THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?

Yahweh is Satan you dumb fuck.

YES thats why we see sporadic cases of child abuse & blood sacrifice of human in some churches and even in vetican

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT...

HOMOSEXUALITY?

We realize that this subject can be a very difficult one to address. Furthermore, as hate crimes specifically committed against homosexuals occur, many feel that this issue shouldn't be addressed at all for fear of only adding to the hostile environment that many homosexuals face. Despite the cultural climate in which we live, this issue must be addressed according to the Word of God. God's laws are always for our good, although man may see them as restricting. In the end, only obedience to the Word of God can bring true freedom. We address this issue out of God's love for the homosexual to bless and help him.

Much of our society has embraced many perverted sexual practices that are considered in the Bible as abominations to God. Homosexuality is among the list of deviate or abnormal sexual practices however, there are many other practices that can be included as well. Pornography, pedophilia, prostitution, bestiality, oral sex, phone sex and computer virtual reality sex, just to name a few of them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Although the Bible doesn't detail each and every one of these sinful acts, it does clearly speak out about many of them. Any deviation from God's original plan for sex between a married man and woman is still a sin in God's eyes. The main reason we call these things perverted is because they are unnatural and scripture clearly tells us those who do such things are committing abominations. Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Homosexuality is also referred to as the sin of sodomy. This reference comes from an account in the Bible of two exceedingly wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Lord destroyed. Sodom was known for its rampant homosexuality and unrestrained sexual lust, as well as other sins such as arrogance, haughtiness, and disregard for the poor. When the Lord sent angels to warn Lot who lived in the city that it was about to be destroyed, the men of the city actually wanted to rape the angels! Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."

In the Old Testament the penalty for this sin was severe. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Today the penalty of death comes in the form of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It also brings death to the soul and spirit of man because the life of God is pushed out by indulging in something that is an abomination to God. God wants to deliver all who are trapped in this unholy practice and He will if anyone calls out to Him with a sincere heart.

We certainly acknowledge that AIDS has broken out of the homosexual community, and now, many innocent people are suffering with this disease through no fault of their own. However, the intent of the above statement is not directed to those who have innocently contracted this disease, but rather to the sinners who are spreading it. A comparison could be made to those who smoke. Smokers are opening themselves up for lung cancer; however, the people who are subjected to breathing the smoke second-hand are also subject to this disease. The person who willfully smokes is guilty of destroying their own bodies, but should those who are forced to live in the environment of the smoke, get lung cancer, they are not guilty of this sin. When we teach that smoking causes lung cancer, we are not judging or condemning those who innocently get lung cancer from breathing second-hand smoke. It is simply a true fact that smoking can cause lung cancer.



The same is true of AIDS. A homosexual life style increases the risk of that person contracting AIDS. There is no condemnation or judgment against those who innocently contract this disease through no fault of their own (for instance, through blood transfusions.) However, since AIDS is most prevalent in the homosexual community, we need to warn people of the dangers of homosexuality, so that AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases are not spread to the rest of society, as now, many heterosexuals have contracted these diseases too, through unfaithful partners.

Romans 1:24-32:






24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


These scriptures clearly state that these vile affections of men lusting for other men (gay men) or women lusting for other women (lesbians) are not the natural affections God created men and women to have for one another. Let me say here that God loves all homosexuals! However, He hates the deeds of homosexuality because they are sinful. God did not create any human being as a homosexual. They are not born that way, just as murderers are not born that way. However, these spirits can be transmitted to children, especially if someone who had this demonic spirit seduced or raped a child--or even if they were close to gay people. These demons can also be imparted to others through unholy sexual acts.

People become homosexuals because they yield to abnormal acts or lust. It is through some source that they have received a demonic spirit that drives them to their lust. Viewing evil videos or pornographic books is a way of opening the door for Satan to give one an evil, perverse spirit. Though people are not born as homosexuals, the Bible does say all human beings are born with a sin nature. If we yield to the evils of our flesh it will lead to our destruction not only in this life, but in the life to come. However, through faith in Jesus Christ and His death on the cross we can break the hold that sin has upon us. We do not have to yield to the old fleshy nature but we can now overcome evil temptations and live our lives controlled by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Sex is God's idea and its purpose is not only for procreation, but also for recreation and the development of a deep relationship between man and woman. Nothing is wrong or dirty about sex when it is engaged in the bonds of marriage as the Lord commanded in the Bible. However, when perversions are committed inside the marriage relationship, this can be sinful also. God made man and woman and brought them together "face to face." Oral sex is of homosexual origin that replaces the normal "face to face" relationship God intended in a marriage. The Bible describes the sex act in Song of Solomon Chapter 4. In this chapter it speaks of this "face to face" relationship by describing looking into his lover's eyes and kissing his lover's lips and fondling his lover's breasts. Oral sex is not normal or natural as it is an unclean act.

No one has to live in bondage with an abnormal life of homosexuality nor any other abnormal behavior. No one has to be controlled by pornography. No one has to have evil thoughts plague their minds. There is a way out through what Jesus has done for us. He loves sinners and wants to free us from any evil practices. He will empower those who cry out for deliverance to get free and stay free. Here are the steps you must take to get free:

(1.) Make a total commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. Be willing to turn your life completely over to the will of God and yield to His plan for your life. This means you must be willing to do anything, go anywhere and give up any thing as He leads. Remember, God will never lead you to do anything that is not in agreement with the Bible. You can trust God. He created you and has a better plan for your life.

(2.) Your must pray and read your Bible daily. You must study and apply the Word of God to overcome Satan's attacks. The way that you resist the attacks of the devil is by quoting the Word of God to him. When the devil came to tempt Jesus, He simply quoted the Word to him. Good praise tapes will also be of a great help when you are tempted. Put one on and start singing along with it.

(3.) You must pray for and seek out a strong Bible believing group of Holy Spirit filled people. You will need their help and fellowship. As you humble yourself and seek help, the Lord will deliver you. Ask God to lead you to someone that can pray the prayer of deliverance for you, as you probably will need to be set free from a demon. You should also seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit as you will need His power to get free and to remain free.

(4.) You must cut off all sources and relationships that would lead you back into sin. The Bible tells us to flee fornication (sexual sins). You must get out of any corrupt entanglements, or areas that you know will be a temptation to you. If you have been hooked on internet pornography subscribe to an Internet Service Provider that will filter out the pornography for you. Destroy all evil books and videos.

(5.) Should you slip or fall back occasionally, repent and get right back up and go on with God. Do not allow the devil to condemn you once you have repented. Put your sin under the blood of Jesus. He will strengthen you and you will win this battle because of the Lord's promise to you. Remember, He loves you and is there to help you. Run to Him when you get in trouble, never run from Him. He will not ever give up on you! We too, will be standing with you for your total healing and deliverance. Philippians 1:6: "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

(6.) You must forgive everyone that has ever hurt you. You can only do this through the power of God. You must by a simple act of your will voice the forgiveness and then the Lord will give you the feeling of forgiveness. This may be a while in coming but just keep forgiving when you think of any wrong that has been done to you. The Lord will give you His love for those people who have wronged you.

still no answer . what was the reason to alter bible in original form ---

thanks --- i understand truth hurts

easily explainable when you realize that Yahweh is Satan.

Biblical apocrypha From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a class of books included in some Bibles. For other books generally excluded from Bibles, see Apocrypha.
Part of a series on
The Bible

Biblical canons
and books
Tanakh
(Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim)
Christian Bible
Old Testament (OT)
New Testament (NT)
Hebrew Bible
Deuterocanon
Antilegomena
Chapters and verses

Apocrypha
(Jewish · OT · NT)
Development and
authorship
Authorship
Hebrew canon
Old Testament canon
New Testament canon
Mosaic authorship
Pauline epistles
Johannine works
Petrine epistles
Translations and
manuscripts
Samaritan Torah
Dead Sea scrolls
Masoretic text
Targums · Peshitta
Septuagint · Vulgate
Gothic Bible · Vetus Latina
Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible
Biblical criticism
Historical criticism
Textual criticism
Source criticism
Form criticism
Redaction criticism
Canonical criticism
Novum Testamentum Graece
Documentary hypothesis
Wiseman hypothesis
Synoptic problem
NT textual categories

Historicity
People · Places · Names
Internal consistency
Archeology · Artifacts
Science and the Bible
Interpretation
Hermeneutics
Pesher · Midrash · Pardes
Allegorical interpretation
Literalism
Prophecy
Perspectives
Gnostic · Islamic · Qur'anic
Christianity and Judaism
Inerrancy · Infallibility
Criticism of the Bible
Bible book
-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
Bible portal

v · t · e
The word "apocrypha" (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") is today often used to refer to the collection of ancient books printed in some editions of the Bible in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. Although the term had been in use since the 5th century, it was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate inter-Testamental section.[1] Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. As an authority for this division, he cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[2] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[3] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[4]

There was agreement among the Reformers that the Apocrypha contained "books proceeding from godly men" and therefore recommended reading. The Geneva Bible[5] said this in 1560:

These bokes that follow in order unto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bokes, which were not received by a comune consent to be red and expounded publickely in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded : but as bokes proceding from godlie men, were received to be red for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, and for the instruction of godlie maners : which bokes declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and meanes to confirme them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witnesse that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence, who had bothe so threatened by his Prophetes, and so broght it to passe for the destruction of their enemies, and for the tryal of his children.
Later, during the English Civil War, the Westminster Confession of 1647 excluded the Apocrypha from the canon and made no recommendation of the Apocrypha above "other human writings",[6] and, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "...the name Apocrypha soon came to have an unfavourable signification which it still retains, comporting both want of genuineness and canonicity."[7] This hostile attitude towards the Apocrypha (considered Catholic by some British Protestants) is represented by the refusal of the British and Foreign Bible Society in the early 19th century to print it (see below).

Catholic and Orthodox Christians regard as fully canonical most of these books called Apocrypha, and their canonicity was explicitly affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546[8] and Synod of Jerusalem (1672) respectively. They are called deuterocanonical by Catholics and anagignoskomena by the Orthodox.

Contents [hide]
1 Biblical canon
2 Vulgate prologues
3 Apocrypha in editions of the Bible
3.1 Gutenberg Bible
3.2 Luther Bible
3.3 Clementine Vulgate
3.4 King James Version
3.5 Other early Bible editions
3.6 Modern editions
3.7 Anagignoskomena
4 Pseudepigrapha
5 Classification
6 Cultural impact
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

[edit] Biblical canonMain articles: Biblical canon, Christian biblical canons, Development of the Christian biblical canon, Protocanonical books, and Deuterocanonical books
[edit] Vulgate prologuesJerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[9] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.

Although in his Apology against Rufinus, Book II he denied the authority of the canon of the Hebrews, this caveat does not appear in the prologues themselves, nor in his prologues does he specify the authorship of the canon he describes. Whatever its origin or authority, it was this canon, without qualification, that the prologues of the bibles of Western Europe described.

[edit] Apocrypha in editions of the BibleApocrypha are very well attested in surviving manuscripts of the Christian Bible. (See for example Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate, and Peshitta.) After the Lutheran and Catholic canons were defined by Luther (c. 1534) and Trent[10] (April 8, 1546) respectively, early Protestant editions of the Bible (notably the Luther Bible in German and 1611 King James Version in English) did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status. The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith during the English Civil War (1642–1651) specifically excluded the Apocrypha, thus Bibles printed by English Protestants who separated from the Church of England began to exclude these books.

[edit] Gutenberg BibleThis famous edition of the Vulgate was published in 1455. Like the manuscripts it was based on, the Gutenberg Bible lacked a specific Apocrypha section;[11] its Old Testament included the books that Jerome considered apocryphal, and those Clement VIII later moved to the appendix. The Prayer of Manasses was located after the Books of Chronicles, and 3 and 4 Esdras followed 2 Esdras (Nehemiah), and Prayer of Solomon followed Ecclesiasticus.

[edit] Luther BibleMain article: Luther Bible
Martin Luther translated the Bible into German during the early part of the 16th century, first releasing a complete Bible in 1534. His Bible was the first major edition to have a separate section called Apocrypha. Books and portions of books not found in the Masoretic Text of Judaism were moved out of the body of the Old Testament to this section.[12] Luther placed these books between the Old and New Testaments. For this reason, these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books, see also Intertestamental period and Luther's canon. The books 1 and 2 Esdras were omitted entirely.[13]

Luther also expressed some doubts about the canonicity of four New Testament books, although he never called them apocrypha: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Revelation to John. He did not put them in a separate named section, but he did move them to the end of his New Testament.[14]

[edit] Clementine VulgateSee also: Books of the Latin Vulgate
In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published his revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books not found in the canon of the Council of Trent from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent).[15]

Prayer of Manasses
3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)
The protocanonical and deuterocanonical books he placed in their traditional positions in the Old Testament.

[edit] King James VersionThe English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly (variations are marked below). The section contains the following:[16]

1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
Tobit
Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasses (follows 2 Chronicles in Geneva)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Included in this list are those books of the Vulgate that were not in Luther's canon. These are the books most frequently referred to by the casual appellation "the Apocrypha". These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[17] But despite being placed in the Apocrypha, in the table of lessons at the front of some printings of the King James Bible, these books are included under the Old Testament.

[edit] Other early Bible editions This section requires expansion.

All English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew's Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section. The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582–1609) placed the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras into an Appendix of the second volume of the Old Testament.

In the Zürich Bible (1529–30) they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras. The 1st edition omitted the Prayer of Manasseh and the Rest of Esther, although these were included in the 2nd edition. The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".

In 1569 the Spanish Reina Bible, following the example of the pre-Clementine Latin Vulgate, contained the deuterocanonical books in its Old Testament. Following the other Protestant translations of its day, Valera's 1602 revision of the Reina Bible moved these books into an inter-testamental section.

[edit] Modern editionsAll King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha.[18] In 1826,[19] the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. In the 18th century, the Apocrypha section was omitted from the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version. In the 1979 revision of the Vulgate, the section was dropped. Modern reprintings of the Clementine Vulgate commonly omit the Apocrypha section. Many reprintings of older versions of the Bible now omit the apocrypha and many newer translations and revisions have never included them at all.

There are some exceptions to this trend, however. Some editions of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible include not only the Apocrypha listed above, but also the third and fourth books of the Maccabees, and Psalm 151; the RSV Apocrypha also lists the Letter of Jeremiah (Epistle of Jeremy in the KJV) as separate from the book of Baruch, following the Orthodox tradition.

The American Bible Society lifted restrictions on the publication of Bibles with the Apocrypha in 1964. The British and Foreign Bible Society followed in 1966.[20] The Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate (the printed edition, not most of the on-line editions), which is published by the UBS, contains the Clementine Apocrypha as well as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Psalm 151.

Brenton's edition of the Septuagint includes all of the Apocrypha found in the King James Bible with the exception of 2 Esdras, which was not in the Septuagint and is no longer extant in Greek.[21] He places them in a separate section at the end of his Old Testament, following English tradition.

In Greek circles, however, these books are not traditionally called Apocrypha, but Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσ&#954​;όμενα), and are integrated into the Old Testament. The Orthodox Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, includes the Anagignoskomena in its Old Testament, with the exception of 4 Maccabees. This was translated by the Saint Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, from the Rahlfs Edition of the Septuagint using Brenton's English translation and the RSV Expanded Apocrypha as boilerplate. As such, they are included in the Old Testament with no distinction between these books and the rest of the Old Testament. This follows the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church where the Septuagint is the received version of Old Testament scripture, considered itself inspired in agreement with some of the Fathers, such as St Augustine, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text followed by all other modern translations.[22]

[edit] AnagignoskomenaThe Septuagint, the pre-eminent Greek version of the Old Testament, contains books that are not present in the Hebrew Bible. These texts are not traditionally segregated into a separate section, nor are they usually called apocrypha. Rather, they are referred to as the Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσ&#954​;όμενα, "things that are read"). The anagignoskomena are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (in the Vulgate this is chapter 6 of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, i.e. all the Deuterocanonical plus 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.[23]

Some editions add additional books, as Psalm 151 or the Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses. 2 Esdras is added as appendix in the Slavonic Bibles and 4 Maccabees as appendix in Greek editions.[23]

[edit] PseudepigraphaTechnically, a pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings that do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the apocryphal texts listed above. Examples[24] include:

Letter of Aristeas
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Joseph and Aseneth
Life of Adam and Eve
Lives of the Prophets
Ladder of Jacob
Jannes and Jambres
History of the Rechabites
Eldad and Modad
History of Joseph
Odes of Solomon
Prayer of Joseph
Prayer of Jacob
Often included among the pseudepigrapha are 3 and 4 Maccabees because they are not traditionally found in western Bibles, although they are in the Septuagint. Similarly, the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees and 4 Baruch are often listed with the pseudepigrapha although they are commonly included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Psalms of Solomon are found in some editions of the Septuagint.

[edit] Classification This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

The Apocrypha of the King James Bible constitutes the books of the Vulgate that are present neither in the Hebrew Old Testament nor the Greek New Testament. Since these are derived from the Septuagint, from which the old Latin version was translated, it follows that the difference between the KJV and the Roman Catholic Old Testaments is traceable to the difference between the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. This is only true with certain reservations, as the Latin Vulgate was revised by Jerome according to the Hebrew, and, where Hebrew originals were not found, according to the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Vulgate omits 3 and 4 Maccabees, which generally appear in the Septuagint, while the Septuagint and Luther's Bible omit 2 Esdras, which is found in the Apocrypha of the Vulgate and the King James Bible. Luther's Bible, moreover, also omits 1 Esdras. It should further be observed that the Clementine Vulgate places the Prayer of Manasses and 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in an appendix after the New Testament as apocryphal.

It is hardly possible to form any classification not open to some objection. Scholars are still divided as to the original language, date, and place of composition of some of the books that come under this provisional attempt at order. (Thus some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasseh are most probably derived from a Semitic original written in Palestine, yet in compliance with the prevailing opinion they are classed under Hellenistic Jewish literature. Again, the Slavonic Enoch goes back undoubtedly in parts to a Semitic original, though most of it may have been written by a Greek jewish in Egypt.)

A distinction can be made between the Palestinian and the Hellenistic literature of the Old Testament, though even this is open to serious objections. The former literature was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and seldom in Greek; the latter in Greek.

Next, within these literatures there are three or four classes of subject material.

Historical,
Legendary (Haggadic),
Apocalyptic,
Didactic or Sapiential.
The Apocrypha proper then would be classified as follows:--

Palestinian Jewish Literature
Historical
1 Esdras (i.e. Greek Ezra).
1 Maccabees.
Legendary
Book of Baruch
Book of Judith
Apocalyptic
2 Esdras (see also Apocalyptic literature)
Didactic
Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus)
Tobit
Hellenistic Jewish Literature:--
Historical and Legendary
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
Epistle of Jeremy
2 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
Didactic
Book of Wisdom
[edit] Cultural impact

That is the truth!!!

FOLKS KNOW THAT BUT they are afraid to come out -- just follow the GOD OF JESUS and his message and you will be saved

Tuesday March 20 2012, 18:07:53 UTC 14 minutes ago San Diego County urban area, California 4.2 0.1 USGS Feed Detail
Tuesday March 20 2012, 18:07:53 UTC 14 minutes ago Southern California 3.9 31.9 USGS Feed Detail
Tuesday March 20 2012, 18:07:45 UTC 15 minutes ago Southern California 4.1 16.6 USGS Feed
GOD OF JESUS IS TELLING US SOMETHING FOLKS

You are correct. Good going.

JUST trying to educate people-- and just follow true message of jesus

then you have been fooled with great success

since the KJV is the only one close to correct

You are doing just fine... No problems with me. Personally, I fine the NIV bible an insult to the truth.

Last Edited by Little Star on 03/20/2012 02:40 PM

no brother, king james deleted 100k verse from bible and added some verses of his "freemason " beliefs and infected bible with some pegan belief of idol worshiping(current jesus idol in churches) and godess worhiping (like queen of heaven, isis,and many more) just follow the message of jesus

OBAMA IS MEMBER OF ELITE ILLUMINATI GROUP TOO-- CONGRESS,DEMOCRATES AND EVEN REPUBLICAN ALL GO AGAINST MESSAGE OF JESUS-

FIRST DAY OF SPRING and first 7.6 earthquake of the year scary

It really depends on what you mean by "Bible" and "missing." Among the various religious traditions of the world, there are various beliefs about the "Bible" (I assume you mean the Christian Scriptures).

For example, jewish people don't believe that any of the New Covenant books are divinely inspired. Muslims go even further, holding that much of the Old Covenant has been corrupted (only to be restored in the Qu'ran). Among jewish people there is dispute over which parts of the Old Covenant tradition is divinely inspired as well (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish pseudepigrapha, the works of the mystics, &c).

Furthermore, among Christians there is not a universal agreement on the canon of Scripture either. Protestants believe that the deutrocanonical books ("apocrypha") are not part of sacred Scripture, while most Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church believe they are. Yet still, several Orthodox churches hold books to be inspired which are not recognized by the Roman Catholic church. And of course, there have also always been the Christian pseudepigraphal works as well (as exemplified by the [mainly] Gnostic corpus discovered at Nag Hammadi).

All of this does not preclude, of course, the possibility of a single, completely accurate canon (nor even necessarily preclude one from the knowledge of such a canon by purely human means); this is just to say that the words "Bible" and "missing" carry a *huge* amount of baggage that needs to be sorted before the question can be answered properly.

I will assume you mean something along the lines of "are there really sixteen chapters missing from [some major Protestant Bible translation as compared to some other major Protestant Bible translation]?" This is commonly asserted by those who believe that all modern Protestant Bible translations are in some way inferior to the 1611 edition of the King James translation, and is the only context which makes sense to me, given the above considerations.

If that is the intent of the question, the answer is that it is very possibly true (or it could be said the other way, i.e., the one translation "inserts" 16 chapters, rather than the other "missing" them). The reasons for this are complex, and essentially come down to choices the translators had to make when they encountered different ancient manuscripts of the same passage, which had different readings from each other regarding some word or phrase, or where one lacked (or included) some bit that was present (or missing) in the other. These differences are called "variant readings" (or just "variants" for short), and the act of choosing between two or more variants to arrive at a reading is known as "collation."

The science behind this collation process is known as "Textual Criticism" (probably a poor choice of words, since it has nothing to do with "Higher Criticism," which is actually *critical* of the historical truth and accuracy of the Christian traditions). This science is used by everyone trying to reconstruct any ancient text from multiple fragments / editions. That means that the same principles for selecting between variants are used to determine what Plato originally wrote, as are used to determine what the evangelist Mark originally wrote.

So long answer short--some Protestant Bible translations omit (or include, depending on your perspective) certain words, phrases, or even entire sections of text (e.g., the last portion of Mark 16), because the translators of that version believed those textual choices best represented the original text as the authors wrote it. The issue is complicated, and to properly explain it would take a book-length treatment (of which there are several), dealing with issues such as manuscript families, individual manuscript pedigree, common scribal practice and errors, &c. Suffice it to say that no Protestant Bible translation willingly omits any portion of text that another translation includes, unless the translators felt it was not part of the original text as penned by an inspired writer, based on rigorous Textual Critical analysis

unconvinced.

there were 72 chapters in orignal bible which were reduced to 66 by king james The Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants are not the same. The first thing to know is that Catholics have more then the bible to follow. They have a lot of other scriptures to go by as well. Some Catholics don't follow them correctly and other Catholics see that as sin to not follow it (that's the correct way). Like dressing modestly is a big problem right now. people rebel. Catholics and Protestants use the word "apocrypha" differently. There are OT books that are considered apocryphal by all Christian churches, including Catholicism. There are other books, called "Deuterocanonical" by Rome, that are considered part of the canon by Rome, and are considered apocryphal by other Christian churches. These Deuterocanonical books are: Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (NOT to be confused with Ecclesiastes, which is accepted as canonical by all Christian churches). Protestant churches do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical, and you will not find them in their bibles.

Another difference are the texts from which the translations were made.
The Catholic Bible is sourced primarily from the Latin Vulgate and Codex Vaticanus. The early Protestants used the Textus Receptus. This difference is not so pronounced today with many different versions available for Protestants being sourced from additional texts.
Special note on The Jerusalem Bible:

As biblical scholarship opened up in the mid-20th century, Catholics began to pay more attention. The Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem was called upon by a French publisher (Editions du Cerf) to rise to the occasion and produce a French translation from the best available texts. The result was a single-volume translation of the entire Bible in 1956 known popularly as La Bible de Jerusalem. This French version, of very good quality with full textual critical aparatus of a very scholarly nature, was translated into English. But the English was not simply taken from the original French. Some books were first drafted from the French into English and then compared word for word with the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and other books were drafted into English from the ancient texts first and then compared word for word with the French. The desire was to be as completely faithful to the original texts as possible, while preserving the intent and scholarship of the original French materials.
The General Editor of the English translation effort was Alexander Jones, and those who are not aware of this will be fascinated to learn that among the major contributors to the work was J. R. R. Tolkien of literary fame.
This English version is called The Jerusalem Bible, and it contains the standard books of the Catholic canon. Notes are paraphrased from the first (I believe) English publication; Doubleday, Garden City New York, 1966.

Answer
Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading.


As a side note:
The Bible is the most preserved work of literature in our history. In fact, there are approximately 5,600 original manuscripts still today. When the Catholic church translated into English in 1966, it used as many of the original texts as there were. What is most interesting is that in 1415 AD, Erasus translated to English using 5 copies of a German translation. Then King James used Erasus translation to come up with the KJV of the bible. Ever wonder why there are differences???? These differences are very minor other than the KJV not including the Apocrypha as God had originally inspired. If we all agree that the Bible is inspired by God, then how can we as man decide later that those books we don't agree with are not?

Roman Catholic Answer
It was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture.

The seven disputed books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include an additional six chapters (107 verses) in Esther and three chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.
According to major Protestant scholars and historians, in the first four centuries Church leaders (e.g. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus) generally recognized these seven books as canonical and scriptural, following the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome (382), and general consensus, finalized the New Testament canon while also including the deutercanon, in lists that were identical to that of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

There's a scholarly consensus that this canon was pretty much accepted from the fourth century to the sixteenth, and indeed, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codes Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450) include the (unseparated) deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran did not contain Esther, but did contain Tobit.

According to Douglas and Geisler, Jamnia (first century Jewish council) was not an authoritative council, but simply a gathering of scholars, and similar events occurred afterward. In fact, at Jamnia the canonicity of books such as Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon was also disputed. Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not "settle" anything. The jewish people were still arguing about the canonicity of the books mentioned earlier and also Proverbs into the early second century.

And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote:


When I repeat what the jewish people say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33)



Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture

it's fantastic how people here always think english is the only and first language of this planet

Your idioacy is upstaged only by your complete lack of understanding of the scriptures...then to complicate matters, you quote from the NIV and not the King James version... What a tard!

this is king james version The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:

3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.

4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

6 Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.

7 Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.

8 Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.

So because muslims say so thren the Bible must be wrong???Dr Naik states things like that and I proved him wrong every time he claimed the Bible is mistaken.

You are a blasphemer and a fool.

i dont follow "naik" or any other leaders--- in islam there is no "grand imam" all people are equal weather poor or rich --- men or women my question to you australian coward is will you read ezikiel 23 infron of you daughter,mom or sister? if no then this are word of satan

one cannot be a 'blasphemer' against that!

blasphemer believes in god other then god of jesus---- so one who say jesus is god are those people blesphemer by making partners with "god of jesus" my only question is will u read this chapter infront of your mother,sister or daughter?