Why does the Catholic Church recognize books not recognized by Protestants?

[Guest K9Buck]

I presume that the Protestants deemed some of the books NOT to be the inspired word of God and removed them from the bible of that time, is that correct?  

Either way, how do we know who has it right?  Here is an explanation by one source.  

https://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/why-does-the-catholic-bible-include-the-maccabees-and-the-book-of-wisdom

Catholic Bibles contain 46 books in the Old Testament, including seven (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch) which were part of an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. These books were better known among Greek speaking Jews in the Mediterranean world around the time of Jesus. Today these seven books are variously referred to as the “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books and are usually placed between the Old and New Testaments. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Protestant leaders decided not to include these seven Greek books in the Old Testament (because they weren’t written in Hebrew like the rest of the Old Testament) while Catholic leaders decided to retain them since they were important to our Jewish ancestors.

[OneLight]

Have you done any research on this?  https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+was+the+apocryphal+removed+from+the+bible%3F

[enoob57]

The reality is they were never part of the Jewish canon, the catholic church added them...

[johnthebaptist]

19 hours ago, K9Buck said:

I presume that the Protestants deemed some of the books NOT to be the inspired word of God and removed them from the bible of that time, is that correct?  

Either way, how do we know who has it right?  Here is an explanation by one source.  

https://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/why-does-the-catholic-bible-include-the-maccabees-and-the-book-of-wisdom

Catholic Bibles contain 46 books in the Old Testament, including seven (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch) which were part of an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. These books were better known among Greek speaking Jews in the Mediterranean world around the time of Jesus. Today these seven books are variously referred to as the “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books and are usually placed between the Old and New Testaments. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Protestant leaders decided not to include these seven Greek books in the Old Testament (because they weren’t written in Hebrew like the rest of the Old Testament) while Catholic leaders decided to retain them since they were important to our Jewish ancestors.

I don't think either Catholic or Protestants consider the Apocrypha fully inspired by God.

[Justin Adams]

The reformation did away with some books. The RCC got rid of 14 I believe as they did not agree with current Vatican thought. The Israelis got rid of Enoch because it talked too much about the second person of the Godhead and for this reason, the Septuagint was also dropped in favor of the 'new' massaged masoretic texts. Anything that smacked of Yeshua's advent was mostly expunged. However, Qumran and the second temple period literature did NOT get rid of all the the Advent allusions. The eastern church keeps most of the other books including Enoch which was highly regarded by the African church fathers.

Even the 'reformed' bible we are all used to has had some modifications made to the original texts. Some good and some to just peddle a particular doctrine. (aka the Scofield ref bible) There have been dozens of KJV bibles published and later translation versions like the ESV and others have taken into account the Qumran discoveries and the later cuneiform language discoveries. If you research the matter for yourself you will find some very interesting variants that are rarely if ever preached about.

Added: There is no 'Hebrew text'. it is all conjecture about a much later rendition. Much of the traditional views of who, what and where regarding scriptures is just that - tradition.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Justin Adams

[Guest K9Buck]

18 hours ago, enoob57 said:

The reality is they were never part of the Jewish canon, the catholic church added them...

Thank you.  

[Dennis1209]

22 hours ago, K9Buck said:

I presume that the Protestants deemed some of the books NOT to be the inspired word of God and removed them from the bible of that time, is that correct?  

Either way, how do we know who has it right?  Here is an explanation by one source.  

https://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/why-does-the-catholic-bible-include-the-maccabees-and-the-book-of-wisdom

Catholic Bibles contain 46 books in the Old Testament, including seven (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch) which were part of an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. These books were better known among Greek speaking Jews in the Mediterranean world around the time of Jesus. Today these seven books are variously referred to as the “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books and are usually placed between the Old and New Testaments. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Protestant leaders decided not to include these seven Greek books in the Old Testament (because they weren’t written in Hebrew like the rest of the Old Testament) while Catholic leaders decided to retain them since they were important to our Jewish ancestors.

Much to much to discuss and explain. Google "Stewarton Bible School", they have a free downloadable pamphlet explaining how and where we get the Bible.

[Dennis1209]

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Qumran discoveries

Are there biblical coincidences? 

It's amazing where, when and why the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, just after the diaspora when Israel returned in unbelief to the land once again as a nation. What was found further validates scripture and our Bibles. There's evidence John the Baptist may have been an Essene. Another amazing thing; the Book of Isaiah is the center piece of the Bible, it details about everything. It was the only Book that was just about complete. 

One thing that still puzzles me? Why did it take decades to release "any" information about the scrolls or what they said, as they were compiling and interpreting them??

It makes me wonder if in the future, the Ark of the Covenant and Noah's Ark might be revealed by the Lord for further evidence and truth to an unbelieving world??

Edited January 22, 2020 by Dennis1209

[missmuffet]

21 hours ago, enoob57 said:

The reality is they were never part of the Jewish canon, the catholic church added them...

That is how I would look at it. 

[Justin Adams]

8 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

It makes me wonder if in the future, the Ark of the Covenant and Noah's Ark might be revealed by the Lord for further evidence and truth to an unbelieving world??

They are still working on much of it, aided by special computer systems designed for the task.

It did take a while to get all the bird and bat do-do off the scrolls. It took ages and then they found another cave or two.

Funny you should mention Isiah. Until Qumran, many so-called 'experts' thought Isiah to be fake.

God's timing is impeccable.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Justin Adams