christians, why do the catholic bible got the apocrypa and kingjames dont? does the original manuscripts the codex also has apocrypa?

<- Catholic

<<Christians, why do the catholic bible got the apocrypa and kingjames dont?>>

Simplest answer is that the King James version of the Bible DID have the apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) included in it. If I'm not mistaken, the KJB included it until the 19th century (1800s)

So they included it, then moved it to the back (but still included it), and then finally removed it.

Catholics do not typically call those books "apocryphal" -- this is a Protestant term. Apocryphal means 'disputed' or basically 'doubted'

The original term for these are Deuterocanon. The term apocrypha was later applied around the 16th or so century.

Catholics still refer to them by the original name and don't consider them 'disputed' since the question as to which books should be included or not, has been answered several times by various councils over the millennia. 1st around the 4th century. Then as late as the Council of Trent in the 16th century - answered the question once and for all and declared them part of the Bible.

Now the reason the Protestant faiths took out those books can get a bit tricky.

Catholics often times point out that the Deuterocanon contains the book of Macabees - which provides support for the idea of Purgatory. Sometimes this point is used to imply that Protestant faiths had an alterior motive to removing them. But I doubt seriously that it was a major factor.

Catholics will point out that the New Testament was originally written in Greek; and so was the Septuagint. Most Jews spoke Greek, at this time because they had been "Hellenized" Logically, they would have used the Septuagint (Jewish texts written in Greek). If you compare references where the Old Testament was quoted in the New, it matches with the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament). The Septuagint contains the Deuterocanonical books (the apocrypha).

Catholic logic is that IF the Disciples and Biblical authors referred to the Septuagint, it was in use at that time -- then it should be included as part of the Bible.

Protestant argument is much simpler -- The original Jewish Texts were not written in Greek, but Hebrew. We haven't found Hebrew scrolls that have the Deuterocanonical books in them. Hence we can't be absolutely sure that they were used by Jews. When Judaism recovered the use of their language (Hebrew) they gathered together their Scriptures into a psuedo-canon. Their canon does not include the Deuterocanonical books, hence they are 'disputed' or 'not reliable'

__________________________

<<does the original manuscripts the codex also has apocrypa?>>

Difficult to say for sure, since many Codexes and manuscripts have been lost.

The Dead Sea Scrolls DID contain the Deuterocanon, showing that some Jewish communities DID consider them as Scripture (Divinely inspired)

Early on in Christianity, there wasn't a single 'canon' of list of books that everyone recognized. That idea came later, around the 3rd or 4th centuries (200-300AD) Therefore, you will find Codexes containing some or all the books that we consider to be part of the Bible today - depending upon who and when they were compiled.

We do have some codexes, such as Codex Vaticana that are almost entirely complete.

An official or binding list of books to be included in the Bible was not (officially) set until the Councils of Nicea and Carthage, right around 325 & 351 AD, respectively.

The Deuterocanonical books were officially in use from that time, forward, until the Protestant Reformation started to dispute them. The Council of Trent was then convened to settle the matter once and for all (for Catholics, at least)

On the Jewish side of the fence, from what I know - they didn't really have a set "official" canon or list of books. There wasn't much need to settle the matter or enforce a standard. Some Jewish sects used more or fewer books and that was OK with Judaism, from what I know.

Essene Jews used the Septuagint, which contained the disputed books. Other sects of Judaism, may not have used those books.

After the spread of Christianity, however, there was more of a need to clarify what was Jewish and what wasn't. So at that point in history, the Jewish faith started to, more or less, canonize their scriptures - which did NOT include the Septuagint.

So both Catholic christians and Protestant christians have their own arguments/points for using or not using the Deuterocanon or considering it disputed (apocryphal)

Original manuscripts are not codices. Canonical scriptures were originally those individual works (in addition to the Jewish scriptures in Greek from Alexandria) that were permitted by bishops to be read to their congregations.

I believe until a few decades age that King James included apocrypha in a separate section from the Old and New Testaments. Editions of scripture set in the Catholic order reflect the order in the Greek Bible of the Jews (mostly. ). The reformer Luther insisted on the Jerusalem Bible texts. His reasoning included that these were the texts that Jesus knew. Early Christianity, except maybe Syria, used the Alexandrian texts.

Th catholic Bibles are most Distorted to make sure the followers that insisted the Catholic religion permit Bibles to not see how very disobedient the Catholic religion is from GOD"s own words!

The very Catholic King James ordered his Bible made because Fives correctly done English translations of the Bible had been made. All were being printed in other countries, smuggled in to England, page by page, then put together and sold! King James ordered his made with 400 words, times each used, to be changed to very different words, so no one would know what the correct Bible states! There are a total of over 36,000 words in the KJB that have been added,removed, or changed to very different words by the kings order! It even has "unicorn"s and "monster"s in it!

To get an Honest, Not Catholic controlled Bible, get the NIV or NLT Bibles they are both very good!

The apocrypha are additional writings that were found in the library at Alexandria. They were recognized as such by both St Jerome while compiling the Latin Vulgate translation and Martin Luther when he was making the German translation for the Catholic Church. They were not included in the original Hebrew Bible. Some of the Catholic Church doctrine are derived from them... such as the concept of purgatory and praying for the dead, which is why they are still included in the Catholic Bible and canonized to include them in the 1500's, in response to their being challenged during the Reformation. Most of the modern versions of the Bible do not include them.

Actually the original King James did include them.

The Catholic Bible includes the deuterocanonical, (called the Apocrypha by Protestants) because it was part of the scriptures used by Christ and the Apostles. At the time of Christ, the Greek speaking Jews used the Septuagint which was the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. This was the one used by Christ and the Apostles and by the Church for the last 2000+ years.

Luther removed books that disagreed with his beliefs.

Yes, the Catholic Bible is the original Bible. When Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church and started his own church, he removed the books known as the Apocrypha. He at first had those books put into a separate section. Luther also wanted the books of Ester and James removed but didn't get support for that. The reason the new Protestants gave for removing the Apocrypha was that Jews had removed those books from their scripture. Luther didn't like the books of Maccabees because it supported the concept of Purgatory more strongly than other parts of the Bible. Maccabees also tells the story of Hanukah.

Many manuscrips where made from which the bible was written. Genesis is clearly written from several of those scrolls. Why it goes back and forth and seems at times not to make any sense. Like we already covered that?

Even the apostles wrote many manuscrips or scrolls the book of the kings of Isreal and some from other empires and nations were written. We have only to realize some like the book of Enoch was not something God wanted in the bible. So it was God who was over seer of what manuscrips was used to write the bible. He can make a Universe and planets habitable he can inspire a book to be written the way he wants it to be written.

Well...the simple answer is this: the original, unabridged King James Version includes the Apocrypha - in fact, includes **more** documents than do Catholic Bibles. Here is the table of contents from a first-edition King James Version in a museum.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksN...

You can see clearly that The Apocrypha is included. 1 & 2 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh are included there but are not included in Catholic Bibles. (Because of this, and because in the Catholic Bible there is not a separate section titled "Apocrypha", typically the Catholic books are called "the Deuterocanon" or "the Deuterocanonicals" instead of "The Apocrypha".)

http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_scriptures_d.h...

There are editions of the King James Version in print that include the Apocrypha. That is: they are readily available, anyone can buy one.

Now: as to **why** most modern editions of the King James Version do not include the Apocrypha, this answers that question. You'll want to start at the date "1534".

http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_timeline_wbc.h...

"Christians, why do the catholic bible got the apocrypa and kingjames dont? does the original manuscripts the codex also has apocrypa?"

The christian cult BuyBull has been rewritten and re-translated so many times through history, it's nothing but nonsense. Go into any BuyBull store, and you have in front of you over 100 different versions and translations. WHAT A JOKE.

You need to take a good, solid course in religious history -- one that actually looks into the oldest texts of each cult book you study.

The BuyBull is grossly mistranslated in all of today's versions that are published, printed and distributed. You know that, right?

If you examine the actual translations of the oldest biblical texts that are still in possession of mankind, you will see VERY CLEARLY how today's BuyBulls are grossly, ridiculously mistranslated. And, by the way, not a single one of even the oldest, oldest biblical texts we have are extant. For example -- NONE of the oldest texts we have contain even one anti-gay comment or scripture. Not one. So where do the ones in today's BuyBulls come from? They were added later. And, poorly done -- because in actuality, none of those rewritten/later-added scriptures are even anti-gay, unless you take them out of context and manipulate the meaning (referring to the usuals that people spout off from Leviticus and Romans, etc)... For example, Lev 18:22 was never about homosexuality. It originally spoke of male temple prostitution. But later translations morphed that into a nice, convenient anti-gay-sounding scripture that christians could actually use -- against a population of people they hate. Voila!

The oldest surviving complete text of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the mid-4th Century AD. The oldest fragments, the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and Papyrus 52, date back to the 2nd Century AD but only contain bits of what is alleged to be “the Gospel of John.” All of these texts are written in Greek.

The mythical jesus-creature’s native tongue would have been Aramaic, and even if he knew Greek, he certainly did not speak it to his apostles – they were uneducated fishermen who barely had their one language mastered. Without any surviving Aramaic texts, if there was an actual jesus-creature, his actual words are lost forever, washed away in a sea of subjective translation by ancient scribes. And then, those translations are again re-translated by later scribes – and you are looking at a seriously flawed Cult Book with nothing but conjecture upon conjecture, guess upon guess. All based upon mythical creatures who have NEVER been proven to exist.

Looking back at this history and the surviving tiny bits of text -- there are three hundred years between the composition of a text and our surviving copies. In a world without a printing press, texts would often undergo drastic evolution through centuries of handwritten duplication.

So, if you are looking for contextual integrity from the NT (or even the OT for that matter), you are wasting your time. I suggest you take a very objective, well-reputed course in Religious History and you'll soon learn what I am talking about.

Those books were neither accepted by the first century church and do not agree with the rest of the Bible.