ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Books Missing From The Bible

I have heard of missing books of the Bible, is this true? If so why where they taken out? Has anyone read them? What do you think of them? How many books where taken out or should I say left out of the Bible? I heard Judith was one book :-) (my name :-)

Moderator - Yes, any book that was considered non-biblical and at times outright false doctrine.

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Judit8486 on 9/22/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (54)

Post a New Blog

If the casual christian and pew warmer actually bought a Hebrew Lexicon or Concordance, they would see without a DOUBT that words have been changed in English.

"Depart from me you workers of iniquity/lawlessness" The word used is ANomia, it means WITHOUT TORAH.

"Let all meats be received with thanksgiving"

The word used is "Clean meats according to Torah law"

"Nailed the law to the Cross"

Word used is DOGMA, not TORAH, DOGMA means man made religion!

Jesus is a fake made up name by the church, there was no J in the alphabet till a few hundred years ago! Joshua would be a better English Translation!

His name was Yehshua, wich means Salvation!
---bob on 10/5/09

I have read through some of the questions and answers. I just want to caution you on whom to believe. It is in your best interest to research this topic on your own. There are vast amounts of resources on line. Pay particular attention to who made the decision and why they made that decision. You should also keep in mind the customs of the times. I suggest you look into the Council of Nicaea 325 AD Under Constantine the Great.
Also look at Apocrypha books and look into who wrote them and when. It might interest you that the books of Revelation along with others were almost added to the Apocrypha list.

Great Blessings to you and yours.
---John on 4/13/09

The early church fathers had lengthy, earnest debates about which books were legitimate. They voted which books to keep.
---BettyW on 3/23/09


Luther debated with no one and made the decision on his own.

A council of one.
---Natalie2 on 3/24/09

missing from the Bible are actually from the old testament time period and though referenced as authoritative, they are not necessarily intended as scripture (though maybe they were)--Doug

Yes, but if the only Bible known to man had 73 books for 1200 years, why would some take another Bible with less books known to man for Only 400 years?

I could see, it if this 400 years was before the 1200 year Bible.
But, it wasn't. This 400 year Bible came just 400 years ago.

The futher you are from an event, the less you have crediability on the topic.

Would you want testimony from an eye witness of a car accident, or an account of a grandchild of the eye witness 50 years later?
That's scary, how that doesn't bother some?
---Natalie2 on 3/24/09

The early church fathers had lengthy, earnest debates about which books were legitimate. They voted which books to keep.
---BettyW on 3/23/09

the books was taken out by the king or u know hem as king james,he was about controling every one and ever thing if u did not do wht hem wanted he would have your family killed
the missing book was place in the kron-or keron
you have to all was rememeber that we mad god up
in our own minds
---zion on 3/23/09

Men compiled the new testament books well after Christ died. There was intense arguing in the early church over which books should or should not be included. Political and religious leaders in the centuries after Christ felt that the arguing was a potential harm not just to the church but to their political kingdoms and so there was a major push to canonize certain books into a Bible. Many of the books that are sometimes claimed to be missing from the Bible are actually from the old testament time period and though referenced as authoritative, they are not necessarily intended as scripture (though maybe they were - we just don't know).
---Doug on 3/19/09

I have actually read the Book of Mormon. It is a book written by several prophets who lived in the Americas during Old Testament and New Testament times. Those prophets teach of God and of Jesus Christ. They preach the importance of faith, repentance, baptism, obeying the commandments of God. It does indeed provide a second witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ. One should read for himself before taking the word of someone else.

One of the favorite "contradictions" the anti mormons like to use - it says that Jesus was born AT JERUSALEM. If Joseph Smith wrote the book instead of translating the plates - I'm reasonably certain he would've said IN BETHLEHEM and saved himself a lot of grief.

---HappyLDS on 3/19/09

Did Joseph Smith have to write a book to form his own religion? Many religions existed at the time and many have followed -none of their founders wrote a book but people joined with them. Did he have to take the abuse from those who called him a liar and hated him so fervently? He could have decided what he didn't like about the Catholic church and changed it - just like the Protestant churches did. I have no doubt that he did exactly what he was commanded by God to do. I am curious though as to whether or not Christians hold the Bible to the same standard...many have pointed out contradictions in it as well. The Books in both the Bible and the BOM are written by different authors - perhaps this is where the contradictions lie?
---HappyLDS on 3/19/09


Mormons may claim that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, but it contradicts the one true Word of God-the Bible. This is the same reason the other "books of the Bible" were not included. God is infallible, He doesn't contradict Himself.
---Melissa on 3/18/09

Mormons didn't "mess with the original." What books were put into the Bible and left out of the Bible were determined by councils of men..--anonymous on 3/18/09

Peace to you.
You have misunderstood my post. Please read it again.

I am not blaming Mormons for 'messing with the Original'.
I blamed Luther.
In giving Mormons credit for not trying to change the King James Version.
They do believe that King James Version is the correct Bible. They also believe in another one. They did not try to blend the 2nd 'Word of God' into the King James Version.
Unlike Luther who changed the Original, and declaring his version to be the true Bible.
I'm not insulting Mormons.
Peace to you.
God bless.
---Natalie2 on 3/18/09

Mormons believe the King James Version of the Bible is the most correctly translated. Mormons believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Mormons also believe the Book of Mormon is also the Word of God and that it is another witness of Jesus Christ.

Mormons didn't "mess with the original." What books were put into the Bible and left out of the Bible were determined by councils of men...none of which were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons).
---anonymous on 3/18/09

The bible is complete. The Catholics, and Mormons add their own books.---Marty

If the first has a certain number, and a second has almost the same as the first, but less.
Then the first can't add if IT NEVER CHANGED!
If the 2nd, which means another in front of it, has less. Then it has to have taken away. It is 2nd not 1st

It is simple math.
What is so confusion about that?

Mormons never added to the Bible. They claim a companion Bible.
Which is better than the other 66 books Bible.
They messed with the Original and have the nerve to claim the Original added to itself later on.


Luther was a GENIUS to have trick so many even after his death.
---Natalie2 on 3/16/09

Ok, 84 it is. I do not know where I got the 88 from. Stay well and God Bless.
---Nana on 3/13/09

From the "Book of Jasher" to the "Book of Enoch" the bible quotes a dozen other books as scripture, books no longer in the Bible
---Len on 3/13/09

Thank you Mische.Blessings.
---MIC on 3/12/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans

No books are missing. The bible is complete. The Catholics, and Mormons add their own books.
---Marty on 3/12/09

thank you!
Don't apologize, you "being a bee" helped me to go see for myself.
I am not sure why some of the books in the apocrypha are in the old testament. They don't seem to fit there. And some as I discovered were written after Christ had come to sacrifice for us.
I have even started to read the Nag hammadi to see WHY the council removed some books.
It is strange that the HS revealed lots of things to me.
Like what I listed earlier. Some of course are out right ridiculous not lining up at all.
Anyway, i am glad you are back- Missed you very much and I pray that everything is well with you!
---miche3754 on 3/12/09

Nana:- That was indeed a Benevolent Post and I thank you for your vote of confidence. I reciprocate the feeling and call you Brother.But you make me tooo old I am nearing 84 wow 90- well If the Good Lord so wills as it is His that I follow.I also didn't know I had another friend on CN.It humbles me to know some read my Posts and accept them .Those are the silent ones.God Bless.
---MIC on 3/12/09

Sorry to hear you were in the Hospital. Last I knew, you were about 88 years old. Are you 90 yet?
That date you mentioned to Miche happened to be my BDay too, the 20th of February and I turned 53.
I want you to know that I love you MIC. God Bless you always.

Your brother, Nana.
---Nana on 3/11/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance

Mische:-Thank you or your devotedness, and post of 2/20/09 I am glad for you and applaud your endeavourYour words are softer too.Sorry for being a bee in your bonnet.I have been in Hospital these past 3 weeks in Feby.God be with You Mische.
---MIC on 3/9/09


The FACT is no one alive today knows the truth, they believe, and you believe mans word not gods i mean even the word god is not gods name nor is the word lord. These missing books may contradict but so what a FACT is the old an new testaments are contradictory even the laws of god contradict with the actions of lot or abrahams actions.I believe something exists but he/she/it is nothing like in the book written by mans hand. And who among you acts as Jesus word? if he came today who among you would not demand proof? You have been lied to by your religious leaders, you are best to be open minded and just act as the best of the bible says.
---barry_mead on 3/8/09

The apocrpha is from the Septuigent. A greek translation of the Hebrew bible and other writings.

When the Jews set aside their Bible it did not include the Apocrapha. Protestants followed their example. Christianity is a Jewish group.
---Samuel on 2/25/09

.judy, you are not accepting the truth, for it has already been said that the apocrypha was Never Ever a part of Holy Writ, but Always rightly kept out of both testaments and instead inserted between the testaments. The writings contain hereises which contradict the doctrines of the Holy Scripture, and the body of Christ always knew that the apocrypha was never Holy Scripture Inspired from God. Stay with the Holy Bible and be blessed, no one needs any apocryphas when you already have the Word from God.
---Eloy on 2/25/09

Send a Free Marriage Tract


Scholars generally consider the Apocrypha to be useful for historic purposes, but that's about it. The Old and New Testaments are just that testaments to the Truth, and since the Apocrypha is not inspired and contains errors and contradictions it really doesn't belong in the company of the OT and NT.

I don't think anyone claims those books are an RCC invention, but they do believe these books are inspired, and many of their doctrines are based on things found in them.
---Laurie on 2/25/09

folks,to be fair,not only does RC accept the so-called apochyrphal books,but so does the Eastern Church and it was also part of the early KJV Bible of the "Protestants" until it was decided to remove it.If it was part of the Bible then,why remove it now?And many of the churches that have removed it,feel that it is inspirational and worthy to be read,even though it may not be "written in the Holy Spirit" as the inspired Word of why trash it or try to call it an RC invention?
---judy on 2/24/09


I agree. It's amazing to me that anyone would think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible, I have a copy and one glance was all it took to see they are inferior to scripture. They sound like fairy tales to me. I've seen some of the so-called missing books and they too are inferior writings.

I don't base my belief that they are not inspired just on my own sense that they are wrong though, but on the studies that show the errors and contradictions they contain, as well as the fact that they were never quoted by Jesus or any of the NT writers.
---Laurie on 2/23/09

Laurie, catholics wrongly accept the apocrypha as Holy Scripture, just as they have many "other" manmade writings which are not from God, but they follow them rather than follow the real Word. "apokryphos" means "obscure" in Greek, and they are writings falsely attributed to Biblical characters, and are of doubtful authenticity or authorship: and ever since the presenting of them to the body of Christ they have rightly been judged as NonInspired Scripture, and therefore rightly excluded and kept out of both God-spoken Testaments.
---Eloy on 2/23/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays

.denise, you speak falsehood, for I have a 1560 Geneva Bible and like the 1611 KJV it also rightly excludes the NonInspired apocrypha out of both of the Testaments, putting it between the two Inspired Testaments, for all devout and studious Christians commonly know that the manmade apocrypha is NonInspired Scripture, just as we know that scholarly dictionaries and concordances and lexicons are also NonInspired references.
---Eloy on 2/23/09


Do you honestly think implying someone is a "tare" should not offend them? Are you kidding me?

You're making a lot of assumptions here, but you're wrong. Many of the so-called missing books were never missing at all, that much is true, but it's absolutely not true that they don't conflict with scripture, now I'm wondering if YOU have read them.

Who the council members were has nothing to do with whether or not God was instrumental in preserving the books HE wanted in the Bible. You're giving men way too much credit.

Maybe you'd like to share what you've found in these other books that was not included in scripture and you think we need to know.

---Laurie on 2/22/09

It seems as though no one has actually read these "missing" books. They were never missing. The Geneva bible which was printed in 1560 which predates the King James did in fact include these books. If you read these for yourselves you will see that no where does it conflict with what we have today, but yet it supports and fills in some of the gaps. Both of these councils that everyone seems to refer to as having direct communication with God on the subject where predominately RCC members, so that being said, and if you have done your own homework instead of following what you have heard, you would be the wiser now. No offense, but there are many a "Christian" who are in fact the tares among us.............
---Denise on 2/22/09

John 1:1 says the Word is God. If God has the power to create the heavens and earth, Adam and Eve, part the Red Sea for Moses, stop the Sun for Joshua, rescue Jonah from the whale which He sent to swallow him, add 15 years to Hezekiah's life, destroy the world with water, destroy Sodom and Gamorra with fire and brimstone, etc.. Its only reasonable that since the bible represents Him and the Words within were written by men inspired by God, that He wouldn't want anything written or included in the bible which didn't represent Him 100 percent in honesty and truth. Revelations, no words added or taken away. Accept for the previous sentence, I had to use my own logic which is inadequate.
---Bob on 2/20/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Nice sounding sentiment, but not correct. Have you ever done a study on the importance of God's word according to the Bible? If you look up every place it mentions God's word I don't know how you can come away thinking it can take second place to anyone else's words.

God's word is my "ruler" by which I measure truth. I don't have to believe someone's ideas about God, or what they think God is telling them, or who they say God is because God has told us the truth about Himself. This special revelation He has given us, the Bible, is complete in the sense that it is everything He has given us at this time.
---Laurie on 2/20/09


Books listed in the Bible that are not part of it are just that, books listed. There is absolutely no way you or anyone else can prove they should have been included in the Bible, or that they are inspired, so it is misleading to say they are "missing".

People use this as a way to make others think it's okay to trust books other than the Bible. The many copies we have of the Old and New Testaments tell us these so-called "missing" books were never part of the Bible.
---Laurie on 2/20/09

mic and I went back and forth on this for days.
I did lots of research on this and found out a few things.

1)Most of the books are Holy Spirit inspired.
2)The Nicene council was trying to establish sound doctrine in obedience to God.
3)They removed the books that they didn't understand or went against what they thought was sound doctrine.
4)The books that were unapproved when read, at 1st make no sense at all. But when read through the eyes of a child and Holy Spirit led, you see that they reiterate what is written in the accepted Bible today and fill in gaps.
5)They removed things about women because women were thought of as property and unable to do God's work back then. This was done to prevent conflict.
---miche3754 on 2/20/09

**Well, we can go back and forth about who read what that was wrong, we're obviously looking at different sources, what really matters is whether the Apocrypha is inspired or not.**

It is.

**Arguments against it are the NT quotes from the OT hundreds of times, but never from the Apocrypha, there are many proven errors and contradictions in it that have been fully documented, and they teach many untrue doctrines and historical inaccuracies**

Following your reasoning, neither the book of Esther or Obadiah (eg) are inspired, because neither Jesus nor another other NT author quoted from them.
---katavasia on 2/20/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating

ashley, I have been in an assembly that read only from the nonInspired apocrypha and no Salvations took place, and I have been in churches that read from local newspapers and other nonScripture periodicals and books, and again no Salvations nor any move from God nor conversions took place, for only the words of clay were being preached rather than God's proven life-changing and life-bringing words. It is each person's choice which and whom they will listen to and follow, Christ or lie, Righteousness or sin, Salvation or condemnation.
---Eloy on 2/19/09

Because scripture makes reference to other nonScriptural books does not mean that those named books were ever any part of holy Scripture. Holy Scripture refers to many nonHoly things, people, writings and doctrines, but these nonHoly things named are not a part of the Holy Word, but instead are called damnable heresies, and when people follow after these nonScripture writings rather than follow after the Truth from Christ, than they become lost and perish for following the wrong path rather than the narrow path of righteousness.
---Eloy on 2/19/09

Missing books from the bible:
Exodus 24:4-7 The Book of the Covenant
Numbers 21:14 The Book of the Wars of the lord.
Joshua 10:12,13 The book of Jasher
1 Kings 11:41 book of the acts of Solomon
1 Chronicles 29:29 The Book of Samuel
The Book of Nathan
The Book of Gad
2 Chronicles 9:29: The Prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite, and in The Visions of Iddo,
2 Chronicles 12:15 The Book of Shemaiah
2 Chronicles 13:22 The Story of the Prophet Iddo.
2 Chronicles 20: 31-34 The Book of the Kings of Isreal
The Book of Jehu
---ashley on 2/18/09

2- If you want to know why the books were removed from the bible, Jude tells us in Jude verses 3-5: " Beloved, when I gave all dilligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believeth not."
---ashley on 2/18/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments

David, those were very wise words and a good advice.
---Paul2 on 2/18/09

I have something to say that is going to sound scary but I am hopeful that yall might see that it is meant to encourage you farther and not tear you down in any way. I suspect that with the best of intentions we have in some respects held the bible up higher that God himself. Don't take this a challenging the bible's authority but as putting it in the proper perspective. The bible is a road sign pointing into a great city. It is sufficiently designed and implemented to do its job which is to point the way to the city. Yes it is correct and helpful and in fact so detailed and marvelous that we might want to set up camp outside the road sign and actually never enter the city. cont...
---David on 2/18/09

...To say the scriptures are complete and final authority is like saying live by and depend on the road sign instead of living in the city to which it points. But wait that means if we don't rely totally on the written word then we can be misslead right? Our protection is our shield of faith, not our skill in yielding the text to answer questions. Without faith that God can lead us we are lost either way. I'm not saying we should stop reading the scriptures and searching out mysteries. I am convinced the spirit of God will increase our desire to do so. Said another way, is not God the final authority and does he not still live? And if he lives can he not guide us in our hearts (Jer 31:33, Ezek 36:27) ? But a living God is a scary thing...
---David on 2/18/09

Actually I remember that Jesus or one of his disciples(but I think it was Jesus)did refer to a book that is NOT in our bibles.This was in the New Testament.I cannot remember the book in question.I think maybe one that the Eastern Churches include?Anyone know?So why was that not included?Originally KJV Bible did include the Apochyrphal Books,but later was removed.
---judy on 2/18/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Well, we can go back and forth about who read what that was wrong, we're obviously looking at different sources, what really matters is whether the Apocrypha is inspired or not.

Arguments against it are the NT quotes from the OT hundreds of times, but never from the Apocrypha, there are many proven errors and contradictions in it that have been fully documented, and they teach many untrue doctrines and historical inaccuracies.

Why do the Jews not include the Apocrypha in the Torah? Why did Jesus never quote from those books? Let's not be incomplete and slanted. Could it be that the men who tried so hard to include them were wrong and the truth prevailed?
---Laurie on 2/18/09

**What I've read is the Apocrypha was never believed to be inspired except by the RCC.**

What you read is wrong, Laurie (or at least incomplete and slanted).

As a matter of fact, the books called Apocrypha are accepted by ALL the Eastern Churches, even those not in communion with Rome, and were NEVER in dispute in the East.

They were accepted by ALL Christians once upon a time.

The REAL question is why do Protestants reject them, as they were originally accepted as part of the Hebrew Scriptures: hence their inclusion in the Septuagint, the Greek version made 200 years before Christ.
---katavasia on 2/18/09

The people who put together the New Testament pud down as a rule that the Book had to be written during the lifetime of the Apostle who wrote it and not after their death.

Some people wrote books latter and said the Apostles wrote them.

So that was and is a good rule.
---Samuel on 2/18/09

Laurie, just as you do, I believe the 66 books are inspired and trustworthy. I was just giving some historical information. I am not your enemy. Both the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox have the 7 Apocryphal books in their canon. In addition, the Orthodox recognize two more -- 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabees. God bless you!
---JohnnyB on 2/18/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


There was a bit of controversy over several books in the NT. What I've read is the Apocrypha was never believed to be inspired except by the RCC. When the question of the canon was finally put to rest at the Council of Trent, this issue was settled with the RCC including it and the Protestants not. Notice the Jews don't include them in the Torah.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't understand why you bring things up that, rather than inspire confidence in the integrity of the Bible, serve more to sabotage it. My feeling is, whose side are you on? These are the kind of things skeptics use to discredit the Bible, so it feels weird to have to defend this to another Christian?!?!
---Laurie on 2/18/09

.johhnyB, I did not say "printed", but "placed", meaning, inserted between the two testaments and intentionally Kept Out and Excluded from both testaments. And all reliable Bibles published today rightly exclude these nonInspired writings, for after scrupulous examination, every serious Christian knows that they contain doctrines which are contrary to the Holy Scriptures. And therefore because these writings commonly known to contain heresy and are found questionable among the saints, they have rightly been objected, and instead of keeping them out of the two testaments by inserting them between the testaments as in the past, they are now completely left out of being bound within all reliable Holy Bibles today.
---Eloy on 2/18/09

Laurie, yes, it is fair to say there was no objection to the 66 books we accept. There was a bit of controversy over the book of Revelation in the Eastern churches for a few more centuries after 325. All churches, however, included the seven books we call Apocrypha in their canons until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. God bless!
---JohnnyB on 2/17/09


Well, all the councils agreed on the 66 books in our Bible, so I don't think it's stretching it to say the canon was closed in 325 AD. Many consider that the correct date. In reality, God is the One who decided, so all those meetings only confirmed it.
---Laurie on 2/17/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment

Laurie, just FYI, the canon was not finalized at Nicaea in 325 but a bit later at three local synods at Hippo and Carthage around the year 400. None of the universally recognized seven ecumenical councils held between 325 and 787 ruled on the scriptural canon. It is a complicated story, to say the least!
---JohnnyB on 2/17/09


The Jews did a phenomenal job preserving the OT, as we know from all the copies, and the NT has been equally well preserved. Jesus and the NT quoted from most of the OT, and those not quoted directly were part of a collection. The early church fathers quoted from all the NT books.

The canon of the Bible was closed by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, what that means is they confirmed that the NT books already being used by the early church were inspired by God. Rumors that say otherwise are meant to undermine the integrity of the NT. The people that spread those rumors were not there to witness what they claim, and they can't prove them, whereas there is good evidence that God successfully preserved His word.
---Laurie on 2/17/09

Eloy, you said in one sentence that the Apocrypha was never in the KJV, and in the next sentence you said it was -- printed between the Old and New Testaments. You are right, it was printed. And the Church of England has always read portions of the Apocrypha in their church services. That's why it was printed. They said the Apocrypha, while not being up to the standard of the rest of the Bible, was useful and should be maintained. God bless you.
---JohnnyB on 2/17/09

.johhnyB, the apocrypha was NEVER a part of the King James Version, but instead it was purposely kept out of both of the testaments, and placed between the old testament and the New Testament, because it was known that the writings were not Inspired from God, but writings from man, similarly dictionaries nor lexicons nor concordances are known not to be inspired from God and often times contain many errors and falsehood.
---Eloy on 2/16/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans

We should remember that anciently there wasn't just one consolidated book, but a bunch of loose books, scrolls and papers. Faithful followers tried to preserve the ones that they felt were "faithful" accounts. The greedy forged ones so they could sell them and make money. The biased, chose and copied ones that matched their bias, and in the end, men (not God) chose which ones to put together based upon whatever was important in their mind at the time. If they were good men, their motives may have lead them to the most reliable books. If they were politicians (as were many church leaders at the times of the canonization) then you could trust their selection as much as you could trust our politicians now.
---Sophia on 2/15/09

"other" writings are just that, NonScripture.
---Eloy on 2/14/09

Those seven books of the Apocrypha were published as part of the King James Bible for about the first 200 years of its existence. God bless!
---JohnnyB on 2/13/09

Andrew ... "Another thing why are christians afraid of evolution and want to ban its teachings, when it has been proven, and want to replace it with creationism"

Are you the Andrew who said on this blog "Creation in six ordinary earth-rotation days is a crucial doctrine for several important reasons"

---alan8566_of_UK on 2/13/09

Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy

The whole religious thing is over rated. Too many things contradict one another for anyone to make sense of anything. Most of all how can more than one "religion" have the same people "Jesus" but play different roles. Another thing why are christians afraid of evolution and want to ban its teachings, when it has been proven, and want to replace it with creationism.
---Andrew on 2/13/09

You still do not explain how 73books Holy Bible =66 OT.+ KJV.or 46 OT books in the word =39 in 'your" improvised list in your Tanakh which when I checked it said that they were"Incorrectly Known as the Old testament"Be my guest enter Tanakh on the search engine on this post and read it for yourself.Ashley is more correct than you are.
---Mic on 12/4/08

There's only 66 Books Mic. Well established and since the KJV has never had a legitimate challenge to it's authority.
If you have to use badly written books like the Apocrapha and Macabees, etc... to change the words of Jesus Himself, to mean something else. A red flag should be an immediate responce to see if it agrees with the rest of OT/NT scriptures.
---Mike356 on 12/6/08

Jesus is the Way...
In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God...

STUDY The whole Book of John in relations to
Our Father speaking through the mouth of the Holy prophet Isaiah...
Read together...

Isaiah 9:5(Catholic ver.NAB)in KJV,Is 9:6
For a child is born to us,a Son is given us,upon his shoulder dominon rests.They NAME HIM WONDERFUL-COUNSELOR,GOD-HERO,FATHER-FORVER,

Isaiah 44:69(Catholic ver.NAB)
Fear not,be not troubled:
you are my witnesses!

Body of Christ,Shalom...
God's Peace.
---char on 12/6/08

Char :Thank you. To find the Holy Spirit in these days is a JEWELLED sword.Jn12:44-50Jn13:18-20,JN14,8-14 & 15-17.Pray lest you enter into temptation.
---Mic on 12/5/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance

um mic,
The Jews rejecting Christ was prophesied in the Old testament too.
I have done the research, mic. AND listed the books.
Our old testament in the Bible we read is the tanakh.
Jesus established his kingdom through JESUS.
Not Peter- wasting your time brother because Peter being the established church is false.
The Rcc added books to the Old testament.
Plain and simple.
The Old testament exsisted BEFORE the Rcc did. Not the other way around.
The New testament is the only thing ALL Christians have in common. Your OT is false and has been tampered with by man. And I don't mean Luther, the tampering was done by Rcc in 325.
---miche3754 on 12/5/08

Study as many transcripts,Bible translations & languages as possible.
If you feel most comfortable with the KJV,the 1161 version includes the apocrypha books.
Continue to Trust the Holy Spirit, your Teacher.
Continue to have the WORD OF GOD,SON OF GOD,
LORD AND MASTER over your Studing.
The Holy Spirit comforts with HIS Teachings.
Please study of Peter's calling...
He is called rock,ONLY REPRESENTING what the "BODY OF CHRIST" stand on..KNOWN AS...

FIRST READ:Isaiah 44:6-20 & Isaiah 9:5-6

THEN READ Matt16:17-19

SEE how solid IT IS.

God's Peace.
---char on 12/5/08

Mishe:-You are so clever but you forget the JEWS HIS PEOPLE rejected HIM"the corner stone"they are still waiting for the messiah. They missed the boat as you do.Jesus established His kingdom through PETER Matt16,13-19 or do you not TRUST HIS WORD.You still do not explain how 73books Holy Bible =66 OT.+ KJV.or 46 OT books in the word =39 in 'your" improvised list in your Tanakh which when I checked it said that they were"Incorrectly Known as the Old testament"Be my guest enter Tanakh on the search engine on this post and read it for yourself.Ashley is more correct than you are.
---Mic on 12/4/08

mic, where do you think the Old testament came from?
It existed well before the RCC did.
Through Judaism- JEWS- Israelites- Gods chosen people BEFORE Christ came.
HELLO!!!! Open your eyes brother.
Where do you think the RCC Got those books from? They sure didn't just fall out of the sky.
The OT is the prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ, brother. The NT is a compilation of the way Jesus wants us to live. The NT tells his story and gives us examples of HOW we as Christians are suppose to walk after Christ.
Think on this, the Jews crucified Christ because they didn't realize He was the Messiah that was prophesied in the OT.
---miche3754 on 12/4/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling

Mische :-If there were no missing Books then where is the Arguement and WHY is there a difference in numberYou say 66 WE say 73 sinple arithmetic says a difference of 7which are Machabees BK1-BK2-Ecclestiasticus(Sirach)Ecclestastes.LISTEN to the audacity(Luther undid the damage that The Rcc.did to Gods word) He removes the books and a child of his softens the the blow by her Audacious statement.Yet the books remain in the Catholic bibles and the KJV is deficient 7.In Gods word, in whose interest?LIES personified!!!
---Mic on 12/3/08

Mische::-The truth is with God NOT man who has learnt to sugarcoat the truth.But you may believe your interpretation of GOOD. There is nothing to forgive "a man/woman convinced against his/her will is of the same opinion still.Blessings Mische.
---Mic on 12/3/08

I googled Tanakh and got another truth that these books did creep into the OT and were spurious.The Catholic church is not affialiated to the society of Juadism.Try it yourself.
---Mic on 12/3/08

"There has never been any missing books. (God knew where they were). And Luther never tossed (The good ones) out. It was the RCC that added them (the bad ones) in!
The Jews never accepted them. They knew them well! They were written between the 400 years God did not speak to His people, from Malachi to Zacharias, John the Baptist father. John being the last and the Greatest of the OT prophets."

mike, this is so true.
But mic just doesn't seem to get it that the RCC ADDED books to the OT and Chose which books would be admitted to the NT.
It is okay, though, I can forgive and forget just as God asks me to.
---miche3754 on 12/3/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief

I have done some research and I find that you are correct. The Original OT (Tanakh) that Christ would have read is listed below. They are broken down into 3 sections-

Torah (teaching)-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

Neviim (Prophets) - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings 1 & 2, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)

Ketuvim (Writings)- Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah,
Chronicles 1 & 2

If you are reading anything else added to the OT, it is not from God.
Luther undid the damage the RCC did to God's Word in the OT.
---miche3754 on 12/1/08

There has never been any missing books. (God knew where they were). And Luther never tossed (The good ones) out. It was the RCC that added them (the bad ones) in!

The Jews never accepted them. They knew them well! They were written between the 400 years God did not speak to His people, from Malachi to Zacharias, John the Baptist father. John being the last and the Greatest of the OT prophets.

The Apocrapha is full of inaccuracies, Authors that could not be substantuated, and stories that were void of Spiritual meaning. The honest, truth seeking scholars never accepted them.
---Mike356 on 11/30/08

There are 23 missing books from the bible that are mentioned by name. The book of Jasher, the book of the wars of the lord, etc. The jewish nation believes in 24 books, most christians follow the bible that contains 66 books and the catholic church believes in 74, that also includes the apocrapha. I have never heard of many of the books mentioned here and I have read the bible from cover to cover many times. Are you making this stuff up as you go? If people actually read the word of God instead of following evil men in blindness, believing everything carnal and devilish men say, you would learn something and many questions wouldn't have to be asked.
---ashley on 11/29/08

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.