Who changed the Bible?

[Gary]

While I believe it was Protestants who've changed the Bible, I don't think the majority of Protestant Christians today have made the decision to reject the books that Martin Luther and his followers rejected on the same scale.

There is a lot of error in this statement. Let us examine the facts.

The fact that the New Testament often quotes from the Greek Old Testament in no way proves that the apocryphal books contained in the Greek manuscript of the Old Testament are inspired. First, it is not certain that the Septuagint (LXX) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth century a.d. Further, even if they were in the Septuagint of apostolic times, Jesus and the apostles never once quoted them, although they are supposed to have been included in the very version of the Old Testament (the LXX) that they usually cited. Finally, even the notes in the current Roman Catholic Bible (nab) make the revealing admission that the apocryphal books are “religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.†Instead, they “were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘deuterocanonical’ (second canon) books.â€Â

Although some individuals in the early church had a high regard for the Apocrypha, there were many who vehemently opposed it.9 For example, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed the Apocrypha

None of the great Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) contain all of the apocryphal books. In fact, only four (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]) are found in all of them, and the oldest manuscripts (B or Vaticanus) totally exclude the books of Maccabees. Yet Catholics appeal to this manuscript for proof of their deuterocanonical books that include the Apocrypha! What is more, no Greek manuscript has the same list of apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (a.d. 1545–63).

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 162). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[Gary]

... I don't think the majority of Protestant Christians today have made the decision to reject the books that Martin Luther and his followers rejected on the same scale.

There is a lot of error in this statement. Let us examine the facts.

Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. While Anglicans and some other non-Roman Catholic groups had a high regard for the devotional and historical value of the Apocrypha, they did not consider it inspired and of equal authority with Scripture.

Even Roman Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his Complutensian Polyglot (a.d. 1514–17) on the very eve of the Reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (a.d. 1532) many years after the Reformation began which did not contain the Apocrypha.

Luther spoke against the Apocrypha in 1543, placing its books at the back of his Bible.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 164). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

So much for CatholicXian's misleading statements!

:o :o

 

[gingercat]

Thank you for paying attention Gary. I make assesment from fruit point of view and I dont have exact resorces like you do. But this way is much easier and effective even though many of the churchegoers can attack me in many ways because of this way of assesment. It is very biblical though. :

 

[Heidi]

Since the catholic church was the first "official" church, let's see who changed the church? here's what the official church stands for:

1) they have never rendered to Caesar what is Caesar's because they've always been involved in politics and affairs of the state.
2)Their claim that Mary was a virgin all her life contradicts Matthew 1:25
3) Their claim that Mary was sinless contradicts Luke 1:47
4) Calling their religious leaders "father" and especially "Our Holy Father" contradicts Matthew 23:8-9
5) Their erecting statues of mortal humans, bowing down and praying to them contradicts Leviticus 26:1 and Romans 1:23
6) Their wearing pointy hats in church contradicts Timothy
7) They're seeing Jesus as store-bought wine and bread contradicts all rational thinking
8) Their housing a bank in the vaitcan contradicts Jesus's Jesus' statement that we are not to use the temple for buying and selling
9) Their restriction of certain foods contradicts Mark 7:19
10) Their placing ashes on their foreheads for men to see their fasting contradicts Matthew 6:16-18
11) Their praying to dead people cannot be supported anywhere in scripture and is actually a pracitce of the occult.

The catholic denomination has little to do with the bible. This is just the tip of the iceberg of how the catholics changed the bible. It was only when Luther had the courage to go up against the "holy" catholic church that things began to change. So catholicism is a cult because it believes in the pope, not in the bible. And thet only difference between the catholics and atheists is that athiests are atleast honest about their unbelief. Catholics hide their unbelief under the disguise of sheep.

 

[TruthMiner]

Gary,

Maybe you should go and find out how many OT books were canonized by the early church of the 4th century.