Changing the word of God

If we are not supposed to add to or take away from the word of God, how come some books did not make it into the Bible?

The book of Maccabees is perhaps one of the more famous texts that was not received into scriptural canon. Imagery of menorahs and the like that we don't see until later in Revelation.

Bel and the dragon is great read. Some clear Greek mythological connections with the salve that Bel uses to kill the dragon (a concoction related to the humors of the body). Nothing was particularly contrary to the body of canonical scripture, but perhaps the faint Greek elements disqualified it. Perhaps it was identified as a tainted text.

The Gospel of Judas was an interesting read. The depiction of Jesus laughing sardonically was odd, but the concept was that Judas was acting in accordance with God's plan. Strange bits with multiple of 12s. This might be at odds with the four Gospels and their depictions of the devil coming into Judas. The Gospel of Judas is an incomplete text.

There are examples of changes in modern history such as the government of China allegedly publishing a version of the Bible that shows a version of Jesus stoning a woman to death and calling himself a sinner (the adulteress that he spared with "he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Allegation made by the mainstream media: wisely to be taken with a grain of salt.

My understanding is that the official canon has remained unchanged since canonization, and we trust in the originators of this canonization as being led by the Holy Spirit. Something to be taken on faith. I am interested to see what the input is on this subject.

The ones that God intended to be part of Scripture are part of Scripture; the ones He didn't, aren't.

Because they did not belong there. This is too elementary.

As well as the absolute veracity of Christ. See Luke 24.

Simple. It was determined that they were not God's word. How those decisions were arrived at is a big subject. There is plenty of information readily available.

The only thing I take on faith is that Jesus is Lord. I do not take on faith that other humans somehow correctly canonised scripture.
We can say things like the Holy Spirit was with them, or whatever, but this is wishful thinking.

If you agree with the core scripture and are simply questioning why some books were excluded, the answer to your question may be that the law is written on your heart and mind. Is there something in deutrocanonical text that speaks to your heart and mind?

Which piece of deutrocanon do you feel "should" have been a part of the main text?

Some books were in the Bible, and then got removed. Martin Luther removed 6 books. I haven't read them, but I do intend to.

The how can you trust in any scriptures at all? If your standard is what you write above then the argument can be used to disqualify ALL scriptures..

Either God was able to protect his Message to these times or God was unable to..

By that reasoning, nobody can be trusted about anything. Hence I don't trust that your conclusions have any validity or merit.

What books would you like to see added to the bible?

All of them. Nothing should be taken away.

I would strongly suggest that you spend some time either reading or listening to Dr. James White on the subject of the apocryphal books.

There was clearly foul play somewhere in the line of some Books that we do have without even getting into the Books we don't.

The fortunate part is that we have the very oldest Bibles ever created, the [Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus]. But from those 2 Versions we discover some questionable aspects to our current Version of the Bible.

One example is in the oldest 2 Bibles, the Book of Mark Chapter 16 ends at Verse 8, and our current Bibles end at Verse 20 [clearly an uninspired add on to the Word of God].

Another example is from 1 John 5:6-8:
The Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not include the Father-Son-Holy Spirit like our current Version does [clearly an uninspired add on to the Word of God]

From the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:
6 This is he that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ: not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood; and it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.

Our current Bible:
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


So it is obvious foul play has played a major role throughout the years concerning the Word of God.

It's rather obvious the perps who chose to add/remove to/from Scripture did not believe the Warning issued by God!

My understanding is, that one reason the apocrypha was left out of the OT is because it was not written in Hebrew. Hence it was an addition to the original books of the OT.

And the Bible was not originally written in English....

No but the rest of the OT was originally written in Hebrew. So what was "taken away" was " added" in the first place.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Im sure to you it doesnt.