Why is This in the bible?

Discussions about the Bible, and any issues raised by Scripture.
secretfire6
Established Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#16

Post by secretfire6 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:41 pm

neo-x wrote:I think you are being duped. Relax, I read the articles at reluctant messenger..and foundthem not so impressive. What you have at your hands in the end, is that Christ is not God and that is where you need to decide, if you want to go down this road.
hi neo-X. Can you tell me why you weren't intrigued by these articles? Yes, absolutely I want to go down this road. Why wouldn't I? If it led even to one Iota of truth it would be well worth it, wouldn't it? I mean I've been in several churches and sifted through all the things they offered before finding some nuggets of good stuff here and there, so how is this different for me? So far, the reluctant messenger is passing far more of my tests than any of the churches have. That leads me to think there is some truth in there. I ask myself now "what would change if Jesus is the Christ, but the Christ is not God? Does it change any of the events that took place? Does it change any of the meaning of what happened? When I asked a pentecostal church goer that question, the answer I got was "yes. You have to have the blood. God shed his own blood for all our sins." But other churches immediately disagree with that saying it was the blood of God's son that was spilled and he chose to do that of his own free will. So I don't even have a consensus from anybody about how Jesus not being God would be a bad thing.

I guess I could ask this thread. If it's true that Jesus wasn't God the father or part of a trinity-type God, how would that be bad?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8210
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 387 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#17

Post by Philip » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:53 pm

So I don't even have a consensus from anybody about how Jesus not being God would be a bad thing.
Trying to determine the truths of God and Scripture by consensus isn't a very good strategy, my friend. Scripture claims to be "God-breathed"/inspired by God. And while you can question whether or not that is true, what you can't deny is that those who testified and wrote about Jesus in the New Testament believed that He was God Incarnate. And they worshiped Him as God and He acknowledged that worship. You can't deny that Scripture reveals that Jesus Himself claimed to be God. These are the plain teachings in Scripture about Jesus. Searching for a consensus from the chattering masses will only confuse you all the more.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#18

Post by neo-x » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:41 pm

secretfire6 wrote:
neo-x wrote:I think you are being duped. Relax, I read the articles at reluctant messenger..and foundthem not so impressive. What you have at your hands in the end, is that Christ is not God and that is where you need to decide, if you want to go down this road.
hi neo-X. Can you tell me why you weren't intrigued by these articles? Yes, absolutely I want to go down this road. Why wouldn't I? If it led even to one Iota of truth it would be well worth it, wouldn't it? I mean I've been in several churches and sifted through all the things they offered before finding some nuggets of good stuff here and there, so how is this different for me? So far, the reluctant messenger is passing far more of my tests than any of the churches have. That leads me to think there is some truth in there. I ask myself now "what would change if Jesus is the Christ, but the Christ is not God? Does it change any of the events that took place? Does it change any of the meaning of what happened? When I asked a pentecostal church goer that question, the answer I got was "yes. You have to have the blood. God shed his own blood for all our sins." But other churches immediately disagree with that saying it was the blood of God's son that was spilled and he chose to do that of his own free will. So I don't even have a consensus from anybody about how Jesus not being God would be a bad thing.

I guess I could ask this thread. If it's true that Jesus wasn't God the father or part of a trinity-type God, how would that be bad?
Because I am not asking you to put your faith in the Bible. If you have no bible, does that mean christ is not God? No, if lets say a communist regime takes over the world and burns every last bible in the world, would you not remain a christian? you would. In the middle ages, average citizen didn't even had a bible...they went without it.

Cutting and pasting isolated lines out of the early church fathers letters, is dangerous. If the church fathers knew that something corrupt was happening, then they would also write extensively about it. And sure there were gnostic texts being written as long as the 9-10th century, some are even later than this and I could just as well take the same lines RM.com is doing and see it that the fathers were addressing gnostic heresies.

I think you should read about Biblical textual criticism in detail. Me and Jac had a nice talk on the subject some time back when I was having problem with genesis.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9031
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#19

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:16 am

secretfire6 wrote:In the last few years I've done a TON of study into the editing of the western Bible. It is mind blowing and heart wrenching how much of the Bible we have today is fake. What is even worse is the things that were removed. The audacity of the early Roman church is amazing. When caught and confronted about the changes being made, they basically respond with "yeah, we did that. God made us THE church so we can do what we want". It was their own preisthood that was calling them out too. For me, going back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is the only way to know what really happened as far as writing goes.

Isn't KJV the one that is called 'the atheist's favorite bible"?
You did this research where and based on what?
The oldest manuscripts we have of the OT and NT have some very MINOR differences and all these have been known about for centuries.
The oldest complete codexs we have, the Siniaticus and vaticanus are available to all and have been translated for some time.
They pretty much are in line with our modern translations.

Now, if you are commenting on the fact that we have different translations based on the various interpretations, that is correct.
That said, there is NO MAJOR doctrine differences in ANY of the major translations.

By the way, the Catholic bible is the one with the MOST books in it, so one can possibly argue that those that omit certain books are the ones "guilty" of altering the bible.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8210
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 387 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#20

Post by Philip » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:55 am

By the way, the Catholic bible is the one with the MOST books in it, so one can possibly argue that those that omit certain books are the ones "guilty" of altering the bible.
Or, rather, those (see those of the RCC) that added TO it.

Yet whether taking or adding, both are HUGE no-nos with horrible consequences:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19, ESV)

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#21

Post by Byblos » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:24 am

Philip wrote:
By the way, the Catholic bible is the one with the MOST books in it, so one can possibly argue that those that omit certain books are the ones "guilty" of altering the bible.
Or, rather, those (see those of the RCC) that added TO it.
Yeah ok, keep telling yourself that. :shakehead:
Philip wrote:Yet whether taking or adding, both are HUGE no-nos with horrible consequences:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19, ESV)
You do realize if you use Rev 22:18-19 to mean the entire Bible that you will undermine the very Bible you're attempting to defend right? The above applies to Revelation and nothing else.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8210
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 387 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#22

Post by Philip » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:15 pm

Philip wrote: Or, rather, those (see those of the RCC) that added TO it.
I was referring to the fact that the RCC added the books of the Apocrypha to the already established canon.
Byblos responded: Yeah ok, keep telling yourself that. :shakehead:
John Ankerberg responds: "In 1546 the Roman Catholic Council of Trent officially named and identified the apocryphal books it decreed as canonical, noting, “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts,... let him be anathema."

Ankerberg continues: "To argue that the Apocrypha was accepted implicitly or explicitly by the church as Scripture up until the time of the Protestant Reformation and then thrown out by the Reformers, for whatever reason, is not true. It was very carefully reasoned arguments, based on full and complete trust in our 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, that forced the church to reject the Apocrypha."

"Unfortunately, it is the Catholics who refuse to look objectively at the facts of church history and the logical implications of the content of the Apocrypha. Again, if the Apocrypha contains errors and doctrines that deny biblical teaching, how can it possibly be inspired by God? The illogic of the Catholic Church on this point is the fault of the Catholic Church, not the canon of Scripture. To argue that Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha is “based on inadequate and arbitrary grounds” is simply false."

"Finally, the fact that Bibles such as the Septuagint and the King James Version included the Apocrypha as relevant historical materials says no more about their inspired status than the inclu­sion of historical introductions in modern study Bibles says about their inspired status. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce supplies several examples of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in different Bibles— but these Bibles also observe that the Apocrypha was not to be considered Scripture."

Read more on this subject of the RCC adding to the Canon: http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Th ... non/Part_2

And here is WHY the Apocrypha books should not be considered part of the established Canon of Scripture: http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#23

Post by Byblos » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:49 pm

Philip wrote:I was referring to the fact that the RCC added the books of the Apocrypha to the already established canon.
Really. Can you tell me exactly when that canon was established and who established it?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8210
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 387 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#24

Post by Philip » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:22 pm

Philip wrote:I was referring to the fact that the RCC added the books of the Apocrypha to the already established canon.
And by saying "the RCC added," I mean that the "RCC added the Apocrypha books to the canon THAT IT (the RCC) recognized. Because NO church ESTABLISHED the canon, but subsequently RECOGNIZED it. And the recognized Canon of the RCC is different than the one that Protestant do.
Byblos wrote: Really. Can you tell me exactly when that canon was established and who established it?
As Norman Geisler says: "It is important to distinguish between the determination and the discovery of canonicity. God is solely responsible for determining; God's people are responsible for discovery."

Incorrect View: The church is determiner of the canon. The church is mother of the canon. The church is magistrate of the canon. The church is regulator of the canon. The church is judge of the canon. The church is master of the canon.

Biblical View: The church is discoverer of the canon. The church is child of the canon. The church is minister of the canon. The church is recognizer of the canon. The church is witness of the canon. The church is servant of the canon.

The Biblical Criteria for RECOGNIZING the proper books in GOD'S Canon of Scripture: http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?ti ... _the_Bible

And here is a more detailed discussion (between Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg) on how the Canon came to be recognized: http://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009 ... n-geisler/

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#25

Post by Byblos » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:54 am

Philip wrote:
Philip wrote:I was referring to the fact that the RCC added the books of the Apocrypha to the already established canon.
And by saying "the RCC added," I mean that the "RCC added the Apocrypha books to the canon THAT IT (the RCC) recognized. Because NO church ESTABLISHED the canon, but subsequently RECOGNIZED it. And the recognized Canon of the RCC is different than the one that Protestant do.
Byblos wrote: Really. Can you tell me exactly when that canon was established and who established it?
As Norman Geisler says: "It is important to distinguish between the determination and the discovery of canonicity. God is solely responsible for determining; God's people are responsible for discovery."

Incorrect View: The church is determiner of the canon. The church is mother of the canon. The church is magistrate of the canon. The church is regulator of the canon. The church is judge of the canon. The church is master of the canon.

Biblical View: The church is discoverer of the canon. The church is child of the canon. The church is minister of the canon. The church is recognizer of the canon. The church is witness of the canon. The church is servant of the canon.

The Biblical Criteria for RECOGNIZING the proper books in GOD'S Canon of Scripture: http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?ti ... _the_Bible

And here is a more detailed discussion (between Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg) on how the Canon came to be recognized: http://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009 ... n-geisler/
So I take it there was no formal canonization then, at least not in Jesus' time? Okay, got it, it was by popular opinion. Tell me then, which canon was used in Jesus' time and most often quoted from by him and his apostles?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8210
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 387 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#26

Post by Philip » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:04 am

So I take it there was no formal canonization then, at least not in Jesus' time? Okay, got it, it was by popular opinion. Tell me then, which canon was used in Jesus' time and most often quoted from by him and his apostles?
Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint.

Some outtakes of the links I've previously included:

Ankerberg: "the mere fact that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint says nothing about the canonical status of the Apocrypha. Certainly, they used Hebrew Manuscripts or compilations that did not contain the Apocrypha as well. Also, what proof exists that the Septuagint of the first century contained the Apocrypha? Does the fact that apocryphal books were included in some Greek manuscripts prove the early church considered them Scripture? Are the decrees of all church councils infallible? Is it really the Protestants who removed Scripture or have Catholics decreed non-canonical writings into Scripture?"

"First, how can the Apocrypha possibly be considered God’s Word when everyone, Protestant and Catholic, agree it contains demonstrable errors? This thoroughly undermines the crucial doctrines of divine inspiration and inerrancy. To our way of thinking, this single fact alone forever disqualifies the Apocrypha from canonical status."

"Neither Jesus nor the New Testament authors ever quoted from it (the Apocrypha books) by way of the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament). This is so in spite of their quoting from 35 of the 39 Old Testament books. Indeed, directly or indi­rectly the New Testament quotes the Old Testament over 600 times, but an apocryphal book is not cited by name even once. This speaks volumes as to the New Testament authors’ view of the Apocrypha. Because the Jews, Jesus and the Apostles clearly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, the burden of proof must be met by Catholics to show that the reasons for its rejection were spurious and that it deserved canonization. This is something the Catholic Church can never do."

"... it is crucial to recognize that these books (the Apocrypha) were Jewish books compiled before the birth of Christ. Therefore, evaluating the disposition of the Jews regarding their canonicity is para­mount. The importance of the following fact cannot be underestimated: “Since the New Testa­ment explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have ALWAYS rejected the Apocrypha."

"the fact that Bibles such as the Septuagint and the King James Version included the Apocrypha as relevant historical materials says no more about their inspired status than the inclu­sion of historical introductions in modern study Bibles says about their inspired status. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce supplies several examples of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in different Bibles— but these Bibles also observe that the Apocrypha was not to be considered Scripture."

"In essence, the fact that some in the early church accepted the Apocrypha, that some books were included in some canonical lists and manuscripts, that the Catholic church officially de­clared it Scripture in the mid 1500’s or that many Protestant versions contained the Apocrypha are still not proof that the Apocrypha was divinely inspired.".

"The canon of the Jews (limited to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament) was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted. This means that Jesus and the apostles never accepted the Apocrypha as God’s word: “...Christ and the apostles used and believed the groups of books accepted in the Hebrew canon, and NONE others. For those who find their authority in Christ and His apostles, this would seem to be enough.”

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#27

Post by Byblos » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:33 am

Philip wrote:
So I take it there was no formal canonization then, at least not in Jesus' time? Okay, got it, it was by popular opinion. Tell me then, which canon was used in Jesus' time and most often quoted from by him and his apostles?
Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint.

Some outtakes of the links I've previously included:

Ankerberg: "the mere fact that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint says nothing about the canonical status of the Apocrypha. Certainly, they used Hebrew Manuscripts or compilations that did not contain the Apocrypha as well. Also, what proof exists that the Septuagint of the first century contained the Apocrypha? Does the fact that apocryphal books were included in some Greek manuscripts prove the early church considered them Scripture? Are the decrees of all church councils infallible? Is it really the Protestants who removed Scripture or have Catholics decreed non-canonical writings into Scripture?"

"First, how can the Apocrypha possibly be considered God’s Word when everyone, Protestant and Catholic, agree it contains demonstrable errors? This thoroughly undermines the crucial doctrines of divine inspiration and inerrancy. To our way of thinking, this single fact alone forever disqualifies the Apocrypha from canonical status."

"Neither Jesus nor the New Testament authors ever quoted from it (the Apocrypha books) by way of the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament). This is so in spite of their quoting from 35 of the 39 Old Testament books. Indeed, directly or indi­rectly the New Testament quotes the Old Testament over 600 times, but an apocryphal book is not cited by name even once. This speaks volumes as to the New Testament authors’ view of the Apocrypha. Because the Jews, Jesus and the Apostles clearly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, the burden of proof must be met by Catholics to show that the reasons for its rejection were spurious and that it deserved canonization. This is something the Catholic Church can never do."

"... it is crucial to recognize that these books (the Apocrypha) were Jewish books compiled before the birth of Christ. Therefore, evaluating the disposition of the Jews regarding their canonicity is para­mount. The importance of the following fact cannot be underestimated: “Since the New Testa­ment explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have ALWAYS rejected the Apocrypha."

"the fact that Bibles such as the Septuagint and the King James Version included the Apocrypha as relevant historical materials says no more about their inspired status than the inclu­sion of historical introductions in modern study Bibles says about their inspired status. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce supplies several examples of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in different Bibles— but these Bibles also observe that the Apocrypha was not to be considered Scripture."

"In essence, the fact that some in the early church accepted the Apocrypha, that some books were included in some canonical lists and manuscripts, that the Catholic church officially de­clared it Scripture in the mid 1500’s or that many Protestant versions contained the Apocrypha are still not proof that the Apocrypha was divinely inspired.".

"The canon of the Jews (limited to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament) was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted. This means that Jesus and the apostles never accepted the Apocrypha as God’s word: “...Christ and the apostles used and believed the groups of books accepted in the Hebrew canon, and NONE others. For those who find their authority in Christ and His apostles, this would seem to be enough.”
- There might be some kind of controversy between scholars on whether or not the deuteroconical books were included in the LXX but controversy among scholars is nothing new. There simply is ample evidence that they were included.

- The mere fact that Jesus quoted the LXX almost exclusively is without a doubt a testament to its canonicity, irrespective of whether or not the deuterocanons were directly quoted. After all, there were many books considered canonical that were never quoted either and yet they are still considered part of the canon. In fact, I could list several examples of indirect references to the deutercanons but I think I'll have this discussion with Norman Geisler. Thanks.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

WannaLearn
Established Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:51 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#28

Post by WannaLearn » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:55 am

:shock:
Last edited by WannaLearn on Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#29

Post by Byblos » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:29 am

WannaLearn wrote:Well the bible is god inspired. Wouldn't god protect what goes in the bible? Why would he allow this to get in the bible?
huh? y:-/
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9031
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: Why is This in the bible?

#30

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:40 am

Philip wrote:
By the way, the Catholic bible is the one with the MOST books in it, so one can possibly argue that those that omit certain books are the ones "guilty" of altering the bible.
Or, rather, those (see those of the RCC) that added TO it.

Yet whether taking or adding, both are HUGE no-nos with horrible consequences:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19, ESV)
Nope, the oldest complete bibles ( codexs and such) are the ones that the RCC has.
The only expections IIRC are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Sheppard of Hermas which are found in the codex Sinaiticus.

I think, and I could be wrong, but it was the protestant reformation that removed the apocraphical books that the RCC bible still has.
I also recall that Calvin even wanted to remove/not use Revelation.

Post Reply