[boatbums]

I don’t need any help on the subject. The nonsense that the Septuagint wasn’t accepted because it was translated from the Greek and those 7 books weren’t in the Hebrew Scripture, completely fell apart with the Dead Sea scrolls, containing those 7 books. Luther DID in fact exclude the books containing material he didn’t like.

Uh, gee, G Larry, you actually DO need help on the subject. You don't want to continue to believe something if it isn't true, do you? You don't want to repeat something that others KNOW is untrue, do you?

First, who rejected the Septuagint? It was a Greek translation of the books that made up the Old Testament of the Bible. It was Jerome, when he was tasked with translating the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) that relied upon all the Hebrew manuscripts he could find. Nobody told him he HAD to use the Greek version. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome, we learn:

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the Council of Jamnia, or mainstream rabbinical Judaism, had rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[15][16] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" translation of the Old Testament.[17]

For the next 15 years, until he died, Jerome produced a number of commentaries on Scripture, often explaining his translation choices in using the original Hebrew rather than suspect translations. His patristic commentaries align closely with Jewish tradition, and he indulges in allegorical and mystical subtleties after the manner of Philo and the Alexandrian school. Unlike his contemporaries, he emphasizes the difference between the Hebrew Bible "apocrypha" and the Hebraica veritas of the protocanonical books. Evidence of this can be found in his introductions to the Solomonic writings, the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith. Most notable, however, is the statement from his introduction to the Books of Samuel:

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.

Secondly, the Dead Sea Scrolls actually contained THOUSANDS of writings of various importance to those who hid them. Not everything found was seen as part of or equal to Scripture. There are more than seven books that made up what was called "Apocrypha" by even Jerome, why weren't they also included by the Catholic Church in the canon? The Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church don't even agree on those books and which ones are or are not included.

Finally, you are just plain WRONG to insist that Luther excluded any books from his translation of the Bible. Had you bothered to peek at the link I gave you, you would see that, 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. You have NO "facts" on your side at all. Either accept that or continue to be ignorant on the subject and expect to be challenged, because you WILL be.

[LurkingSince'98]

Somebody is lying.

[G Larry]

There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.