Does anyone ever question how the Catholic bible has a full ten books more than the KJV?
536904
Remember that the Catholic church canonized the bible which had those books in it before the protestant reformation. Catholics didn't add to it, Luther(and others) took them out! Those of you who swear by the King James bible are missing out on several books that are in the Old Testament and of value. We (Catholics) are not "on to something". We just have the complete Bible (and have all along). \nTo my Protestant brothers, check the history of the bible, and see what I'm saying!\nGod bless you for asking this question.
1174668
It's common knowlege that there are tons of scriptures that where left out of the bible. Many thought that the "Holy Grail" was these lost scriptures. \n\nAnswer - No, the bible is not complete
447740
These contradictions are natural and expected if you think of these books as ancient writings.\n\nBut they can be confusing and frustrating if you believe the books are THE WORD OF GOD.
1056904
66 books from Gen. to Reve.\n39 books are the Hebrew Scriptures (OT)\n\nGod is the author/ and it shows about 40 different human secretaries or scribes. God's finger began the writing by craving out the ten commandments on stone tablets.\n All types of men were used -shepherd, farmer,tent maker,fisherman,tax collector,physician,priest,prophet,king and so on.\n it has one basic theme from beginning to end and very connected even though written \nages apart.\n Copyists have preserved it for centuries. On finding the Dead Sea Scrolls other than some wording little has been changed the meaning was still correct.\n\nThe so called lost books (book of Judah and such) are not part of cannon as all the other books harmonized with each other from beginning to end-these did not. Remember even in Jesus day others wrote to dispute his teachings.
672269
Ehem...Every single answer-WRONG!\nThe Catholics have a few translations of their own, and like your average protestant, don't get too worked up over translations, since almost all translations are pretty good.\nNew American Bible\nJerusalem Bible\nRevised Standard Version (composed by scholars from alot of different denominations-and some secular scholars, accepted by pretty much everyone, conservatives tend to prefer not to use it. But Catholics use it often)\nNew Revised Standard Version (a killer translation, also includes extra books in the catholic bible)\nDouay-Rheims Bible\n\nFor the record, the King James is far from the most accurate translation. It's still not a BAD translation, dont' get me wrong. But we've learned SO much in the last 400 years that there are a couple places (not hugely important places, but bible nonetheless) that are simply wrong, and alot of places that have been cleared up by extra manuscripts found, especially the dead sea scrolls, and some other things.\n\n\nThe King James is a disctinctly protestant Bible, although it originally had the extra 'catholic books' in it.\n\nEvery now and then you'll hear someone assert that the King James is the best translation, or even that it is THE PERFECT GOD-BREATHED translation, but this is simple ignorance. And they'll quote a couple of books, etc. but it's all from misunderstood history, bad scholarship, etc.\nThere is not a single scholar on the planet, Christian, atheist, or otherwise, that believes the KJV is the most accurate Bible on the market today. There are, however, a number of Christians who think this. These Christians are wrong.\nI don't mean to complain about the KJV, though. It's a pretty decent Bible, as most of them are. But there is stuff that would be easier to read, and virtually everything since then, especially the newer translations, will be a bit clearer in spots.\n\n\nFurther, the apocrypha:\n\nFor forever, the church had a section of writings called the Deutero-Canon (which means '2nd canon.') and they were esteemed writings but not quite on the level as the rest of the Bible. \nWell, when the Protestant Reformation took place, alot of reformers (especially Martin Luther) said "What do we have this crap around for?!?!? Either it's Bible, or it's not!" which sounds perfectly logical to your average person today, but at the time (and even now, if we stop to weigh things) it was a pretty contreversial thing to say. \nSo Luther cut that stuff out.\nSo  the Catholic Church responded by saying "Fine, then IT IS Bible!" and put it in with the rest of the Bible, exactly the same. So it didn't have a 2nd tier of authority right behind the regular Bible, it became part of the regular Bible.\n\nThis is (part of) what Protestants call the Apocrypha.\nSo now you understand the debate.\n\nVery few major doctrines are based on the Apocrypha (although the idea of Purgatory finds it's strongest support there), but there are various works of various merit.\n\nIf I were you, I'd go buy a New Revised Standard Version. It's a great translation, it's got the extra books (and even some extra books only used by the Eastern Orthodox churches) , but they are set apart, so you know where they're at, and when you're reading 'protestant bible' and 'catholic bible.'\n\nFor the record, I'd like to return to a Deutero-Canon. I think it fits better with how the early church and Jewish thinkers thought. But that's just commentary.\n\n-stephen\n\nAmendments:\nAll modern translations (with the exceptions of the Living Bible and 'The Message', which are translated from English) are based on Hebrew & Greek manuscripts.\nThe Masoretic text IS a Hebrew manuscript that is the firmest basis for not only the KJV, but also every other modern translation, as it is, almost always, the best text.  So note please, that all the Bibles, inc
299504
Catholics don't read the true bible either.\n\nIt was written by men, has been translated to English, and has had thousands of years to be editted.\n\nI don't *really* believe in the details of the Bible. It may be an excellent tool when read broadly, because you can understand the motives and meanings. What is wrong is getting caught up in single phrases, which tend to become overinflated.
390848
The recognised number of books in the bible is 66 + 7. this was agreed by all parties at the councills of constantine. The Catholics however still do accept these extra seven books as part of thier canon. \n\nThe Apocrypha is a name given to those books which by thier title or contents have some resemblance to the insppired books of the bible, but were not officaly recognised by the church as part of scripture. these books include, 3 and 4 maccabees, the psalms of solomon, the gospel of St Thomas, the Acts of St Peter etc.\n\nApocripha means 'cryptic'/ hidden from outsiders, it was used favourable regarding supposed sacred texts that were only for the accademic ellite.\n\nSo if your catholic the bible contains 66 + 7 books as divinely inspired. if you are any other type of christian then it only has 66.\n\nThe seven books were removed by protestants because the books were not part of the Jewish canon of holy books. since the old testiment is the jewish canon, they couldnt understand why the early church had included them.\n\nI hope this answers your question, \nKindest Regerds, \n\nPaul...
1024989
Is been revised too many times to please the founding fathers of the catholic church. I think the Gospels ancient writtings that are being discovered recently will shed much information missing from the new testament.
866497
Catholics read the Bible for 1,200 years before Protestants existed. Why wouldn't we? The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. It was compiled by Catholic bishops, and approved by a Catholic Pope, for the sole purpose of use within the Catholic Church. Those who have borrowed the book from the Catholic Church have consistently demonstrated their inability to interpret it correctly. When I read the Holy Bible I see a Church that is ONE, even as Jesus and His heavenly Father are ONE, a church united in teaching, united in beliefs, united in worship, not a manmade tradition fragmented into thousands of conflicting denominations.  I'll continue to read the Bible as Catholics have always done, and I'll continue to look to God's holy Church, the biblical pillar and foundation of truth, for correct and authoritative interpretation. Leave God's Church for the doctrinal chaos of manmade denominational religion?  No. I don't think so.
1037600
i've read the bible 5 times in 3 different translations.\n\nnow im an athiest.
522625
good question the christian bible is one of the most contradicting books ever
1107967
Actually you are wrong on several counts.  The Bible is mostly a Jewish book, the books in protestant Bibles came from the reformation, and you were not there with Jesus to know what books were in His old testament.  If Hebrew was a dead language (this is what leads you to this conclusion), why does the Catholic Church teach that the book of Mathew was written in Hebrew?
682487
I walk in the faith that the Bible is a load of codswallup. Especially concerning the parlor tricks of the New Testiment. 1Peter 2-24 included.\n\n-SD-
614978
Although your question does have a slight antagonistic bent to it, I'd like to give you one part of the answer. \nFirst, my understanding is that the term "Catholic Church" is the only term we have for the ancient church. Thus, at the time of compiling the Bible, I believe that a Protestant Church did not even exist. So naturally, the "Catholic Church" would have been the Christ's "official" body and thus would have compiled and 'Cannonized'  the Bible.\n\nPlease check this site out to answer SOME of your question...\nhttp://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=685\n\nNow, both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles have thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. The **difference** is that a Roman Catholic Bible has an additional eleven books inserted between the Testaments: The Apocrypha, which the protestant church has actually rejected for a number of reasons. \n\nBoth churches use the same OT and the same NT because of their reliable 'historicity', etc.\n\nPlease visit the website listed above which details some of the reasons for why the Protestant churches actually have a different Bible than the Catholic church. \n\nHope that helps! :)
1162534
Of course it's rediculous. The pastors of the different churches have to make some excuse as to why there are over 600,000 different christian denominations though. Those pastors of the churches wanted to be able to "guide" what their following believed in. Only by proclaming the bible is perfect, and themsevles, the pastors the most educated (supposedly), were the best ones who could interpret the scriptures to what they "really meant". This is why so many christian believes change all the time throught history. Also why those believes are the most popular of the day. If the pastors weren't the sole interpreter of the scriptures they wouldn't be payed so much. \n\nIronlicly you'll never find the word "bible" in the scriptures either. The word mean a collection of books. \nMost christians will scite Rev 22:19 to you. They fail to realize that the "book" the scriptures is talking about is the book of revelation, not the bible. John (who wrote revelations) hadn't even written the Gospel of John yet when he wrote revelations. According to christian doctrine then the book of John would not be allowed. Of course christians also don't realize that the bible was not put together for several hundred years after the apostles died. \nThere is a like scripture in Deuteronomy 4:2 "ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the lord your God which I command you".\n\nIf christians interpreted this the same way as they did revelations all books, revelations, everything would end after Moses. Of course they don't interrept it that way, that would be rediculous.
737087
There are many many more sections of the Bible out there.  The Vatican removed them many years ago to cover up many things so that people will not learn the truth about many things listed in the Bible.\n\nDo a Google search for "missing bible".  Look at the missing bible verses, people, places, things, religions, etc.\n\nAlso look for some special books.  Take a look at the list of what the Torah consists of and compare that to the list of the Old Testament.  Find all those that are in the Torah and not in the Old Testament.\n\nLook for a 2,000+ page multi-volume set written by a nun from France many centuries ago.  She claimed to be the reincarnation of Mary's mother and wrote about her past life in very great detail.\n\nLook for the African accounts of Mary and Jesus - it gives a blow by blow detailed account of how Mary first encountered the Angels from God when she was born, how she was taught all about childbearing while she was a mere babe, and how when she was 5 years old she went to the temple to demand that the Priests approve her for marriage because she was going to carry the child of God.  It also explains how the priests sought out a suitable husband for the 5 year old, eventually blackmailing the just widowed Joseph into marrying Mary, how he had to flee his village with Mary when she became pregnant, and how they only place they could find was a manger because the inn keepers did not want a pregnant child on the premises.\n\nThere is so much more to be learned.  The reasons for not having any male figures is discussed in detail - you learn that God is female and not male - the change of the sex was done by rulers in power to stop female rulership.\n\nOops, I am rambling now.  I could go on forever with the things removed, cut out and altered in the Bible to try to halt technological progress, prevent science from gaining a foothold, prevent people from learning about the solar system is laid out and so much more.
372674
Yes there are many mistakes. But also resources to check it out. In the original 1611 version the translators wrote a letter to the reader. Saying how carefully they did their work. But also they said there might be some imperfections. There are some words you can't translate. There are also figures of speach. Plus the translators did not have the benefit of the Masorrah. Deep subject and too complicated to go into here.\n\nThe KJV is the nearest to perfection. We have the benefit of resources, works of scholars, to check it out.