What is criteria of deletion of gospel from Holy Bible Why they Deleted Gospel of Barnabas and dead sea scrols
826214
Actually the dead sea scrolls were not deleted from the Bible. The dead sea scrolls actually match up to the Textus Receptus or "Received Text" which is what the King James Version was based on. As for the criteria for a book's use in the Bible it had three main criteria: 1. It had to have been proven to have been actually written by that apostle. 2. It had to have been used and recognized by LOCAL churches. 3. It had to be free of doctrinal and writting errors.
100148
I would guess that they buried it or disposed of it someplace. I would like to know where in the Bible it talks of the Jewish law you are speaking of. If you could add the verse/s in the additional details area. I would like to learn more about that.
292246
Yes it is,  Many protestant bibles have left it out since it does not contain alot of writings to the level of some of the other books ( but I would guess if many protestants had thier choice today they would leeave out some of the OT stories now adays.\n\nBut it is in my bible
222945
This is true. :) Matthew (Levi) did [seem to] want to prove to the Jewish that Jesus was actually the Messiah, thus all the Old Testament stuff.\nI would guess an original Hebrew copy cannot be found because of the persecution. The Greek copies were probably made prior to the Hebrew version being destroyed. The copies were likely sent out to others, while the copier, I would imagine kept the original for himself to use. Only specualtion, of course.\n\n***\nOh, and borrowing heavily from Mark? Probably because the gospel was written a time after the events occured. He may have wanted to keep his facts straight. Or it could have been a coincidence, seeing as there were writing about the same thing.
730078
i found a bible search c link below\nhope u find what u need.\n:)\nit's 1 of my favourites.
1177672
He....   darn it.  I thought I had the recipe sitting here but I seem to have lost it.\n\nGeez, what kind of question is that any way?\n\nLet's assume for a minute that you are asking about a just a mundane operation like walking from one town to another.  The inclusion of the word "exactly" in a question about a 2000 year old event makes one wonder what your epistemelogical standard is.   \n\nThe quick and the dirty of the situation is, I don't know.  I think it probably did happen though. I'm not a fundementalist, so therefore it's not necessary for the New Testament accounts, in this case the Gospel of John, to be completly inerrant for me to sign on.  They just have to be generally historically accurate, like any other set of historical documents from the time.\n\nSome people's a priori commitment to pure materialism aside, the story seems to be authentic to me.  It has specific details that a good old propaganda story probably wouldn't contain.  Such as Jesus's disagreement with his mother and his consequent quip at her.  And then he actuallly does what she suggested.  Propaganda created from whole cloth would probably contain less contraversy in it.  \n\nThe Gospel of John is actually the New Testament book that we have the earliest documentary evidence of.  Part of it was found in the Nag Hammadi (sp?) library in Egypt and has been dated to about 130 a.d.   That's pretty darn close to the events described compared to most ancient historical documents that are considered authoritative.
375606
the bible is rewritten a lot\nit was changed a lot\n\nits now FALSE\nif you need evidences \njust contact
677103
Never quite heard it told that way, but what you may be interested in is the omitted biblical book of enoch.  This banned book from both the bible and the torah explains the reason for the flood and is so out there you can almost understand why it was banned.
726974
One of the best books on this is "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  He is a lawyer who spent years trying to prove that the Bible is false and that Jesus never existed and from independent texts and archaeological sources ended up proving the opposite.  He has a section detailing how priests who copied the manuscripts would, after double checking their copy, go back and count letters in every verse just to insure they hadn't accidently left out or added a letter.\n\n     There are so many manuscripts in existence that they can be compared fairly easily to show there has been no change.  As earlier manuscripts are found it only confirms this more.  It was assumed this would not be the case in the mid 60s and 'experts' from that time are still quoted in academia because they don't like the results of new archaeological discoveries.\n\n     Scholar John Lea compares Shakespeare and the Bible:  He says that it seems strange that the text of Shakespeare, which has been in existence for only a few centuries "should be far more uncertain and corrupt than that of the New Testament, now over eighteen centuries old, during nearly fifteen of which it existed only in manuscript..."\n\n     "With perhaps a dozen or twenty exceptions (mostly involving numbers - my own note) the text of every verse in the New Testament may be said to be so far settled by general consent of scholars, that any dispute as to its readings must relate rather to the intrepretation of the words than to any doubts respeting the words themselves.  But in every one of Shakespeare's thirty-seven plays there are probably a hundred readings still in dispute, a large portion of which materially  affects the meaning of the passages in which they occur."\n\n     Doctor Bernard Ramm notes that "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament..."\n\n     "Jews...kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word and paragraph.  They had special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity-scribes, lawyers, massoretes.  Who ever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle?  Cicero or Seneca?"\n\n     Very few manuscripts exist of most writings we accept from antiquity without question.  I believe Plato is still in the lead with 27 manuscripts in existence of one of his works.  In contrast, thousands of manuscripts of scripture exist that can be crossreferenced and checked for accuracy.\n\n     The party who wrote above that King James had a political agenda with his translation is correct.  It probably colors less than 1% of his translation.  Nevertheless, the New International Version is probably the most accurate translation currently available as it used a multitude of scholars cross checking each others work and went to original Hebrew manuscripts dating to centuries before the latin translation the King James version used (as the original Hebrew ms. had yet to be discovered at the time).  If you read the King James side by side with the New International Version you will find very little difference.  And no difference where core doctrines (teachings) of Christianity are concerned.
577321
There probably is missing Gospel. What relevance? It would have the same message, no?
876108
have you tried bible.org.  sometimes if you word it differently that could help you find it as well.  Blueletterbible.org works too
133740
The thing to look for is what's called the "historical-critical method." This is the method of researching, translating, and interpreting the Holy Scriptures that the bishops at Vatican II approved. In short, it uses not only the texts themselves, but also our archeological discoveries, historical sciences, and human reason to come to the best understanding of the Bible.\n\nMany (but not all) Protestant denominations reject the historical method, and translate and interpret the Scriptures literally and directly. (The King James, New King James, and New American Standard are of this type.)\n\nOther translations try to use modern language to get the ideas across. These are "paraphrases," not "translations," and the Contemporary English and New Living Versions are the most notorious of them.\n\nThe Catholic Church favors the New American Bible or the Revised Standard Version (not the New American STANDARD of the NEW Revised Standard ... those too are paraphrases). The NAB and RSV were translated by committees of Catholic AND Protestant Scripture scholars, and are very sound.
372114
:}\nNo electronic coppies are available. National Geographic holds the rights to the translation and will be publishing it for sale. not yet released.\nThe Internet is full of rumors about what it says, if you care to google it.  \nThe rumors are probably as accurate account of what it contains as it is an accurate record of the life of Christ.
517590
That is an easy one!\n\nFind a Christian Bible.\nFind another book.\nCheck if that book is found in the Bible.\nIf it isn't there then obviously it was left out.\n\nHow hard was that?\n\nThe Egyptian Book of the Dead? Nope, not there.\nThe Tibetian Book of the Dead? Nope, not there.\nWar & Peace? Nope, not there.\n\nWhere did you get this silly idea that the Bible was supposed to contain every single book in the universe and that the mean ole' Council of Nicea left all those millions of books out?
56282
It actually goes from Mark 16:9-20.  I'm not exactly sure why these were elimated.  But it's possible, and this is just speculation, that it was removed because this was him going to see Mary Magdalene.  It even says that she was the first person he had seen since rising.  He tells her to go and preach the Word, heal the sick.  Basically do everything that he told the other apostles to do.  It's possible that this is removed to support the belief that women can't be priests or any position of power.
846087
I would assume it is ascribed to Joseph of Aramathea,  the rich man who Jesus body was buried in... according to Isaiah 53... He would counted with criminals but with a rich man in his death\n\nproblem with allot of the lost gospels  is they claim big names for credibility doesnt go allong with the humility of the other books...\n\nconsider.. Matthew the tax collector, Mark the guy who abandoned Paul on a mission trip  or Luke the gentile... notice except for the gospel of John the longest living apostle..  the rest were not big name people...  and even the apostle John doesnt name himself in the book leaving himself as 'the unamed disciple who Jesus loved'  and even the genilte Dr Luke doesnt name himself ever eitehr out of humility\n\nthe last 'new' gospel the gospel of Judas  was known for 30 years  and ignored because  there was only 1 copy and about 2 centuries late...  if it werent for the Da Vinc that Stol Easter movie  (aka Davinci code)  it would get no attention\n\nthis is proabbly the same
974328
Old Testament\nHow do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.\n\nNew Testament\nIn considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).\n\n\nThousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."\n\nWith all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies