Why doesn't the lds have 73 books in the bible and only 66

[X33ad]

The first christains and even the first king James bible had 73 books it wasn't until the Presbyterians removed them finally in the late 1700's

Macabees is referred to in John 10 and was in use in the first century

Tobit, we have an actual copy form 70ad and the dead sea scrolls

Why do the lds follow the Protestant tradition of 66 books and not the 1st century transition of 73?

[Guest]

The first christains and even the first king James bible had 73 books it wasn't until the Presbyterians removed them finally in the late 1700's

Macabees is referred to in John 10 and was in use in the first century

Tobit, we have an actual copy form 70ad and the dead sea scrolls

Why do the lds follow the Protestant tradition of 66 books and not the 1st century transition of 73?

Because the LDS believe that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. So, even the 66 books of the KJV is not the word of God if translated incorrectly. So far, none of the Bible versions are perfect translations. The LDS go by the "66-book" KJV (we don't have to) because it was the most commonly used at the time that the Church made it its official Bible version to use for instruction.

[livy111us]

Here is what our Doctrine and Covenants says about the issue

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the aApocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are ainterpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be atranslated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him aunderstand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

[selek]

The first christains and even the first king James bible had 73 books it wasn't until the Presbyterians removed them finally in the late 1700's

Call For References, please.

The earliest "complete" copies of the 73 book bible date to the fourth century A.D.

The Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of the Septaguint, not "the Bible" in it's entirety and contain books not currently contained in the "Catholic" canon.

Moreover, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic texts (the Hebrew bible) date to the ninth or tenth centuries A.D.

Considering that the earliest extant manuscripts (either in whole or in part) of the "Chrisitian" portion of the canon date to about four centuries after the fact, your ontifications about "the Bible" as understood by first century Christians is so much hogwash, question begging, a priori reasoning and "gotcha" arguments made in bad faith.

[SanctitasDeo]

Considering that the earliest extant manuscripts (either in whole or in part) of the "Chrisitian" portion of the canon date to about four centuries after the fact, your ontifications about "the Bible" as understood by first century Christians is so much hogwash, question begging, a priori reasoning and "gotcha" arguments made in bad faith.

This. The Bible thing is a classic Catholic talking point.

I believe that many scriptures have validity and may contain truth. I include the Bible, the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, etc. I don't care whether the Catholic church or any other particularly endorses it; I find truth where the Holy Spirit guides me.

The Bible issue only really works against sola scriptura.

Anatess has it right. The LDS church doesn't endorse one Bible. It tends to use the best available copy in whatever language is relevant.

Ironically, if Joseph had been Catholic, rather than Protestant, we might have used the Catholic Bible instead. I don't know whether he ever asked the Lord about it, but, clearly, the Lord didn't feel like it was important enough to comment--aside from what livy111us posted above.

[Gramajane]

Actually, I doubt Joseph Smith could be titled "a protestant" as he had never joined any church, though he had attended many meetings.

The King James Version is the most widley accepted and it is to that that the largest and most complete concordances I know of have been made (Strongs Exhaustive, and Crudens)

. It might be of interest to some to see the FREE MOVIES about the translating of the Bible into English that are to been seen on the LDS.org site. Titled "Fires of Faith"- there are several in the series and very good about what happened to give us the Bible. It helps me appreciate it more! enjoy!

[Gramajane]

Actually, I doubt Joseph Smith could be titled "a protestant" as he had never joined any church, though he had attended many meetings.

The King James Version is the most widley accepted and it is to that that the largest and most complete concordances I know of have been made (Strongs Exhaustive, and Crudens)

. It might be of interest to some to see the FREE MOVIES about the translating of the Bible into English that are to been seen on the LDS.org site. Titled "Fires of Faith"- there are several in the series and very good about what happened to give us the Bible. It helps me appreciate it more! enjoy!

[SanctitasDeo]

Well, he might not have called himself Protestant--but I should rephrase. What I meant was: Had Joseph Smith grown up in a Catholic, rather than Protestant, milieu...

The Church's cultural inheritance is Protestant, rather than Catholic; there are all kinds of non doctrinal cultural practices that stem from time and place, such as the style of hymn singing in the Church.

[SanctitasDeo]

Oh, and you are right, the Bible movies are great.

[Guest ghostwind]

This. The Bible thing is a classic Catholic talking point.

I believe that many scriptures have validity and may contain truth. I include the Bible, the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, etc. I don't care whether the Catholic church or any other particularly endorses it; I find truth where the Holy Spirit guides me.

The Bible issue only really works against sola scriptura.

Anatess has it right. The LDS church doesn't endorse one Bible. It tends to use the best available copy in whatever language is relevant.

Ironically, if Joseph had been Catholic, rather than Protestant, we might have used the Catholic Bible instead. I don't know whether he ever asked the Lord about it, but, clearly, the Lord didn't feel like it was important enough to comment--aside from what livy111us posted above.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think simply the fact of revealing the Book of Mormon by the Allmighty's servant should tell us s.th. about all that. Indirectly he commented the Bible, making a new church think about the Bible's contents and words.

PS Your avatar: An ape with three knives could be dangerous for our lifes. If this is not a poem, don't make the ape it know'em.

Edited January 30, 2013 by ghostwind

[NightSG]

Ironically, if Joseph had been Catholic, rather than Protestant, we might have used the Catholic Bible instead. I don't know whether he ever asked the Lord about it, but, clearly, the Lord didn't feel like it was important enough to comment--aside from what livy111us posted above.

I'm just curious; as much debate as there has been over the years of different Bible versions, has anyone ever compiled a good list of significant disagreements between the common versions? Specifically, differences that would affect the way a Christian would live in accordance with Scripture, not just semantic and/or stylistic differences.

[SanctitasDeo]

I'm just curious; as much debate as there has been over the years of different Bible versions, has anyone ever compiled a good list of significant disagreements between the common versions? Specifically, differences that would affect the way a Christian would live in accordance with Scripture, not just semantic and/or stylistic differences.

Good question. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to find one, but I certainly haven't come across one.

A quick search gave me this:

http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/excerpts/1581346433.1.pdf

and this:

Bible Version Chart

The first link does some of what you were looking for, but I think it also talks about more semantic differences. I think that for the most part, the differences are going to be theological; that is, they won't affect the practice of Christianity too much, but might affect doctrines.

[BenRaines]

Try a Google search of Bible contradictions. Last list I looked at it there were 1, 600 plus.

Ben Raines

[SanctitasDeo]

Well, he isn't looking for Bible contradictions. You don't need other translations to find those. He is looking for meaningful differences between translations. That is more complicated (not that a google search isn't helpful, I found some information pretty quickly).

[NightSG]

Well, he isn't looking for Bible contradictions. You don't need other translations to find those. He is looking for meaningful differences between translations. That is more complicated (not that a google search isn't helpful, I found some information pretty quickly).

Right; the stuff like Leviticus 19:19 telling me not to wear linen-wool blends (KJV) or any blended fabrics at all. (NIV)

[helena330]

I'm just curious; as much debate as there has been over the years of different Bible versions, has anyone ever compiled a good list of significant disagreements between the common versions? Specifically, differences that would affect the way a Christian would live in accordance with Scripture, not just semantic and/or stylistic differences.

If you look at the 66 books that are similar in both the Protestant and Catholic versions... there aren't any actual disagreements due to the writing. The verses would essentially be the same, depending on the translation, but the doctrinal differences come from differing interpretations of essentially the same words. (There isn't anything big, like the Protestant version having the words "do not ..." in a verse and the Catholic version having "you must do..." in the same verse or anything. We usually agree to be reading the same words, just interpreting them differently.)

If you look at the 7 books that are in the Catholic Bible only, then -- as far as I know-- there is only one significant doctrine that can be found there that differs to the Protestant churches. And that is the doctrine of Purgatory, which is alluded to (not explicitly stated) in the book of Second Maccabees.

The books are mostly history, proverbs, and story-telling. (The book of Judith is amazing, if you ever get a chance to read it.) Nothing really outrageous. They fit in well with the rest of the Old Testament. No big doctrines come from them.

But where the Catholic and Protestant versions are the same, it's simply different interpretations of essentially the same words. When you get into different translations, then it's not really the verses that cause disagreement, but the footnotes/study notes by the editors interpreting the verses that cause the disagreement.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Because as far as we've been able to determine, God is more than content with the KJV as the bible we use it. For anything further, ask God in prayer.

[bytebear]

Some translation choices were definitely influenced by the doctrinal position of the translators. Using "they" instead of "we" or even moving a comma can change the meaning and the interpretation.

Others are reinterpreted and justified sometimes outrageously. The whole "camel through the eye of a needle" is obviously a mistranslation and foreign language speakers would fall over laughing that we used the meaning "camel" and not the more obvious "rope". But there are still those who make up elaborate stories involving camels to try to justify the error.

[andypg]

The Church's cultural inheritance is Protestant, rather than Catholic; there are all kinds of non doctrinal cultural practices that stem from time and place, such as the style of hymn singing in the Church.

This.

I was a devout Catholic as of a few months ago and an currently a Catholic Studies minor at a well known Catholic university. I still love Catholicism and many Catholic cultural rituals/traditions.

I'm considering finding the cultural Protestant practices and see if I can keep my Catholic ones (as long as it is not doctrinal)

[SanctitasDeo]

andypg, that sounds interesting. I served my mission in Russia, so I talked with a lot of members there who had been Russian Orthodox. I think the mix of culture and ideas that can come out of such a collision (a culturally American-born church with a culturally Orthodox Russian) are fascinating.

What kinds of things do you most miss? What do you find most jarring?

[skalenfehl]

Just for fun:

Are Books of Scripture Missing from the Bible? « FAIR