But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Given that these passages were in the Vulgate prior to Luther, then yes, he took them out.

Luther did NOT take any books out of the Bible. I've referenced this work a half a dozen times just in the last six months. Please take a few moments to educate yourself about what is the truth about this rather than what deceivers want people to think. Here it is again:

From 1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible:

Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[10] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[11] Todd then relates this famous description:

“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[12]

Thus, Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.

No but some certainly seem to go to a lot of trouble to diminish it's importance.After all,so much of it is simply poetic stories and can't be taken at face value.

Ever wonder why? I think it is because they know that some of what they teach goes against what the Scriptures teach. If everything matches perfectly, then there wouldn't be a need to assert authority over what God has given us. The Roman Catholic Church says that the Scriptures+Tradition*+the Church Magesterium = the truth of the Christian faith. *Tradition being what they claim was orally taught but not written down in the Bible. That way, whenever anyone notices that a RC teaching is contradicted by Scripture, they can say that whatever the Church teaches is the truth and you just have to take their word for it because they are THE church. All the past mistakes and corrections that have happened over the course of their history is marked off as simply "development" of doctrine - the Church growing in her understanding of the truth or human errors that weren't "official".

Much like the author of this thread article, they explain away things they get wrong or don't accept as, "God didn't MEAN it to be taken literally!" or, "Just trust us on this.". If I have to choose between man says or what God says, there would be no hesitation...God's word trumps man's!

Lol

"If I have to choose between man says or what God says, there would be no hesitation...God's word trumps man's!"

Amen to that dear sister! and of course we will have to answer to God for that...for "how readest thou?"...I am happy to have to answer for that!

Over the years I've spoken to many who profess Christ and also over those years I have come to prick up my 'spiritual ears' when anyone starts preaching 'their' particular church instead of Jesus.It happens a lot and since reading the RF over the years it's become apparent that none hold a candle to the RC in that department.I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but we are supposed to preach "Christ and Him crucified" and that,on the RF is far more rare than it should be!

God's grace to you bb and thankyou for your patience in posting the same rebuttals over and over and over again!

...And the virgin birth?.....the feeding of the multitudes?.......and the raising of Lazurus?.....and the resurrection?.....

"Exactly, as the divine substance of God’s Word has no relation to the paper and ink, which maintain the properties of paper and ink."

Not exactly. Scripture is of God, and that Scripture tells us that the Eucharist IS God.

Peace be with you

God’s Holy Bible came via the Church.

Though, there might be some books like them, I suppose, that God has chosen to keep hidden during these times for some reason.

Yeah...
Sure...

What would a ‘missing’ book do?

What would be it’s effect?

1. Reinforce what we alREADY know, or...
2. Reveal to us that OMG!!!! We ain’t saved after all!!!!

Given that these passages were in the Vulgate prior to Luther, then yes, he took them out.

But you didn't address this challenge: The same reason Catholicism stuffs things in?

Here is a group of text downloads for a number versions of the KJV in various languages.

There's an oxymoron for you!

What I liked about it was the entire bible text would fit on a 3-1/2” floppy.

Indeed.

I started, LOooooong ago, with a shareware/freeware KJV that I picked up from a local grocery store; from a kiosk that stood near the checkout lanes.

All it requires is Your Own Personal Opinion.

Calling NARSES!!

Pickup the white courtesy phone.

**Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?**

**Who Holds the Joseph Smith Translation (Inspired Version) Copyright?**

Why... The Community of Christ; of course!

Since when does the Author’s work become property of the editors?

Dude!

You are ON to something!!!

Preface to the Book of Mormon 1830 Ed.

PREFACE.
TO THE READER—
As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by the evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again—and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold, the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will shew unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the Devil. Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, I have, through his grace and mercy, accomplished that which he hath commanded me respecting this thing. I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York.
THE AUTHOR.

AUTHOR!!!

NOW you are in trouble!

You KNOW how incensed our MORMON friends on FR get when excerpts from THEIR publications get exposted!

“until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon” Were they included in Gutenberg’s bible?

Its Old Testament included the books that Jerome considered apocryphal, plus books considered apocryphal by Catholics, 3 and 4 Esdras (note nomenclature can be confusing) Prayer of Manasseh and i have read that Clement VIII later moved these to the appendix.

And why did the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament, and soon receive papal sanction?

As for the Vulgate, the apocrypha came to be included, if not uniformly or universally in all versions and "In his famous 'Prologus Galeatus', or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament).

Moreover, the inclusion of apoc. books in the GB is irrelevant as it does not infer or establish an indisputable canon prior of Trent, and that Luther dissented from one and was a maverick in doing do is untenable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

“The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

“The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

Luther's own Bible contained the apocrypha, save for 1 and 2 Esdra, but separately as per an ancient tradition denoting their "second canon' status. The page to see on Luther's canon is here .

The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

The Eastern Orthodox theologian Demetrios J. Constantelos also observed, "The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals. Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list" . See his article “Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible” in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Hubert_Jedin explained. “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was

“Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm Not only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent following one of two scholarly tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, but it is still a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils: More here on all this.

Thus while Roman Catholics often charge that Luther excluded some books as being Scripture due to doctrinal reasons, Luther did have some scholarly reasons and concurrence in Rome for his exclusions.

“An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture” Indeed. All it requires is Your Own Personal Opinion. You can have it your way.

So rather than arguing that an infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, which you cannot, you presume that the alternative is "sola individualistica" (if there is such a word)?"

This is misleading as as SS disallows claiming assured infallibility, so that neither the individual nor the council are the supreme authority. It was by manifestation of the truth that a general consensus saw writings established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, and which writings the church relied upon. And it is by "manifestation of the truth" (2Cor. 4:2) that the claim to be the church of the living (not dead) God continues to be established.

And yet all individuals, including Catholics, choose what they will believe from pastors, and engage in some interpretation. For they individually first choose to submit to Rome, and then to continue, and then often must engage in some interpretation of what is taught, and what magisterial level a teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required. In addition, your last pope taught that “over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else..,” even it is not an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

However, under Rome is where "sola individualistica" is supremely manifest, if the pope is not subject to ecumenical council as most Roman Catholics (Bellarmine, etc.) hold, and Dictatus Papae and other teaching affirms (thus no council, not even an Ecumenical one — which he must call and approve — has authority to depose a Pope against his will). Others hold that he is subject to councils, for his “relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of "intrinsic cohesion."

Sorry, should have said Jewish scripture - thinking probably of "Where, where are the Hebrew children"? Hate typing on an iPad!

I really like the LXX because I can't get past the aleph-beis, but I do read Greek.

Relax. Read C.S. Lewis on Job, he gets it. The fact that a Biblical book is allegorical (like Job) or in the style of a pious Jewish fable (like Tobit) does NOT foreclose its value or its truth. The problem with the revisionist Bible “scholars” is not literary or historiographic analysis, but that they are bad scholars in that they set out to DISPROVE scripture.