doesn't Readers Digest have condensed veersions of various novels???they can get two or three in a 2 inch thick book. The basic story is there, but many of the pertinant details are left out. That's what the KJV did to the Catholic bible (in use by all for over 1,500 years).
The bible is a collection of books, and "Protestant Bibles" have NO 'CONDENSED' versions any books....the same books, the same texts, in translation, as Catholic bibles with a tiny exception: Certain low-quality short Jewish books--which the Jews themselves never included in their canon, were formally included in the canon, demanded by the Council of Trent of the 1560s (that's the same council which "authoritatively" condemned all Protestants to Hell). This was after--and in response to--Luther and other Protestants agreeing with the Jews on their canon.
Saint Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate (THE bible of the Middle Ages) named a certain small collection of Jewish writings--which the Jews of Jesus day and before did NOT include in their cannon--the "Apocrypha" because he did not consider them canonical--that is part of the bible. He reluctantly included them with his translation--due to pressure from other churchmen. In no way, shape or form did the Church Fathers--or medieval Catholic scholars--uniformly agree that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible.
The protestants of the time decided that they were more qualified to design a bible than were the fathers of the church. They decided to eliminate those books which might show evidence of some of the teachings that they wished to ignore (like praying for the dead) only necessary if there is a purgatory!!!
There was no arbitrary elimination of offensive books...rather, Luther, and other scholars of the day, sided, in the ongoing CATHOLIC scholarly debate, with the Jews, in believing that these Jewish books were not inspired cannon.
Throughout the Middle Ages, many Roman Catholic authorities, in between times of expelling Jews from England, Rome, Spain, and various other European countries and cities...naturally didn't trust the Jewish list of Old Testament books, for some reason or another.
The evidence is though, that the Bible of Jesus and the 12 Apostles, that is the Old Testament--also did NOT include the Apocrypha. The problem was that the formalization of the list by the Jews of the Tanak (the Old Testament) comes in the AD, around AD 100...therefore some Christians didn't trust the Jews--to have gotten THEIR canon right. More scholarly ones (like Jerome) did, however.
You know the story of the revolution, certain people who couldn't handle Catholicism decided to invent their own version of Christianity (how's it working for you??) When you make your own rules, you can condemn abortion, contraception, birth control, etc as true evils for hundreds of years and then, in the 20th century, decide they they are now O.K.....amazing!!!!!
Only as certain mainline protestants have gotten away from recognizing the the Bible as God's Word, and alone as the final authority, have they drifted into arbitrary ethics. Arbitrary ethics can also come from looking for authority in the Bible PLUS, AN ARBITRARY, UNDEFINED, LIST OF TRADITION...AS DETERMINED BY THE CURRENT CHURCH LEADERSHIP.... Those of us traditional, conservative evangelical Protestants have never condoned abortion or other ethical evils--condemned in the Bible--as we have a solid unchanging rule, the written Word of God.
Rome has changed too you know. The supposedly fully authoritative Council of Trent clearly declared all Protestants are condemned to Hell...yet Vatican II says we--and even possibly atheists...are (now?) not condemned to Hell. Your church utterly condemns Capitol Punishment today--but, before (and during) WWII it did not. The Roman Church has changed her mind on things numerous times...and the idea unchanging consistency in a human-ruled body....is really laughable, and must twist or deny the facts of history.
Probably the best statement on the Apocrypha—of its helpful but not fully authoritative nature, is found in the 16th Century Anglican 39 Articles of Religion (”Hierome” is an arcaic spelling of Jerome by the way...):
“And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would emphasize again the shortness of these books (less than 5% of the space in the Old Testament)...and the ridiculous nature of some too (Tobit, for example is clearly written as a tall-tale, a legend. Great example of Jewish fiction though.... Others are very insulting to women...)
It is not a 'teaching' of the Catholic Church that Capital Punishment is condemned. The Church teaches that Capital Punishment is the purview of the 'state', and that for the protection of the innocent, it CAN be carried out. For example, if there is a murderer on death row who is still ordering murders from prison, it is not wrong to put that person to death, in order to save a potential victim.
The reason the Church isn't enamored of the death penalty is because putting someone to death denies that person the opportunity to repent of their sins. My thought is that if they haven't repented before getting the needle, it ain't gonna happen. But it is not a doctrine of the Church that supporting, ordering, or carrying out the death penalty is a sin.