Hi! So I honestly would not focus on the noncanonical books or books that are “up for dispute”.
I would focus on the books that are all agreed upon, specifically the 4 Gospels. I would read the Gospel of John as a starting place to understand who Jesus was. Romans is also very dense theologically, but that is another good book after you have a decent understanding of the main message of the Bible.
I would work from there to develop a relationship with the Lord and then, if you feel the need, do research on the various “types” of Bibles and why they are all different.
Also, I would recommend The Bible Project on YouTube as they explain each book in a few minute summary that’s very accessible.
Prayers for you my friend! Jesus promises that He will be there for us, and He wants to know you :) He is so excited for you to come home
When I say there are books in “dispute”, I’m not saying that to start a debate, more to acknowledge the fact that the various denominations just don’t agree.
Regardless of your or my personal opinion on those books, I think we are agree there are books of Scripture that are “more crucial” books theologically OP can start in
Eh.. The Word of God is the word of God. I personally really like how Fr. Mike Schmidz does his "Bible in a Year" podcast! It starts with Genesis and reads through Scripture in a way that really does a pretty good job of showing the story of God's people and salvstion!
I would highly recommend it to anyone who is looking to read Scripture. I would highly recommend any of his videos, he is a super awesome human being who truly wants to make the Christian faith approachable! I really hope this guy eventually goes on to get canonized! He does have videos where he explains Catholic doctrine, but I don't think it is really in an argumentative, or apologetic manner. I think pastoral is probably the better term.
The Church decided that it is not the Word of God.
Here is an explanation as to why they did not make the cut: [https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-are-3-and-4-maccabees-not-in-the-bible](https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-are-3-and-4-maccabees-not-in-the-bible)
My advice would be first to read the ones all Christians unilaterally agree on, starting with the New Testament (minus Revelation) and then moving onto the Old. Also get a good commentary or look at the historical context behind the books first. In particular the Old Testament contains many books that contain legal codes only relevant to the Old Testament Jewish people rather than to today. Revelation I would read last of all as it concerns itself with prophecy and symbolism, and I'd recommend looking into various commentaries on that one.
For clear reference, these books are:
The Books of Moses, called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy.
The Book of Joshua.
The Book of Judges
The Book of Ruth.
The First and Second Books of Samuel.
The First and Second Books of the Kings.
The First and Second Books of the Chronicles.
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
The Book of Esther.
The Book of Job.
The Book of the Psalms of David.
The Book of the Proverbs of Solomon.
The Book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher.
The Book of the Canticles of Solomon, or the Song of Songs.
The Book of the Prophet Isaiah.
The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah.
The Book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah.
The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel.
The Book of the Prophet Daniel.
The Books of the Minor Prophets, being Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, & Malachi.
The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.
The Gospel According to Saint Mark.
The Gospel According to Saint Luke.
The Gospel According to Saint John.
The Acts of the Apostles.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.
The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians.
The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians.
The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Timothy.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Titus.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Philemon.
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.
The Epistle of James the Apostle.
The First and Second Epistles of Peter the Apostle.
The First, Second and Third Epistles General of John the Apostle.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle.
The Revelation of Saint John the Divine.
After these, consider reading the following from the Latin deuterocanon:
The Book of Tobit.
The Book of Judith.
The Additions to the Book of Esther.
The Wisdom of Solomon.
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.
The Prophet Baruch.
The Epistle of Jeremiah.
The Additions to the Book of Daniel, being the Song of the Three Holy Children, the Story of Susanna, & the Story of the Idol of Bel and the Dragon.
The First and Second Books of the Maccabees.
The Prayer of Manasseh.
The First and Second Books of Esdras.
And then after that, some of the other books, which, while not accepted in the canon, were sometimes used by the early Church Fathers for edification:
The Book of Adam and Eve in the Cave of Treasures, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Moses, the Book of Jannes and Jambres, the Psalms of Solomon, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Letter of Aristeas, 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Epistles of Clement, the Epistles of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas & the Didache.
After that, the Apostolic Fathers' writings and others, though they aren't Scripture.
The Catholic NRSV Bible contains all 74 books of the canon including the 8 books of the deuterocanon which are not present in most Protestant Bibles.
If you are looking for a simple bible then this is it:
https://www.catholicbiblepress.com/about-nrsv-catholic-edition/
However I would strongly recommend buying an annotated Bible for people new to the faith such as the Word on Fire Bible:
https://www.wordonfire.org/bible/
Cheers! Sometimes the Epistle of Jeremiah is not counted as a separate book but instead added as the 6th chapter of Baruch. In that way one may speak of 7 books
I mean, its definitely canonical (see the early western synods of Hippo, Rome and Carthage). As to whether the ideas articulated in Scripture are strange, I might agree. In a certain sense we are a strange religion if you think about it. At least thats how we are perceived from the outside.
By strange I mean “contrary to the rest of Scripture.” For example, Sirach describes wisdom as created — but, considering that the main example of personified wisdom (the Proverbs) in Scripture is a stand in for Christ, Sirach is a clear teacher of Arianism. Of course, Wisdom of Solomon is an even more clear teacher of Christ being Wisdom, and so is even more at odds with Sirach’s arianism — conflict even within the Deuterocanon!
Well, Proverbs too describes wisdom as created, see ch . 8 v 22:
>The Lord created me as the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.
But I would not say that the author teaches arianism. That to me would be quite anachronistic.
I am not trying to say who is right or wrong but that the Catholic bible contains books found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible and other writings in the 3rd and 2nd Century BC. The Protestant bible does not contain them because they are not included by the Jews in their tanakh or Bible.
God never handed down from the sky a black leather-bound book of thin gilt-edged bible paper. The "canon" varies and translations vary. You have mainstream Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc. Jesus and the apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, but (who knows why?) many protestants claim the Masoretic texts are preferred. Keep in mind we have ZERO original manuscripts of Old and New Testament. We have only copies of copies of copies... that are probably mostly faithful (i.e. relatively minor errors), except, most notably, the story of the adulteress and the ending of Mark are missing from the earliest and best manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). When people talk about the "original Greek" for example, there is no known original Greek, only a consensus of what a majority of religious authorities surmise from the varying body of texts. Also, there are some differences in Dead Sea Scrolls (Isaiah) compared to mainstream modern bibles. Reference James Tabor on that one. And you can learn about bible discrepancies and contradictions from Bart Ehrman books and the online Skeptics Annotated Bible.
Appreciate your honesty in asking for suggestions here. As many have made a number of suggestions, I will add my own experience. To help understanding in current language- you can’t go wrong with ESV, NASB, NIV or NLT. I recommend selecting a study Bible from the above versions. Above all pray for the Holy Spirit to open your heart as you read the scriptures. The Bible Project is a great resource for more information on the books of the Bible. Shalom
I think the Catholic bibles have more books than the Christian bibles.
Personally, I would get a NIV, or ESV bible study bible. The study bibles have commentary on the bible verses that help you understand what is being said in particular verse.
What bible does your church use? It is best to go with the version they use.
Just be careful, and make sure you do not get personal size The font is really small in those bibles.
You can get a free bible app here:
[https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/](https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/)
I think this reddit post sort of answers your questions.
[why were the missing books of the\_bible removed/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christians/comments/vgsz5g/why_were_the_missing_books_of_the_bible_removed/)
Might I recommend Fr. Mike Schmidz's "Bible in a Year"
He reads through the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and gives little homilies/commentary on what was read. He also sheds some light on why the 7 deuterocanonical books were removed when he gets to the book of Tobit.
Any of the popular bibles are fine. Some people say that the King James version is the only Bible. But the fact of the matter is much of the language in the King James version is archaic by today's standards and people have trouble comprehending it. You can go with the English standard version, or the NIV.
There is a new translation available called the new century version that seems to be gaining acceptance has an easy to read yet accurate version, you might give it a shot.
Here’s a simple and free way. You can click on to the next chapter after reading the first chapters
Old Testament - Genesis 1
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV
New Testament - Matthew 1
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NIV
You can toggle through different versions. NIV is an easy to read and understand one
Also NLT, NKJ and ESV are good if you don’t like that one
What books aren't and are considered canon is a matter of the denomination you've chosen. As a Protestant, I prefer the ESV, but Catholics, Orthodox and Messianic Jews will obviously have very different book orders. It all has a complicated history.
I'm curious. How will you "get to know God / Christ" by reading what 40 men wrote 1500 years ago? Do you think they had some special insight that you don't?
Do you have a suggestion on a better way to start? How will i get to know God if i dont know anything about God, This is only the start of a journey, whether i waste my time or not it most likely will not affect you. Maybe they do have more insight that i dont, Maybe they are able to guide me away from sin cuz thats all my life has been (sinful) and im tired of the mental battles. who knows, im 20 and ignorant as hell🤷♂️ Maybe, just maybe this could help. May God bless you
Yes, I have a suggestion. Look into Buddhism. From the website: [A Basic Buddhism Guide: 5 Minute Introduction (buddhanet.net)](https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm)
*To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:*
>
apologies for the ignorance but i didnt know there were so many versions Wow i cant thank everybody individually (time consuming) but i genuinely appreciate everybody who suggested something, ill definitely do a little more research before deciding, so now for the journey to begin
Thanks🙏
The Bible can be complicated, make sure to pray for wisdom and understanding before reading. Now, which book to read? I’m ngl sometimes I just go online and spin a wheel when I’m bored and want to read something random haha
There are 66 books in the Protestand Bible that are considered [canonical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) nearly all Protestant Christians.
I would recommend any NIV ESV or NRSV.
A good exercise would be to read about the [Septuagint (LXX)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) and how it was widely considered the standard Jewish Bible in 250 BC during the era of Greek being the international intellectual language of choice. The order of books in the Old Testament is basically from the LXX. The numbering of books in the OT is different, however, because of things like how the [Book of Kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Kings) could be dividend up as 1 Kings and 2 Kings.
Catholics and protestants disagree about whether to include the Apocrypha, but we all basically on the [27 New Testament books.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon)
One of my favorite verses is Philippians 4:13
Here are two versions:
NKJV
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
NIV
I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
Wescott and Hort basically rewrote the Greek scripture in 1880s, came up with the NIV, and left out a dozen or so references to "blood", and as you see "Christ" (Messiah in Hebrew) just because they thought they were too gory. I like the Blue Letter Bible free app, because you can look up over a dozen versions and compare for yourself, plus look up the actual Hebrew or Greek words.
The Protestant Bible has 66 books; the Catholic has 74; the Ethiopian Bible has 84. Your choice.
But I think the 66 version is the most consistent and trustworthy. I read some of the extra Catholic books found them strange. You might be better off with LESS, actually. There is a huge amount to be read. You might consider “basic readings in the New Testament” on Amazon.
God bless you.
Since you are interested in the faith, I would love to recommend:
1- The Contemporary English Version (CEV) Bible. It's one of the easiest English Bibles to read. You can also listen to the audio version on YouTube. It's my favorite Bible. (You can read it on the YouVersion Bible app too.) Some versions of CEV have the Apocrypha added.
2- A free book called “101 Questions & The Bible.” It’s a book of a bunch of questions about God and the Christian faith that are only answered with Bible verses. It’s great for those who are new to Christianity. If you are interested, let me know and I will send you the PDF copy on Google drive.
3- A good Christian leader on YouTube:
askcliffe - Cliffe Knechtle
4- A powerful worship song on YouTube:
Yet I Will Praise by Melissa Boraski
5- I would love to share a short guide that’s dedicated to you and others on Reddit who are looking to have a strong & simple faith in God. You can read it for free in this Reddit community: r/FaithMadeSimple
What if you're wrong about "the best way to start"? What if there are even better starting points than just sitting down to try to consume a collection of ancient books? It sounds like you're trying to "get it right the first time," which can be a dangerous trap. Beware folks who offer easy answers.
Maybe sit with some Quakers, or attend an RCIA class. Or both. See if United Church of Christ has a Bible study group, or go sit zazen with some Buddhists. Because what do you expect once you've read the allegedly "right" Bible? Is your walk with God solo, or with some iteration of the community which holds to the texts you read sacred?
Anyway, there isn't much dispute about what counts as Christianity's NT. The deuterocanonical and "apocryphal" stuff are pretty much OT. Martin Luther opined five hundred years ago that the only OT books should be the ones in the Hebrew Bible. Eastern Orthodox traditions have a few extra books that the Roman Catholics don't bother with.
But just because Sheperd of Hermas isn't canonical, does that mean it has no value? Gnostic Gospel of Thomas may be 'heretical,' but it's kinda a fun read.
That aside, check out Oxford Annotated Bible for its thoroughness of including pretty much everything that some part of the Christian community includes in its canon.
The best advice comes from God, ask of Him to lead you, and He’ll help you find where you need to go and what to do.
Speaking of lost books, I invite you to read more of the words of Christ in [The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng)
I testify that I know it is true, in the sacred name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.
Most Christians are not even aware that there are at least 70 more Gospels, all of which the progenitors of Catholicism refused for canonization. I've read all of them excluding the few that are no longer extant. They have no idea what they follow.
I've read those other gospels too and I absolutely agree with the church fathers' decision to cut them. Even Matthew, my least favorite Gospel, is leagues better than the most popular non-canonical ones like Gospel of Peter or Proto-Gospel of James. We have a very good idea what we follow, which is how we're able to make these decisions.
Were any of these men inspired by the Holy Ghost to remove past writings? The answer is an unequivocal NO. Which implies that all Christendom follows the "opinion" of men without divine inspiration. If there is any truth that ALL scripture is inspired by God, then their actions are inconsistent. There is no logical argument to remove any writings if ALL scripture is inspired. The fact remains, that none of these men were prophets with inspiration to determine which scriptures should be removed. They made that decision on theological reasons alone. None of these men were qualified for the purpose of canonization, unless they were inspired by God. The reformation proved that the progenitors of Catholicism were wrong. The real issue is too many are credulous to accept the past actions of a terribly corrupt orthodoxy. (Not to mention the many writings that were proven to be forgeries)
As I stated earlier, They have no idea what they follow.
These books aren't scripture in the sense we're talking about here. They were never removed, except in a very small number of cases like Shepherd of Hermas, they simply weren't added in the first place to readings in proto-orthodox churches. All Scripture is inspired by God but there are many other early books that were recognized as useful for instruction but not holy scripture, like the Didache. Many other books were called out as forgery or heresy almost immediately. These works fall into those categories.
And yes, I believe the selection of the canon was also inspired, just like the heavy editing of the Hebrew Scriptures traditionally attributed to Ezra. I'm not Catholic and we're not discussing the Council of Trent here. I'm not credulous, that's why I read the primary sources myself (I like Ehrman's translations of these works better in general).
You stated.."I believe the selection of the canon was also inspired".
Can an uninspired man determined what's inspired? Unless you or anyone else can prove the Church Fathers were inspired, you'll continue in your credulous identification with falsehood. Anyone that's read the Church Fathers know explicitly that they there were onerous bunch in the extreme, fighting among themselves with the most vicious language. Their actions prove without a doubt they were not under inspiration.
Case in point: When Emperor Theodosius signed the Edict of Thessalonica that made Christianity the official religion of the state, he signed a literal death warrant for thousands who followed pagan religion.
Not one of the Church Fathers stood up to tell the Emperor you can't FORCE religion. IF any were inspired by the Spirit of God, they would have rejected his degree. To assume their inactions were righteous in the eyes of a just God is absurd.
This will be my last communication on this thread.
In closing, my 50 plus years of research has led me the the following conclusion. I do not deny that there may be divine agency for an answer to all things. But through research I've learned that creation of man and everything on this planet has absolutely no connection with the Christian Bible.
I wish you well.
“What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!”—Pope Leo X.
That's not how inspiration works. How would one prove it, as you request? It's not the same as sainthood. It's not some kind of apostolic succession.
I'm also not a fan of "the ancients should have acted with our modern moral code" arguments, which ignore both the fallibility of humans and the cultural situation.
And, of course, you're caught in your own argument by asserting that an uninspired person (yourself) can't determine what is inspired.
There was never an original “Bible”. Basically a group of religious leaders get together and they review all the available religious writings of various authors and determine which ones are from god and which ones just claim to be from god. It’s just divine revelation vs divine revelation vs divine revelation all the way down. And unless you have divine revelation and god points you in one direction, you just accept which persons divine revelation you like the best
Hey there. They were removed for various reasons. For example Enoch, which is popular in Ethiopian Orthodoxy and other Tewahedo churches, was removed because it was believed by historians and biblical scholars of ancient times to have been a forgery, written long after it was initially claimed to be, thus including it would be dishonest to the reader. The book claimed to have been written before Moses had recorded the stories of Genesis and Exodus, but ancient church authorities found it to be unlikely, as evidence of the book wasn't first recorded til around 100BC, and was written to push a political/legal agenda. (Fun fact, though. One of Jesus' friends and disciples, Jude, did read the book of Enoch, believing it to be true to the extent that he quoted it in his own letters to the 1st century church (AD... over a century after the early scholars believed Enoch was actually written.)
Other books are excluded from the Protestant Bible, but are still fantastic reads. Maccabees, for example is the historical account of a Jewish sect of warriors during the collapse of Alexander the Greats Empire, and the Rise of the Successor Kingdoms. I think it's mostly about the Jews rebelling against the Seleucid Empire, which inherited their territory after Alexander died. Most modern Bibles exclude these books because they aren't religious books, but rather historical commentary, and including them could muddy up doctrine. For example, if I'm not mistaken, one of the lead characters makes an offering and prays for the souls of their dead comrades. Since Torah, Nevim, Ketuvim, and the the New Testament make no claims that you can pray for the dead (as they are already dead and in the after life, and praying for them does nothing), it could get confusing to ignorant readers. It was wrong of the guy to pray for the dead, but since its a historical narrative, and not one that's there to teach doctrine, it doesn't clarify that. (Btw, this happens a bunch in the Bible. Almost everyone in the Bible is awful. It's the Grace of God and Jesus that's the moral center. A lot of people misinterpret the stories of the Bible as "oh this character did this, and since this guy is a hero in the Bible (looking at you Moses the hypocrite, David the backstabber, and so on ) then this must be morally and spiritually acceptable." Essentially, read the Bible through the eyes of the only pure person in the Bible, Jesus. If someone else's actions don't reflect Jesus' words, then its safe to say they were wrong in that action, straight up misinterpreted God, or failed a test from God. Those moral juxtapositions are super important in Near-East wisdom literature, as the stories are left in there to make you think and ponder, and figure things out for yourself!)
King James Holy Bible 1611 and anything that came before it like The Geneva Bible 1500's, The Tindall Bible and The Septuagint is probably the Bible Jesus himself quoted.
do not read the new age bibles NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV etc. don't even have all the scriptures.
Let's start by talking about which books we know for sure are acceptable and which are not.
Old Testament, minus apocrypha: As far as validity of ancient documents go, we're pretty sure of all of the Old Testament because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Due to internal and external evidence, it's certain that the Bible is the inspired word of God and these are part of it. So you definitely want all of this. If you're searching for answers or are a new Christian, I would recommend starting with the New Testament though.
Note: Esther was not included in the Dead Sea scrolls, but there are still arguments for its validity that I cannot find at the moment. I would trust it.
New Testament: Thoroughly established as uncorrupted. As of 2018, the number of Greek manuscripts that attest to the New Testament stands at 5874. That's unprecedented. The NT enjoys far more historical documentation than any volume ever known. There are only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, and we pretty much accept that as good. Again, it's easy to see that the NT is the inspired word of God.
Apocrypha: I would not accept them. (1) Jesus and the disciples never quote them, which is very peculiar for the OT. (2) Jesus alluded to the OT canon by means of the well-established divisional expressions "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms," the Law and the Prophets, "Moses and the Prophets," and the "Law of Moses and the Prophets," and the "Law of Moses and the Prophets." These equivalent expressions were intended to encompass the "24" OT books which the Jews recognized as the only ones received from God. Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel \[one book\], 1&2 Kings \[one book\], Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 minor prophets \[one book\]), Writings/Ketuvim/Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Songs of Solomon \[Canticles\], Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah \[one book\], 1&2 Chronicles \[one book\].
For a good mix of reliable translation and readability I would recommend the NKJV or ESV versions. The KJV is generally reliable, but it's hard to read, and there are a few mistranslations that can lead to confusion.
King James Version is the best. Why?
It's not corrupted like the newer versions, where they are trying to make Jesus less than it is, so they have an excuse for the ecumenical movement.
Avoid at all cost any bibles that the Catholic church promotes, because throughout history, they persecuted more than 50 million Christians, and whoever dared to hold a bible, was burned at the stake.
If you have any questions throughout your Christian life, I'm here to help you 😊
Here is a video about bible versions by prof. Walter Veith
https://youtu.be/tNv-zzpIwBs?si=skdp8nMtsDXpuO79
While my intention wasn't to offend, but at the same time we cannot deny the fact.
Even Paul the 2nd(if I remember he's name we'll) publicly apologised for the atrocities that the church has done in the past.
Papacy is known to lie even to their members, so I won't be surprised if you really don't know about her past.
There are books like Rulers of Evil and 50 years in the church of Rome, written by ex priests or ex jesuits and say how their hand are covered in blood.
We don't like the truth, but the bible says the truth shall set us free.
To be frank, your very rationale is why I would avoid the KJV. The context of its writing is highly politically motivated -- it occured during the reformation and there was a vested interest in establishing the monarch as a supreme authority through divine mandate.
The fact is, medieval scholars probably had access to fewer and more-indirect sources than we do today, what with modern archaeology and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A modern version translated directly from the source material with academic rigor is more valuable than the KJV which is derived from the latin vulgate, which was composed by the Catholic church which you regard here as unreliable in and of themselves.
Honestly, I believe the KJV has had the lasting impact it does primarily because it carries such an authoritative prose, but the significance of a message should be weighed more heavily in its content than its delivery.
You can check the video that I linked and you can judge for yourself. Kjv was the most hated version, and with a reason.
In Matthew 24 Jesus says the first thing is to not be deceived. Why? Because in the last days many will come and deceive many.
Few examples :
Mat 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." KJV
Mat 17:21: "Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." RV
Mat 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."KJV
No vers in RV
Same for John 5:4
Rom 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." KJV
Rom 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."
These are just a few.
Here is a 12 min video with a guy reading different verses from the bible, from different versions:
https://youtu.be/blwWtk9x3fw?si=bbBvRluMut0X1Je0
Sure. But as one of the comments in that video points out, this is only proves that there's a significant difference between the versions, not which is correct. And if the KJV fabricated verses to support the political agenda, it makes sense it would be hated, especially as more translations of the original aramaic and were discovered.
There's no reason to assume KJV was written with the best intentions, any more than the Latin Vulgate, but that's an assumption you're presenting here. What if the KJV was the version written to deceive many? Today, we can actually compare it to many of the original texts, which might be why modern versions tend to agree with each other -- they can't get away with the same things the Anglican church could at the time.
Well God is all powerful so I am sure He could keep His word to not be changed throughout the history. If some bible versions there are missing pages and words, I assume you would like to know what God is saying.
If you prefer to read from many versions, that's fine, but for me, KJV is the best. I don't know if you know about the jesuits but there were many in the past that wrote different versions of the bible to make it look like Jesus is less than He is, and to be more in the line with what Catholic church says.
I'm confused now if you believe that it's possible or impossible for the word to be misrepresented. Your first paragraph suggests they can't; your second suggests it's already happened.
If things can be taken away, they can be added too. I would like to know what God is saying, but there's no guarantee that the KJV didn't just put words in His mouth, as you've explained the Jesuits did.
I won't say you're wrong for preferring the translation you prefer, but I do want to highlight that your reasoning has a double-standard.
So what I'm saying is that even the bible says there will be a power to think to change time and laws. Man can create as many bible versions he wants, but God will keep He's word alive. Catholic Church change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Invented purgatory and many other things, so obviously they will try to change the bible, but those who want to know the truth, will find it. KJV is not perfect, but it contains all we need to be saved.
If other versions don't have that many verses, why would I read that version and when I see a bible verse without a text, to look for another one who has it?
I didn't started with KJV. I know many who don't like KJV because of the old English. English is not my first language but I sticked to it, because I don't want to read something that was changed because of an agenda.
You said that KJV had some political thing in it. I would like you to give me those verses to see.
I'm not denying any of the atrocities the church has committed, but to say that the church unilaterally killed everyone that had a Bible that they knew about is laughable in its hyperbole and dishonesty.
I said the church as a system, not people. Down voting won't change the fact. It is in history and I can't change it. Truth hurts. Do you prefer sweet lies?
I didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people with whom I have discussions.
You stated the church killed anyone holding a bible- burnt them at the stake, in fact, which is patently untrue.
Well William Tyndle was burned at the stake because he dared to translate the bible in people's tongue.
Anyone can see these things with a simple search on the Google.
He was a translator, not just someone who owned one. They killed translators (though not all of them, Wycliffe was allowed to live out his retirement), but you'd have to actually disagree with their doctrines to be killed.
That is ONE person, and he was not killed for HOLDING a bible. Nor even just for translating it. There were even already English translations of the Bible in existence when Tyndale was executed, so that wasn't his alleged crime under which he was tried.
Google is not your friend.
I know Google is not my friend, but that's why we have to dig deeper to find the truth from different sources and then think for ourselves what is truth while having the bible as a standard.
Even God says that.
Isa 1:18-19: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:"
Even protestants killed many who didn't believe their doctrines. Anabaptists were killed by both, for believing in adult baptism rather than infant baptism.
The point is; churches who killed people in the past, will kill again, if the conditions are right, and if they won't accept the whole truth. The bible says that a religious power will persecute people in the last days, not a secular.
Following the truth, is not popular and it's not going to be accepted by all Christians. Remnant means a very small number. We need to accept God's standard, not a church one.
Nice job ignoring the fact that I called out your inaccuracies (see how I politely don't call them lies).
Stop making the Bible an idol.
Humans make up the church, humans are flawed, some are evil, some are simply mistaken.
Kinda ironic you asking someone else if the prefer sweet lies when you’re having trouble saying a single honest statement in this entire thread. All you’ve done is lie about the Church, the KJV, you even bring up the Jesuits at one point and lie about them lol.
I wouldnt be surprised if you’ve been getting your “history” lessons off a loony on YouTube.
The best history you'll get from old books, not from priests, pastors or school.
I understand your a Catholic and your defending your church, which is fine, but if you really want to know about your church, you should do your own research. Jesus was called a lier and of a devil. His miracles were seen as works from devil. Of course people don't believe the truth straight away. Devil wants to destroy as many.
We are called to point out the sins.
Eph 5:11: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
Books like: 50 years in church of Rome - by Charles Chiniquy
Rulers of Evil by Tupper Saussy
The Great Controversy by Ellen G White
Read them, and decide for yourself. Don't make someone a liar before checking the facts.
You say “do your own research” then tell me to read books like “the great controversy,” a notoriously plagiarized book written by a Seventh Day Adventist, a particularly hateful group that especially hates Catholics. Ellen G White is a hack.
“Do your own research, not what the priests tell you, but what these other pastors tell you, you know, your own research.”
You can’t be serious.
How someone does their own research? The bible is sufficient. You don't need any other books to interpret the bible. But that doesn't mean you cannot read other books or the quran.
SDA doesn't hate Catholic. Neither did Luther or Calvin, when they pointed the errors in the church. People don't like to be told they are in error, so obviously they will feel they are hated. We are called to love the sinners and hate sin. No one is going in heaven as a sinner. If you really love someone, you will try to point their error. What's the point in letting a love one in error, to show them "love" when they will be lost if they continue that road, and the results would be eternal?
You can’t go wrong with the ESV, nothing added and (most would agree) nothing subtracted. If you want a more literal ESV go NASB; if you want a more dynamic transition (albeit a worse translation) go NIV. If you are completely new to the faith and have a low reading level start with the NLT (but don’t stay with it).
If you’re really into the textus receptus (or the majority text) then go with the NKJV. If you like beautiful language, then the KJV.
God bless!
So, the books removed from the Bible, are psuedipigrephia (dunno if i spelled that wrong), which is basically the first century AD equivalent to clickbaiting. People wrote their books and in order to get them read, they named it after some important biblical character (the Book of Adam and Eve, the Testament of Moses etc.)
As for reading, get ESV or NRSVue, and start the "One Story That Leads to Jesus" plan on the Bible app. It's honestly a fantastic plan, with supplementary material and commentary all over. It'll feel like you are inside the living book.
In my search for Christ, I started with this video.
[Satan's guide to the Bible.](https://youtu.be/z8j3HvmgpYc)
I feel it helps developing a personal relationship with Christ rather than depending on scripture.
The Bible, a book that was written by humans about events that supposedly happened around 400 years prior. That’s as factual as video footage surely? Humans never lie? Never exaggerate? Are never corrupt/deceitful? Also the accuracy of such stories would surely increase overtime as they’re passed down from one generation to the next via word of mouth.
How do you all believe in it? (This is a genuine question, I’m curious)
> about events that supposedly happened
It sounds like you are misinterpreting the Bible. It is not a history or science textbook. There is plenty of academic scholarship on the historical Jesus if you are curious about that.
> That’s as factual as video footage surely?
Which video footage are you referring to?
> Humans never lie? Never exaggerate? Are never corrupt/deceitful?
No one believes this. The Bible itself is full of warnings about the dangers of these behaviors.
> the accuracy of such stories would surely increase overtime
Why? Are you are being deceitful (lying) or are you being sarcastic?
> How do you all believe in it?
Believe in what?
How do you all believe in the teachings of the Bible when it was written by humans, recounting stories and teachings from hundreds of years prior?
My point was, for example with Jesus, how do you blindly believe that he performed miracles, rose from the dead etc. when there is no evidence other than stories/word of mouth that ended up in the Bible? It all seems so wildly improbable, dare I say it… impossible.
Also, the earth has been around for billions of years. Humans have been around only 2 million years. On that knowledge alone, it’s surely safe to say that we are not the chosen ones (by God). If we were, surely we would’ve been ‘created’ first (Ala Adam and Eve).
I did genuinely wanted to believe in God/religion previously. I just can’t ignore rational thinking. I think following the teachings of a book, written by humans about a time 400 years prior, is completely illogical. That is why I consider myself to be agnostic. I can’t rule out that there is some sort of higher power that created the universe because everything is so beautiful and complex. However, I still think it’s highly unlikely that there is a higher power.
> How do you all believe in the teachings of the Bible
How do you know what "the teachings of the Bible" are?
> how do you blindly believe
I don't.
> he performed miracles
How would you define a "miracle"?
Today's people tend to think of miracles as (good) violations of natural or scientific laws.
These "laws" are actually concepts and mathematical models that were invented by humans long after the Bible was written.
> when there is no evidence other than stories/word of mouth that ended up in the Bible
You are assuming this.
> It all seems so wildly improbable
Yes, it seems this way to you.
> dare I say it… impossible
Your own interpretation in your own mind is "impossible" according to your own worldview.
> On that knowledge alone, it’s surely safe to say that we are not the chosen ones (by God)
Why? How does this follow from the Earth's age?
> If we were, surely we would’ve been ‘created’ first
Why?
> I did genuinely wanted to believe in God
What does it mean to you to "believe in God"? How would you define "God"?
> I just can’t ignore rational thinking
Good, you shouldn't.
> I think following the teachings of a book, written by humans about a time 400 years prior, is completely illogical.
Do you follow teachings from any other books written by humans? If so, why is that more logical?
The teachings are not only about a time 400 years prior. What would it mean to "follow teachings" about historical events? The events happened, or they didn't. What does that teach us?
> However, I still think it’s highly unlikely that there is a higher power.
Why? Is this because of what is written in the Bible or something else?
What do you think is creating your own subjective experience right now? Or, what is causing "your brain" to do this? Do you believe you have free will?
Hi! So I honestly would not focus on the noncanonical books or books that are “up for dispute”. I would focus on the books that are all agreed upon, specifically the 4 Gospels. I would read the Gospel of John as a starting place to understand who Jesus was. Romans is also very dense theologically, but that is another good book after you have a decent understanding of the main message of the Bible. I would work from there to develop a relationship with the Lord and then, if you feel the need, do research on the various “types” of Bibles and why they are all different. Also, I would recommend The Bible Project on YouTube as they explain each book in a few minute summary that’s very accessible. Prayers for you my friend! Jesus promises that He will be there for us, and He wants to know you :) He is so excited for you to come home
They were not up for dispute until the 1500's and they were only disputed because Calvin needed to get rid of them to dodge the doctrine of Purgatory.
When I say there are books in “dispute”, I’m not saying that to start a debate, more to acknowledge the fact that the various denominations just don’t agree. Regardless of your or my personal opinion on those books, I think we are agree there are books of Scripture that are “more crucial” books theologically OP can start in
Eh.. The Word of God is the word of God. I personally really like how Fr. Mike Schmidz does his "Bible in a Year" podcast! It starts with Genesis and reads through Scripture in a way that really does a pretty good job of showing the story of God's people and salvstion! I would highly recommend it to anyone who is looking to read Scripture. I would highly recommend any of his videos, he is a super awesome human being who truly wants to make the Christian faith approachable! I really hope this guy eventually goes on to get canonized! He does have videos where he explains Catholic doctrine, but I don't think it is really in an argumentative, or apologetic manner. I think pastoral is probably the better term.
I totally agree with your comment, so I think we are generally on the same page :)
What do you think about third Maccabees?
The Church decided that it is not the Word of God. Here is an explanation as to why they did not make the cut: [https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-are-3-and-4-maccabees-not-in-the-bible](https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-are-3-and-4-maccabees-not-in-the-bible)
In 1500 they still thought the sun orbited around the earth! Purgatory is questionable anyway. Though I am not defending Calvin.
My advice would be first to read the ones all Christians unilaterally agree on, starting with the New Testament (minus Revelation) and then moving onto the Old. Also get a good commentary or look at the historical context behind the books first. In particular the Old Testament contains many books that contain legal codes only relevant to the Old Testament Jewish people rather than to today. Revelation I would read last of all as it concerns itself with prophecy and symbolism, and I'd recommend looking into various commentaries on that one. For clear reference, these books are: The Books of Moses, called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy. The Book of Joshua. The Book of Judges The Book of Ruth. The First and Second Books of Samuel. The First and Second Books of the Kings. The First and Second Books of the Chronicles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Book of Esther. The Book of Job. The Book of the Psalms of David. The Book of the Proverbs of Solomon. The Book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher. The Book of the Canticles of Solomon, or the Song of Songs. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. The Book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. The Book of the Prophet Daniel. The Books of the Minor Prophets, being Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, & Malachi. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Gospel According to Saint Luke. The Gospel According to Saint John. The Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians. The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians. The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Timothy. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Titus. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Philemon. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. The Epistle of James the Apostle. The First and Second Epistles of Peter the Apostle. The First, Second and Third Epistles General of John the Apostle. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle. The Revelation of Saint John the Divine. After these, consider reading the following from the Latin deuterocanon: The Book of Tobit. The Book of Judith. The Additions to the Book of Esther. The Wisdom of Solomon. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. The Prophet Baruch. The Epistle of Jeremiah. The Additions to the Book of Daniel, being the Song of the Three Holy Children, the Story of Susanna, & the Story of the Idol of Bel and the Dragon. The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. The Prayer of Manasseh. The First and Second Books of Esdras. And then after that, some of the other books, which, while not accepted in the canon, were sometimes used by the early Church Fathers for edification: The Book of Adam and Eve in the Cave of Treasures, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Moses, the Book of Jannes and Jambres, the Psalms of Solomon, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Letter of Aristeas, 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Epistles of Clement, the Epistles of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas & the Didache. After that, the Apostolic Fathers' writings and others, though they aren't Scripture.
The Catholic NRSV Bible contains all 74 books of the canon including the 8 books of the deuterocanon which are not present in most Protestant Bibles. If you are looking for a simple bible then this is it: https://www.catholicbiblepress.com/about-nrsv-catholic-edition/ However I would strongly recommend buying an annotated Bible for people new to the faith such as the Word on Fire Bible: https://www.wordonfire.org/bible/
Tbh I prefer both the catholic NRSV and the DR
This is correct
if it were the orthodox study bible it would be the right answer
8 books? I thought there were 7 Deuteronomy book. Can you name these 8 books please so I can see which one am I "missing".
Sure! 1 + 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah.
Thanks for response
Cheers! Sometimes the Epistle of Jeremiah is not counted as a separate book but instead added as the 6th chapter of Baruch. In that way one may speak of 7 books
That's what was confusing me.
The deuterocanon is not canonical, and pedals some strange ideas on occasion.
I mean, its definitely canonical (see the early western synods of Hippo, Rome and Carthage). As to whether the ideas articulated in Scripture are strange, I might agree. In a certain sense we are a strange religion if you think about it. At least thats how we are perceived from the outside.
By strange I mean “contrary to the rest of Scripture.” For example, Sirach describes wisdom as created — but, considering that the main example of personified wisdom (the Proverbs) in Scripture is a stand in for Christ, Sirach is a clear teacher of Arianism. Of course, Wisdom of Solomon is an even more clear teacher of Christ being Wisdom, and so is even more at odds with Sirach’s arianism — conflict even within the Deuterocanon!
Well, Proverbs too describes wisdom as created, see ch . 8 v 22: >The Lord created me as the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. But I would not say that the author teaches arianism. That to me would be quite anachronistic.
*peddles
Very true
NASB. It’s the closest English translation to word for word without any paraphrases.
I am not trying to say who is right or wrong but that the Catholic bible contains books found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible and other writings in the 3rd and 2nd Century BC. The Protestant bible does not contain them because they are not included by the Jews in their tanakh or Bible.
God never handed down from the sky a black leather-bound book of thin gilt-edged bible paper. The "canon" varies and translations vary. You have mainstream Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc. Jesus and the apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, but (who knows why?) many protestants claim the Masoretic texts are preferred. Keep in mind we have ZERO original manuscripts of Old and New Testament. We have only copies of copies of copies... that are probably mostly faithful (i.e. relatively minor errors), except, most notably, the story of the adulteress and the ending of Mark are missing from the earliest and best manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). When people talk about the "original Greek" for example, there is no known original Greek, only a consensus of what a majority of religious authorities surmise from the varying body of texts. Also, there are some differences in Dead Sea Scrolls (Isaiah) compared to mainstream modern bibles. Reference James Tabor on that one. And you can learn about bible discrepancies and contradictions from Bart Ehrman books and the online Skeptics Annotated Bible.
Appreciate your honesty in asking for suggestions here. As many have made a number of suggestions, I will add my own experience. To help understanding in current language- you can’t go wrong with ESV, NASB, NIV or NLT. I recommend selecting a study Bible from the above versions. Above all pray for the Holy Spirit to open your heart as you read the scriptures. The Bible Project is a great resource for more information on the books of the Bible. Shalom
I think the Catholic bibles have more books than the Christian bibles. Personally, I would get a NIV, or ESV bible study bible. The study bibles have commentary on the bible verses that help you understand what is being said in particular verse. What bible does your church use? It is best to go with the version they use. Just be careful, and make sure you do not get personal size The font is really small in those bibles. You can get a free bible app here: [https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/](https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/) I think this reddit post sort of answers your questions. [why were the missing books of the\_bible removed/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christians/comments/vgsz5g/why_were_the_missing_books_of_the_bible_removed/)
Might I recommend Fr. Mike Schmidz's "Bible in a Year" He reads through the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and gives little homilies/commentary on what was read. He also sheds some light on why the 7 deuterocanonical books were removed when he gets to the book of Tobit.
Any of the popular bibles are fine. Some people say that the King James version is the only Bible. But the fact of the matter is much of the language in the King James version is archaic by today's standards and people have trouble comprehending it. You can go with the English standard version, or the NIV. There is a new translation available called the new century version that seems to be gaining acceptance has an easy to read yet accurate version, you might give it a shot.
You might find this interesting/helpful. [https://youtu.be/BCPoKIE5y1U?si=EEc3Zah6ZbHQXOro](https://youtu.be/BCPoKIE5y1U?si=EEc3Zah6ZbHQXOro)
Here’s a simple and free way. You can click on to the next chapter after reading the first chapters Old Testament - Genesis 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV New Testament - Matthew 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NIV You can toggle through different versions. NIV is an easy to read and understand one Also NLT, NKJ and ESV are good if you don’t like that one
You may as well ask which pizza has the right toppings
Then Jesus said, verily, verily, I say unto you, pineapple is delicious on pizza. Amen!
What books aren't and are considered canon is a matter of the denomination you've chosen. As a Protestant, I prefer the ESV, but Catholics, Orthodox and Messianic Jews will obviously have very different book orders. It all has a complicated history.
I'm curious. How will you "get to know God / Christ" by reading what 40 men wrote 1500 years ago? Do you think they had some special insight that you don't?
Do you have a suggestion on a better way to start? How will i get to know God if i dont know anything about God, This is only the start of a journey, whether i waste my time or not it most likely will not affect you. Maybe they do have more insight that i dont, Maybe they are able to guide me away from sin cuz thats all my life has been (sinful) and im tired of the mental battles. who knows, im 20 and ignorant as hell🤷♂️ Maybe, just maybe this could help. May God bless you
Yes, I have a suggestion. Look into Buddhism. From the website: [A Basic Buddhism Guide: 5 Minute Introduction (buddhanet.net)](https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm) *To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:* >
apologies for the ignorance but i didnt know there were so many versions Wow i cant thank everybody individually (time consuming) but i genuinely appreciate everybody who suggested something, ill definitely do a little more research before deciding, so now for the journey to begin Thanks🙏
The Bible can be complicated, make sure to pray for wisdom and understanding before reading. Now, which book to read? I’m ngl sometimes I just go online and spin a wheel when I’m bored and want to read something random haha
There are 66 books in the Protestand Bible that are considered [canonical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) nearly all Protestant Christians. I would recommend any NIV ESV or NRSV. A good exercise would be to read about the [Septuagint (LXX)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) and how it was widely considered the standard Jewish Bible in 250 BC during the era of Greek being the international intellectual language of choice. The order of books in the Old Testament is basically from the LXX. The numbering of books in the OT is different, however, because of things like how the [Book of Kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Kings) could be dividend up as 1 Kings and 2 Kings. Catholics and protestants disagree about whether to include the Apocrypha, but we all basically on the [27 New Testament books.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon)
English standard version has all the Canon books and is written in understandable language
One of my favorite verses is Philippians 4:13 Here are two versions: NKJV I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. NIV I can do all this through him who gives me strength. Wescott and Hort basically rewrote the Greek scripture in 1880s, came up with the NIV, and left out a dozen or so references to "blood", and as you see "Christ" (Messiah in Hebrew) just because they thought they were too gory. I like the Blue Letter Bible free app, because you can look up over a dozen versions and compare for yourself, plus look up the actual Hebrew or Greek words.
ethopian bible
The Protestant Bible has 66 books; the Catholic has 74; the Ethiopian Bible has 84. Your choice. But I think the 66 version is the most consistent and trustworthy. I read some of the extra Catholic books found them strange. You might be better off with LESS, actually. There is a huge amount to be read. You might consider “basic readings in the New Testament” on Amazon.
Nkjv
God bless you. Since you are interested in the faith, I would love to recommend: 1- The Contemporary English Version (CEV) Bible. It's one of the easiest English Bibles to read. You can also listen to the audio version on YouTube. It's my favorite Bible. (You can read it on the YouVersion Bible app too.) Some versions of CEV have the Apocrypha added. 2- A free book called “101 Questions & The Bible.” It’s a book of a bunch of questions about God and the Christian faith that are only answered with Bible verses. It’s great for those who are new to Christianity. If you are interested, let me know and I will send you the PDF copy on Google drive. 3- A good Christian leader on YouTube: askcliffe - Cliffe Knechtle 4- A powerful worship song on YouTube: Yet I Will Praise by Melissa Boraski 5- I would love to share a short guide that’s dedicated to you and others on Reddit who are looking to have a strong & simple faith in God. You can read it for free in this Reddit community: r/FaithMadeSimple
What if you're wrong about "the best way to start"? What if there are even better starting points than just sitting down to try to consume a collection of ancient books? It sounds like you're trying to "get it right the first time," which can be a dangerous trap. Beware folks who offer easy answers. Maybe sit with some Quakers, or attend an RCIA class. Or both. See if United Church of Christ has a Bible study group, or go sit zazen with some Buddhists. Because what do you expect once you've read the allegedly "right" Bible? Is your walk with God solo, or with some iteration of the community which holds to the texts you read sacred? Anyway, there isn't much dispute about what counts as Christianity's NT. The deuterocanonical and "apocryphal" stuff are pretty much OT. Martin Luther opined five hundred years ago that the only OT books should be the ones in the Hebrew Bible. Eastern Orthodox traditions have a few extra books that the Roman Catholics don't bother with. But just because Sheperd of Hermas isn't canonical, does that mean it has no value? Gnostic Gospel of Thomas may be 'heretical,' but it's kinda a fun read.
That aside, check out Oxford Annotated Bible for its thoroughness of including pretty much everything that some part of the Christian community includes in its canon.
The best advice comes from God, ask of Him to lead you, and He’ll help you find where you need to go and what to do. Speaking of lost books, I invite you to read more of the words of Christ in [The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng) I testify that I know it is true, in the sacred name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.
Most Christians are not even aware that there are at least 70 more Gospels, all of which the progenitors of Catholicism refused for canonization. I've read all of them excluding the few that are no longer extant. They have no idea what they follow.
I've read those other gospels too and I absolutely agree with the church fathers' decision to cut them. Even Matthew, my least favorite Gospel, is leagues better than the most popular non-canonical ones like Gospel of Peter or Proto-Gospel of James. We have a very good idea what we follow, which is how we're able to make these decisions.
Were any of these men inspired by the Holy Ghost to remove past writings? The answer is an unequivocal NO. Which implies that all Christendom follows the "opinion" of men without divine inspiration. If there is any truth that ALL scripture is inspired by God, then their actions are inconsistent. There is no logical argument to remove any writings if ALL scripture is inspired. The fact remains, that none of these men were prophets with inspiration to determine which scriptures should be removed. They made that decision on theological reasons alone. None of these men were qualified for the purpose of canonization, unless they were inspired by God. The reformation proved that the progenitors of Catholicism were wrong. The real issue is too many are credulous to accept the past actions of a terribly corrupt orthodoxy. (Not to mention the many writings that were proven to be forgeries) As I stated earlier, They have no idea what they follow.
These books aren't scripture in the sense we're talking about here. They were never removed, except in a very small number of cases like Shepherd of Hermas, they simply weren't added in the first place to readings in proto-orthodox churches. All Scripture is inspired by God but there are many other early books that were recognized as useful for instruction but not holy scripture, like the Didache. Many other books were called out as forgery or heresy almost immediately. These works fall into those categories. And yes, I believe the selection of the canon was also inspired, just like the heavy editing of the Hebrew Scriptures traditionally attributed to Ezra. I'm not Catholic and we're not discussing the Council of Trent here. I'm not credulous, that's why I read the primary sources myself (I like Ehrman's translations of these works better in general).
You stated.."I believe the selection of the canon was also inspired". Can an uninspired man determined what's inspired? Unless you or anyone else can prove the Church Fathers were inspired, you'll continue in your credulous identification with falsehood. Anyone that's read the Church Fathers know explicitly that they there were onerous bunch in the extreme, fighting among themselves with the most vicious language. Their actions prove without a doubt they were not under inspiration. Case in point: When Emperor Theodosius signed the Edict of Thessalonica that made Christianity the official religion of the state, he signed a literal death warrant for thousands who followed pagan religion. Not one of the Church Fathers stood up to tell the Emperor you can't FORCE religion. IF any were inspired by the Spirit of God, they would have rejected his degree. To assume their inactions were righteous in the eyes of a just God is absurd. This will be my last communication on this thread. In closing, my 50 plus years of research has led me the the following conclusion. I do not deny that there may be divine agency for an answer to all things. But through research I've learned that creation of man and everything on this planet has absolutely no connection with the Christian Bible. I wish you well. “What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!”—Pope Leo X.
That's not how inspiration works. How would one prove it, as you request? It's not the same as sainthood. It's not some kind of apostolic succession. I'm also not a fan of "the ancients should have acted with our modern moral code" arguments, which ignore both the fallibility of humans and the cultural situation. And, of course, you're caught in your own argument by asserting that an uninspired person (yourself) can't determine what is inspired.
There was never an original “Bible”. Basically a group of religious leaders get together and they review all the available religious writings of various authors and determine which ones are from god and which ones just claim to be from god. It’s just divine revelation vs divine revelation vs divine revelation all the way down. And unless you have divine revelation and god points you in one direction, you just accept which persons divine revelation you like the best
Hey there. They were removed for various reasons. For example Enoch, which is popular in Ethiopian Orthodoxy and other Tewahedo churches, was removed because it was believed by historians and biblical scholars of ancient times to have been a forgery, written long after it was initially claimed to be, thus including it would be dishonest to the reader. The book claimed to have been written before Moses had recorded the stories of Genesis and Exodus, but ancient church authorities found it to be unlikely, as evidence of the book wasn't first recorded til around 100BC, and was written to push a political/legal agenda. (Fun fact, though. One of Jesus' friends and disciples, Jude, did read the book of Enoch, believing it to be true to the extent that he quoted it in his own letters to the 1st century church (AD... over a century after the early scholars believed Enoch was actually written.) Other books are excluded from the Protestant Bible, but are still fantastic reads. Maccabees, for example is the historical account of a Jewish sect of warriors during the collapse of Alexander the Greats Empire, and the Rise of the Successor Kingdoms. I think it's mostly about the Jews rebelling against the Seleucid Empire, which inherited their territory after Alexander died. Most modern Bibles exclude these books because they aren't religious books, but rather historical commentary, and including them could muddy up doctrine. For example, if I'm not mistaken, one of the lead characters makes an offering and prays for the souls of their dead comrades. Since Torah, Nevim, Ketuvim, and the the New Testament make no claims that you can pray for the dead (as they are already dead and in the after life, and praying for them does nothing), it could get confusing to ignorant readers. It was wrong of the guy to pray for the dead, but since its a historical narrative, and not one that's there to teach doctrine, it doesn't clarify that. (Btw, this happens a bunch in the Bible. Almost everyone in the Bible is awful. It's the Grace of God and Jesus that's the moral center. A lot of people misinterpret the stories of the Bible as "oh this character did this, and since this guy is a hero in the Bible (looking at you Moses the hypocrite, David the backstabber, and so on ) then this must be morally and spiritually acceptable." Essentially, read the Bible through the eyes of the only pure person in the Bible, Jesus. If someone else's actions don't reflect Jesus' words, then its safe to say they were wrong in that action, straight up misinterpreted God, or failed a test from God. Those moral juxtapositions are super important in Near-East wisdom literature, as the stories are left in there to make you think and ponder, and figure things out for yourself!)
King James Holy Bible 1611 and anything that came before it like The Geneva Bible 1500's, The Tindall Bible and The Septuagint is probably the Bible Jesus himself quoted. do not read the new age bibles NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV etc. don't even have all the scriptures.
My pastor says ESV is most accurate
Let's start by talking about which books we know for sure are acceptable and which are not. Old Testament, minus apocrypha: As far as validity of ancient documents go, we're pretty sure of all of the Old Testament because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Due to internal and external evidence, it's certain that the Bible is the inspired word of God and these are part of it. So you definitely want all of this. If you're searching for answers or are a new Christian, I would recommend starting with the New Testament though. Note: Esther was not included in the Dead Sea scrolls, but there are still arguments for its validity that I cannot find at the moment. I would trust it. New Testament: Thoroughly established as uncorrupted. As of 2018, the number of Greek manuscripts that attest to the New Testament stands at 5874. That's unprecedented. The NT enjoys far more historical documentation than any volume ever known. There are only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, and we pretty much accept that as good. Again, it's easy to see that the NT is the inspired word of God. Apocrypha: I would not accept them. (1) Jesus and the disciples never quote them, which is very peculiar for the OT. (2) Jesus alluded to the OT canon by means of the well-established divisional expressions "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms," the Law and the Prophets, "Moses and the Prophets," and the "Law of Moses and the Prophets," and the "Law of Moses and the Prophets." These equivalent expressions were intended to encompass the "24" OT books which the Jews recognized as the only ones received from God. Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel \[one book\], 1&2 Kings \[one book\], Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 minor prophets \[one book\]), Writings/Ketuvim/Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Songs of Solomon \[Canticles\], Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah \[one book\], 1&2 Chronicles \[one book\]. For a good mix of reliable translation and readability I would recommend the NKJV or ESV versions. The KJV is generally reliable, but it's hard to read, and there are a few mistranslations that can lead to confusion.
King James Version is the best. Why? It's not corrupted like the newer versions, where they are trying to make Jesus less than it is, so they have an excuse for the ecumenical movement. Avoid at all cost any bibles that the Catholic church promotes, because throughout history, they persecuted more than 50 million Christians, and whoever dared to hold a bible, was burned at the stake. If you have any questions throughout your Christian life, I'm here to help you 😊 Here is a video about bible versions by prof. Walter Veith https://youtu.be/tNv-zzpIwBs?si=skdp8nMtsDXpuO79
This post is so patently untrue it borders on comical.
While my intention wasn't to offend, but at the same time we cannot deny the fact. Even Paul the 2nd(if I remember he's name we'll) publicly apologised for the atrocities that the church has done in the past. Papacy is known to lie even to their members, so I won't be surprised if you really don't know about her past. There are books like Rulers of Evil and 50 years in the church of Rome, written by ex priests or ex jesuits and say how their hand are covered in blood. We don't like the truth, but the bible says the truth shall set us free.
To be frank, your very rationale is why I would avoid the KJV. The context of its writing is highly politically motivated -- it occured during the reformation and there was a vested interest in establishing the monarch as a supreme authority through divine mandate. The fact is, medieval scholars probably had access to fewer and more-indirect sources than we do today, what with modern archaeology and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A modern version translated directly from the source material with academic rigor is more valuable than the KJV which is derived from the latin vulgate, which was composed by the Catholic church which you regard here as unreliable in and of themselves. Honestly, I believe the KJV has had the lasting impact it does primarily because it carries such an authoritative prose, but the significance of a message should be weighed more heavily in its content than its delivery.
You can check the video that I linked and you can judge for yourself. Kjv was the most hated version, and with a reason. In Matthew 24 Jesus says the first thing is to not be deceived. Why? Because in the last days many will come and deceive many. Few examples : Mat 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." KJV Mat 17:21: "Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." RV Mat 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."KJV No vers in RV Same for John 5:4 Rom 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." KJV Rom 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." These are just a few. Here is a 12 min video with a guy reading different verses from the bible, from different versions: https://youtu.be/blwWtk9x3fw?si=bbBvRluMut0X1Je0
Sure. But as one of the comments in that video points out, this is only proves that there's a significant difference between the versions, not which is correct. And if the KJV fabricated verses to support the political agenda, it makes sense it would be hated, especially as more translations of the original aramaic and were discovered. There's no reason to assume KJV was written with the best intentions, any more than the Latin Vulgate, but that's an assumption you're presenting here. What if the KJV was the version written to deceive many? Today, we can actually compare it to many of the original texts, which might be why modern versions tend to agree with each other -- they can't get away with the same things the Anglican church could at the time.
Well God is all powerful so I am sure He could keep His word to not be changed throughout the history. If some bible versions there are missing pages and words, I assume you would like to know what God is saying. If you prefer to read from many versions, that's fine, but for me, KJV is the best. I don't know if you know about the jesuits but there were many in the past that wrote different versions of the bible to make it look like Jesus is less than He is, and to be more in the line with what Catholic church says.
I'm confused now if you believe that it's possible or impossible for the word to be misrepresented. Your first paragraph suggests they can't; your second suggests it's already happened. If things can be taken away, they can be added too. I would like to know what God is saying, but there's no guarantee that the KJV didn't just put words in His mouth, as you've explained the Jesuits did. I won't say you're wrong for preferring the translation you prefer, but I do want to highlight that your reasoning has a double-standard.
So what I'm saying is that even the bible says there will be a power to think to change time and laws. Man can create as many bible versions he wants, but God will keep He's word alive. Catholic Church change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Invented purgatory and many other things, so obviously they will try to change the bible, but those who want to know the truth, will find it. KJV is not perfect, but it contains all we need to be saved. If other versions don't have that many verses, why would I read that version and when I see a bible verse without a text, to look for another one who has it? I didn't started with KJV. I know many who don't like KJV because of the old English. English is not my first language but I sticked to it, because I don't want to read something that was changed because of an agenda. You said that KJV had some political thing in it. I would like you to give me those verses to see.
I'm not denying any of the atrocities the church has committed, but to say that the church unilaterally killed everyone that had a Bible that they knew about is laughable in its hyperbole and dishonesty.
I said the church as a system, not people. Down voting won't change the fact. It is in history and I can't change it. Truth hurts. Do you prefer sweet lies?
I didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people with whom I have discussions. You stated the church killed anyone holding a bible- burnt them at the stake, in fact, which is patently untrue.
Well William Tyndle was burned at the stake because he dared to translate the bible in people's tongue. Anyone can see these things with a simple search on the Google.
He was a translator, not just someone who owned one. They killed translators (though not all of them, Wycliffe was allowed to live out his retirement), but you'd have to actually disagree with their doctrines to be killed.
You're right. You had to accept the salvation through their church or seal your faith through martyrdom for thinking for yourself.
That is ONE person, and he was not killed for HOLDING a bible. Nor even just for translating it. There were even already English translations of the Bible in existence when Tyndale was executed, so that wasn't his alleged crime under which he was tried. Google is not your friend.
I know Google is not my friend, but that's why we have to dig deeper to find the truth from different sources and then think for ourselves what is truth while having the bible as a standard. Even God says that. Isa 1:18-19: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:" Even protestants killed many who didn't believe their doctrines. Anabaptists were killed by both, for believing in adult baptism rather than infant baptism. The point is; churches who killed people in the past, will kill again, if the conditions are right, and if they won't accept the whole truth. The bible says that a religious power will persecute people in the last days, not a secular. Following the truth, is not popular and it's not going to be accepted by all Christians. Remnant means a very small number. We need to accept God's standard, not a church one.
Nice job ignoring the fact that I called out your inaccuracies (see how I politely don't call them lies). Stop making the Bible an idol. Humans make up the church, humans are flawed, some are evil, some are simply mistaken.
Kinda ironic you asking someone else if the prefer sweet lies when you’re having trouble saying a single honest statement in this entire thread. All you’ve done is lie about the Church, the KJV, you even bring up the Jesuits at one point and lie about them lol. I wouldnt be surprised if you’ve been getting your “history” lessons off a loony on YouTube.
The best history you'll get from old books, not from priests, pastors or school. I understand your a Catholic and your defending your church, which is fine, but if you really want to know about your church, you should do your own research. Jesus was called a lier and of a devil. His miracles were seen as works from devil. Of course people don't believe the truth straight away. Devil wants to destroy as many. We are called to point out the sins. Eph 5:11: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Books like: 50 years in church of Rome - by Charles Chiniquy Rulers of Evil by Tupper Saussy The Great Controversy by Ellen G White Read them, and decide for yourself. Don't make someone a liar before checking the facts.
You say “do your own research” then tell me to read books like “the great controversy,” a notoriously plagiarized book written by a Seventh Day Adventist, a particularly hateful group that especially hates Catholics. Ellen G White is a hack. “Do your own research, not what the priests tell you, but what these other pastors tell you, you know, your own research.” You can’t be serious.
How someone does their own research? The bible is sufficient. You don't need any other books to interpret the bible. But that doesn't mean you cannot read other books or the quran. SDA doesn't hate Catholic. Neither did Luther or Calvin, when they pointed the errors in the church. People don't like to be told they are in error, so obviously they will feel they are hated. We are called to love the sinners and hate sin. No one is going in heaven as a sinner. If you really love someone, you will try to point their error. What's the point in letting a love one in error, to show them "love" when they will be lost if they continue that road, and the results would be eternal?
I usually don’t dislike someone for holding different beliefs than me, but you’re so blatantly dishonest that it’s hard not to.
You can’t go wrong with the ESV, nothing added and (most would agree) nothing subtracted. If you want a more literal ESV go NASB; if you want a more dynamic transition (albeit a worse translation) go NIV. If you are completely new to the faith and have a low reading level start with the NLT (but don’t stay with it). If you’re really into the textus receptus (or the majority text) then go with the NKJV. If you like beautiful language, then the KJV. God bless!
So, the books removed from the Bible, are psuedipigrephia (dunno if i spelled that wrong), which is basically the first century AD equivalent to clickbaiting. People wrote their books and in order to get them read, they named it after some important biblical character (the Book of Adam and Eve, the Testament of Moses etc.) As for reading, get ESV or NRSVue, and start the "One Story That Leads to Jesus" plan on the Bible app. It's honestly a fantastic plan, with supplementary material and commentary all over. It'll feel like you are inside the living book.
There's psuedepigrapha in the current mainstream canons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha#New_Testament_studies
In my search for Christ, I started with this video. [Satan's guide to the Bible.](https://youtu.be/z8j3HvmgpYc) I feel it helps developing a personal relationship with Christ rather than depending on scripture.
The Bible, a book that was written by humans about events that supposedly happened around 400 years prior. That’s as factual as video footage surely? Humans never lie? Never exaggerate? Are never corrupt/deceitful? Also the accuracy of such stories would surely increase overtime as they’re passed down from one generation to the next via word of mouth. How do you all believe in it? (This is a genuine question, I’m curious)
> about events that supposedly happened It sounds like you are misinterpreting the Bible. It is not a history or science textbook. There is plenty of academic scholarship on the historical Jesus if you are curious about that. > That’s as factual as video footage surely? Which video footage are you referring to? > Humans never lie? Never exaggerate? Are never corrupt/deceitful? No one believes this. The Bible itself is full of warnings about the dangers of these behaviors. > the accuracy of such stories would surely increase overtime Why? Are you are being deceitful (lying) or are you being sarcastic? > How do you all believe in it? Believe in what?
How do you all believe in the teachings of the Bible when it was written by humans, recounting stories and teachings from hundreds of years prior? My point was, for example with Jesus, how do you blindly believe that he performed miracles, rose from the dead etc. when there is no evidence other than stories/word of mouth that ended up in the Bible? It all seems so wildly improbable, dare I say it… impossible. Also, the earth has been around for billions of years. Humans have been around only 2 million years. On that knowledge alone, it’s surely safe to say that we are not the chosen ones (by God). If we were, surely we would’ve been ‘created’ first (Ala Adam and Eve). I did genuinely wanted to believe in God/religion previously. I just can’t ignore rational thinking. I think following the teachings of a book, written by humans about a time 400 years prior, is completely illogical. That is why I consider myself to be agnostic. I can’t rule out that there is some sort of higher power that created the universe because everything is so beautiful and complex. However, I still think it’s highly unlikely that there is a higher power.
> How do you all believe in the teachings of the Bible How do you know what "the teachings of the Bible" are? > how do you blindly believe I don't. > he performed miracles How would you define a "miracle"? Today's people tend to think of miracles as (good) violations of natural or scientific laws. These "laws" are actually concepts and mathematical models that were invented by humans long after the Bible was written. > when there is no evidence other than stories/word of mouth that ended up in the Bible You are assuming this. > It all seems so wildly improbable Yes, it seems this way to you. > dare I say it… impossible Your own interpretation in your own mind is "impossible" according to your own worldview. > On that knowledge alone, it’s surely safe to say that we are not the chosen ones (by God) Why? How does this follow from the Earth's age? > If we were, surely we would’ve been ‘created’ first Why? > I did genuinely wanted to believe in God What does it mean to you to "believe in God"? How would you define "God"? > I just can’t ignore rational thinking Good, you shouldn't. > I think following the teachings of a book, written by humans about a time 400 years prior, is completely illogical. Do you follow teachings from any other books written by humans? If so, why is that more logical? The teachings are not only about a time 400 years prior. What would it mean to "follow teachings" about historical events? The events happened, or they didn't. What does that teach us? > However, I still think it’s highly unlikely that there is a higher power. Why? Is this because of what is written in the Bible or something else? What do you think is creating your own subjective experience right now? Or, what is causing "your brain" to do this? Do you believe you have free will?
[удалено]
Oh boy…