₦airaland Forum

Why Were Some Books Left Out of the Bible?
Clinton E. Arnold — April 19, 2016

The following post is a chapter from Short Answers to Big Questions about God, the Bible, and Christianity, co-authored by Dr. Clinton E. Arnold (Dean of Talbot School of Theology) and his son, Jeff Arnold.

A few years ago, the National Geographic Society announced the discovery of a lost gospel called the Gospel of Judas . Every major news outlet covered this event, with some hailing it as the discovery of the century. The Society then aired a television special on the Friday before Easter telling the story of this great find and discussing its significance. This discovery raised many questions for people, but especially two of a critical nature for the Christian faith: (1) why were some books left out of the Bible (like the
Gospel of Judas ), and (2) should we consider including other books in the Bible?

The Gospel of Judas was a great discovery, but it was not a big surprise. The famous second-century church leader Irenaeus actually mentions this so-called gospel in his book, Against All Heresies . The Gospel of Judas was not written in Greek (as every New Testament book), but in an Egyptian language known as Coptic. It was also composed after the New Testament was written. More importantly, it was part of a collection of documents belonging to another religion called gnosticism. The gnostics looked down on physical life and taught a belief in two gods—the Creator God that we know about through Genesis 1, but also a secret, hidden, unknown god that exists in the kingdom of light. It is this unknown god that gnosticism claims to reveal. At the heart of the Gospel of Judas is a revelation of this unknown god.
The Problem of People Wanting to Add to the Bible
Irenaeus explicitly said that the gnostics wrote many different gospels and books, but he, along with all other church leaders of the second through fourth centuries, regarded them as grossly inaccurate and harmful in what they taught. He warned, “They adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.” [1] It is from this religion—a religion that is quite different from Christianity—that so many spiritual books were written that are now sometimes referred to as “the lost books of the Bible.” Although it may be rather obvious that the
Gospel of Judas should not be part of the Bible, what about other books?
At various points in the history of the church, individuals have emerged who have challenged what books should be in the Bible—either by wanting to eliminate some or to add others. The important point here is that the churches already knew what the books of the Bible were; these were the ones they were already using in their teaching and worship. These books had just not been officially recognized.
The Problem of People Wanting to Take Books Out of the Bible
One of the earliest challenges to the commonly recognized collection of books that the churches were using as Scripture came from a man named Marcion. He was a wealthy and prominent church leader who lived in the early second century AD in a coastal city of northern Asia Minor (today this is in the country of Turkey). He was passionate about the writings of the apostle Paul but had a very skewed idea of what they taught. Ultimately, he advocated that only ten letters of the apostle Paul should be accepted as Scripture as well as the Gospel of Luke; all others should be rejected (including the Old Testament). Because of his wealth and influence, the churches of the Mediterranean world had to respond. This challenge became a huge motivation for the churches to declare formally and publicly what books they had already been using as Scripture.
The Early Church’s Recognition of God’s Word
So, as early as the second century AD, the church began developing the concept of the
canon of Scripture to distinguish those books that were regarded as inspired by God and thus carried divine authority. The term comes from Greek where it commonly meant a “rule” or a “standard” and came to be applied to the standard books that made up the Bible. The eminent Princeton scholar Bruce Metzger noted that Marcion’s challenge was “accelerating the process of fixing the Church’s canon, a process that had already begun in the first half of the second century.” [2]
By the time of Jesus, the thirty-nine books that constituted the Hebrew Bible (what we call the Old Testament) were widely recognized within Judaism as the Bible. Because of that, Jesus could cite from various books of the Old Testament by simply referring to them as a coherent and unified whole called “the Scriptures” (see, for example, Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56).
As for the twenty-seven books that we know as the New Testament, these were formally recognized as the canon of Scripture in the second through the fourth centuries. The apostle Peter himself referred to the letters of Paul as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15–16). In one of the earliest church documents written after the final New Testament book was completed, the Gospel of Mark is cited as “Scripture” ( 2 Clement 2:4). The earliest church leaders regularly quote passages from the various New Testament documents giving them authority as divine revelation in a way that distinguishes them from any other writings.
It is important to realize, though, that from the moment the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written, they were copied and circulated throughout the extent of the world where churches had been planted—Israel, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. They began to be used regularly by the churches for teaching, worship, and devotion. The same can be said about the collection of the letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John as well as the letter to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. They were rapidly copied, distributed to the churches, and in constant use as documents that were inspired by God and essential for the growth and nurture of believers. Wherever churches had been planted, believers were reading and using these documents as the revealed Word of God.
What this means is that there was no one individual who privately made a decision regarding what should be in the Bible . Or, similarly, there was no group of individuals who made such a decision and then imposed their decree upon all of the churches . In fact, the process happened in precisely the opposite manner. The gatherings of church leaders who produced official lists of New Testament books were formally recognizing what the churches all over the world had already recognized and were using as the inspired and authoritative Scriptures. As Metzger notes, “The Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents.” [3]
How the Church Recognized What Was Scripture
The influence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of the early Christians was the primary factor influencing what particular documents the individual churches began to use as inspired and authoritative Scripture. But there were also some objective and rational standards:
(1) Apostolic origin (from the Apostles) . From the very beginning, Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). Originally, their teaching was spread orally, but once this teaching was written down, churches obtained copies of these documents as soon as they could and used them as the very Word of God for their beliefs and practice. (2) Orthodoxy . The churches rejected out of hand any document that did not conform to the collection of essential teachings that all of the churches accepted. (3) Usage . In the third and fourth centuries, no book was regarded as Scripture unless it had been widely used by the churches from the beginning. Of course, this latter standard rules out the possibility that any document can or should be added to the Bible now.
So, when it comes to considering whether a newly discovered document like the Gospel of Judas should be made part of the Bible, it fails on every ground. Although it claims to be from Judas (one of the Twelve), there are good historical reasons for concluding that it did not (not least of which is that Judas hung himself shortly after he betrayed Jesus, who was then crucified; Matt. 27:5). Furthermore, the teaching of this book is gnostic and contradicts most essential Christian doctrines. And, finally, it was never used by the church and was actually condemned.
There are no other books that should be considered as part of the Bible. Even if, theoretically, an authentic letter from the apostle Paul should be discovered, as awesome as such a discovery might be, we would not consider making it part of the Bible. It was simply not used by all the churches over time.
What we currently possess in our Bibles is the completed canon of Scripture . It is exactly as God intended it and is the living, active, and powerful Word of God.
This post is an excerpt from Clinton E. Arnold and Jeff Arnold, Short Answers to Big Questions about God, the Bible & Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015).
Notes
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.20.1.
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 99.
Ibid., 285.

DOCTRINE Aren’t some of the books of the Bible lost or missing?

Another fairly common misconception about the Bible is that it is in some way incomplete, i.e., that it has books missing. The 66 books that compose the modern Bible are known as the “canon,” a theological word that means, “the books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.” Some doubters of the Bible think church councils constructed the Bible by arbitrarily choosing the books they thought should be included.
Furthermore, these people often assert there are many other books that should be in the Bible. These are sometimes referred to as the “lost books” of the Bible.

Before addressing the issue of whether or not any God-breathed books were left out of the Bible, I would like to make a personal observation. In my years in the ministry I have had the opportunity to personally speak with perhaps twenty people who subscribe to the theory that there are lost books of the Bible, and I have noticed something interesting: those who criticize the Bible by claiming it is incomplete do not conduct their lives according to the books that are included in the Bible. This is hypocritical because if the Bible is missing books, then the parts we do have become even more valuable. If pirates have most of a treasure map, they do not throw it out because it is missing a piece. Instead, the part they have becomes even more valuable, and they study it with great intensity. Critics of the canon do not live by the books that are included in Scripture. Almost without exception they use the theory of the “missing books” to ignore the Bible altogether. It is clear to me they are not trying to restore a faulty document. Instead, they are looking for an excuse to ignore the Bible, and they find that excuse by questioning the canon.
The Church did not “create” the canon as the critics assert; rather, they recognized it. From the time God first spoke His Word to people and told them to write it down, there have been other writings that were not “God-breathed.” There were enough books circulating in the ancient world that Ecclesiastes, which was written more than 900 years before Christ, says, “…Of making many books there is no end…” (Eccles. 12:12). Some of the books existing in biblical times contained material substantiating Scripture. A few of these are mentioned in the Bible, including, “…the book of the annals of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41b), “…the annotations of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chron. 13:22b), and “…the annals of Jehu…” (2 Chron. 20:34b). Even though these books are mentioned in the Bible, and supported it, they are still not “God-breathed,” and are left out of the canon. They are lost to us today precisely because the people of the time knew they were not “God-breathed,” so they did not carefully preserve them and pass them down from generation to generation as they did with what they recognized to be the God-breathed Word.
Before “books” were invented, Scripture was kept on scrolls, pieces of rolled up parchment or leather. Scrolls existed centuries before what we today call a “book,” which is a number of pages bound together on one side. Book format came into common use around the time of the writing of the New Testament. Since the pages could be written on both sides, paper was conserved, and books were easier to read from and carry than scrolls. Before the book format, the larger writings, or “books,” of the Bible (such as Genesis, Joshua, Jeremiah, etc.) were usually kept on individual scrolls, and it was customary to write several of the smaller books (such as Joel, Amos, Obadiah, etc.) on one scroll.
The fact that Scripture existed on scrolls has been used by people who criticize the canon. They try to make it seem as if all the scrolls of the Bible, as well as dozens of others, were just “floating around the Christian world” until some Church committee, hundreds of years after Christ, decided to put some of them together and make one official book. That is not what happened. By the time the individual books of the Bible were bound together as one book, they had been read, revered, loved, preserved, and recognized by generations of believers as truly being “the words of God.” In contrast, the non-canonical books were recognized in the community of believers as not being from the mouth of God.
God had the whole Bible in mind when He first told Moses to write His words on a scroll, translated “book” in most versions (Exod. 17:14). The writings of Moses were known as “…the Book of the Law of Moses…” (Josh. 8:31). The fact that the Law of Moses was recognized to be “the words of God” throughout Israel’s history, including the time of Christ, shows that the books recognized by the people were carefully preserved and handed down, not just as history or nice prose, but as the Word of God. The same was true for the psalms of David, the proverbs of Solomon, the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, etc. By the time Church councils undertook the task of compiling all the loose books into a single volume, those considered as “the Word of God” were well known and loved in the Christian community.
There are reliable tests that have been used to determine whether or not a book is a part of the canon, such as:
Was the book originally written by a confirmed prophet of God?
Does the message contain the truth of God?
Does it have in it the power of God to change a person’s life?
Was it accepted by the people of God? Those alive at the time the book was written were the best qualified to know and preserve it and pass it down.
There is a very good reason why Christians do not include the “lost books” in the Bible—they are not Holy Scripture. The people who wrote them were not accepted as “holy men of God” in their own generations, as were Moses, Samuel, and other biblical writers. Furthermore, reading and studying the non-canonical books shows they are not “God-breathed.” They were not accepted as the Word of God at the time they were written. They are full of historical inaccuracies, fanciful stories, outright falsehoods, and contradictions with the rest of the canon. Since the average Christian has probably heard of the “lost books” of the Bible, but more than likely has never read any selections from them, inserting a section here from one of the more popular apocryphal writings is appropriate. The following is an excerpt from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
1. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell and make known to you all, brethren from among the Gentiles, all the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, which he did when he was born in our land. The beginning is as follows.
2. 1. When this boy Jesus was five years old he was playing at the ford of a brook, and he gathered together into pools the water that flowed by, and made it at once clean, and commanded it by his word alone. 2. He made soft clay and fashioned from it twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did this. And there were also many other children playing with him. 3. Now when a certain Jew saw what Jesus was doing in his play on the Sabbath, he at once went and told his father Joseph: “See, your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve birds and has profaned the Sabbath.” 4. And when Joseph came to the place and saw (it), he cried out to him, saying: “Why do you do on the Sabbath what ought not to be done?” But Jesus clapped his hands and cried to the sparrows: “Off with you!” And the sparrows took flight and went away chirping. 5. The Jews were amazed when they saw this, and went away and told their elders what they had seen Jesus do.
3. 1. But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and (with it) dispersed the water which Jesus had gathered together. 2. When Jesus saw what he had done he was enraged and said to him: “You insolent godless dunderhead, what harm did the pools and the water do to you? See, now you also shall wither like a tree and shall bear neither leaves nor root nor fruit.” 3. And immediately that lad withered up completely; and Jesus departed and went into Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him away, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph and reproached him: “What a child you have, who does such things.”
4. 1. After this again he went through the village, and a lad ran and knocked against his shoulder. Jesus was exasperated and said to him: “You shall not go further on your way,” and the child immediately fell down and died. But some, who saw what took place, said: “From where does this child spring, since his every word is an accomplished deed?” 2. And the parents of the dead child came to Joseph and blamed him and said: “Since you have such a child, you cannot dwell with us in the village; or else teach him to bless and not to curse. For he is slaying our children.”
5. 1. And Joseph called the child aside and admonished him saying: “Why do you do such things that these people (must) suffer and hate us and persecute us?” But Jesus replied: “I know that these words are not yours; nevertheless for your sake I will be silent. But they shall bear their punishment.” And immediately those who had accursed him became blind. [1]
Anyone familiar with the Four Gospels and the character of Jesus will realize immediately that the above “gospel” is not a part of the God-breathed Word, and certainly does not represent the love or wonderful heart of the Savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus, even as a child, would kill another child who insulted him is completely out of character for Jesus, and that he would kill a second child who merely bumped into his shoulder is totally preposterous.
The “lost books” are also known for containing accounts of miracles that have no godly purpose or redeeming value, such as we saw above with Jesus and the sparrows. The “Gospel of Thomas,” and all the other non-canonical books have “fatal flaws” that reveal they are not the Word of God. As stated previously, there is a reason the “lost books” are not included in the canon of Scripture: generations of Christians and Christian scholars have read them and realized they did not come from God.
Another way God has kept His Word pure is by intertwining and cross-referencing the books of the Bible and the biblical characters. With the exception of the book of Esther, every single book of the Old Testament is either quoted or referred to in the New Testament. The phrase “It is written,” followed by a quotation or reference to the Old Testament occurs more than 60 times in the New Testament, and there are many other quotations that are not so specifically referenced. Also, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament many of the writers knew of each other and even referred to each other. Daniel and Ezra both mention Jeremiah; Ezra refers to Haggai and Zechariah; Nehemiah wrote about Ezra; Kings and Chronicles mention many of the prophets; Moses, Joshua, and Samuel are mentioned in many of the books; Job is mentioned in Ezekiel and James; Noah is mentioned in ten books besides Genesis; Peter wrote about Paul; Paul mentions Peter, Mark, and Luke; the book of Acts (written by Luke) mentions the apostles and Paul, and on and on. In contrast to this extensive cross-referencing system showing that the people of God knew of, loved, and respected each other, the non-canonical books are not crossed referenced in this way.
It is easy for the critic to say the Bible is an arbitrary collection of books. However, anyone who actually reads and studies the canon of Scripture will be able to conclude what thousands of scholars who are concerned about the purity of the Bible and the validity of the canon have discovered and rediscovered: the canon found in the modern protestant versions of the Bible, with 66 books from Genesis to Revelation, can be confidently trusted as “the Word of God.”
Endnotes
[1] Hennecke, Edgar, New Testament Apocrypha (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 392-394.

Is someone trying to call the first version of King James Bible fraudulent? It included the Apocrypha too o


Please somebody, help me check 1611 King James Bible.

After all, some people have been shouting King James version is the best version of the Bible

An entertaining battle so far between the pots and the kettles.

Seated:
Why Were Some Books Left Out of the Bible?
Clinton E. Arnold — April 19, 2016

The following post is a chapter from Short Answers to Big Questions about God, the Bible, and Christianity, co-authored by Dr. Clinton E. Arnold (Dean of Talbot School of Theology) and his son, Jeff Arnold.

A few years ago, the National Geographic Society announced the discovery of a lost gospel called the Gospel of Judas . Every major news outlet covered this event, with some hailing it as the discovery of the century. The Society then aired a television special on the Friday before Easter telling the story of this great find and discussing its significance. This discovery raised many questions for people, but especially two of a critical nature for the Christian faith: (1) why were some books left out of the Bible (like the
Gospel of Judas ), and (2) should we consider including other books in the Bible?

The Gospel of Judas was a great discovery, but it was not a big surprise. The famous second-century church leader Irenaeus actually mentions this so-called gospel in his book, Against All Heresies . The Gospel of Judas was not written in Greek (as every New Testament book), but in an Egyptian language known as Coptic. It was also composed after the New Testament was written. More importantly, it was part of a collection of documents belonging to another religion called gnosticism. The gnostics looked down on physical life and taught a belief in two gods—the Creator God that we know about through Genesis 1, but also a secret, hidden, unknown god that exists in the kingdom of light. It is this unknown god that gnosticism claims to reveal. At the heart of the Gospel of Judas is a revelation of this unknown god.
The Problem of People Wanting to Add to the Bible
Irenaeus explicitly said that the gnostics wrote many different gospels and books, but he, along with all other church leaders of the second through fourth centuries, regarded them as grossly inaccurate and harmful in what they taught. He warned, “They adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.” [1] It is from this religion—a religion that is quite different from Christianity—that so many spiritual books were written that are now sometimes referred to as “the lost books of the Bible.” Although it may be rather obvious that the
Gospel of Judas should not be part of the Bible, what about other books?
At various points in the history of the church, individuals have emerged who have challenged what books should be in the Bible—either by wanting to eliminate some or to add others. The important point here is that the churches already knew what the books of the Bible were; these were the ones they were already using in their teaching and worship. These books had just not been officially recognized.
The Problem of People Wanting to Take Books Out of the Bible
One of the earliest challenges to the commonly recognized collection of books that the churches were using as Scripture came from a man named Marcion. He was a wealthy and prominent church leader who lived in the early second century AD in a coastal city of northern Asia Minor (today this is in the country of Turkey). He was passionate about the writings of the apostle Paul but had a very skewed idea of what they taught. Ultimately, he advocated that only ten letters of the apostle Paul should be accepted as Scripture as well as the Gospel of Luke; all others should be rejected (including the Old Testament). Because of his wealth and influence, the churches of the Mediterranean world had to respond. This challenge became a huge motivation for the churches to declare formally and publicly what books they had already been using as Scripture.
The Early Church’s Recognition of God’s Word
So, as early as the second century AD, the church began developing the concept of the
canon of Scripture to distinguish those books that were regarded as inspired by God and thus carried divine authority. The term comes from Greek where it commonly meant a “rule” or a “standard” and came to be applied to the standard books that made up the Bible. The eminent Princeton scholar Bruce Metzger noted that Marcion’s challenge was “accelerating the process of fixing the Church’s canon, a process that had already begun in the first half of the second century.” [2]
By the time of Jesus, the thirty-nine books that constituted the Hebrew Bible (what we call the Old Testament) were widely recognized within Judaism as the Bible. Because of that, Jesus could cite from various books of the Old Testament by simply referring to them as a coherent and unified whole called “the Scriptures” (see, for example, Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56).
As for the twenty-seven books that we know as the New Testament, these were formally recognized as the canon of Scripture in the second through the fourth centuries. The apostle Peter himself referred to the letters of Paul as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15–16). In one of the earliest church documents written after the final New Testament book was completed, the Gospel of Mark is cited as “Scripture” ( 2 Clement 2:4). The earliest church leaders regularly quote passages from the various New Testament documents giving them authority as divine revelation in a way that distinguishes them from any other writings.
It is important to realize, though, that from the moment the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written, they were copied and circulated throughout the extent of the world where churches had been planted—Israel, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. They began to be used regularly by the churches for teaching, worship, and devotion. The same can be said about the collection of the letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John as well as the letter to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. They were rapidly copied, distributed to the churches, and in constant use as documents that were inspired by God and essential for the growth and nurture of believers. Wherever churches had been planted, believers were reading and using these documents as the revealed Word of God.
What this means is that there was no one individual who privately made a decision regarding what should be in the Bible . Or, similarly, there was no group of individuals who made such a decision and then imposed their decree upon all of the churches . In fact, the process happened in precisely the opposite manner. The gatherings of church leaders who produced official lists of New Testament books were formally recognizing what the churches all over the world had already recognized and were using as the inspired and authoritative Scriptures. As Metzger notes, “The Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents.” [3]
How the Church Recognized What Was Scripture
The influence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of the early Christians was the primary factor influencing what particular documents the individual churches began to use as inspired and authoritative Scripture. But there were also some objective and rational standards:
(1) Apostolic origin (from the Apostles) . From the very beginning, Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). Originally, their teaching was spread orally, but once this teaching was written down, churches obtained copies of these documents as soon as they could and used them as the very Word of God for their beliefs and practice. (2) Orthodoxy . The churches rejected out of hand any document that did not conform to the collection of essential teachings that all of the churches accepted. (3) Usage . In the third and fourth centuries, no book was regarded as Scripture unless it had been widely used by the churches from the beginning. Of course, this latter standard rules out the possibility that any document can or should be added to the Bible now.
So, when it comes to considering whether a newly discovered document like the Gospel of Judas should be made part of the Bible, it fails on every ground. Although it claims to be from Judas (one of the Twelve), there are good historical reasons for concluding that it did not (not least of which is that Judas hung himself shortly after he betrayed Jesus, who was then crucified; Matt. 27:5). Furthermore, the teaching of this book is gnostic and contradicts most essential Christian doctrines. And, finally, it was never used by the church and was actually condemned.
There are no other books that should be considered as part of the Bible. Even if, theoretically, an authentic letter from the apostle Paul should be discovered, as awesome as such a discovery might be, we would not consider making it part of the Bible. It was simply not used by all the churches over time.
What we currently possess in our Bibles is the completed canon of Scripture . It is exactly as God intended it and is the living, active, and powerful Word of God.
This post is an excerpt from Clinton E. Arnold and Jeff Arnold, Short Answers to Big Questions about God, the Bible & Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015).
Notes
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.20.1.
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 99.
Ibid., 285.

2 Peter 3:15-16 New International Version (NIV)
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. please I did not see where Peter called Paul letters "Scriptures" what am seeing is "other scriptures" but in that verse of 16 peter regard them as LETTERS.. don't quote out of point here.

All Abrahamic religious text are false, fake and counterintuitive.

The Christian bible isnt what it claims to be, instead its a bibliography; a compilation of religious text and typologies from all across the world, the contents of which have been plagiarised, directly copied, sexed-up or outrighly fabricated.

All the Abrahamic religious text arent to be taken seriously, they are known to peddle a false representation of history.

How does any of the Abrahamic religious text assist in defeating Colonisation and Oppression?

How?

Abrahamic religious text arent what they claims to be, instead they are bibliographies of various older religious text and typologies from all across the globe the contents of which have been repackaged, plagerised, sexed-up, or outrightly fabricated.

There isnt one character or storyline present in all of Abrahamic religious text that can claim to being original.

According to the current statistics, more than 50% of West Asians and Eurocentrics are neither Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Africans arent a guilty people, are relatively peaceful and unlike West Asia and Europe, have not been seen to disturb or distrupt human progress.

Africans are responsible for the progress of humanity more than any peoples on the planet.

The positive impact on human progress made by Africans and their descendants is more than the combined contribution of Asia, Australasia and Europe.

Most of Americas contribution to human progress are those of the African; from their Architectural to their Engineering and Eletrical technique pioneering to the modern day Science and Technology.

These are what Africans need to be reading and studying upon and not some manufactured histories coming outside of the Africa communities.

Keep hold onto your virtuousness, get rid of all the Abrahamic religions.

Just to be clear, i'm not here to blame the loveable, virtuous Christians or Muslims amongst us.

Trust me, a book with a thousand pages wouldnt contain the amount of genuinely nice, ethical and morally correct people that are known to me as adherents of the above faiths.

Ignorance isnt said to be bliss on its own accord, yet, once one is able to perceive truth then ignorance cannot be used as an excuse anymore.

Yet, the notion that the Jesus character is a real and genuine person is one of the greatest falsities in all of Abrahamic religious text.

The Romans manufactured Christianity and invented all their characters out of the plagerisation of older religious characters and concepts from all around the globe.


Anyone that studies history would instantly come to the conclusion that it makes no sense whatsoever for an African to be worshiping or honouring anything coming out of either Asia or Europe.


Lets take a look at a hyperthetical scenario below:

An armed robber loots belongings at the dead of night and returns the next morning preaching some goblydegook about how to become a virtuous human being.

For me, i would shoot the returning armed robber first and ask questions later. Never in a million years would i be willing to listen to his/her mumbojumbo about anything until my belongings are fully recovered.

Even after assuming the ability to succesfully recover ones's belongings, it would be counterintuitive and outrightly wrong to then be sourcing any sort of moral or ethical expeditions from such a thieving character.