The writing of the Bible

[ocelot_truth]

Hello. I don't really know how to ask this question but, here it goes. I know how the Bible was written, my question is in it's translation. Please don't step on me if I say something wrong, i'm just trying to gain some insight, and learn. Me and my brother were having a discussion, and he tells me that the original bible has 3 more books, and that it was taken out in the Kings James version by a council of men, because it was about giving your money to the church and that the books are still in the Catholic Bible. I don't know much about the Catholic church, or this history of King James, but if anyone could help me understand this, and open up some light on the subject, I would be eternally greatful.

 

[LostSoul]

The Bible, at least the Old Testament I am pretty sure, was first written in Aramic or Hebrew. Some of the New Testament from what I understand, if not all, was also written in the same language before later converted over to Koine. Koine was a form of Greek seeing as in and after Jesus' time the Jews lived in a mostly Roman populated area. Later of course it is possible the text was translated over to Latin, then the English used in the King James Version.

I have done a study on the writing of the New Testament before, I am currently in the process of revisiting it. I can share with you once I have more information if you like.

 

[Veritas]

Just so you know.... this thread is going to have a huge potential to get nasty. This is another point of contention between Catholics and Protestants/other Christians.

So... Here's what happened, to my knowledge (I'm not Catholic by the way)

The extra books were written AFTER the books considered as the Jewish Bible but BEFORE the New Testament. The Jewish Bible is called the Tanakh. It contains the 21 books of the Old Testament that are also found in the King James version.

The Tanakh was compiled in 450 BC. Now in the third century BC, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek. This is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains the extra books:

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151

Many of those books were never written in Hebrew and were written in Greek at the time of compilation of the Septuagint. The books are still not recognized as part of the Jewish Bible (The Tanakh). So, Protestant Churches have taken the conservative route and only accepted what Judaism has traditionally accepted. Catholics and Orthodox Churches believe that the NT makes reference to some of those extra books so they include them.

Now, I believe the Catholics use some of the extra books in their Bible, and the Eastern Orthodox use all of them.

Personally, I am conservative here, and I look at them as not inspired, but certainly good commentary. On par with say, what C.S. Lewis has written.

 

[Rick W]

I'll allow the question to be answered from both sides but after the question has been adequately answered or if this becomes a heated debate this thread will have to be locked.



ocelot_truth,
Welcome to CF.net

Just so you're aware though...

Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. Do not start new topics or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.

 

[ocelot_truth]

Thanks.

I wasn't looking for a debate, I was just looking for history, or I guess truth. I'm just very curious about all of it. I don't want arguments, just the straight answer.

 

[mondar]

Me and my brother were having a discussion, and he tells me that the original bible has 3 more books, and that it was taken out in the Kings James version by a council of men, because it was about giving your money to the church and that the books are still in the Catholic Bible. I don't know much about the Catholic church, or this history of King James, but if anyone could help me understand this, and open up some light on the subject, I would be eternally greatful.

Ocelot, I cannot say much here without drawing the heat that the ops prefer to avoid. I suggest you Google two terms. Try "apocrypha." Then try "history of the English Bible."

Also if you look in the one on one debate area, you will see a few discussions on this issue. You could start with a thread by Duval/Francisdesales in viewtopic.php?f=44&t=33207

Good luck in your search.

 

[cyberjosh]

For learning more about the history of the Bible I would also suggest going to http://www.greatsite.com. Specifically the page here: English Bible History. If you are not up to reading the whole page do a search for "apocrypha" and start reading from the paragraph it is in (skips past 3/4ths of the article) all the way down to the bottom ( which is only a few paragraphs), and it talks more about modern translations and the issue of the extra books. If you are up to it however, I think you would find it a valuable learning experience to read the whole article (although even that article is only a very condensed synopsis that only scratches the surface of the history of the English Bible).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Paidion]

Here's a bit of information of which some are not aware. The "extra" books which Veritas listed are called "The Old Testament Apocrypha" by Protestants and "The Deuterocanonicals" by the Catholics.

We ought not to presume that only the Catholics use these books. Indeed, they were included in the original 1611 edition of the King James Bible.

Another interesting fact is that Athanasius, who in the fourth century formed a "canon of Scripture" which is thought to be the basis for the Protestant list today, included Baruch in his Old Testament canon. I don't know, historically speaking, who excluded it later on, or why.

 

[mondar]

Another interesting fact is that Athanasius, who in the fourth century formed a "canon of Scripture" which is thought to be the basis for the Protestant list today, included Baruch in his Old Testament canon. I don't know, historically speaking, who excluded it later on, or why.

Paidon, I have some interest in Athanasius, and do not doubt your information. However, is there any chance you could quote your sources for that information?