• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"False, added," books/verses in the Bible

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
This thread is so people can list exactly what think are "added verse/books" in scripture, that you don't follow, think are invalid scripture, so others have a clearer idea as to your opinions, thus making discussion more reasonable
 
Last edited:

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
This thread is so people can list exactly what think are "added verse/books" in scripture, that you don't follow, think are invalid scripture, so others have a clearer idea as to your opinions, thus making discussion more reasonable


thread title oops
Scripture as defined by who?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The Hebrew Bible?
The Protestant Bible?
The Catholic Bible?
The Coptic Bible?
The Ethiopian Bible?
The Easter Orthodox Bible?

etc, etc, etc...

Sure. State the Bible in question and comment about false or added doctrine.

Considering how many times this subject is raised in threads..............:rolleyes:
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
None are doctrinal to me, but a Jew will see anything other than the Hebrew Bible as "false", (as Jay said, the NT). Protestants will see the extra books in the others as "false", etc, etc...
JW's will point out what they see as mistranslations in just about all of them.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
This thread is so people can list exactly what think are "added verse/books" in scripture, that you don't follow, think are invalid scripture, so others have a clearer idea as to your opinions, thus making discussion more reasonable

Well, first off, I don't believe any divine revelations exist....at all, anywhere. To do so would mean that God had violated His own Prime Directive. That said, I think many religious books, "scripture" or otherwise, including the Bible, contain both significant wisdom and evil.

But to offer an example to answer your question, the last 12 verses of Mark (after Mark 16:8) are not found in the oldest manuscripts.

Now consider this:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Rev. 22:18-19

Why are these warnings necessary? I believe there are similar warnings in the OT.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
It's kind of hard to say which are false. I am not sure why Paul's letters were included in the NT. My mother says that both Jude and Revelation in the NT are false books. I am not sure of the books Constantine left out: Gospel of Thomas and others. I don't believe there is much in the OT that could be considered false- if anything.
 

RJ50

Active Member
The Bible is a collection of documents, written and inspired by humans, and put together by humans. People should read that book using a bit of logic, and a questioning mind. You have to be crazy if you believe it to be literally true, imo.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
This thread is so people can list exactly what think are "added verse/books" in scripture, that you don't follow, think are invalid scripture, so others have a clearer idea as to your opinions, thus making discussion more reasonable
I'll make a distinction between two philosophies. One is a philosophy that scriptures must be infallible, divinely inspired, delivered from a God to a prophet in complete form. The other philosophy, which I adhere to is that the scriptures are man made work, sometimes with centuries of compilations, editing, and canonizations.
In this regard I don't believe there is right or wrong, corrupted or divine. Ancient Jewish writings tell us how the leaders who canonized the Bible at times had difficulties deciding which books to include and which to exclude. For example, according to the Babylonian Talmud the Book of Ezekiel was very closed to being excluded from the Biblical canon had Rabbi Chanina ben Hezekiah did not lobby to include it.
Both the processes of writing and of editing the Bible took hundreds of years. During this time span, many books were written. Some of these books are very important but still ended up being extra-biblical. For example it is possible that the Book of Enoch could have ended up in the Jewish canon, or that the Apocalypse of Peter would have ended in a Christian canon. But they did not.
In general, the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that there is a relative consistency between the Masoretic text and ancient Biblical scrolls. However for those people who demand a one archetype, which has been a in a single divine version... they would never find it. The Dead Sea Scrolls show several Biblical versions. Not in narrative content, but in writing style. Some versions were written in a more popular language which is accessible to commoners, others were written in Classical Biblical Hebrew.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I'll make a distinction between two philosophies. One is a philosophy that scriptures must be infallible, divinely inspired, delivered from a God to a prophet in complete form. The other philosophy, which I adhere to is that the scriptures are man made work, sometimes with centuries of compilations, editing, and canonizations.
In this regard I don't believe there is right or wrong, corrupted or divine.
Neither do I, really, as it is pretty much impossible to tell which canon would be wholly 'correct', anyway

Ancient Jewish writings tell us how the leaders who canonized the Bible at times had difficulties deciding which books to include and which to exclude. For example, according to the Babylonian Talmud the Book of Ezekiel was very closed to being excluded from the Biblical canon had Rabbi Chanina ben Hezekiah did not lobby to include it.

Yes, I have read similar commentary, which I found quite interesting

Both the processes of writing and of editing the Bible took hundreds of years. During this time span, many books were written. Some of these books are very important but still ended up being extra-biblical. For example it is possible that the Book of Enoch could have ended up in the Jewish canon, or that the Apocalypse of Peter would have ended in a Christian canon. But they did not.
In general, the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that there is a relative consistency between the Masoretic text and ancient Biblical scrolls.

To me that is a testimony to at least the intellectual accuracy of scripture, for the religious, theological accuracy

However for those people who demand a one archetype, which has been a in a single divine version... they would never find it. The Dead Sea Scrolls show several Biblical versions. Not in narrative content, but in writing style. Some versions were written in a more popular language which is accessible to commoners, others were written in Classical Biblical Hebrew.

I think of myself as theologically eclectic, I read Rabbinical commentary, Josephus, besides the OT/NT, and general mythos

That's some interesting info there ,thanks for replying
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
This thread is so people can list exactly what think are "added verse/books" in scripture, that you don't follow, think are invalid scripture, so others have a clearer idea as to your opinions, thus making discussion more reasonable
Added to what, exactly?

Would not a better question be "what part(s) of the Bible do you think should not be there?"
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
To me that is a testimony to at least the intellectual accuracy of scripture, for the religious, theological accuracy
I agree. Many people parrot how the scriptures are changed or corrupted, but they have no real knowledge of the intellectual content of the scriptures. The content of the Masoretic text is reliable when we compare it to the ancient Biblical texts found at Qumran.
However, I don't see the point in pretending that any world scripture has one day appeared in a complete form, unedited or unchanged.
Such claims regularly appear from Muslims who seem to be more fixed on infallibility. But the historical truth is that before Uthman ordered a committee to labour on a unified version of the Qur'an, there were variations in the Qur'anic text. Documents such as the Sana'a manuscript show early versions of the Qur'an which differ from the finalized Uthman version or the standard Qur'an. So just like the Bible had a human writing and editing process, so did the Qur'an.
Personally I don't see an issue with it, it is an important heritage and historical information. But for those who think in black and white it's a deal breaker.
In other words, world scriptures have gone through editing and canonization processes. Councils decided which books to include and which to exclude, sometimes the decisions were based on sound standards, and sometimes even if the book came from qualified source the text could be excluded because its content was deemed too esoteric.
It's doesn't survive the test of history to claim that the Bible or the Qur'an appeared from a divine source, complete and unedited. In the case of the Bible the books were written during a long time span and a complicated canonization process took place. In the case of the Qur'an, surviving early manuscripts show us that different variations in the text existed before Uthman ordered a standard Qur'an. So unfortunately it was not Gabriel who masterminded the transmission of the Qur'an, nor the finger of God on Mount Sinai which written the Bible. Scribes and editors, mortal scholars laboured to produce the scriptures.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well, first off, I don't believe any divine revelations exist....at all, anywhere. To do so would mean that God had violated His own Prime Directive. That said, I think many religious books, "scripture" or otherwise, including the Bible, contain both significant wisdom and evil.

But to offer an example to answer your question, the last 12 verses of Mark (after Mark 16:8) are not found in the oldest manuscripts.
Also the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), the only passage in the Bible that clearly points to the Trinity.

Now consider this:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Rev. 22:18-19

Why are these warnings necessary? I believe there are similar warnings in the OT.
When the Revelation of John was written, it wasn't part of the Bible. This suggests to me that when the author talks about "this book of prophecy", he's talking about Revelation, not the whole Bible or New Testament.
 
Top