A learned men of God should kindly assist with a mature response.

Why the seven books have left out from other denomination Christians bibles?

Why the holy book as you claim will be into a different version?

And which Bible are we to believe as authentic?

chakula:
A learned men of God should kindly assist with a mature response.

Why the seven books have left out from other denomination Christians bibles?

Why the holy book as you claim will be into a different version?

And which Bible are we to believe as authentic?

According to Pastor Chris Oyakhilome, those books were not connected to Jesus Christ from the old testament to the new as the others, therefore, they are not as important .

Mariangeles:
According to Pastor Chris Oyakhilome, those books were not connected to Jesus Christ from the old testament to the new as the others, therefore, they are not as important .

...
When it comes to authority in biblical matters, who is pastor Chris

Mariangeles:
According to Pastor Chris Oyakhilome, those books were not connected to Jesus Christ from the old testament to the new as the others, therefore, they are not as important .

Great! But Brother remember Bible is a word of God and no any human that has a right to add or remove a single word in it. Kindly if you have a chance meet the pastor and ask him the guinea reason behind its removal.

Uyi168:
...
When it comes to authority in biblical matters, who is pastor Chris

My thought Exactly.

chakula:


Great! But Brother remember Bible is a word of God and no any human that has a right to add or remove a single word in it. Kindly if you have a chance meet the pastor and ask him the guinea reason behind its removal.

The word of God is vast. More than what is translated.

The originals are written in Hebrew and Greek.
It's impossible to record all in one book .

Mariangeles:
The word of God is vast. More than what is translated.

The originals are written in Hebrew and Greek.
It's impossible to record all in one book .

Very possible because the Catholics have managed to record it in its entirety. Other denominations should manage to do so.

some of those books never mate the standard.e.g the book of Baruch (stand to be corrected with the spellings) was a Secretary to prophet Jeremiah, ask yourself if you have a book by the prophet and one by his secretary who's book should be considered authentic or who among the two was inspired?

payosehtor:
some of those books never mate the standard.e.g the book of Baruch (stand to be corrected with the spellings) was a Secretary to prophet Jeremiah, ask yourself if you have a book by the prophet and one by his secretary who's book should be considered authentic or who among the two was inspired?

The prophet's book will be considered and that is fact. However, you mentioned that there are some that aren't up to standard, so what make them not to meet the requirement of standardisation? If the other books are correct why only these seven aren't worthy to work with? Sir kindly go for research and find out the reason behind the omission.

payosehtor:
some of those books never mate the standard.e.g the book of Baruch (stand to be corrected with the spellings) was a Secretary to prophet Jeremiah, ask yourself if you have a book by the prophet and one by his secretary who's book should be considered authentic or who among the two was inspired?

I'd still like to read both. The Story of Susanna is after all a good lesson against stoning women for adultery, and Daniel and the Priests of Bel might make some poor.

Both are in the "New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved" as seen at the bottom of both pages. I wonder why remove it.

payosehtor:
some of those books never mate the standard.e.g the book of Baruch (stand to be corrected with the spellings) was a Secretary to prophet Jeremiah, ask yourself if you have a book by the prophet and one by his secretary who's book should be considered authentic or who among the two was inspired?

Who set the standard abeg? was mark and luke not disciples of peter and paul and yet they have 2 gospels and 1 epistle between them a total of 3 books.

Should we throw those book out because they arent the original apostles?

chakula:
A learned men of God should kindly assist with a mature response.

Why the seven books have left out from other denomination Christians bibles?

Why the holy book as you claim will be into a different version?

And which Bible are we to believe as authentic?

they were removed by the founder of protestantism Martin Luther in the 16th century because some of those books were against his doctrines.

So he stopped using the Christian accepted 7 books a chose the jewish canon instead. Martin luther also didnt like the book of james becos it was against his teaching, he called it a book of straws but he couldnt find an excuse to dump it. For the 7 books he had an excuse the mainstream jew after d distruction of the bible werent using them.

Ubenedictus:
they were removed by the founder of protestantism Martin Luther in the 16th century because some of those books were against his doctrines.

So he stopped using the Christian accepted 7 books a chose the jewish canon instead. Martin luther also didnt like the book of james becos it was against his teaching, he called it a book of straws but he couldnt find an excuse to dump it. For the 7 books he had an excuse the mainstream jew after d distruction of the bible werent using them.

Your response is very close to the trust which many Christians won't tell you.

But this Martin of a man who gave an authority to temper with God words? And why the then Christians failed to take action and must make sure such practice has do away with it?

It will be a big slap in the face of Christians for working with Bible as holy book while a mere mortal has tempered with it and no action has been taken.

budaatum:

I'd still like to read both. The Story of Susanna is after all a good lesson against stoning women for adultery, and Daniel and the Priests of Bel might make some poor.

I wonder why remove it.

I am very surprised. How comes what was revealed by Almighty God can be seen as something wrong. If we are sincere enough nothing will be thrown away from the holy book and consider it complete rather looking forward for its returning.

Ubenedictus:
Who set the standard abeg? was mark and luke not disciples of peter and paul and yet they have 2 gospels and 1 epistle between them a total of 3 books.

Should we throw those book out because they arent the original apostles?

A honest and sincere response.

chakula:


I am very surprised. How comes what was revealed by Almighty God can be seen as something wrong. If we are sincere enough nothing will be thrown away from the holy book and consider it complete rather looking forward for its returning.

we are missing things here! first bible of today were written a script, a scroll or parchment before it was compiled to be in a single book! in 4 centuries AD when they compiled the bible a decree was made by then ceaser Constantine and many scrolls were examined, more than 1000 scriptures were gathered but only the few were compiled together while others were burnt and the remain were kept in the Vatican archive. in Ethiopian Coptic bible contains more than 88 or 100 books . if you doubt it google is your friend.

payosehtor:
some of those books never mate the standard.e.g the book of Baruch (stand to be corrected with the spellings) was a Secretary to prophet Jeremiah, ask yourself if you have a book by the prophet and one by his secretary who's book should be considered authentic or who among the two was inspired?

roman Catholic were the first to compile bible in a single book and then all these 7books op was talking about were there from the beginning but the protestant removed them other Christians except Catholic make use of Protestant bible now. there were many books written by Paul that were not added to this bible today it was a strict law and the harshness of his rules so the synod's then removed it from the reading so that it won't cause severe division in the future

jcross19:
we are missing things here! first bible of today were written a script, a scroll or parchment before it was compiled to be in a single book! in 4 centuries AD when they compiled the bible a decree was made by then ceaser Constantine and many scrolls were examined, more than 1000 scriptures were gathered but only the few were compiled together while others were burnt and the remain were kept in the Vatican archive. in Ethiopian Coptic bible contains more than 88 or 100 books . if you doubt it google is your friend.

Fine. But what matters here is some Christians denominations aren't believe or agree with some of these books rather seeing them as fabrication. What is your take on this?

jcross19:
roman Catholic were the first to compile bible in a single book and then all these 7books op was talking about were there from the beginning but the protestant removed them other Christians except Catholic make use of Protestant bible now. there were many books written by Paul that were not added to this bible today it was a strict law and the harshness of his rules so the synod's then removed it from the reading so that it won't cause severe division in the future

No doubt that the Catholics in Christendom are the set of people who are using the original manuscript of the Bible and worthy to be emulated. The Other bibles should either be banned or make an adjustment in order to meet the requirements of that of Catholics.

chakula:


Fine. But what matters here is some Christians denominations aren't believe or agree with some of these books rather seeing them as fabrication. What is your take on this?

yes! even the book of Enoch was seen as fabrication by Catholic while book of Jude quoted from the same book of Enoch. they have the right to choose any book that suite their doctrine or dogma but I think as far what they chose teaches salvation or way of the cross. mind you other Christian chose from what Catholic release to them.

chakula:


Your response is very close to the trust which many Christians won't tell you.

But this Martin of a man who gave an authority to temper with God words? And why the then Christians failed to take action and must make sure such practice has do away with it?

It will be a big slap in the face of Christians for working with Bible as holy book while a mere mortal has tempered with it and no action has been taken.

he had no authority to do it but he did it any way.
martin luther was excommunicated but he had political support and so continued his thing.

Some others like john calvin and co joined him and replicated some of his teaching.

Those guys began the protestant communities, and so protestants use their books

jcross19:
we are missing things here! first bible of today were written a script, a scroll or parchment before it was compiled to be in a single book! in 4 centuries AD when they compiled the bible a decree was made by then ceaser Constantine and many scrolls were examined, more than 1000 scriptures were gathered but only the few were compiled together while others were burnt and the remain were kept in the Vatican archive. in Ethiopian Coptic bible contains more than 88 or 100 books . if you doubt it google is your friend.

have you seen the original list compiled in the 4th century? because i have seen it, all those 7 book were among from the 4th century
Google council of hippo.

The reason the ethopians have over 80 books is becos they kept adding more books since the canon was not closed.

Ubenedictus:
they were removed by the founder of protestantism Martin Luther in the 16th century because some of those books were against his doctrines.

So he stopped using the Christian accepted 7 books a chose the jewish canon instead. Martin luther also didnt like the book of james becos it was against his teaching, he called it a book of straws but he couldnt find an excuse to dump it. For the 7 books he had an excuse the mainstream jew after d distruction of the bible werent using them.

Yeah, Martin's theology contradicted them. Therefore, he declared them to be non-authoritative. Just like he tried to do with a bit of the New Testament (that whole sola scriptura thing is harder to take seriously when you think about how he got there by dropping the bits that he disagreed with). They must have been eventually dropped off in the end to save on printing costs

Ubenedictus:
have you seen the original list compiled in the 4th century? because i have seen it, all those 7 book were among from the 4th century
Google council of hippo.

The reason the ethopians have over 80 books is becos they kept adding more books since the canon was not closed.

that's what am saying! the 7books were there in the beginning but removed later by some set of Christian. the issue is that most of Christian doctrine and written today were orchestrated by roman empires which form the roman Catholic.

IAmSabrina:

Yeah, Martin's theology contradicted them. Therefore, he declared them to be non-authoritative. They must have been eventually dropped off in the end to save on printing costs

Ma, when we are discussing God and his words a mere mortal won't be taken serious to believe in his garbage.

This Martin of a man happened to be not the originator of the books neither should the books revealed to him.

So considering him as the person in charge to authenticate some books is highly not acceptable.

Words of God are very expensive and are also things to mould our attitudes and characters, therefore I don't see any reason to claimed cost in printing them.

chakula:


Ma, when we are discussing God and his words a mere mortal won't be taken serious to believe in his garbage.

This Martin of a man happened to be not the originator of the books neither should the books revealed to him.

So considering him as the person in charge to authenticate some books is highly not acceptable.

Words of God are very expensive and are also things to mould our attitudes and characters, therefore I don't see any reason to claimed cost in printing them.

Someone can't joke again @bolded

Nawa 4 u christians o

IAmSabrina:

Someone can't joke again @bolded

Nawa 4 u christians o

jcross19:
roman Catholic were the first to compile bible in a single book and then all these 7books op was talking about were there from the beginning but the protestant removed them other Christians except Catholic make use of Protestant bible now. there were many books written by Paul that were not added to this bible today it was a strict law and the harshness of his rules so the synod's then removed it from the reading so that it won't cause severe division in the future

I like the perspective you looked at it.I mentioned "standard" from my first comment and took the back seat cuz the issue is such a serious one that need no logical answer
CHAKUL.A asked me "who set the standard that disqualified the the other 7 books?" let me do some research while I hear from others

payosehtor:
I like the perspective you looked at it.I mentioned "standard" from my first comment and took the back seat cuz the issue is such a serious one that need no logical answer
CHAKUL.A asked me "who set the standard that disqualified the the other 7 books?" let me do some research while I hear from others

it was group of church elders headed by martin Luther I think so.

jcross19:
roman Catholic were the first to compile bible in a single book and then all these 7books op was talking about were there from the beginning but the protestant removed them other Christians except Catholic make use of Protestant bible now. there were many books written by Paul that were not added to this bible today it was a strict law and the harshness of his rules so the synod's then removed it from the reading so that it won't cause severe division in the future

Actually all the ancient churches still use those 7 book, the oriental, the orthodox and the the catholic communion. it is the protestants and post 16th century churches that dont use them

jcross19:
it was group of church elders headed by martin Luther I think so.

It was martin luther and martin luther and martin luther, he didnt call a council for consultation he decided this on his own and others followed.