When was the Apocrapha first incorporated into the Holy Bible?
361249
The books were always included in some libraries, but not to be used as teaching authority. The Library or Alexandria collection included them but not the Palestinian collection which is what is what was used for the King James Version of the bible. \n\nThe books are used to help edify, but again cannot be used to base doctrine (church teachings) on. \n\nThe books are well worth studying and much can be gained.\n\nGod bless,\n+Michael
508860
Allow me to rephrase.. Yes it changes the meaning. But ((why)) are such things in the bible when we know they were added later? But there are more verses which were added (the NIV indicates them in footnotes). So, if such things were added, then who knows what else was added or removed?\n\nBTW, do you know about the "Secret Gospel of Mark"? This is a gem indeed. It answers the difficulty of Mark 10:46 (ie. what happened at Jericho?) and demonstrates nicely how they removed things they didn't like ;)
273940
I have read and would strongly recommend reading, many of the Apocryphal books. There are too many to list, but the below links take you to websites full of them.\n\nhttp://earlyjewishwritings.com/\n\nhttp://earlychristianwritings.com/\n\nCheck out the links; let me know what you think.
62059
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/\n\nI like how you said "Now that there are different versions of the book." Welcome to the 16th century.
472861
Well - in the United States I would say that the New International Version (NIV) is probably the most used in most modern day churches. \n\nI don't think that the Tanak, Apocrypha and Koran should be included because the Bible is a book about Christianity in the NT and a book about the Judaism in the OT. However, Jewish people don't use the Bible. \n\nThe apocrypha has questionable stories that haven't been canonized - the Tanak isn't really Christian and the Koran is a Muslim book. \n\nBuy a separate copy of each - they're just books and I don't see the need of having them in one compnendium.
23072
After the Bible, the next step was the Magna Carta signed in 1215 in England.  The king in order to keep his position was forced to sign it
608862
i think it's misunderstood.\n\ni believe that most, if not all the books in the apocrypha were really intended to be included in the "official" bible, but were omitted by people in positions of oversight solely because these books, when taken in context with the rest of the bible, take the emphasis away from *organized* christianity, and put it on the individual to "realize god". those stories (like the gospel of nicodemus, the gospel of mary, little genesis, etc) actually serve to direct people in a sane way towards realizations of felicity and temperance... but because they do so without compelling people to tithe and suffer and bow to a church, they're discredited as "lies". \n\nit's a pity, because the world might not have turned out to see such a shortage of common sense if they'd been recognized from the start.
1002428
May have to do something with the Roman emporer Nero who was feeding Christains to lions at the time the passage was written; some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken from a historical context and some for moral teachings.  This, from what I understand, was a way for Christians to convey what Nero was doing (his name or birthday converts to 666) much like they used the symbol of the fish to let others know who they were in times of adversity and persecution.
888336
Try this site. It was my bible during law school.
678959
around 32-35 BC.... note that AD started after Christ died
338423
The Good News with  deuterocanonical/Apocrypha has 962 pages in the Old Testament and 350 in the New Testament.The Authorized King James Version  has 987 in the Old Testament and a total of 1291 in the entire Bible. As you can see, the pages depend on factors that vary from version to version.
1099951
Back then the word basically traveled by word of mouth.  The bible is a collection of writhings..66 to be exact.  Faith and trust in Jesus  'blossomed' and florished right from the day he began his ministry.  And it is still blossoming today.
649140
Hi and thanks for a great question. I don't know how much you know about the history of the bible, but let me give you a quick review of the Catholic bible. Essentially, the Catholic Bible used for many years was a translation made with the best texts available back in the 1600's. \n\nSince that time, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has provided us with many more copies of the original text and therefore many translators have access to the mateiral and are able to produce more "modern" translations (the thees and thous tend to confuse rather than clarify for me). The best thing would be to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and read the original manuscripts yourself, but short of that, you can read different modern translations to get a better sense of what the original. \n\nFor example, compare this same verse in four translations:\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=31;\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=49;\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=51;\nhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:1;&version=46;\n\nNow with that said, I prefer to read some of the more modern translations as I said because it becomes clearer to me when I read it. I have provided some links to Catholic approved translations which I think you might find helpful. However, my suggestion is to pick one up, read your favorite passages (or your least favorite ;-) and see which one you like. \n\nIn particular, I found the New Living Translation and the Contemporary English Version to be very helpful especially for reading parts of the old testament taht can be a lttle hard to get through. I am currently reading the NASB, which I also like, and it does include the Apocrophya and is approved by the Catholic Church.\n\nHope this helps and that you will continue to read your bible and grow in Christ.
1011970
There are lots of books that weren't included in the bible.\n\nRoman Emperor Constantine had an agenda when he invented his pagan religion and he adopted books that supported his universal pagan religion.\n\nThe "bible" is the invention of a pagan Roman Emperor and has little or nothing to do with Hebrews other than adopting their myths as the foundation for the Jesus myth.
646919
You are correct that the word Bible is not in the Bible.  I believe Bible is Latin for The Book.  Christian scripture that Paul was referencing was specific to the Old Testament because the New Testament didn't exist yet.  \n\nThe Old Testament become considered "Bible" when Jewish scholars selected the books to be included because of their consistency, historical accuracy, and spiritual quality. \n\nThe New Testament books included in the Bible were chosen by the early church around 300 A.D. for their consistency, historical accuracy, and spiritual quality as well.  \n\nIf you read the bible and compare it to other books that were not included by the Jewish or Christian scholars, i.e. the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, it will be easy to see why most of them were not included in the Bible.
133458
The idea was started by royalty. The real rich would have their Bible pages outlined and decorated in red ruling(all the words not just Jesus').This was to make it easier to read due to the extremly small print of Bibles back then. It wasn't until the 1900's that book publishers decided to incorporate this idea into a useful tool and put the words of Christ in red, also helping make the Bible easier to understand. I don't know which company started it first but it wasn't King James, he was dead long before this. Today the antique red ruled Bibles bring a much higher price than non red ruled, still catering to the royalty.
314050
The first modern system of dividing the Bible into sections was devised by Catholic Cardinal Hugo in the mid-thirteenth century. Hugo, who was compiling a concordance to the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, found it necessary to divide the Bible into sections. These sections basically became the chapters we are acquainted with today. As yet, there were no divisions into verses.\n\nLater, in 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a Jew, divided the Hebrew Old Testament into chapters. He and a later scholar by the name of Athias are credited with the further breakdown of the Old Testament into verses.\n\nIn 1551, the New Testament was similarly subdivided into verses. This work was accomplished by the famous English printer, Robert Stephens—of all things, while riding on horseback from Switzerland to France! Ever since that time, the Bible has followed his chapter-and-verse system.