THE BLOOD IS REMOVED IN THE NEW BIBLES

[Gerbolski]

Don't kid yourself, until the churches can forgive each other until the individuals can accept each other as brothers and sisters God is going to come down so hard on the Christian churches you will not believe it. Because the Christians know better than anybody while other than the Jews of the great salvation that they have received and yet they want to bicker about it for the littlest stupid things that are just so ridiculous. The Christians are as bad as the Israelites with the Muslims arguing over the stupid things and not bothering to see that they are still brothers and sisters and Sons and Daughters of Abraham. We of course are the adopted children of Abraham

So then God's standards are stupid to you ? Promoting lying in the apocrypha, and magic is ok with you ?

 

[Gerbolski]

Are you promoting Catholicism, Protestantism or just simply the bible ?

 

[Bill]

No Bill, Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not any denomination, true forgiveness is not absence of truth.

And would you not agree that if something promotes lying, magic and contradicts it's own self, that it should not be reliable ?
God does not make us to be brainless people.

And the Spirit does not contradict himself.

It is not the love, love gospel, it is the be separate unto him gospel, to were love is not absent from truth.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

So what you're saying is that the scripture is not the scripture of Jesus

Hypocrite

Who is the author of The Bible?

 

[Bill]

So then God's standards are stupid to you ? Promoting lying in the apocrypha, and magic is ok with you ?

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

Try reading and listening to what I am saying to you.

Who is the author of the scripture?

If Jesus is not the author of the scripture why do you believe it?

You cannot take away from the word of God and sit there and say well that doesn't agree with me. That's hypocrisy. You're better off just saying that you don't understand what the Apocrypha is versus condemning it. Because when you condemn it then you're condemning the word of God, the word of God that was in the scripture before the Reformation. The word of God that was in there from the beginning when the book was first put together first assembled. Obviously those who were called by Jesus to put the book together, to bring the various writings into the same book that we referred to as the Bible, they followed the Holy Spirit. So who are you or anyone else to say that those guys who are following the will of the Holy Spirit, we're not following the will of the Holy Spirit and we're not putting the words of the Lord into the scripture?

 

[Gerbolski]

Oh well I guess you will defend it no matter what, even though it would be easy to disprove it, by showing what it says, but you seem not to be open to that, but in the end what are you really in it for Bill ?

You defend Catholicism as if it is the bible, and you cannot show scripture so we can find it in scripture, is your doctrine a mixture of mysticism, Catholicism and tradition ?

I am not trying to be mean, but by the answers you give, even in other threads, it seems to be in that direction.

Just because there were old books in the past, does not mean they are part of the bible, we know that the old testament was written in Hebrew.

In the case of the apocrypha, it says it was mainly written in Greek.

Now here is a bit more info on this:

(Why We Reject the Apocrypha - Faith Pulpit)

(...What Books Belong in the Old Testament?

The word canon means “ruler” or “standard” by which something is judged. In this context it refers to the books that belong in the Bible. Notice that Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant versions of the Bible have the exact same books in the New Testament. There is complete agreement on this. The disagreement comes over how many books there are in the Old Testament. Protestant versions of the Bible contain 39 Old Testament books, while Roman Catholic versions contain 7 more books plus some additions to the books of Daniel and Esther. Eastern Orthodoxy accepts all of these plus 3 extra books! If you want to look at these books, find a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible that contains the Apocrypha, and the table of contents will separate the books according to those that are accepted by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox religions. The word apocrypha means “hidden.” Sometimes these books are called “deuterocanonical,” which means “belonging to a second canon.”

How Did the Apocryphal Books Become Part of Some Bibles?​

Actually no one knows for sure how the apocryphal books came to be part of some copies of the Old Testament. Many, however, think that the extra books were added when the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew) was translated into Greek. This Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint and was produced by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt about 250 B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the earliest copy of the Septuagint available today contains these extra books, while none of the Hebrew Scriptures contain them. These books, along with the rest of the Bible, were translated by Jerome into Latin around A.D. 400, but Jerome himself did not think they belonged in the Old Testament.

Why Don’t We Accept the Apocryphal Books?​

(1) Even though the Septuagint existed in New Testament times and was available to the New Testament writers (the Book of Hebrews quotes from the Septuagint), there are no direct quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament nor does the New Testament refer to any apocryphal books as part of Scripture. (2) No general church council in the first four centuries of Christian history endorsed apocryphal books. While some early Christians thought highly of these books, others, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome opposed them. (3) While Augustine accepted the Apocrypha, his list is not exactly the same as that found in Catholic Bibles [for example, he omitted Baruch, which is in the Catholic Bible, and he included 1 Esdras, which is not in the Catholic Bible]...)

The apocrypha never was part of the Hebrew old testament that they had, and even some of the guys you would highly esteem, rejected them, but of course Augustine accepted them to a degree.

And the Alexandrian text, which had corrupt texts in a big way, had them.