who took out parts of the bible!!!!!!!!!

LIFE

LIFE

what is existence?
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
a world of many questions
hi everyone, i only joined here yesterday and after reading a few posts it has came to my attention that there are parts missing from the bible how is that so? why is that so? why on earth have parts been took out? could someone please explain this to me? i find it slightly worrying that man could mess with GODS word in such a way, it seems wrong, is it only the church that took parts out, does the chapel have all parts of it, what parts are missing? is it just the parts on purgatory? was there ever any mention of the rosary beads in the parts that are took out? please I NEED TO KNOW? god bless xo
 
A process called canon. If you try a google search you might find a beter explination than i can Give its been several years sense I was taking a course on this and am having A hard time remembering how it went. Heres a link I think this is pretty close to what I studied. bible.org: The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture . I hope this helps.:)
 
I don't think it's a case of something being "left out" as much as something being select by "popular vote". :)

There are plenty of apocryphal writings, all of varying quality - but it seems from the Church Fathers that, at least in the areas they covered, there was already a rough agreement as to which texts were regarded as most important.

The only big surprises in the modern Bible are that the Shephard of Hermes and 1 Clement were left out - and that Revelations made its way in.
 
The way I understand it, parts of the bible were(are) left out by each religion so that it leaves the parts that best show or agree with the points they are trying to make. You must remember that all parts of the bible were written by Man in the first place. What "publisher" doesn't edit every book he distributes?
 
In my expirience...(by expirience i mean I have read many different versions).....I think certain parts were left out to better adapt to the different politics, if you will, of the different denominations. i was raised catholic myself, though I haven't been catholic since the day I was old enough to make a choice, but that doesn't mean I don't do my homework. Some reasons for the change in the bible is for better inertpretation, other reasons are for control. Think of it like this, the bible is a book of compilations of morals, yet back when the morals were being taught by those mentioned in the bible there was no such book, so it would be safe to that when then then book was compiled that certain things were left out. My advice would be read the bible, but don't rule out other books as well, books just as old that aren't mentioned in the bible.




"believe not what one says even if I say it, believe it only if it holds true to your heart" - buddha
 
The books I'm most interested in are those that are Named/Quoted in the Bible but not included in the Bible, e.g.

The Book of Jasher
The Book of the Wars of The Lord

What stories could have been in these books? Maybe they would have answered a lot of questions or maybe they would have posed more questions than answers.
 
absolutely, you make a valid point, there are other books as well such as the Book of J, or the Book of Enoch, regarding the book of J, most people see an inverted cross and think of satan, when if these books were more publicly aknowledged they would know it refers to st peter who asked to be crucified upside down out of respect for christ. But like I said before......politics.
 
Beautifully said, folks. Beautifully said.

I agree with what you have said 100%, Capthowdy. Books are choosen for inspiration as well as control and rearing within the churches and the nations.
Like Acts 29 - why would Acts 29 not be added if the other 28 chapters are there? To save paper and time?
 
exactly, my point is just because something is missing in the bible doesn't mean the knowledge isn't still out there.
 
Actually I always saw it more as people tried to add to the Bible to support their beliefs rather than take away stuff to support there beliefs.


The general Apocrypha consists of these fifteen books.


  1. .The First Book of Esdras
  2. .The Second Book of Esdras
  3. .Tobit
  4. .Judith
  5. .The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther
  6. .The Wisdom of Solomon
  7. .Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
  8. .Baruch
  9. .A Letter of Jeremiah
  10. .The Song of the Three
  11. .Daniel and Susanna
  12. .Daniel, Bel, and the Snake
  13. .The Prayer of Manasseh
  14. .The First Book of the Maccabees
  15. .The Second Book of the Maccabees
Though these books were considered non-canonical, slowly over the years they came to be regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Bible, and were finally officially labled as such. But the Historical Hebrew Religion, and the Historical Christian Religion growing from it, understood that these writings were non-canonical.

It is quite clear that those who would like to have these books considered Holy Canon do so because of their own traditions, and are not facing the facts objectively. Their beliefs are not supported by either the fundamental facts, by what the Old Testament Saints themselves historically called scripture, nor by early New Testament Church History. If the Jewish Theologians of the Old Testament Congregation of God (Who of course were used of God to write that Old Testament) didn't have the Apocrypha books in their Old Testament text, why would any Christian Church growing from that very same Old Testament Hebrew Congregation, consider adding these Apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament Hebrew? It makes no sense. Nor is it's presence in copies of the Masoretic Text. Not only this, but Roman catholics attempt to add them as part of Old Testament Canon, in New Testament times, despite all available evidence that they were not inspired Hebrew text? If they were not God inspired writings to the very people of God's Israel that they were written to, then why would any Church growing from this very same Religion (on their own), consider adding them later?

The Catholics are not the only people who use extra books he just specifically mentioned purgatory.
 
capthowdy said:
exactly, my point is just because something is missing in the bible doesn't mean the knowledge isn't still out there.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, therein lies much of the crux of the matter. Brian states some was taken out by popular vote. Others' state the reformation, and others' still came up with different reasons to "break away" from the "beginnings" of the "Bible".

Here is a kicker? The origianal church was purest and strongest (that is held in highest esteem), 1800 years ago, in a place called "Ethiopia", in Africa! Why did that "pure strain" get distained?

Who knows, but it did happen.

Now, who took out parts of the Bible?

Who didn't?

The official Bible was busted up during the Reformation...but had NOTHING to do with God. It had everything to do with power, control, and greed.

VS. a lone priest who said, "nope, we ain't gonna live this way anymore".

All protestants, come from Luther. That is a different story I suspect...
 
Dor said:
Actually I always saw it more as people tried to add to the Bible to support their beliefs rather than take away stuff to support there beliefs.


The general Apocrypha consists of these fifteen books.

  1. .The First Book of Esdras
  2. .The Second Book of Esdras
  3. .Tobit
  4. .Judith
  5. .The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther
  6. .The Wisdom of Solomon
  7. .Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
  8. .Baruch
  9. .A Letter of Jeremiah
  10. .The Song of the Three
  11. .Daniel and Susanna
  12. .Daniel, Bel, and the Snake
  13. .The Prayer of Manasseh
  14. .The First Book of the Maccabees
  15. .The Second Book of the Maccabees
Though these books were considered non-canonical, slowly over the years they came to be regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Bible, and were finally officially labled as such. But the Historical Hebrew Religion, and the Historical Christian Religion growing from it, understood that these writings were non-canonical.

It is quite clear that those who would like to have these books considered Holy Canon do so because of their own traditions, and are not facing the facts objectively. Their beliefs are not supported by either the fundamental facts, by what the Old Testament Saints themselves historically called scripture, nor by early New Testament Church History. If the Jewish Theologians of the Old Testament Congregation of God (Who of course were used of God to write that Old Testament) didn't have the Apocrypha books in their Old Testament text, why would any Christian Church growing from that very same Old Testament Hebrew Congregation, consider adding these Apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament Hebrew? It makes no sense. Nor is it's presence in copies of the Masoretic Text. Not only this, but Roman catholics attempt to add them as part of Old Testament Canon, in New Testament times, despite all available evidence that they were not inspired Hebrew text? If they were not God inspired writings to the very people of God's Israel that they were written to, then why would any Church growing from this very same Religion (on their own), consider adding them later?

The Catholics are not the only people who use extra books he just specifically mentioned purgatory.
Click to expand...

Purgatory is a Jewish concept in origin...

Maccabees, Jubilees, Enoch, forgot them?

Gospels according to whom...Mary, Peter, Thomas?

How do we account for them? Dismiss? Then we are no different than our fore ancestors who did the same, based on political whims of the time.

v/r

Q
 
Ok Q there are books we protestants dont use cause they arent in our bible and happen not to be part of the Jewish Canon.

What about the books the Roman Catholics dont use that are used by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox?

All I can go by is the small belief that if God can make man write these books then he surely can make sure all the important aspects stay together;)
 
Dor said:
Ok Q there are books we protestants dont use cause they arent in our bible and happen not to be part of the Jewish Canon.

What about the books the Roman Catholics dont use that are used by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox?

All I can go by is the small belief that if God can make man write these books then he surely can make sure all the important aspects stay together;)
Click to expand...

And the only thing we know for certain is that Jesus saves...that I have no doubt of.
 
For those who believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, this can be a serious problem. As for me, I believe the bible is God inspired, written by man. Issues like this truly confirm that for me.
 
Hi, and Peace--

Interesting discussion, and educational. While I am not qualified to add much, I would address the following:

Quahom1 said:
All protestants, come from Luther. That is a different story I suspect...
Click to expand...

Well, from what I understand (and I have a feeling you know to what I refer), not all those who are called "Protestants" would necessarily agree, But like you say, perhaps it is a conversation better left for another day. :)

InPeace,
InLove
 
capthowdy said:
In my expirience...(by expirience i mean I have read many different versions).....I think certain parts were left out to better adapt to the different politics, if you will, of the different denominations. i was raised catholic myself, though I haven't been catholic since the day I was old enough to make a choice, but that doesn't mean I don't do my homework. Some reasons for the change in the bible is for better inertpretation, other reasons are for control.
Click to expand...

Changing the bible controls interpertation. How can you expect ppl to interpert fully and correctly something to which they don't have all the facts? I think certain books are left out simply because they contridict what that group is trying to teach.
I do agree with you thou that you shouldn't rule out the other books if your looking to the bible.
 
InLove said:
Hi, and Peace--

Interesting discussion, and educational. While I am not qualified to add much, I would address the following:



Well, from what I understand (and I have a feeling you know to what I refer), not all those who are called "Protestants" would necessarily agree, But like you say, perhaps it is a conversation better left for another day. :)

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...

What? You mean me and my protesting but Catholic ways?...

Yeah, guess you're right.

I tell ya though, as soon as someone revives a Celtic Catholic Church, I'm there.

v/r

Q
 
Freedom, I agree with you that's why I used the word politics...



Q, when they revive this church do you think they will use the same recruiting techniques to get convert people?
 
capthowdy said:
Freedom, I agree with you that's why I used the word politics...



Q, when they revive this church do you think they will use the same recruiting techniques to get convert people?
Click to expand...

No Cap, if you read your history...they waited for those to come to them. The place was called Ireland, and the year was 600 AD. And they did come. ;)

v/r

Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top