Why Does The Catholic Bible Have 7 More Books Than The Protestant Bible?

Before the coming of Christ, the Israelites, God's Chosen People, possessed two Canons of Scripture: The Old Jewish Canon (written in Hebrew) and the Septuagint (written in Greek), which received its name from the Hebrew scholars who translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew language into the Greek language (centuries before the coming of Christ). The Septuagint was diligently used in Jewish synagogues and by Jewish writers (Philo and Josephus), and remained an unchallenged translation of Sacred Scripture until the beginning of the second century. The difference between the Septuagint and the Old Jewish Canon was not only in the language in which they were written, but also that the Septuagint contained seven extra books, namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Machabees and parts of Esther and Daniel.

For Catholics, it is important to know the following facts about the Septuagint:

1. The Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. In fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken directly from the Septuagint.

2. The Jews, who had universally accepted the Greek Septuagint for centuries, became alienated from it after the Christian Church in her apologetical controversy with Jewish writers pointed out the Messianic passages, which were more clearly and forcibly presented in the Greek Septuagint than in the Hebrew version.

3. Some of the New Testament writers made use of the additional books contained in the Septuagint, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to be a familiar theme in St. Paul’s Epistles. The Epistle of St. James — to take another example — shows an acquaintance with the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Thus, the Apostles and New Testament writers made reference to these additional books in their preaching and writing, and thereby gave them their approval.

4. The Greek Septuagint was the only Bible text of the Old Testament that was universally read in the primitive Church both in the East and in the West. The additional books were accepted in the early Christian Church from the very beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the book of Judith, and quotes from the additional sections of the book of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers.

5. The oldest Christian Bibles in existence today (Codex Vaticanus, dating from the first half of the fourth century; Codex Sinaiticus, dating from the fourth century, Codex Alexandrinus, belonging to the fifth century, and the Codex Ephraemi, also belonging to the fifth century) contain all the books of the Old and New Testaments, just as we find them in our Catholic Bibles today.

And if we want to know the reason why our Catholic Bibles have the very same books as the oldest biblical manuscripts in existence, we must simply look at the history of the Church founded by Christ and understand that these books of the Old Testament and the New Testament were in the possession of the Church from the very beginning. Pope Damasus in the year 382 A.D. Confirmed the authentic books of Sacred Scripture, and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Reiterated this Canon of Sacred Scripture.

We don't *worship* saints.  We look to them as examples of living out our faith.  Like you might look at a picture of your long-dead grandmother as a good example of what a kind, hard-working person is.  Or if you visit your dead father's grave and are moved by his compassion and memories of his character, and then you're inspired to change your life to emulate his because it is a good example of how to get closer to God.  As Catholics, we have a lot of good examples of Christianity as lived out by mortals, but we only worship God himself.  We do not worship Mary, nor images, nor statues.  Those are only meant to be reminders of good models for us.  We do ask that those who have lived so well intercede on our behalf to God, because we believe that the power of prayer is great, and that there is strength in numbers, such as it is.  The ultimate power and grace comes from God and God alone.  But we are comforted in the knowledge that good people in heaven are supporting our good efforts on earth.

Why do the Catholics worship dead "saints"? Why do the Catholics worship statues of "saints"? Why does it seem as though, if your not a Catholic then you can never gain salvation?
Did you know Catholics believe if they pray to the dead "saints", for example John Paul II, the souls who are in this purgatory can hear the prayers, then they go to Christ himself and see what he thinks, then they go to the priests on the earth and let it be known if the prayers were answered or not?
Isn't statue worshipping pagan?
So, if we don't worship idols, or pray to dead people (which the bible says they are not conscious), or if we are not apart of the Catholic Church, then we are doomed to purgatory (which is not in the holy bible) and can never gain our salvation? That's seems so complicated and surreal, for this to be true.
I'm sticking with the one and only Holy Bible, which Catholics claim, although these other 7 books are NOT holy, they still are ways to receive life....hmmmmmm? Whatever, holy bible all the way!

The relationship of the apocrypha and the canonical books is much more complicated than a few books appearing in one version and not another. All Bibles which include apocryphal books put them in a separate section from the canonical. There is no particularly protestant selection of apocryphal books as opposed to catholic, and, yes, there are protestant bibles which include parts of the apocrypha. The mix and match of which are included and which are left out varies greatly, but not on denominational lines.

The apocrypha as a separate, questioned body of Old Testament writings grew up in the intertestamental period when the Jews based in Alexandria and those based in Palestine formed different ideas of what was canonical and what was not as far as the Old Testament was concerned. Some of these books were written in Greek and incorporated in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament, believed to have been translated from the Hebrew by 70 scribes led by the prophet, Ezra,) though they were not found in the Hebrew Bible. By the way, the Septuagint was the "King James version" of the Jews in Jesus day, and regarded with the same kind of reverence as is felt towards the King James version in many quarters in our own day. Jesus himself refers to subject matter covered in the apocrypha rather than the canon at least once and implies that he considered it to have a degree, at least, of inspiration.

It was the Jews themselves who decided to sort their own differences out and in AD 120 a group of rabbis, led by rabbi Aqiba, held the Council of Jamnia, at which they settled on which books of the Old Testament would henceforth be considered canonical. They decided on the selection of books which also comprises the christian Old Testament. When the Christians came to decide on the subject in their councils, e.g. Trent, they basically followed the decision of the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia in 120 A.D.

Lack of inclusion in the Old Testament does not designate a book as worthless in terms of divine inspiration. It could be regarded very much as we regard a book such as Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", a helpful book, but not one on a canonical level.

The New Testament apocrypha is more complicated, as the writings are later and usually ascribed to people who would never have agreed with the teachings expressed, let alone actually written them! They include quite a number of false gospels and false epistles, and were almost invariably written by different gnostic sects, not by Christians at all. Perhaps the one exception is "The Shepherd of Hermas", a delightful allegory which was as much loved by mainstream Christians in the early church as "Pilgrim's Progress" is by the church of today. You will not, however, find the "Shepherd of Hermas", or any of the false gospels or epistles included in an apocrypha. The later "pseudoepigraphia" as the falsely ascribed writings are called, were not included in the apocrypha unless they were ascribed to an Old Testament character.

Well, The KJV Bible dates back to 1611 when King James, after Queen Mary known mostly as Bloody Mary turned England Catholic then Kings James went back to being protestant, decided that he would translate the Latin and Greek into English for his people. The 7 extra books contradicted the rest of the Bible, like the book of Wisdom says it is OK to lie as long as you do it right. Those extra 7 books where still included in the KJV. They were neither New or Old testament. They were used as more of a Geography book. This explained in detail about Israel.

According to history these seven books do not concord to the reality of our encyclpedia. The Ecclesiatico say Do not help the sinner" Nor the wicked The almighty is hates sinners. Chapter 12:4-7 this does not concord with Matthew 5:43-45 or Romans 12:20 none of these books are inspiration of the truth read Tobias 5:12 This does not relate to the truth of the one true GOD, and our savior Jesus Christ. Hear oh isreal the lord our God the lord is one and their is nobody beside him One LORD one Faith One Baptism.

Oh, come on friend, search the truth...you have been mislead!