Well the Catholic bible has different chapters in it simply because they believe them to be every bit as canonical as a protestant would believe the KJV to be. Truth be known god has spoken much more to man than what is in the KJV or Catholic bible. There are parts of the Catholic added text that one must study with the spirit of the Lord to find what is inspired of god and what is not. At any rate the reading of the added chapters in the Catholic bible is useful for study. As John puts it in 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of god:" So we must try and study things prayerfully to see if they are from god or not. If god gave us more scripture today would we accept it? Or say no, only what’s in the KJV can be true. I think we all need to learn about other faiths in a positive open-minded way that brings light not just heat. Amen y’all.

Both Protestant and Catholic Bibles have the same number of books in the New Testament: 27. However, Catholic Bibles have 7 extra books, and here's why: Around 2200 years ago (so obviously before Jesus' time), Jewish scholars put together all of the Jewish Scriptures - what we call the Old Testament. There were 46 books, called the Septuagint, that were accepted until about 100 A.D. At that time, the Jewish leaders decided to get rid of the non-Hebrew books, of which there were seven. This change was after Jesus' life, however. So He would have known all 46. And those 46 + 27 New Testament books=73. So these 73 were accepted as the Bible for almost 1500 years, when Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation. Because there were not Hebrew manuscripts known at the time, he changed the Bible from 46 to 39 books...and that's why there's 7 less books there today. Credit to be given to Generation Cross at http://www.saintolaf.org/cross/Bibleone.htm

Here is a good answer from Mark Shea: "5 Myths about 7 Books" Here are the answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament By Mark Shea People don't talk much about the deuterocanon these days. The folks who do are mostly Christians, and they usually fall into two general groupings: Catholics - who usually don't know their Bibles very well and, therefore, don't know much about the deuterocanonical books, and Protestants - who may know their Bibles a bit better, though their Bibles don't have the deuterocanonical books in them anyway, so they don't know anything about them either. With the stage thus set for informed ecumenical dialogue, it's no wonder most people think the deuterocanon is some sort of particle weapon recently perfected by the Pentagon. The deuterocanon (ie. "second canon") is a set of seven books - Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther - that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically refer to them by the mildly pejorative term "apocrypha." This group of books is called "deuterocanonical" not (as some imagine) because they are a "second rate" or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms. Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various explanations to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. I call these explanations "myths" because they are either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for rejecting these books of Scripture. Let's explore the five most common of these myths and see how to respond to them. Myth 1 The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it. The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews use today. However, after they passed from the scene, muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible either out of ignorance or because such books helped back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God like so many barnacles off a diamond. Rome, ever ornery, reacted by officially adding the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent (1564-1565) and started telling Catholics "they had always been there." This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment, accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas a little further on. The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted "Scripture." Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon. When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That's why Christ and the Apostles didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged. When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community. In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point. The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church. Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles. Myth 2 Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them. This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the "Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical. This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings in the canon of the Old Testament? Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament. The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43). Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament. Myth 3 The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be inspired Scripture. This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were "added" by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture." Let's examine it. First, from a certain perspective, there are "errors" in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked King Holofernes' head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or "errors" happen. Let's take the problem of alleged "factual errors" first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion. For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn't actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not "errors" because they're not truth claims about astronomy or historical events. Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they're presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they're first-rate pious stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson. Very well then, but what of the moral and theological "errors"? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus. With respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an "entertaining angels unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh hears." By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?" And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we're reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying" about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It's that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell. Myth 4 The deuterocanonical books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture. Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach opens with a brief preface by the author's grandson saying, in part, that he is translating grandpa's book, that he thinks the book important and that, "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages." Likewise, the editor of 2 Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was to compose the book and closes with a sort of shrug saying, "I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do." That, and that alone, is the basis for the myth that the deuterocanon (all seven books and not just these two) "denies that it is inspired Scripture." Several things can be said in response to this argument. First, is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures? No. For example, one may as well say that St. Paul's declaration of himself as "one born abnormally" or as being the "chief of sinners" (he mentions this in the present, not past tense) necessarily makes his writings worthless. Second, speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by even stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no Protestant would feel compelled to exclude these Pauline writings from the New Testament canon. Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can't remember whom he baptized. Using the "It oughtta sound more like the Holy Spirit talking" criterion of biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here. Given this amazing criterion, are we to believe the Holy Spirit "forgot" whom St. Paul baptized, or did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor. 1:15)? 1 Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement that could, according to the principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't sure that his teaching was inspired or not. Elsewhere St. Paul makes it clear that certain teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the oblique deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet nobody argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded from Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old Testament, simply on the strength of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Why not? Because in St. Paul's case people recognize that a writer can be writing under inspiration even when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as "direct dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author. Indeed, we even recognize that the Spirit can inspire the writers to make true statements about themselves, such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn't remember whom he had baptized. To tweak the old proverb, "What's sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books can tell the truth about themselves - that they think writing is tough, translating is hard, and that they are not sure they've done a terrific job - without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of what they wrote. This myth proves nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God. Myth 5 The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent. First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions. And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I. But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches." Martin Luther, however, did not. And this brings us to the "remarkable dilemmas" I referred to at the start of this article of trusting the Protestant Reformers' private opinions about the deuterocanon. The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn't (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for. For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, "I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle," because he believed it "is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works" (Preface to James' Epistle). Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Preface to the New Testament). But the Epistle of James wasn't the only casualty on Luther's hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books. Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came. As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter. The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years. When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and always had been. Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That's no myth. That's history.

The writers of the New Testament used the Greek Septuagint text (so-called because it is thought that 72 people were employed in translating the Hebrew into Greek in 3rd century BC in the city of Alexandria) when quoting scripture, so quotations from Isaiah, for example, do not come out the same as the Isaiah texts we read in the Old Testament, which is translated directly from the Hebrew: compare Mk 1:3 with Is 40:3.

There exists 2 different canons of the Old Testament the Palestinian Canon (Protestant Old Testament) and the Alexandrian Canon (the Catholic Old Testament). Surprisingly enough the Hebrew bible was written in Hebrew (Fancy that!) and the Alexandrian Canon was written in Greek. As the greek language became the more dominant language a translation of the Hebrew Bible was created by precisely 70 Hebrew scholars from 250-125 B.C. This is where the name Septuagint originated, which is Latin for 70. The Septuagint contains 46 books, but the Palestinian Canon only contains 39. But one thing you must understand is that the Palestinian Canon wasn't put together until about 100 A.D. (that is many many many years after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ!) These Jewish Rabbis rejected seven of the books that were contained in the septuagint because they could not find any hebrew versions of those 7 books that were translated into greek, and/or, that they didn't believe that they were God inspired. The New Testament writers used the Septuagint to reference for their own writings, it would have been the septuagint that they New Testament writers were quoting from. In the early church when the Canon for the entire bible was being established at the councils of Hippo and Carthage 393-397 A.D. it was the 46 books of the Septuagint that was accepted as the authoritative list of Old Testament Books. NOT the Palestinian Canon. This Canon of 46 books of the Old Testament was the Canon of the Universal Christian Church for 1500 years until the protestant reformation. Martin Luther, who was te leader of the protestant reformation, in 1529, chose use of the Palestinian Canon of the Old Testament (39 books) he issued this change on the same grounds of the Jewish Rabbis in 100 A.D. (That the 7 books had no hebrew translation and/or they were not God Inspired.) Martin Luther accepted this version and in fact wanted to remove even more books, not from the Old Testament, but from the New! He wanted to do away with the Book of James and Revelation! Wow, thats gutsy! Another tidbit of info, if the Palestinian Canon wasn't developed until after the death of Christ, then....What old Testament did Jesus use? The Alexandrian! Or if you prefer the term Septuagint. So those Christians who use the bible with the original 46 books of the Old Testament they are using the same bible that Jesus, the Apostles, and the New Testament writers used. Now that ROCKS!!! So this brings to mind many doubts that arise about the beleifs of the the Jewish Rabbis and Martin Luther. If Jesus, who is the son of God, used the Septuagint and believed that those seven books are god inspired, then did the creator of the Protestant church doubt Jesus Christ? Something to ponder on. Also another thing to sink your teeth in is this... The same Jewish Rabbis who rejected the seven books of the Old Testament later rejected the entire works of the New Testament, these Jewish Rabbis historically known would become modern days Orthodox Jews. Now, the Jewish Rabbis who followed the Septuagint Canon also accepted the Canon of the New testament. Stay with me for just a little longer, What do you call those Jewish Rabbis who accepted the New Testament, the Testament of Jesus Christ? Christians. Now that is the history of the Bible of the Christian Faith.

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelations 22:18-19 The fact of the matter is that the Catholic church added to Gods Holy Word which Christ warned about doing. We are not to tamper with the bible thats why I use the KJV It is the closest thing to the original manuscripts. Just like the game "telephone" it starts off correct but by the end the words are all distorted and you don't get the clear message.

What about the scripture that says not to add or take away from the bible? If the parts that the Catholics have added are so scripturally sound, why don't all Christians adopt them?

The New American Bible has a few more books in it, such as Ezra and Tobit. Also, the writing is more exact, so they say, to the real truth in the KJ version

The Catholics removed some chapters from their bible, including the part where Jesus tells us to stop confessing our sins to the priests but to confess to Him instead. That's why that is one of the major differences between Catholocism and most other Christ-based religions. Edit: Catholic Bible also includes some books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) which other Bibles don't include because their authority/validity is often questioned.

I agree with BobbyW. In order to come to a better understanding of the truth, one must walk through the fire and trust that he/she will not be burned. The KJV may seem "safer" to the Baptists because it sort of cuts off all loose ends, allowing protestants to focus on a more clear and concrete word of God. Us Catholics (should) understand that the depth of God is unmeasurable to mankind, anything is possible. People should realize and educate themselves on such things, example; the book of Revelations says that no one should add or take way from this book, it's speaking of that very book itself... realize the basics first that the Bible is a collection of a bunch of books, peace

Protestants have fully accepted each and every one of the 27 books that the Catholics selected for the New Testament over 1,500 years ago. The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture. The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek. The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament. After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint. The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14). The Christian Church filled with the Holy Spirit did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 + 27 = 73 Books total. 1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books that were removed supported such things as • Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45) • Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7) • Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14) • Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15) The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha. Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ With love in Christ.

Jesus said it best the problem is that we have not studied or know the scriptures I am sure he wants us to step up and seek the answers before by reading scripture and cross referencing them to insure they all linked together in some way and that when the LORD's hand was involved the actions mentioned in books where not only successful, fruitful but timeless! God's word last forever! He will have Victory so who does wrong is not who reads but who reads with out being preyful! Jesus said he left us with his Holy Sprit to be a counselor and guide us! in the end of days he will judge us all according to our ways according to what we did in our hearts out of pride or our own Will and not of his will and grace -- read them all before passing judgment seek God to provide to each of you the correct meaning for all that he inspired - remember all that do something trying to please God have done what they thought was best pleasing to him! so if a weak believer feels the need more or less books lets build them up same for a stronger believer if he feels his strength is greater then it really is well trust that God will disiplen him and humble him! All things done out of a pure heart will stand the test of time! and as we can see both NIV and NRSV still stand because they both are attempts of Glorifying God -- there are Church's and Religions which have failed the test of time one big one that comes to mind would be the Church of Ladder Day Saints it has changed titles and been removed from States some would call that not passing the test of time and some might say it is being persecuted well.. Let God handle it! I can't speak of any Church which has invoked the name of our savior Jesus as Christ to be with out God they maybe weak but we must trust that God is working in all places where his name is being preached and that if they come to a point where they challenge our LORD and fail to do his will he will move them out of the way! Or pull his true children out to a better home for Worship. What we can do is agree with what Christ believers have in common in their books and build from there if something is not understood and the answer is clarified in one of the 7 books removed well there you go! Or If a Baptist or Christian is explaining or preaching a Gospel which is in sync to what maybe understood in those same 7 books well they are not leading others astray now are they? Let’s look at a few examples • Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45) • Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7) • Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14) • Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15) We can all agree that there is power in prayer right? How vast and beyond is that power we can argue it day and night and not come to a persist answer or we can read in the New Testament in the book of Acts chapter 16 where it is explain if you believe you and your household will be saved! However it is also known that we will be judged by what we did while we were alive! So weather God sends us back to earth with a new life as a 2nd chance or if he pardons our sins by someone else’s prayers he told us to trust in him and if it is asked in Faith it shall be granted all things are possible for him! I myself do not believe there is a purgatory I Believe that those who are saved take a sleep and awake in what feels or appears to be but a sec to be with our LORD – it is said he will judge according to what we did and pondered in our hearts! He created a new world for us I do not believe him to allow impure thoughts or people to enter it! That is what the earth is being left behind for to be the waste land of what our sinful nature (our carnal) ways have resulted. BUT I do have faith that if we pray for our loved ones while they are still alive they in fact will be given more chances then a cat to redeem them! He listens to the prayers of his Saints that not only being the original past Saints but anyone who is glorifying him and doing his work here on earth! The LORD gave and so shall he take! As he takes he gives us a new day and new hope a new inspiration and a new Saint do not close your eyes to the work of the LORD he is with us now more then ever the more this world comes closer to the end the greater his mercy is on us he has chosen to save us all (even that church which we happen to disagree with) he wants and desires to save those souls! Walk in love seek the guidance of the Holy Sprit and work based on that! If its truly Gods favor it will grow, it will be fruitful and last a lifetime a human hand can do Gods work by helping him plant the seed or by watering it but only God can control if it will bring a harvest to grow ;)

The reason for that is because back in the day (not sure the exact year) but somewhere in 100 a.d. a complete guess and way off tho. anyways the high priest of the world came to Rome at the catholism and had a meeting to decide which books would appear in the Bible. Since they had priest of different countries they had different believes. So there for that is why you have i think 7 extra books that are not in the King James but are quoted in the King James. Hoped I helped.

because the catholic prists who got a hold of the bible changed it by adding. so that is also why there is other bibles

I wouldn't rely on TV's "The History Channel" for truth. Catholcism was originally the whole body of Christians until the separation of Catholic priest, Martin Luther in 1520's. The problem here is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. "Catholism is the triumph of faith, wedded to reason, in the light of truth."

Like most good religions they pick and choose what parts of their holy scriptures to follow.

Alright thier are a few things that I need to say 1st- The kjb is a nice book, yes book, how ever it contradicts its self in two major ways. 1 with the Simon Peter history that did lead to the 1st pope it says the same thing that the catholics does however it to them and this is taught by pentacostals and baptist that it is refering to Jesus as the rock alone. Which he is for the entire faith/world. However at this it is speaking of simon peter as the rock on which the faith on earth will be built not established it is on Jesus that it will be established! simon peter is to be the fore father left in charge to represent the teachings and see that they are countinued. The 2 is that within the last paragraph it is said that "who so ever changes this book" it would be better for them to tie a boulder to thier waiste and throw it to the water, or somthing like that, the rath of God. It speacks for it self. 2nd The only way that we as catholics are pardened is do to the fact that ours is seen as allowed by the pope! They don't follow the pope so sorrow for them. the final thing is that they fully believe that the bible text origins are in greek and they without research could be seen as right. However it is not true and when speaking of the bible it should be true key phrase that helps is this "Eil, Eil, lama sabachthani" to understand look it up it will serve as credit for all that i've typed. (F.Y.K.-also lookup petra, petros, cepha, kepha, and Simon Peter[lookup in the kjb=2 john 1:42])

The Catholic Bible has seven more books then the KJV bible and the Catholic Bible was just recently translated so the englsih is more modren. I also notice some other diffrence that really don't matter is the Catholic bible breaks up diffrnet parts of section and the KJV version condices both for followers to have a better understanding.