Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why books were left out of the bible?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I am at a loss and alot of people never knew alot of books were left out of the bible. I mean why do people not mention these, I happen to stumble upon it while researching demons. Here is a bit of what I found:


The Apocrypha refer to texts which are left out of officially sanctioned versions ('canon') of the Bible. The term means 'things hidden away,' which implies secret or esoteric literature. However, none of these texts were ever considered secret.

In some Protestant Bibles, they are placed between the New and Old Testament. In the Roman Catholic Bibles the books are interspersed with the rest of the text. In this case they are also called 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' The books on this page are all Deuterocanonical.


Sacred-Texts

sacred-texts.com has all of the books online if anyone is interested.

There has to be every bit of over 20 or more books left out of the bible and give a whole lot more knowledge about life after death and Jesus descent into hell.

My biggest question is why do people not mention these books or not preach upon them?




posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
My biggest question is why do people not mention these books or not preach upon them?


Some people do know, mention and preach with those books. I've known some preachers to do very well preaching messages devloped out of the urantia book.

What's the point of having a book based upon God? The answer to that question varries according to whom goal systems are in place. There's been so many documents written on and about God and the story line that they couldn't all be fit into one book.

So the people who were in such power at the time picked the books they felt best served thier percepts of "the cause" at the time.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
As a Christian who was brought up in the church - literally - my father a [now retired] pastor........

This has been something that GREATLY bothered. For I never heard of these books until cable arrived and we had FABULOUS documentaries brought to us by the History Channel.

Then I started learning about how the Bible was put together....and I was being told what I was allowed to know about this part of history.

Hm. Yes, a topic that has greatly bothered me, yet fascinates me to this day


Thank you for posting that link. I have never seen it, but will bookmark it.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I guess the same reason why an author, compiler or director would decide to leave things out of a finished book, program or software. Things along the lines of "I don't like this paragraph after I wrote it so I removed it", "I deleted this scene because of a issue with the length of the finished product and I viewed it as being one of the least damaging parts to the whole picture if I removed it compared to the other scenes" or "This passage or set of code didn't seem to fit in with the program I was making and so I kept it out".

Then there is always the personal reasons "I don't like that Scientist I will leave his work out of my own", "I hate people who believe this or that and so wont give them any credit"...etc.

I'm sure everyone around, if they were writing, directing or compiling something they would leave some work or things they had got regarding whatever it is you are doing out of the finished product for any number of reasons.

So it is safe to assume that various books in the holy books are where they are at because the original compiler decided they fitted better that way (For example in the bible putting Genesis before Exodus or you have the future occurring before the beginning and leaving out books/ Gospels that seemed to be at odds with most of the other material present in it (Like the Gospel of Judas).



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Marshall Ormus
 


I see what you are saying to a point, but what about the book of enoch, that answers about everyones question on the afterlife. Why would such a monumental book like that be left out. But thanks to everyone for posting on the subject.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Sacred-Texts.com if you click on the left panel and select bible that is where you will find them.

Also, what does your father (the pastor) say about the forgotten books? I heard somewhere that some books were in there until the 1900's when the catholic church decided against them.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by jhill76]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   


Apocrypha: Secret or hidden.

By this word is generally meant those sacred books of the Jewish people which were not included in the Hebrew Bible (see Canon). They are valuable as forming a link connecting the Old and New Testaments, and are regarded in the church as useful reading, although not all the books are of equal value. They are the subject of a revelation recorded in D&C 91, in which it is stated that the contents are mostly correct, but with many interpolations by man.


From scriptures.lds.org...

As some might know, i'm LDS (mormon) so i draw knowledge from the resources provided. And the above quote is my religion's take on the Apocrypha. I hope you enjoy it. The link provides information on some of the books in the Apocrypha as well. I'm not quite familiar personally with the Apocryphaso i can't say whether it is all of them or just some.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


a monumental book such as Enoch's was left out cause it was laced with the corruptions of man. The original text was altered so if you aren't reading with the Spirit than you could easily and unknowingly be swayed into believing something that isn't full and pure of truth



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by screamo
reply to post by jhill76
 


a monumental book such as Enoch's was left out cause it was laced with the corruptions of man. The original text was altered so if you aren't reading with the Spirit than you could easily and unknowingly be swayed into believing something that isn't full and pure of truth


Would you care to elaborate more? Two parts here. I have not had the time to read it but will very soon, corruption: like the angels offspring or man as in todays man. Also it was altered, is there any way of finding the original texts?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   


corruption: like the angels offspring or man as in todays man.


What part here do you want me to be more elaborate on?

The original books themselves were altered, they don't exist no longer in it's original state. Hence the frustration with the Apocrypha, it adds so much more to things but there's alot of false things in it. Too much for it to be considered a part of the Bible. So, it was taken out.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Most Theologians of today will tell you that the Apocryphal books were left out, because they were NOT Spiritually inspired.

But I have been doing a lot of Conspiracies in Religion studies, of late; and I like this finding better: It seems that the PTB (Powers That Be) do not want us underlings to have full knowledge of certain things. It does not behoove them or their purpose.

Through much study, I am even convinced that more than just the Apocrypha has been withheld from us. We hear much of the Illuminatti (Illuminated Ones). They know something that we do not. What is it? It is hinted that their origins might go back as far as the Knight's Templar's. Many of them were killed for the secrets that they held. Now a more sinister group, has these secrets.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by sizzle]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   
There was one other theory about the Christian Bible of today; It was made to read in such a way that some would be willing to die FOR it and others would because of it. It was an excellent way to create wars and factions among the people.

Don't get me wrong. I am a Christian. And because of that, I am able to read between-the-lines and glean the underlying message that is most important.

But I also believe the passage that tells us, "That which is hidden, will be revealed."
I hope that is an accurate quote. I do not have a Bible in front of me. I need to replace mine as soon as possible.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Are you aware that of 'The Dead Sea Scrolls?'
They have finally been translated and made public.
A 'Google' search should yield several sites of availability.
The Apocryphal books are there in their original written content.

Here is one link that should be helpful on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
www.ibiblio.org...

[edit on 15-5-2008 by sizzle]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Nice post Jhill76, s&f given.
Should we not also consider "why" they were left out?

Pope Constantine (I believe) was the 'editor' and tailored a Bible or scriptures to meet his needs, much like Ron L Hubbard or J Jones or any other individual hoping to raise notoriety (and cash - or power - or all three!).

I subscribe to the thinking that the Knights Templar found something during their stay at the 'Temple Mount' that was so 'devastating' to the Vatican, that the Church afforded them such wealth (and tax breaks) to keep it hidden and being 'Knights' they kept their word - hence their need to form a 'secret society'.
All deals were off when the King of France, (Philip the Fair - in collusion with the then Pope) decided to round them up on October the 13th.

Philip wanted the money, the Pope wanted the 'evidence' (maybe the forgotten books, the copper scroll or even the spear of destiny!)

Sliding back to topic, (sorry I digressed there for a moment!)
Your big question was why do people not mention or preach on them,
In the 'olde days' you would be done on a firey spit for heresy, these days anything goes, provided it commercially viable. With 20 odd books still sitting there, you are right to ask the question.

Why, heck! there could be a whole new 'religion' just waiting to hit a market near you!

My 2c worth (although at todays market prices!!!!)

H



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I should make macros for thread that have been repeated many, many times. Good news is ATS now has the search function working again. It's a handy tool. I've also had a mod shutdown a thread I started because the same topic had been brought up two years ago and I say well done. Sometimes repeating oneself gets very tiresome, even initiators themselves are following the same exact route someone has in the past. True, we're all individuals in a sense, but a lot of times the line of thinking are so closely parallel, they're hardly separable. That being said, onto a summation which gives the answer to the canonization of the Bible.

When the Bible was being reviewed, there were a number of factors to be considered whether or not it belonged in the collection of books we now know as the Bible. Among those are consistency, cross-referencing and validity. If these books qualified, then they were bound together. If the source in any way did not meet the criteria, then they were not included. This is NOT to say they were burned on the spot or buried in hopes of decay. Rather, the were not utilized as the standard text that everyone knew. Are the books that were not included secret? Of course not! We can review them at a library or online if anyone is interested.

Yes, I've read them, no I don't see anything in them that was "eye opening information" that was necessary to a person's personal relationshp with God.

As I understand it, at one point Catholics re-introduced many of those books to give historical context and additional study. If someone is driven towards Biblical study to the degree of reading every letter from every early minister in the church, God bless ya. For the general public who is still interested in the foundational backbone of who God is, what He did, why, and what He wants us to do, I don't see where the Bible falls short in those regards. In fact, one can make a reasonable case that knowing who Christ is and having a personal relationship with God makes the Bible unnecessary when it comes to saving faith. The Apostles did not walk around with the Bible we have. They were there, they told what they saw. It was that simple. The Bible is a great growing resource, however, whereas a person can learn a lot quickly and avoid the mistakes that comes with the the spiritual growth experience in God. We people tend to make assumptions and rationalize many things we shouldn't, so this guide called the Bible helps us find the right path sooner.

What I find amazing is an excitement over the excluded books by those who haven't even read all the included books. Why is that?

[edit on 15-5-2008 by saint4God]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
So the peaple who penned the bible were inspired by god who basily told them what to write.This is what i percieve that the church wants us sheep to believe. But king james had the bible arranged to suit his cause.Remember he was bisexual.So the scholars of that day put all the good stuff in the bible. the last half was jesus did this that and died for our sins .Came back from hell. he had to get the keys back from saten then he preached in hell if any one was saved im sure he had alot of dead spirits or souls coming to the alter who believed in him then .he rose on the thrid day thats what i percieve.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nofnak
So the peaple who penned the bible were inspired by god who basily told them what to write.


In the case of Moses, God told him exactly what to write in some cases. In the gospels, the apostles were to write what they saw. So basically, yes.


Originally posted by nofnak
But king james had the bible arranged to suit his cause.


Then comes the questions of:

What did the original Bible say?
What does the King James Version say that is different?
How was it changed?

Then we can ask:

Why was it changed?


Originally posted by nofnak
Remember he was bisexual.


Which mean...what? In relation to the Bible.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by saint4God]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
There bible was "canonized" over a period of time. The old testament was canonized by Jewish scholars over a period of 300 years, between 200BC and 200AD, and coincides with several major period of jewish history. Babylonian exile, destruction of the temple, etc.

The new testament was standardized by in 382AD by Pope Damasus I. The simple answer to why certain books are left out and others are included is for continuity of religious thought.

If you are familiar with the gnostic gospels, you will find that there is a wide array of theological thought on the nature of god/jesus/etc. The church at the time wanted to have a uniform vision of what they saw as believed.

Some gnostic text preach things like there is no need for a unified church, jesus was married, etc. All things that the church at the time didnt think was true or were heretical. As a result, they weren't included in the 382AD list of canonical texts.

As a result, of Pope Damasus I list and the subsequent translation of the bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin by Saint Jerome, the bible was pretty muc standarized as to which books were to be included. The actual language of the books does vary from text to text. And if you take a course in biblical Greek you will find that there tons of references and foot notes to alternate wordings etc.

The king james bible was meant to do two things, 1) to translate the bible into the vulgate so that non-latin readers could read the bible, and 2) create a definitive wording of the texts.

The conspiracy in all of this is that when the church was in its early years it was trying to consolidate its power and claim as the authoritative figure regarding theology and belief.

As far as gnostic text being repressed and not referred to. It is unlikely that you will hear your local preacher refer to them as that they have long been since considered to be non-canonical and opposite to the typical christian view of the bible/jesus/god/etc.

However, scholarly study, even at religious schools, often involves the gnostic texts as that they provide an insite into how modern christian beliefs developed as well as to look into early christian beliefs.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Btw,
The secrets that I refer to, (that were once held by the Knight's Templar's) are not in reference to whether Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, or about the Spear, or the Chalice or any of that rhetoric.

I am talking about truly earth-shaking, powerful knowledge. Knowledge that would make a difference to the masses.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xianh
All things that the church at the time didnt think was true or were heretical.


One also has to ask "why didn't the church think it was true?" and "what about it was heretical"? If you approach this as "here's a bunch of geezers picking and choosing what to cut" then surely that's a non-investigational approach to the topic. The reason why they did not think it was true is because there wasn't any substantiation or validation with other scriptures or works.

On "gnostic" writings regarding alternate endings and teachings...

The reason it was heretical were because these ideas were in direct conflict of the gospels who were written by witnesses of the events. It would stand to reason also that when fantastical scribings altering these narratives would be ommitted.

The council took this matter very seriously. It was the Word of God. Would you want responsibility for snipping out some things that were the Word of God?



[edit on 15-5-2008 by saint4God]









 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join