Why they take 54 books out of the Bible over the years?

[Anonymous]

On the left (stuff removed/not included) on the right the holy Bible (kjv)

It started with the Roman Catholic Church and they just kept taking and adding stuff with every schism that came after. They didn’t just take it out, they threw the scriptures away and some of these books didn’t surface until the turn of the 20th century. They were not in the best condition either and a lot is still missing out of that big ass book on the left as a result.

[NamerOfStars]

You're wrong on all three counts.

1. They didn't "take out" anything from the Bible- they simply chose not to add a given book. Jesus, rather thoughtlessly, didn't specify what was to be added to the canon, leaving it up to individual leaders to decide what was divinely inspired and what wasn't.

2. It didn't start with the Roman Catholic Church; the Muraton canon was established in the second century AD, long before Roman Christianity existed in any form other than as a pack of underground outlaws. The Catholic Church hasn't taken any books out of the Bible; in fact, it's added a few that HAD been removed back in. If you're going to go after the Catholics, stick what they ACTUALLY did (and do) wrong; you'll get less objection that way.

3. The KJV is "the holy bible" in the same sense that these:

are all the same picture. On top of the problems of what it has removed over the centuries, it's a vulgar translation that's not vulgar; fit only for those who lack both the brains to be Orthodox and the guts to be Protestant, but still seeking to claim the glories of both.

Your reading of banned books should not exclude religious ones; take a look for yourself, and see if you can find out WHY they were excluded.

[Asker]

Theyre sitting beside each other. I didn’t exclude anything. I don’t believe in banning books either. I haven’t even read this yet actually. But I want to the more people tell me I shouldn’t. You can’t tell me not to read it and then look at a teenager who’s pregnant in church and wonder who the father is. (Not you people in my church) You can be nosy about that but not your own religion. Lol nah not me. With all do respect I don’t want to be blind anymore. Even if it’s not true I want to make that call on my own.

[ManOnFire]

The only one of these books I might say are possibly true - and which is still debated by Christians - is the book of Enoch. Or at least part of it anyway, but even the latter half of that might have been messed with, because it says ridiculous things like the "blood of the righteous" being required, and the righteous being kicked out of heaven for the people in hell to come and take their heavenly places. These things are utterly disgusting and not talked about anywhere in the Bible.

As for the other apocryphal books, you can clearly see that these are man-made and full of alchemic fantasy fiction that is also non-biblical. Like Baal (Bel) and the Dragon being an extended part of the Book of Daniel, in which a literal dragon comes and "Daniel promises to slay the dragon without the aid of a sword, and does so by baking pitch, fat, and hair to make cakes that cause the dragon to burst open upon consumption." That literally sounds like something out of a medieval Disney cartoon movie from the 1960s.

With this particular thing, I don't think the Roman Catholic church was wrong to delete those ridiculous writings.

[purplepoppy]

Archaeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.

[Agape93]

Because it goes against their chosen narrative, and undermines their control.

[MementoMori777]

It's why the connection with God and prayer is important, his guidance can't be manipulated because it's directly from him.

[Anonymous]

The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council guided by the Holy Spirit complied the Biblical canon in Nicaea. Nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church because it wasn't founded until 1054 AD by the Great Schism. The Apocryphal are so non-controversial that you can find them in just about any church bookstore. They were excluded because they aren't as relevant but they're not condemned.

[BCRanger10]

The books that were not included in the canon were either heretical or they were otherwise not considered to be of divine inspiration.

[Guy13]

Apocrypha is historical, false, and non biblical especially the Gnostic.

[Asker]

I hope so. It’s written throughout the main one. Your not supposed to remove or add anything or all the plague will come to reality especially in revelations.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

The Catholic institution is of the Devil, has been since it started and will always be.

The Bible is clear the Catholic Church is a dwelling place of demons in the book of Revelation.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Gee well I guess most other latinos are demons then.

[LiamJHayden]

The Apocryphal books were never part of the Tanakh.

[Iamcoming]

Because humans changed to bible it was not original and Allah/ God sent to Quran.

[Tim-loves-it]

It doesn't go with the main belief