MV’s are changing God’s word on who’s authority ? ?

glenlogie

Well-known member
still, it was removed.

i see that in 80ad pharisees removed it, after christ, removed it from hebrew scripture. then soon after rome also. then luther said maybe 7 books were unsure but even he did not remove them. he was unsure.

then in 1885, suddenly it was removed. who by? no info. publishers said a smaller book was easier to print.
Could you provide documentation to those events?
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
still, it was removed.

i see that in 80ad pharisees removed it, after christ, removed it from hebrew scripture. then soon after rome also.
When did Rome put the Apocrypha back in? After all, they insisted Jerome include all the Apocrypha in his Vulgate, and I believe Trent listed the Deuterocanonicals as canon some 1000 years later...
 

e v e

Super Member
When did Rome put the Apocrypha back in? After all, they insisted Jerome include all the Apocrypha in his Vulgate, and I believe Trent listed the Deuterocanonicals as canon some 1000 years later...
when the sanhedrin took it out in 80ad (to hide things about Christ? -- I'd need to study it...)
Rome soon followed, but not by taking it out..only by 'setting it aside in an apocrypha section.

This stayed that way through all the reformation and the 1611 kjv included the apocrypha as well.
even if Christ did not quote it, he would have seen it as it was taken out after the cross.

so things stayed, for a long time, more than 1000 years... until
luther noted that he was not sure if some of the chapters (7 of them) were inspired.
however, he did NOT take them out. He was not sure and left them there.

then in 1885 it was removed. I tried to find out by who and all I found was that publishers thought it was cheaper
to publisher a smaller book to cut on costs. I could not find what protestant group removed it.

the catholic bible still contains it as a separate section. I am not sure how the 1611 kjv organized those chapters.
However, there was no official removal that I can find.

I would need to do a bit more research to find out who actually did that and why the publishers thought
it was alright to do it.

Rome never took it out but did put it in its own section.

I don't see why the same judaism, sanhedrin that had rejected christ, would now in 80AD by their removal, have influenced christianity (over time) to move the books to their own section much less remove them.
 

e v e

Super Member
I think the minute scripture began to be written it suffered the same type human corruptions...
however, there were two changes ..

Marcion, who hated the OT and what God said in it, is the one who divided the NT from the OT. Popes then followed suit.

And then this issue with the apocrypha. Those are two big changes.

the ethiopian christian group might still use 81 books (including the book of Henoch). I do refer to the book of Henoch and am not that concerned about the apocrypha being canonical. or Henoch being canonical.

His Spirit will help us understand His Words to us, in everything we do and read and also in scripture.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Super Member
People say separating the books into OT and NT is convenient. However, it did, deviously, accomplish marcion's goal, which was to show that they were different gospels in either and to segregate the NT which he liked from the OT which he did not. Thus, suggesting something incongruous between scripture before and after christ and affecting its reading.

When in fact, it is one continuous scripture, all congruous word by word.

Then, with the taking out of apocrypha chapters from the OT, and Rome's moving them to an optional section in the back, further alters and makes possible to control the interpretation of what is 'left.' None of that was inspired... for the sanhedrin did not believe in Christ and Rome took their lead.

These are but two big alterations. judge for yourself the result.
 

e v e

Super Member
Rome is essentially syncretic.. and so regardless of whether it deemed marcion a heretic, it adopted his division. And regardless of whether the sanhedrin of 80AD had authority to rule on matters of scripture, Rome adopted that as well.

Now, given Christ's dealings with pharisees, what are we to think about their removal of chapters? Especially, since, I don't recall Christ asking any chapters be removed.
 

e v e

Super Member
I'm not saying that the apocrypha is less corrupt than any other translations...they all suffer issues.
But... it is curious that only 136 years ago it was removed and the bible went (anonymously?) to 66 books.

So why suddenly in 1885 removed from KJV? Anyone?
 
Last edited:

e v e

Super Member
There are some web site references (possibly having an agenda? I can't tell yet) indicating jerome was not sure they were canonical. However, they were not removed at that time and remained in the bible. calvin and luther did not remove them either.
 

e v e

Super Member
Could you provide documentation to those events?
Yes. I was just looking this stuff up last night.
I will provide the links I found.
The flow chart does show however that in 1885 the apocrypha was removed from KJV.

I did not see that flow chart when I discovered the 1885 date.
That must have been a decision of some translators, though I cannot find their names or reasoning anywhere.
 

e v e

Super Member
???

Was all this really needed? I mean, 12 consecutive posts by one poster that have nothing to do with the original subject of this thread....
you asked me for citations.
I gave them.

the content of them do relate to the op
because the point was that scripture has been altered and by who's authority.

I think the OP is valid as a question, although I am not a KJV fan.
 

imJRR

Active member
you asked me for citations.
I gave them.

the content of them do relate to the op
because the point was that scripture has been altered and by who's authority.

I think the OP is valid as a question, although I am not a KJV fan.

No, I did not. And the OP is not valid - It is a verse that has been taken out of context and used to foist a lie. That was shown in Post #7. Who ELSE could Jesus have been referring to?

NO ONE

"My Father" = "the Father".

Anyone who keeps the verse in context can very, VERY easily see that. It is glaringly obvious.
 

e v e

Super Member
No, I did not. And the OP is not valid - It is a verse that has been taken out of context and used to foist a lie. That was shown in Post #7. Who ELSE could Jesus have been referring to?

NO ONE

"My Father" = "the Father".

Anyone who keeps the verse in context can very, VERY easily see that. It is glaringly obvious.
the OP asked a question, at the very top. That question is a valid question.
I would add that Old Versions are corrupt as well.
 

imJRR

Active member
the OP asked a question, at the very top. That question is a valid question.

Nope. Already dealt with in Post #7. The only reason that it hasn't been responded to is that Leatherneck puts people who refute him on 'ignore'
 
Top