The Holy Bible is considered by many the infallible word of God. It was not just written by man, but rather written by God through man. This book is the cornerstone to the Christian and Judaic religions, without this book, they have nothing to hold their beliefs to. With these two things in mind, one would think that it would have to be one heck of a book. Not only 100% correct in every manner, but chock full of wonderful teachings, pleasant miracles by the all loving God, but scientifically tested and proven as a source of answers to the unknown mysteries of our earth and universe as well.

Here's something interesting...

Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.                       

The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy,
intolerance, persecution and bigotry. At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine
offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he
didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed
upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine
thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were out.

There have been many different theories set forth over the history of the church as to exactly how God’s hand was involved in this selection process. Skeptics have pointed out that over three thousand books were candidates for inclusion in the New
Testament canon alone, and only a handful (twenty-some books) were selected. Doesn’t that raise some serious questions? Isn’t it possible that certain books that are in the Bible should not be there and others that were excluded by human
evaluation and human judgment should have been included? We need to keep in mind, however, that
of those not included in the last analysis, there were at the most three or four that were given serious consideration. So to speak in terms of two or three thousand being boiled down to twenty-seven or something like that is a distortion of
historical reality.

Till date, the number of books in the Catholic bible are still different from the number of books in the Bible of the protestants/ Pentecostals. All for one God?
Please, does anybody have an accurate idea of how the Bible was compiled and by whom?

[b]The main purpose of the Council of nicaea 325AD was to address the Arianism heresy which questioned the Deity of Jesus and threatened to tear the new church apart.

It was in that council that the Nicene creed was formulated (This creed is still used in the catholic Church everyday) determined to be the fundamental basis of the Christian belief.

Like you rightly pointed out it also gave rise to an undying need to formulate a guided canon for the religion and is the advent of bible.

Bible was not compiled at one particular point in time, it went through many developmental phases.

Books were added and decided by the Bishops, edited and compiled many New testament christian writings didnt make it into the bible and only 4 out of the gospels written made it in.

Some jewish texts found in their Tenark didn't make it in but most did (called old testament in the bible)

It took many years of editing and adding to the texts by the esteemed bishops of the Church. Like the book of revelation was one of the last additions to the canon of the bible.

The difference between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bible with the Protestant bible is that the Catholic and orthodox bible contains Deuterocanonical books like Tobit, mecabbeus, sirach and many of them making it 77books (Septuagint bible)

But with the rise of protestant Christianity those books were omitted because there were not recognized as actual biblical canon or found in original Jewish manuscript.

It is also ok to note that there have been an undying feud and conflict between Catholic christianity and protestants through out the medieval ages resulting to countless bloody wars lasting for years...[/b]

just like the two writers above said, especially johnny..there is no ground zero for the development of the bible..it was the council of Hippo in 394AD that set out to compile a canon..before now, they had the codex sinacticus and probably where the vulgate was made from..the only missing books where the gospel of john and the third letter of john..it was the council of Carthage that finally added this book and closed the canon....it has to take another 1000 years before the council of Trent in 1556 AD to finally put a stamp on it as the official book of the church and the word of a god...

One Bible, so much controversy. Being an ardent Bible critic myself, I would like to point out that its compilation is purely a human endeavor and has no divine orientation. The bishops only approved the texts that suited their doctrines and trashed the rest. Those who didn't approve went off and compiled their own. Its still being done today, do the JW ring a bell? Nice post by the way.

The Roman Catholic Church will tell you that they compiled the Bible but its a brutal blatant lie!!! Don't even regard the claims of the Catholic history books.

PROOF:They cannot compile a book that is directly and diametrically opposed to their many doctrinal practices and traditions.

Same way they lie that they are the first church and the mother church but the Bible shows clearly that the life and Christian practices of the apostles was nothing close to the Idolatory and Mary deity practice extolled by the Roman Catholic.


Rather the apostles Christian pattern and practices then, matches that of the "HOLINESS" based Pentecostals of today.


The first churches were Pentecostal churches according to Acts 2, when the day of the Pentecost was fully come. Churches arose from that pentecostal outpouring on the apostles and from Paul's missionary journey. Those churches were not Roman Catholic.


They never prayed the rosary nor venerated Mary and the dead saints. There pattern perfectly matches that of the holiness based pentecostal churches of today.

LET US FOR ONCE BE TRUTHFUL.

JustTara:
The Holy Bible is considered by many the infallible word of God. It was not just written by man, but rather written by God through man. This book is the cornerstone to the Christian and Judaic religions, without this book, they have nothing to hold their beliefs to. With these two things in mind, one would think that it would have to be one heck of a book. Not only 100% correct in every manner, but chock full of wonderful teachings, pleasant miracles by the all loving God, but scientifically tested and proven as a source of answers to the unknown mysteries of our earth and universe as well.

Here's something interesting...

Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.                       

The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy,
intolerance, persecution and bigotry. At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine
offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he
didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed
upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine
thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were out.

There have been many different theories set forth over the history of the church as to exactly how God’s hand was involved in this selection process. Skeptics have pointed out that over three thousand books were candidates for inclusion in the New
Testament canon alone, and only a handful (twenty-some books) were selected.......

The Roman Catholic Church will tell you that they compiled the Bible but its a brutal blatant lie!!! Don't even regard the claims of the Catholic history books.

PROOF:They cannot compile a book that is directly and diametrically opposed to their many doctrinal practices and traditions.

Same way they lie that they are the first church and the mother church but the Bible shows clearly that the life and Christian practices of the apostles was nothing close to the Idolatory and Mary deity practice extolled by the Roman Catholic.


Rather the apostles Christian pattern and practices then, matches that of the "HOLINESS" based Pentecostals of today.


The first churches were Pentecostal churches according to Acts 2, when the day of the Pentecost was fully come. Churches arose from that pentecostal outpouring on the apostles and from Paul's missionary journey. Those churches were not Roman Catholic.


They never prayed the rosary nor venerated Mary and the dead saints. There pattern perfectly matches that of the holiness based pentecostal churches of today.

LET US FOR ONCE BE TRUTHFUL.

oga bros, your pentecostal churches were divided on whether Jesus was divine or not.

ByfireByfire:




The Roman Catholic Church will tell you that they compiled the Bible but its a brutal blatant lie!!! Don't even regard the claims of the Catholic history books.

PROOF:They cannot compile a book that is directly and diametrically opposed to their many doctrinal practices and traditions.

Same way they lie that they are the first church and the mother church but the Bible shows clearly that the life and Christian practices of the apostles was nothing close to the Idolatory and Mary deity practice extolled by the Roman Catholic.


Rather the apostles Christian pattern and practices then, matches that of the "HOLINESS" based Pentecostals of today.


The first churches were Pentecostal churches according to Acts 2, when the day of the Pentecost was fully come. Churches arose from that pentecostal outpouring on the apostles and from Paul's missionary journey. Those churches were not Roman Catholic.


They never prayed the rosary nor venerated Mary and the dead saints. There pattern perfectly matches that of the holiness based pentecostal churches of today.

LET US FOR ONCE BE TRUTHFUL.

Your bible citation is just so wrong. Pentecostal churches may have gotten their name from there, but it doesn't prove they started from there. What's your proof?

JustTara:
The Holy Bible is considered by many the infallible word of God. It was not just written by man, but rather written by God through man. This book is the cornerstone to the Christian and Judaic religions, without this book, they have nothing to hold their beliefs to. With these two things in mind, one would think that it would have to be one heck of a book. Not only 100% correct in every manner, but chock full of wonderful teachings, pleasant miracles by the all loving God, but scientifically tested and proven as a source of answers to the unknown mysteries of our earth and universe as well.

Here's something interesting...

Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.                       

The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy,
intolerance, persecution and bigotry. At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine
offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he
didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed
upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine
thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

Actually, legend has it that at the Council of Nicea, Constantine was unsure of what else to include as a holy scripture (which later the batch became the Bible). He threw the batch that he was to choose from onto a table. Those that remained on the table were in, those that fell off were out.

There have been many different theories set forth over the history of the church as to exactly how God’s hand was involved in this selection process. Skeptics have pointed out that over three thousand books were candidates for inclusion in the New
Testament canon alone, and only a handful (twenty-some books) were selected. Doesn’t that raise some serious questions? Isn’t it possible that certain books that are in the Bible should not be there and others that were excluded by human
evaluation and human judgment should have been included? We need to keep in mind, however, that
of those not included in the last analysis, there were at the most three or four that were given serious consideration. So to speak in terms of two or three thousand being boiled down to twenty-seven or something like that is a distortion of
historical reality.

Till date, the number of books in the Catholic bible are still different from the number of books in the Bible of the protestants/ Pentecostals. All for one God?
Please, does anybody have an accurate idea of how the Bible was compiled and by whom?

Sweetheart, what you wrote about Constantine and his involvement in the Canon of Scripture is false.

It is simple. The Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church.

The Jews put together the old testament and The Catholic Church put together the new testament and it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage 397 years after Jesus death and subsequent approval by Pope Innocent I, that a New Testament was put together. Prior to that date, hundreds of gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around in many different languages, some not so good or some even controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the good writings from the bad and selected the 27 books that are now found in the New Testament bible today.

So far as we know, Jesus himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he command the Apostles to write anything. The Catholic Church operated for many years by word of mouth and Sacred Traditions that Jesus and the disciples established and handed down and guided by the Holy Spirit to insure it would not be changed. In much later years, some of the early Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books, which were finally selected almost 400 years later and that now comprise the New Testament that is used today by all Christians.

https://discovercatholic./11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/

JustTara,

The reason the Protestant "bible" has less books is that Martin Luther removed 7 books that disprove his heresies. He also considered removing the Book of James because it disproves his "Faith alone" false teaching. He called it "Epistle of straw."

JustTara:
Your bible citation is just so wrong. Pentecostal churches may have gotten their name from there, but it doesn't prove they started from there. What's your proof?

If that is not proof enough then nothing is. No truth on this matter will convince a fellow whose mind is already made up.


After all you are a Pentecostal, Catholic and atheist all bundled in one.

Actually!actually!! Different ideas about Christ’s divinity lead
to conflict
This was the setting in which the doctrine of the
Trinity
emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ’s
ministry,
Alleged death and resurrection, and spanning the next few
centuries,
various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was
He man?
Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was
He an
illusion? Was He a mere man who became God?
Was He created
by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the
Father?
All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of
belief of
the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many
borrowed or
adapted from pagan religions, replaced the
teachings of Jesus
and the apostles.
Let me be clear that when it comes to the intellectual
and
theological debates in those early centuries that led
to the
formulation of the Trinity, the true Church was
largely absent
from the scene, having been driven underground
For this reason, in that stormy period we often see
debates not
between truth and error, but between one error and
a different
error— a fact seldom recognized by many modern
Christian yet
critical for our understanding.
A classic example of this was the dispute over the
nature of
Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the
Great to
convene the Council of Nicaea
in A.D. 325.
Constantine, although held by many to be the first
“Christian”
Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who
was only
baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had
his eldest son
and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently
anti-Semitic,
referring in one of his edicts to “the detestable
Jewish crowd”
and “the customs of these most wicked men”—
customs that
were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by
Jesus and
the apostles.
As emperor in a period of great tumult within the
Roman
Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping
the empire
unified. He recognized the value of religion in
uniting his
empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary
motivations in
accepting and sanctioning the “Christian” religion
(which, by
this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus
Christ and
the apostles and was Christian in name only).
But now Constantine faced a new challenge one of
the
first problems that had to be solved was the
doctrine of God . . .
a new danger arose from within which split
Christians into
bitterly warring camps As emperor, Constantine was
in the unusual position of
deciding church doctrine even though he was not
really a
Christian. "The following year is when he had both
his wife and
son murdered".as I have
stated above he was a SUN WORSHIPPER (concept of
"SUN-day"...so the faith of the christian was actually
in the hands of a sun worshiper,hence what he did
was shape the christian religion to suit the sun
worship..if you check many pictures of christ you will
find the sun behind him
Its high time the church started teaching its followers the history of christianity

ByfireByfire:


If that is not proof enough then nothing is. No truth on this matter will convince a fellow whose mind is already made up.


After all you are a Pentecostal, Catholic and atheist all bundled in one.

Nope! Pentecostal christians didn't come up until the 20th century. So what you believe doesn't really matter, it's just the fact.

italo3:


Sweetheart, what you wrote about Constantine and his involvement in the Canon of Scripture is false.

It is simple. The Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church.

The Jews put together the old testament and The Catholic Church put together the new testament and it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage 397 years after Jesus death and subsequent approval by Pope Innocent I, that a New Testament was put together. Prior to that date, hundreds of gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around in many different languages, some not so good or some even controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the good writings from the bad and selected the 27 books that are now found in the New Testament bible today.

So far as we know, Jesus himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he command the Apostles to write anything. The Catholic Church operated for many years by word of mouth and Sacred Traditions that Jesus and the disciples established and handed down and guided by the Holy Spirit to insure it would not be changed. In much later years, some of the early Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books, which were finally selected almost 400 years later and that now comprise the New Testament that is used today by all Christians.

https://discovercatholic./11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/

I'm sure if you check a non-catholic source then you'll get an unbiased answer.

2Timothy 3:16 '' All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness''

CoolUsername:
I'm sure if you check a non-catholic source then you'll get an unbiased answer.

You mean an anti-Catholic source?

Bring it on and let us test the veracity of its 'unbiased' answer.

ByfireByfire:


If that is not proof enough then nothing is. No truth on this matter will convince a fellow whose mind is already made up.


After all you are a Pentecostal, Catholic and atheist all bundled in one.

Your mind is already made up about who I am too. And I think no matter how much I try to make you see things differently, no truth will convince you.

italo3:
JustTara,

The reason the Protestant "bible" has less books is that Martin Luther removed 7 books that disprove his heresies. He also considered removing the Book of James because it disproves his "Faith alone" false teaching. He called it "Epistle of straw."

Jeez. We grew up thinking first that the bible fell down from the sky, then later that it was compiled according to God's direct instruction. Man who is so imperfect compiled the bible and I ain't seeing any divine intervention in it. I guess I could become president and ban the Bible altogether.

italo3:


Sweetheart, what you wrote about Constantine and his involvement in the Canon of Scripture is false.

It is simple. The Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church.

The Jews put together the old testament and The Catholic Church put together the new testament and it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage 397 years after Jesus death and subsequent approval by Pope Innocent I, that a New Testament was put together. Prior to that date, hundreds of gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around in many different languages, some not so good or some even controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the good writings from the bad and selected the 27 books that are now found in the New Testament bible today.

So far as we know, Jesus himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he command the Apostles to write anything. The Catholic Church operated for many years by word of mouth and Sacred Traditions that Jesus and the disciples established and handed down and guided by the Holy Spirit to insure it would not be changed. In much later years, some of the early Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books, which were finally selected almost 400 years later and that now comprise the New Testament that is used today by all Christians.

https://discovercatholic./11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/

It's so nice of you correct me in such a polite manner. There are so many theories and contradictions, we don't know what to believe anymore.

italo3:


You mean an anti-Catholic source?

Bring it on and let us test the veracity of its 'unbiased' answer.

I'm just saying that you should cite a non-Catholic source. That way you'll seem less biased. Seriously, the people who attack Catholics the most are non-Catholic christians, I have no such prejudice against Catholics or anyone for that matter.

JustTara:
Jeez. We grew up thinking first that the bible fell down from the sky, then later that it was compiled according to God's direct instruction. Man who is so imperfect compiled the bible and I ain't seeing any divine intervention in it. I guess I could become president and ban the Bible altogether.

The liars are the ones who made you believe the Bible fell from the sky...

...because the don't want to admit that it was compiled by the Catholic Church they hate so much.

So you believe the Bible teaches error...

Or you believe it does not teach error?

JustTara:
It's so nice of you correct me in such a polite manner. There are so many theories and contradictions, we don't know what to believe anymore.

I agree there is so much confusion around.

But I believe that if everyone followed their conscience in sincerity and dexterity, they'd find truth.

Who told you what you wrote in your original post?

Who told you that a body other than the Catholic Church compiled the Bible?

Can you provide the source?

Let us analyze their claims.

CoolUsername:
I'm just saying that you should cite a non-Catholic source. That way you'll seem less biased. Seriously, the people who attack Catholics the most are non-Catholic christians, I have no such prejudice against Catholics or anyone for that matter.

How can a non-Catholic source know/relate better what happened within a Synod of Bishops in Rome in 382...than a Catholic source?

Is there a non-family source that can tell the things your parents did in your home more than a family source?



If you say your father compiled the Bible, we can prove you wrong by showing that the Bible existed before your father.

Let anyone come here and claim that the bible NT as we know it was compiled before the Catholic Church did it in 382...

...and let them tell us if it was Martin Luther of 500 years ago or Adeboye of RCCG that compiled it.

Then we'll analyze more.

italo:


How can a non-Catholic source know/relate better what happened within a Synod of Bishops in Rome in 382...than a Catholic source?

Is there a non-family source that can tell the things your parents did in your home more than a family source?



If you say your father compiled the Bible, we can prove you wrong by showing that the Bible existed before your father.

Let anyone come here and claim that the bible NT as we know it was compiled before the Catholic Church did it in 382...

...and let them tell us if it was Martin Luther of 500 years ago or Adeboye of RCCG that compiled it.

Then we'll analyze more.

It's a fact that the Catholic church compiled the bible. I'm just saying that citing an outside source to show this fact is better than citing a Catholic one. That way, people won't just dismiss it as propaganda.

CoolUsername:
It's a fact that the Catholic church compiled the bible. I'm just saying that citing an outside source to show this fact is better than citing a Catholic one. That way, people won't just dismiss it as propaganda.

Yes. You're right. However, a Catholic source that cannot be refuted is also good.

The catholics believe to be pure and nt finding fault in their doctine. And where has dat hubris gotten It?

@Justara.
First in one of ur threads you said u were pentecostal who visited Catholic church for the first time. Here I see you a born and raised catholic. Liar?
Secondly, maybe its me. But are you sure U know the diff. Between writing and compilation? That's why I keep asking the catholics who are hung on the Bible being Compiled by the Catholic church. Were the writers of the Bible, old and new Testament, Catholics?
Besides, why are we so fixated on who compiled the Bible?

How does knowing who compiled the Bible enhance my spiritual life?

How does it help me stop stealing, if I were a thief?

How does it help me fine tune my language and manners?
How does that change a prostitude to respectable lady with integrity?

How can that info, help a confused, depressed, and frustrated guy who is at the verge of committing suide change his mind?

how does that engraces me to forgive someone who took something precious from me, yet attempted to eliminate me in other not to pay me back? HOW?

How does that, renews my mind and transforms my character?
How does that builds my faith to live above sickness?

How does that help me to accept and deal with issues in my environment. Issues like dead and suffering?

How does it help a dying person accept that no matter what's happening, christ still loves them?

How does that help me as lady christian stay away from fornication?

How JustTara, how? You bring up irrelevant issues, and raise arguments wen there so many teachings to do.

What is wrong with U coming up with a topic abt the need to forgive others who hurt us no matter what?
You have an opportunity, but u are using it to raise banters. Christ didn't command you to go into the world and raise arguments.

Anas09:
@Justara.
First in one of ur threads you said u were pentecostal who visited Catholic church for the first time. Here I see you a born and raised catholic. Liar?
Secondly, maybe its me. But are you sure U know the diff. Between writing and compilation? That's why I keep asking the catholics who are hung on the Bible being Compiled by the Catholic church. Were the writers of the Bible, old and new Testament, Catholics?
Besides, why are we so fixated on who compiled the Bible?

How does knowing who compiled the Bible enhance my spiritual life?

How does it help me stop stealing, if I were a thief?

How does it help me fine tune my language and manners?
How does that change a prostitude to respectable lady with integrity?

How can that info, help a confused, depressed, and frustrated guy who is at the verge of committing suide change his mind?

how does that engraces me to forgive someone who took something precious from me, yet attempted to eliminate me in other not to pay me back? HOW?

How does that, renews my mind and transforms my character?
How does that builds my faith to live above sickness?

How does that help me to accept and deal with issues in my environment. Issues like dead and suffering?

How does it help a dying person accept that no matter what's happening, christ still loves them?

How does that help me as lady christian stay away from fornication?

How JustTara, how? You bring up irrelevant issues, and raise arguments wen there so many teachings to do.

What is wrong with U coming up with a topic abt the need to forgive others who hurt us no matter what?
You have an opportunity, but u are using it to raise banters. Christ didn't command you to go into the world and raise arguments.

wherever you've seen me, you've seen it wrong. I do stand corrected, the topic of my post should have been phrased better. But me claiming to be born and raised a catholic...be careful what you accuse people of. I don't see how asking a question on who and how the Bible was compiled was turned around as a motive to cause confusion or raise arguments. If I were so sure of what I browsed out, I wouldn't post it here and ask question or opinions. It's a matter of perspective, you should change yours. FYI, trying to give people the benefit of doubt doesn't mean I agree with or I'm one of them or vice versa.

italo:


I agree there is so much confusion around.

But I believe that if everyone followed their conscience in sincerity and dexterity, they'd find truth.

Who told you what you wrote in your original post?

Who told you that a body other than the Catholic Church compiled the Bible?

Can you provide the source?

Let us analyze their claims.

It's so easy for us to defend our individual beliefs. Just Google it out. There are so many theories.

italo:


The liars are the ones who made you believe the Bible fell from the sky...

...because the don't want to admit that it was compiled by the Catholic Church they hate so much.

So you believe the Bible teaches error...

Or you believe it does not teach error?

I believe we should have access to more books. If there are more books out there, I wonder if we aren't missing out on some noteworthy information...

sonmvayina:
just like the two writers above said, especially johnny..there is no ground zero for the development of the bible..it was the council of Hippo in 394AD that set out to compile a canon..before now, they had the codex sinacticus and probably where the vulgate was made from..the only missing books where the gospel of john and the third letter of john..it was the council of Carthage that finally added this book and closed the canon....it has to take another 1000 years before the council of Trent in 1556 AD to finally put a stamp on it as the official book of the church and the word of a god...

nice one