOW GARY MICHUTA:
Book: "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger"

FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH: 
Instagram: Catholic_Truth_Official 
Pinterest: Catholic Truth

SUPPORT: Patreon or PayPal...

BOOK: "WHY Do You Believe In GOD?"

BOOK: Counterfeit Spirituality (Yoga, Reiki, Astrology, Law of Attraction, etc.)

Related searches: catholic bible vs protestant bible
catholic books of the bible vs protestant, difference between catholic and protestant bible

[happypandadancecrewbitcoin]

I love being a Catholic!!! The original universal OG Christian. Thank you for sharing.

[Mortzy]

I’m a non denominational Christian and while I was shopping for a new Bible on Amazon God led me to The Holy Bible RSV Catholic Edition. So I bought it and I’m glad I did, I want to read those 7 books.

[samkhongwar]

I love being Catholic. Northeast India🇮🇳🇮🇳

[nickdon]

We pray for the conversion of Protestants and the 7 days Adventist cult!

[andrewantonio]

Thanks for enlightened our mind..Im proud Catholic

[jameskameisdb]

Have been waiting for this.
More of these revealing historical and biblical facts which can be used to instruct would be welcomed. Thanks.

[lukasmarak]

Only catholic Bible is true Bible ♥️🙏 Love you from northeast India.

[plakateyatusabe]

Thanks for the great interview,
Keep up the great work

[francisobi]

The Catholic Bible is the only version of the bible that is actually true. God bless Bryan

[odessaxmusicclips]

Extremely valuable juicy information. Thanks heaps.

[jeremiahong]

The Catholic Church has the complete full set of Bible AND the true interpretation of the Bible.
Protestants have a reduced Bible and choose to give up 7 books of the Word of God.
This is why the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith due to the complete set of Bible and the correct interpretation as taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

[rhwinner]

The Book of Tobit is awesome. So powerful. Many New Testament echoes. Jesus was aware of it and drew on it.

[HollywoodBigBoss]

I'm protestant and I believe that those 7 books were wrongly removed. Martin Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the Bible. Anyone wanting to remove The Book of Revelation should be treated with suspicion.

[Yjr]

Can you do a video for RCIA candidates, how can strengthen their faith through the process, especially through upcoming Lent!

[plakateyatusabe]

Question: Dad, who can explain a book?
Answer: Whoever made it.
Question: Who made the Bible?
In the year 382, at the Council of Rome,
Pope Damasus The First,
screamed out to the world and said, this is the word of God, and the world believed, And the Bible was born with 73 books.
Answer: Son, The Roman Catholic Church made the Bible.

PS. We didn’t add 7 books, we added 27 books which is the whole New Testament, The protestant remove 7 books from the Old Testament

[HatshepsutEconomics]

About to WACTH another with hubby. Will let you know !

[thomash.schwed]

Concerning the tendency of many of the post-Christian rabbis rejecting the Deuterocanonical books, there is a glaring inconsistency each year in this regard: To this day, Jews celebrate the Feast of Dedication, Chanukah, which comes from 1 Maccabees, when the Jews, under the Maccabeans, cleansed and re-inaugurated the Jerusalem Temple to the worship of Yahweh. Of course, in modern times, that history seems to be lost, with the focus shifted to simply the miracle of the oil for lighting the menorah.

Furthermore, this raises a question for the Protestants: If Christians are to reject the Deuterocanonical books, why, in the Gospels, do we read of our Lord, the Founder of Christianity and the Head of the Church, participating in the celebration of the Feast of Dedication, which again, has its origins in 1 Maccabees, a Deuterocanonical book?-Compare John 10:22-39.

[Vezmus]

I believe that the theory that Jerome himself rejected the books of the bible which were not found in the Hebrew version as "apocryphal" is a false one based on a misunderstanding of Jerome's own words, and here I will present three arguments to support that claim. In summary they are as follows:

1.) Jerome was comissioned to make his translation by Pope Damascus I at the exact time that Pope Damascus I issued the first official biblical canon list in the Council of Rome, and Jerome was himself also secretary to the Pope.
2.) Jerome did not himself believe that certain books contained in the Catholic canon were "apocryphal" but was merely reporting the popular sayings and beliefs held by Jewish non-Christians who were contemporary to him.
3.) Jerome supported and deferred to the authoritative judgments and doctrines of the Catholic Church.

The first argument is simple to prove by a study of history. The canon had already been officially established by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in AD 382 before Jerome had even begun to translate the first word of his Vulgate. This is not the earliest time that the "deuterocanonical" books were included in the bible, as the earlier bibles already contained these works (in fact the earliest bibles we still have, such as the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, and the Aramaic Peshitta, all contained these books). That the Greek Septuagint included all of these books (and some additional ones) has never been in disupute and the Orthodox tradition can still attest to this fact.

The second and third arguments can be proven from reading the following exerpts from an exchange between a critic of Jerome's translation (there were many critics of his translation including Augustine) named Rufinus, and Jerome, where Jerome defends what he says in his preface to Daniel in response to Rufinus' criticisms. I have included here Rufinus' accusations and added *empasis* to Jerome's response for clarity.

Rufinus' Apology, Book II, Ch. 33:
"There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?"

Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Ch. 33:
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was *the opinion upheld by the Jews;* and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in *following the judgment of the churches?* But *when I repeat what the Jews say* against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for *I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us."*

Jerome here defends his choice of choosing to translate the book of Daniel from the Theodotion version rather than the Septuagint version (here called "the Seventy") specifically because it was the decision of the churches to read form that version, and because Jerome follows the judgment of the Church. He also clarifies that he is simply repeating the sayings and arguments of Jews who were his contemporary rather than saying these things against certain "apocryphal" books himself. When Jerome speaks of things "not included in the canon" or as being "apocryphal", I believe due to what he has said here that he is referring to the "Hebrew canon" *NOT* the Catholic canon. In any case, it is not the Church that is approved because of what Jerome has said in the Vulgate, but Jerome and the Vulgate that are approved because of what the Church has said since the beginning and on multiple occassions, in the Council of Rome in 382 AD, the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, the Council of Carthage in 419 AD, Council of Florence in 1442 AD, all in which the Catholic canon was affirmed, and the Council of Trent in 1546 AD in which the canon was reaffirmed and the Vulgate was affirmed as the Catholic Church's official Latin bible. Following Jerome's example (who was a priest and is a saint of the Catholic Church), we should defer to the judgment of the Church.

[AngelGonzalez-ngve]

Nice... Its funny how i just saw the BIBLE PROJECT wich i love but how they said on one of there videos that CATHOLICS are the ones who added the extra books and protestant are the ones who wanted the ORIGINAL christan Canon. This video has really good info amd key

[LambsServant]

Good video. Another interesting topic, concerning the Canon, is why some Orthodox Churches have more books, in the Old Testament, than Catholics have.