Apocrypha, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, or simply misuderstood?
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.
714723
I can attest that the KJV does mistranslate a lot of words. My trusty NIV holds up pretty well, I think I've only found two slight errors, but the KJV is definitely shaky at best. And no, the "thee" and "thou" parts of the KJV are not problematic, that is simply the language of the day and it doesn't matter if you translate, "thou art happy" or "you are happy", its the same thing. I love Greek.
883805
P.T.Barnham said "you can't cheat an honest man".\nCon artists hate people who are not greedy.\nI have never heard so many people have so many questions about a book that claims to be true.\nIsn't it time to label the Bible "fairy tale"?
629596
No way!! This also points to the Apocolypse as stated in the bible - Yikes!
683390
The writing in the bible is one-dimensional and often immorality is portrayed as moral.\n\nMost importantly, Mr. Brown lists his book as fiction.  The Bible claims it's ludicrous stories are absolutely true.
711045
The thing that we must remeber is that the bible may be corrupt. There is significant proof for the bible being selectively edited and this could mean that a lot of it isn't true. Also Evolution seems a much better theory. It is more believable and we have more proof for it. I hope this answers ur question.
271286
APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES\n\nWhat are the Apocryphal books? These are the writings that some have included in certain Bibles but that have been rejected by others because they do not bear evidence of having been inspired by God.\nThe term is applied to books of doubtful authorship or authority or those which, while considered to be of some value for personal reading, lacked evidence of divine inspiration. \n\nThese additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.\n\nWhile in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.\n\nWhile the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.\n\nThe need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.\n\nAdditional ancient testimony. One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.
460299
I agree.Man made concepts of good and evil.No matter how bad we may think something is,it is just an opinion,not the truth.No one can really determine what is really good or bad,they can only give their opinion.Many may say that God can judge what is Good or bad,but who can determine that the bible is the word of God?No one.\n\n\nEverything just is.\n\n"Nothing is Good or bad.It's our thoughts that make them so"\n\n-Shakespeare-\n\n\n"Who knows what is good and bad"\n\n-Lao tzu,the founder of Taoism\n\n\nThere is no absolute truth regarding morals.They are all opinions.
372674
Yes there are many mistakes. But also resources to check it out. In the original 1611 version the translators wrote a letter to the reader. Saying how carefully they did their work. But also they said there might be some imperfections. There are some words you can't translate. There are also figures of speach. Plus the translators did not have the benefit of the Masorrah. Deep subject and too complicated to go into here.\n\nThe KJV is the nearest to perfection. We have the benefit of resources, works of scholars, to check it out.
149960
Obviously. A bible is like a bubonic plauge virus. As an object, it is nothing. But under the right conditions, it has the power to destoy millions, even billions of lives.
918861
I guess they don't want people to notice the inconsistencies and nonsensical things that become blatantly obvious whenever you analyze organized religion, and particularly the Bible.\n\nIt's all fine as long as you accept every word in those "holy books" without thought. But as soon as you question just a little bit, the cards start to fall. You're eventually left with two choices: Decide that God in some way defies logic, or reject the book as false.
278916
I know about them and even belive some of them to be the truth such as the Gospel of thomas and the infancies of thomas, and most christians do belive in the Apocryphal Gospels without knowing it. The assemblies of God preach the when jesus died he went to hell and "set the captives free" which is not anywhere in the cannon in fact this is found in the apocryphal books.Also part of the reason they weren't cannonized is because they weren't found until after the cannon was set, as for the Gospel of thomas it wasn't accepted because the catholics didn't want people to belive that they didn't need to go to church to be christian because the love of money is the roo of all evil. Oh and P.S. LOVE the quotation marks, I belive that most people who claim to be christian are a bunch of fakers if they weren't they wouldn't be on here harrassing people and deliberatly trying to hurt others.
1172014
i think the bible is a good book yet fiction, religion is a money and war machine IMHO.  on the other hand people need hope and that is where many find it, we're best off never knowing
454072
Joshua.  People like you crack me up.  Really!  You argue about biblical-specific entries and events as if they were factual and undeniable.  "written 4000 years ago"  On what?  Notebook paper?  Do you have some copies of those 4000 year old writings?  Do you have some secret text that nobody else has ever seen?  Are you on heroin or acid?  What's your trip?  None of the authors of the NT witnessed the alleged resurrection.  No matter how you stretch it, there are no actual accounts of it.  Most of the NT was created and written in 320AD under the direction of Constantine the Great, and its puirpose was NOT for historic accuracy.  Its purpose was to create a doctrine at the Council of Nicea that all factions of religious doctrine could agree upon and pull everyone together.  Why does it appear that there only a few people that post here regularly who actually know this?  Is your only source of "history" the Bible itself?  Are you crazy enough to use the Bible to prove the Bible?  Talk about illogic!\n\nThe original poster is correct -- if the notion of god portrayed in the bible is accurate, then there is no need for "free will" -- God already knows how things turn out.  He already knows who chooses free will and who doesn't choose free will, how they act, and who the sinners are and who goes to hell.  He already knows the choices people made in the past and what they'll make in the future.  He already knows how things will turn.  Already been there.  Outside of the time line?  Fine, state it however you wish.  It's still the same.  He's all knowing.  He knows how the "souls" will turn out. There's no need for a test on earth.\n\nThe question is not flawed at all.  Your assumption that the Bible is incontrovertible is flawed, and your statements of biblical myths as assertion are ridiculous.  It is one of hundreds of unprovable myths on this whole planet, full of fatal flaws, like the one this question raises.
898164
It's good for propping up tables, but not much else.  It does contain errors, though not nearly so many as the bible.\n\nI note the prior response of Mr. Stick.  The sort of intolerance which he expresses gives Islam a bad name, and he needs to clean up his act.
60118
Perhaps not.  But is it okay to ram your personal interpretation (of that which you have learned as dogma) down the throats of others if you never listen to informed critism?\nIf you have never read the old testiment in Hebrew, how do you really know what is says?  If you do not know Aramaic or Greek, do you really have an informed opinion yourself?\nDo you know the exact reasoning made by the men who decided what should be included in the Holy Bible and what should be left out?  Do you know that all of them did not agree with all of the books included?\nA good computer program can be written to look up an answer (or several rated answers) in the text of the King James Version of the Bible for just about any question, but that does not make the program holy.\nJudgment of others based upon whether or not they interpret scriptures in the same manner as you do may be a sin and certainly has lead to the disruption of the Christian religion into smaller factions.\nNo, it is never okay to critize anything that has not been studied.  Sure people do it, but that does not make it okay.
1044596
I couldn't list them all for you if I wanted to. There are more that were rejected than there were that were approved. Everyone that has suggested looking up Apochrypal texts is on the right track. The life of Adam and Eve was a good one from the old testament. The Book of Enoch, The gospels of Mary, and Judas, Peters Revalations. Those are just a few of the interesting ones.