Why Evolution is Wrong and What is Right?

[Gus Bovona]

You dont present evidence your claims are true - like all atheoevos

I asked you a question: "What type of evidence in what form would you'd accept, then?" A question is not a claim. If you want proof of that statement, consult a dictionary.

Now, if you reply by stating what type of evidence you'd accept, I'll reply. Otherwise, good-bye.

 

[ferengi]

I asked you a question:

And shifted the burden

 

[DaGeo]

You've either never read the bible, or you were unable to comprehend what it presents.

No argument just another textbook example for the either/or fallacy. You don’t know what that fallacy is, otherwise you wouldn’t wanna publicly embarrass yourself by making use of one.

But that’s ok, be happy, it’s better for me when you don’t know, so thanks

And yet, no one can comprehend the Mosaic law unless they put it into action. The Mosaic law is literally a "learn by doing" methodology. One must perform the experiment to see the results. Sadly, this is lost to the bible-thumping Creationists who can only rely upon what they've been taught.

Your irational logic has lead you to your irrational theology. Thanks for the explicit demonstration. What can I say? I really don’t need your help in making me look good but if you insist, be my guest

This is probably true in your limited experience, but until you actually perform the experiments and see the actual results, you've barely scratched the surface.

If that brand of incoherence makes sense to you, that’s all that matters, you’re the one lost in it

 

[DaGeo]

Everybody misunderstands the Bible. My local Catholic Priest assures me that all non-Catholics misunderstand it, while my local Protestant Pastor assures me that all Catholics misunderstand it.

“Everyone misunderstands...” would, of course, logically include you but that’s a given

Nevertheless, you’ve unwittingly invoked a universal affirmative in the form of fallacious argumentation.

How do you know “everyone” misunderstands ?

Better tell Ken Ham.

Pease confirm, a quote from Ken Ham will work

Science tells us the the planet Neptune truly exists; where is that in the Bible? Science tells us that America truly exists; where is that in the Bible? Science covers a lot more than is in the Bible.

I know you mean well and you earnestly desire academic affirmation but the contents of your post are based on incomplete information and pretense.

But fallible humans misinterpret the Bible, which is why there are so many different versions of Christianity. Or is your name Francis and you are posting from Rome? Hope the knee gets better soon.

I agree,

Nevertheless, you are probably unaware but you flawlessly personify your own assessments. Well done, no offense intended

 

[rossum]

“Everyone misunderstands...” would, of course, logically include you but that’s a given

Agreed; everyone has their own understanding, and they are all wrong to some degree or other. Yes, that included both of us.

Pease confirm, a quote from Ken Ham will work

Here is the AiG Statement of Faith:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.​

That makes the Bible a science textbook, superior to all other science textbooks, at least in Ken Ham's view.

I know you mean well and you earnestly desire academic affirmation but the contents of your post are based on incomplete information and pretense.

Then please indicate where the planet Neptune and America are mentioned in the Bible.

 

[ferengi]

Agreed; everyone has their own understanding, and they are all wrong to some degree or other. Yes, that included both of us.

PROVE YOUR CLAIM
rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.

 

[rossum]

PROVE YOUR CLAIM
rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.

Show your evidence, ferengi. Links are not evidence, as you have told us many times.

 

[DaGeo]

Agreed; everyone has their own understanding, and they are all wrong to some degree or other. Yes, that included both of us.

Your statement disqualifies anything you could possibly say about the Bible. I appreciate your honest confession and I hope you take yourself seriously on this

Your confession also disqualifies you from disagreeing with comments of mine or anyone else’s—including Catholic or Protestant.
This is because you don’t know who’s wrong?
You’ve done well to acknowledged your limited academic awareness and rightly so

Here is the AiG Statement of Faith:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.​

That makes the Bible a science textbook, superior to all other science textbooks, at least in Ken Ham's view.

You missed the point entirely.
Perhaps you’ve misinformed yourself with your own errors and statements. Your very own misapprehensions and unfamiliarity has infected your understanding of science and the Bible

At least, you should have known about the different kinds of science and the various branches of science. So, based on your current misunderstandings, I would encourage you to go the distance and acknowledge your ignorance about science too

The Statement of Faith could not have been written more clearly. So, if you please, allow me to explain the obvious.

The Statement of Faith is unambiguous.
It simply says no human study should contradict the Bible. To bare this out, no human study has, except for pseudoscience evolution and a few other false philosophies and false religions

You have rightly confessed knowing nothing about the Bible. It follows you know nothing about Biblical hermeneutics either, otherwise, you might have avoided further embarrassment. You missed the fuller context in the statement which included a mention of the historical-grammatical interpretation.

Then please indicate where the planet Neptune and America are mentioned in the Bible.

I would encourage you to begin a course of study designed to develop comprehension. In this way, you can learn to discern and understand how to rightly apply scientific content and biblical content

Then you can take pride in yourself because you are prepared to address those nagging questions you’ve carried with you since childhood.

 

[rossum]

The Statement of Faith could not have been written more clearly.

It was perfectly clear that AiG consider their woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible to overrule science. As I pointed out, there are many Christians who disagree with the AiG's YEC interpretation.

Being clear is not the same as being right: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is His prophet." is also perfectly clear. Does that make it right?

It simply says no human study should contradict the Bible. To bare this out, no human study has, except for pseudoscience evolution and a few other false philosophies and false religions

Then you deny the existence of America, which is not mentioned in the Bible, and the planet Neptune, also not mentioned. Or are you LDS, which does mention America in the Book of Mormon?

Science does not contradict some interpretations of the Bible, but it does contradict the overly literal YEC interpretation. For example, science does not contradict the Theistic Evolution interpretation of the Bible.

There are a great many different interpretations of the Bible to choose from. Science studies the world which you say God made. We still have the original world. Since God's world cannot contradict God's word, then it is legitimate to use God's world to help us find the correct interpretation of God's world. The world we live in shows that the YEC interpretation is wrong.

 

[ferengi]

It was perfectly clear that AiG consider their woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible to overrule science.

Prove it - prove science supports something other than that
PROVE YOUR CLAIM
rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.

 

[ferengi]

but it does contradict the overly literal YEC interpretation

Prove it

 

[DaGeo]

It was perfectly clear that AiG consider their woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible to overrule science. As I pointed out, there are many Christians who disagree with the AiG's YEC interpretation.

I go away for only a short time and look at the mess you’ve made Don’t worry, I’ll clean it up for you.
Once again, you’re confusing Science with evolution, they’re not the same.
Lots of “Christians” believe in false doctrines but that doesn’t make those false teachings correct

Being clear is not the same as being right: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is His prophet." is also perfectly clear. Does that make it right?

I agree but Mohammed, just like Buddha, has never produced an accurate prophecy. Thus proving Mohammed and Buddha are different shades of what a false prophet looks like.

Then you deny the existence of America, which is not mentioned in the Bible, and the planet Neptune, also not mentioned. Or are you LDS, which does mention America in the Book of Mormon?

Once again, you can’t seem to escape your own false rationale. But how will you ever prove your contention. For example, can you explain the Biblical narrative and why other topics not mentioned in it, detract from the original narrative?

Science does not contradict some interpretations of the Bible, but it does contradict the overly literal YEC interpretation. For example, science does not contradict the Theistic Evolution interpretation of the Bible.

Once again, you’re confusing science with the religion of Secular Humanism. There’s a difference

There are a great many different interpretations of the Bible to choose from.

Some passages of scripture can be interpreted differently but without contradiction. Nevertheless, the Bible anticipates and warns about the presence of false prophets and false teachings.

Science studies the world which you say God made.

True, but science is based on the limits of human observation.
I didn’t invent a storyline about God making the earth. God did that for himself

We still have the original world. Since God's world cannot contradict God's word, then it is legitimate to use God's world to help us find the correct interpretation of God's world. The world we live in shows that the YEC interpretation is wrong.

If you’re right, then we would expect to find scientific evidence refuting the YEC interpretation but we don’t, instead we keep finding more and more evidence that is consistent with and confirms the YEC interpretation.

Naysayers, on the other hand, are content to ride a lackadaisical lackluster nonsensical nonscientific fabrication called evolution ie the out dated alleged horse series amount other things

I guess you have to go with what ya got

 

[rossum]

Lots of “Christians” believe in false doctrines but that doesn’t make those false teachings correct

Agreed. You appear to be one of them, in that you do not accept the evidence of the world that you say God made.

We still have the original of the world. We have a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy ... of a copy of the original Bible manuscripts. The world is a direct eyewitness to the events of the past. The Bible is hearsay.

Once again, you can’t seem to escape your own false rationale.

So, you cannot answer my question, instead you avoid it. The Bible does not mention either America or the planet Neptune. Do you deny that both exist because the Bible fails to mention them?

Some passages of scripture can be interpreted differently but without contradiction.

So the Catholic interpretation of the Bible does not contradict the Protestant interpretation? You're going to have to do a lot of work to convince people of that, especially in Northern Ireland.

I didn’t invent a storyline about God making the earth. God did that for himself

Erm... You need to read that more carefully before you post. God invented the story for himself instead of you inventing it? Really?

If you’re right, then we would expect to find scientific evidence refuting the YEC interpretation but we don’t, instead we keep finding more and more evidence that is consistent with and confirms the YEC interpretation.

I refer you to ICR, a YEC outfit. They studied radiometric dating, the RATE study, and the flood, to determine what effect the flood had to influence the supposedly very old radiometric dates. You can read part of what they found here: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems. To quote what they found:

The Heat Problem​

​

Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a member of the RATE group, has suggested one possible mechanism that may explain this dilemma. He has found evidence, both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat produced by accelerated decay.​

​

The Radiation Problem​

​

Another consideration is how Noah and his family could have survived the massive dose of radiation unleashed during the Flood. It is likely that the humans aboard the Ark would have been protected from most of the radiation occurring on the surface of the earth by the water covering the planet. It is common knowledge that water absorbs radiation, and an average of 8,000 feet of water covering the earth would have made a very effective shield. However, some have expressed concern that a radioactive element like potassium-40 that is present in the human body may have produced radiation within Noah’s body itself.​

If you need a miracle to remove the heat generated then you are not doing science, you are doing theology.

 

[DaGeo]

Agreed. You appear to be one of them, in that you do not accept the evidence of the world that you say God made.

The evidence you accept is very weak. For one to accept the kind of “evidence” you accept one must move further away from empirical scientific evidences and venture more into the bizarre and the credulous.

We still have the original of the world. We have a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy ... of a copy of the original Bible manuscripts. The world is a direct eyewitness to the events of the past. The Bible is hearsay.

You earnestly confessed earlier to knowing nothing about the Bible, curiously, you now assume to know how it was copied.

What’s wrong with accurately copied copies?

So, you cannot answer my question, instead you avoid it. The Bible does not mention either America or the planet Neptune. Do you deny that both exist because the Bible fails to mention them?

You didn’t understand my response. It seems you want me to take responsibility for your intellectual inabilities

So the Catholic interpretation of the Bible does not contradict the Protestant interpretation? You're going to have to do a lot of work to convince people of that, especially in Northern Ireland.

Often elementary school children misunderstand simple assignments given them by their teachers. Sometimes they read more into the instructions than originally intended by the teacher. To help students better comprehend instructions, the teacher will encourage students to reread the instructions.

In this case, I would also encourage you to do the same. Please read my response out loud several times until it comes clear. If that still doesn’t help, I’ll set you back another grade level

Erm... You need to read that more carefully before you post. God invented the story for himself instead of you inventing it? Really?

Somehow I knew you might trip over the wording. I assure you, the trip was intentional. How was your fall onto the soft pillows I provided?

I refer you to ICR, a YEC outfit. They studied radiometric dating, the RATE study, and the flood, to determine what effect the flood had to influence the supposedly very old radiometric dates. You can read part of what they found here: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems. To quote what they found:

The Heat Problem​

​

Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a member of the RATE group, has suggested one possible mechanism that may explain this dilemma. He has found evidence, both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat produced by accelerated decay.​

​

The Radiation Problem​

​

Another consideration is how Noah and his family could have survived the massive dose of radiation unleashed during the Flood. It is likely that the humans aboard the Ark would have been protected from most of the radiation occurring on the surface of the earth by the water covering the planet. It is common knowledge that water absorbs radiation, and an average of 8,000 feet of water covering the earth would have made a very effective shield. However, some have expressed concern that a radioactive element like potassium-40 that is present in the human body may have produced radiation within Noah’s body itself.​

If you need a miracle to remove the heat generated then you are not doing science, you are doing theology.

Glad you broached Biblical theology. In that case I can help. Biblical theology (God’s revelation) is by far more superior to human observation (ie science).

If you experience reoccurring difficulties understanding all that, we can go over it all over again. Glad to help

 

[The Pixie]

Once again, you’re confusing Science with evolution, they’re not the same.

Right. Evolution is a subset of science

Lots of “Christians” believe in false doctrines but that doesn’t make those false teachings correct

Agreed.

I agree but Mohammed, just like Buddha, has never produced an accurate prophecy. Thus proving Mohammed and Buddha are different shades of what a false prophet looks like.

The vast majority of "prophecies" in the Bible are:

• Christians assuming Jesus did it because of what the OT say
• Christians twisting OT passages to fit what Jesus said
• Christians putting words in Jesus' mouth after the event.

The big prophesy Jesus made is that he would return before that generation ended. Prophesy failed.

Some passages of scripture can be interpreted differently but without contradiction. Nevertheless, the Bible anticipates and warns about the presence of false prophets and false teachings.

The Bible "anticipates" it because it was well underway by the time the NT was written.

True, but science is based on the limits of human observation.

As is every thing. Can you read the Bible without using your senses?

I didn’t invent a storyline about God making the earth. God did that for himself

Religious article of faith.

If you’re right, then we would expect to find scientific evidence refuting the YEC interpretation but we don’t, instead we keep finding more and more evidence that is consistent with and confirms the YEC interpretation.

Like what? Why can you not say what that evidence is?

Religious article of faith.

Naysayers, on the other hand, are content to ride a lackadaisical lackluster nonsensical nonscientific fabrication called evolution ie the out dated alleged horse series amount other things

Over 99% of biologists - that is, real scientists who are experts in the area - believe evolution is true. They do so because of the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, from morphology, from biogeography, from genetics, from biochemistry. They do so because it helps to explain so much of biology.

It is creationism that is out-dated. It was abandoned by real science over a century ago, and all evidence we have found since then has further established evolution as true.

 

[rossum]

Glad you broached Biblical theology. In that case I can help. Biblical theology (God’s revelation) is by far more superior to human observation (ie science).

Which is why Christian theologians have been disagreeing about what the Bible says since before the Bible was assembled. Back then they disagreed about what books were to be included and what books were to be left out.

Protestants have fewer books than Catholics, and different versions of some books (see Daniel). Eastern Orthodox include an extra Psalm, Psalm 151.

The Bible(s) we have today are assembled by humans.

 

[DaGeo]

Which is why Christian theologians have been disagreeing about what the Bible says since before the Bible was assembled. Back then they disagreed about what books were to be included and what books were to be left out.

Protestants have fewer books than Catholics, and different versions of some books (see Daniel). Eastern Orthodox include an extra Psalm, Psalm 151.

The Bible(s) we have today are assembled by humans.

EDIT PER MOD You, yourself said so. Therefore, you have forthrightly disbarred yourself from any intelligent biblical discourse.

But let me help. I don’t want you to stop weighing in, that’s why I’m spending a great deal of time and effort helping you understand the obvious. So let’s keep working together on these simple truths.

Following list contains some points you may have missed in your rush to dismiss convicting biblical truths.

It’s however, noteworthy why you do not seem to be as picky about embracing philosophical and religious falsehoods like Buddhism and evolution. Is this because these falsehoods help you avoid accountability to God?

Just a few obvious truths you’ve overlooked.
1. The Bible is replete with historical encounters between false prophets and true prophets
2. The Bible consequently warns about the ongoing battle between falsehood and truth
3. Books of the Bible where hardly disputed by the early church.
4. Certain books adopted by the Roman Catholic Church were never a part of the original set of scriptures—all of which were written (NT) shorty after the resurrection of Christ

Hope that helps

 

[DaGeo]

Right. Evolution is a subset of science


Agreed.

The vast majority of "prophecies" in the Bible are:

• Christians assuming Jesus did it because of what the OT say
• Christians twisting OT passages to fit what Jesus said
• Christians putting words in Jesus' mouth after the event.

Quite false. Christians weren’t around before Christ. Somehow you must have missed the Jewish prophets who wrote long ago identifying some of the Messianic prophecies. Your historic perspective is backwards

The big prophesy Jesus made is that he would return before that generation ended. Prophesy failed.

Another of your opinionated rushes to judgement. You’ve overlooked the context of the passage. Can you even identify the passage? Otherwise, my I assume you just heard about about the “failed prophecy” from someone else?

The Bible "anticipates" it because it was well underway by the time the NT was written.

??

As is every thing. Can you read the Bible without using your senses?

Yes but my senses did not create the Bible nor is the Bible dependent upon my senses

Religious article of faith.

How so?

Like what? Why can you not say what that evidence is?

There are many. For one, the abrupt appearance of all fossil forms. No evidence of transitional forms—anywhere

Religious article of faith.

How so?

Over 99% of biologists - that is, real scientists who are experts in the area - believe evolution is true. They do so because of the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, from morphology, from biogeography, from genetics, from biochemistry. They do so because it helps to explain so much of biology.

Majority appeal seems to be your best argument. At one time, the flat earth “science” folk might have appealed to the same argument

It is creationism that is out-dated. It was abandoned by real science over a century ago, and all evidence we have found since then has further established evolution as true.

You boast of “evidence” for evolution but the evidence you talk about is merely a conglomerate of personal interpretation/s (opinion/s) of data that gets “verified” exclusively by majority bias (even more opinions).
In other words, your only “evidence” is established upon an egregious logical fallacy of appeal to the majority

 

[The Pixie]

The vast majority of "prophecies" in the Bible are:

• Christians assuming Jesus did it because of what the OT say
• Christians twisting OT passages to fit what Jesus said
• Christians putting words in Jesus' mouth after the event.

Quite false. Christians weren’t around before Christ. Somehow you must have missed the Jewish prophets who wrote long ago identifying some of the Messianic prophecies. Your historic perspective is backwards

An example of Christians assuming Jesus did it because of what the OT say is rising on the third day. The disciples were not around, and the empty tomb had not been invented until after AD 50 (hence, not mentioned in 1 Cor 15). however, Hosea says the righteous will rise on the third day, and so the disciples assumed that must be what happened to Jesus. And then claimed it as a fulfilled prophecy.

The fact the Christians were not around before Jesus does not change that one jot.

An example of Christians twisting OT passages to fit what Jesus said would be the supposed virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah. The prophecy is actually that the two kingdoms that threated Judah would fall within a couple of years. The author of Matthew has twisted it to be a prophecy of a virgin birth. Arguably this is also an example of the former - Christians claiming it was a virgin birth because what is what the OT predicts.

The fact the Christians were not around before Jesus does not change that one jot.

An example of Christians putting words in Jesus' mouth after the event would be his prediction of the fall of the temple. The temple fell forty years after Jesus died, but conveniently the prophecy was not recorded until it had happened.

The fact the Christians were not around before Jesus does not change that one jot.

Another of your opinionated rushes to judgement. You’ve overlooked the context of the passage. Can you even identify the passage? Otherwise, my I assume you just heard about about the “failed prophecy” from someone else?

Do please tell me the context as you see it. There are three passages, by the way. I take it you did not know that?

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”​

​

Mark 13:30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.​

​

Matthew 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.​

Interesting that the prophecy does not appear in Luke or John. Why might that be? Well, the generation had already passed by the time they were written - it was already a failed prophecy - so they quietly skipped it!

To me, the context is Jesus talking to a group of his followers, and promising them that some will still be alive when he returns. If you want to pretend it means there will be followers of Jesus alive, then it is a pretty hollow promise. "Don't worry guy, I will return! I mean you'll all be dead and buried by then, but..."

The Bible "anticipates" it because it was well underway by the time the NT was written.

??

The point is that there is nothing clever about the Bible anticipating people saying it is wrong. People were already saying Christianity was wrong before the gospels and epistles were written, so naturally the authors included that.

This is a great example of Christians putting words in Jesus' mouth after the event. It looks as though Jesus prophecised people bad mouthing Christianity, but the truth is the gospel writers just put those words in his mouth because they knew it had already happened.

Yes but my senses did not create the Bible nor is the Bible dependent upon my senses

But the only way you know what is in the Bible is via your senses. If you senses are lying to you, then your knowledge of the Bible is wrong.

At the end of the day, we all use our senses to determine what is true, and we all could be getting it wrong.

How so?

In the sense that you believe it for religious reasons despite the evidence to the contrary.

There are many. For one, the abrupt appearance of all fossil forms. No evidence of transitional forms—anywhere

Actually there are a lot of transitionals. There is a list here.

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fossil record is excellent evidence for evolution. While some fossils can be surprising, they all can be fitted into the theory.

How does creationism explain why there are no flower fossils below the Early Cretaceous layer in the geological column?

Majority appeal seems to be your best argument. At one time, the flat earth “science” folk might have appealed to the same argument

We know hugely more than proponents of the flat Earth. Furthermore, I am talking about people who are experts in the subject. The people who first rejected the flat Earth were the experts; it was the ignorant masses who still believed a flat earth - and many did so for religious reasons.

I accept the experts can get it wrong, but it is very rare. When it does happen, it is a huge deal because it is so rare.

With regards to evolution, the evidence is so overwhelming, the chances of it being wrong are near enough zero. Since Darwin proposed it over 150 years, all the evidence discovered since has supported evolution - and by-and-large refuted creationism.

You boast of “evidence” for evolution but the evidence you talk about is merely a conglomerate of personal interpretation/s (opinion/s) of data that gets “verified” exclusively by majority bias (even more opinions).
In other words, your only “evidence” is established upon an egregious logical fallacy of appeal to the majority

As opposed to what? What do you have daGeo? You do not have any evidence at all. You do not have the vast majority of experts agreeing with you. It is a fact that evolution is mainstream science, despite you protests otherwise. That is not "merely a conglomerate of personal interpretation/s", DaGeo, that is reality.

All you have is your faith in the Bible and wishful thinking. Me, I will stick with the science.

 

[rossum]

Books of the Bible where hardly disputed by the early church.

Here I agree with you. The early church agreed that the books of the Septuagint formed the Old Testament. The whole church. When it later split into West and East, both parts kept the same list of OT books. The Nestorians (who split away earlier) had the same, Septuagint, Old Testament, but omitted a few books of the New Testament.

When the Protestants split from the Western Church, they omitted some books from the Old Testament, only retaining those that are in the Tanakh.

Different Christian groups have different ideas of what books form the Bible.