Hi i just want someone to answer me this question, why did king James feel the need to omit 5 books from the original bible? and is this not in clear violation of Johns warning at the end of the original codex litanum. 18 This is my solemn attestation to all who hear the prophecies in this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him every plague mentioned in the book;

19 if anyone cuts anything out of the prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are described in the book.

The only books that King James didn't include are simply the uncananised and uninspired books which has no messianic content

who told you those books were not canonised? for your information 73 books were canonised at the council of hippo and carthage in 393 CE and 397 CE respectively and not the 66 books that is commonly bandied about

Only the books that met the canonization requirements were recompiled by King James. When you read the history of King James and the publication, you will see that all the books that were extracted were smuggled into the original bible by the Roman Governments, this was revisited for the truth to prevail. If you look at the books like; the Book of Baruch,Book of Esdras,Book of Judith,Book of Maccabees,Book of Susanna e.t.c you'll see that they are some how controversial when measured by the standard of canonization requirements.

Joagbaje:

The only books that King James didn't include are simply the uncananised and uninspired books which has no messianic content

SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT THOSE BOOKS THAT WHERE SUPPORTED BY OVER A THOUSAND EARLY BISHOPS AND CHURCH LEADERS WAS INSPIRED AND CANONIZED ENOUGH FOR A POMPOUS ENGLISH KING? GREAT MEN OF GOD LIKE ST AUGUSTINE SOUGHT INSPIRATION FROM THOSE UNINSPIRED BOOKS, SO HOW CAN AN UPSTART LIKE KING JAMES CREATE HIS OWN VERSION OF THE TRUTH.

Only the books that met the canonization requirements were recompiled by King James. When you read the history of King James and the publication, you will see that all the books that were extracted were smuggled into the original bible by the Roman Governments, this was revisited for the truth to prevail. If you look at the books like; the Book of Baruch,Book of Esdras,Book of Judith,Book of Maccabees,Book of Susanna e.t.c you'll see that they are some how controversial when measured by the standard of canonization requirements

what do know about Original Bible,FYI The bible did not exist until the fourth century when they were compiled by the RCC and not the roman government.The original bible upon canonisation had 73 books and not 66.


What exactly is controversial about the books you just mentioned,have you heard anything about the septuagint and the dead sea scrolls which validate the authenticity of these books

What exactly is controversial about the books you just mentioned,have you heard anything about the septuagint and the dead sea scrolls which validate the authenticity of these books

I advice you read and compare those books objectively, then you will understand. Many of the books were duplicates of what others have written. So those choice were those that were written earlier and those written by direct and close associates of the Christ Apostles.
However, in as much as I will not want to engage in arguments, I feel the most important things is that Jesus Christ is the way the truth and life. no one gets to the father except through him. This is wht the scripture set to established. Are you born again?

I advice you read and compare those books objectively, then you will understand. Many of the books were duplicates of what others have written. So those choice were those that were written earlier and those written by direct and close associates of the Christ Apostles

All the books you mentioned were written long before the apostles were born.Talking about duplicating almost the entire gospels weer regurgitation of what other gospels writers had written.Also the books of 1,2 samuel,1,2 kings and 1,2 chronicles were also repeating themselves,Should they also be regarded ans apostate scriptures for that same reason.

Are you born again?

every baptised christian is ,so yes I am

All the books you mentioned were written long before the apostles were born.Talking about duplicating almost the entire gospels weer regurgitation of what other gospels writers had written.Also the books of 1,2 samuel,1,2 kings and 1,2 chronicles were also repeating themselves,Should they also be regarded ans apostate scriptures for that same reason.

The point here is that, most of this books were from sources that are far away from the stories they wrote. From their contents, you will find out that most of the writers are not in anyway closer to the original stories in that they say most of their view like tales by moonlight. This cannot be acceptble than the once written by soources that are more direct to the scene.

This is a link about the origin of the bible, very interessting, i highly recommend everybody to partake of it.

http://www.alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

Hi i just want someone to answer me this question, why did king James feel the need to omit 5 books from the original bible? and is this not in clear violation of Johns warning at the end of the original codex litanum. 18 This is my solemn attestation to all who hear the prophecies in this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him every plague mentioned in the book;

19 if anyone cuts anything out of the prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are described in the book.

This passage can not refer to the whole bible as it was not compiled as we know it today and must therefore only refer to the book of revelation.

In the same way 2 Tim 3:16 can not refer to the NT as it didnt exist at the time, more likely it refers to the Septuagint and therefore it is obvious that Luther threw out 7 inspired books from the scripture.