Archives

Why were 14 books Removed from the Bible in 1684?

In the year 1611 the Holy Bible was translated from Latin to English; and at that time the Bible contained a total of 80 books. The last 14 books that made up the end of the Old Testament were as follows:

  • 1 Esdras
  • 2 Esdras
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • The rest of Esther
  • The Wisdom of Solomon
  • Ecclesiasticus
  • Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
  • The Songs of the 3 Holy children
  • The history of Susana
  • bel and the dragon
  • The prayer for Manasses
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees

In the year 1684 these 14 books were removed from all versions of the Holy Bible except the 1611 edition; which was the first edition translated to English. In this edition you will also find that Jesus name is not the same in fact it is spelled IESUS and pronounced Yahashua is Ishuyah;  why then do we continue to call our savior Jesus, when the letter J did not enter into widespread usage until the late 1400’s to early 1500’s B.C.? Of course many didn’t know this. Did you know that these books even existed? My grandmother used to tell me about them long ago she used to say “you know Moses wrote more book that were removed from the Bible; they’re at the Library if you want to read them” but I didn’t listen til now, and I am glad that I did!  I hope the Questions that I’m presenting will Encourage you to research further into this subject, and I pray that it gets you reading your Bible! Then and only then will you begin to see what they have hidden from us in Plain Sight!

While studying the Words within my Apocrypha I came across a book called the Wisdom of Solomon; this intrigued me as I have always looked up to Solomon of course him being the wisest king ever; I continued to read this book called the Wisdom…… What I read sent Chills and shock through my body. What was I reading and how did Solomon know these things? Now I just have to share it with you. I’m not claiming that Solomon was doing evil, but he did worship other gods So….. I believe there are still some questions that need to be asked and answered.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:1-24
1 For the ungodly said reasoning with them selves, but not aright, our life is short and tedious and in death of a man there is no remedy: neither was there any man known to have returned from the grave.

2 For we are born at all adventure: and we shall be hereafter as though we had never been: for the breath of our nostrils is as smoke, and the little spark in the moving of our heart

3 Which being extinguished, our body shall be turned into ashes, and our spirit shall vanish as the soft air,

4 And our name shall be forgotten in time, and no man shall have our works in remembrance, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, that is driven away, with the beams of the sun, and overcome with the heat thereof.

5 For our time is very shadow that passeth away; and after our end there is no returning: for it is fast sealed, so that no man cometh again.

6 Come on there for let us enjoy the good things that are present: and let us speedily use the creatures like as in youth.

7 Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and ointments: and let no flower of the Spring pass by us.

8 Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they be withered:

9 Let non of us go without his part of our voluptuousness: let us leave tokens of our joyfulness in every place: for this is our portion and our lot is this.

10 Let us oppress the poor righteous man, let us not spare the widow, nor reverence the ancient gray hairs of the aged.

11 Let our strength be  the law of justice: for that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth.

12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because HE is not of our turn, and HE is clean contrary to our doings. He upbraideth  us with our offending of the law, and ojecteth to our infamy the transgression of our education.

13 HE professeth to have the knowledge of the MOST HIGH, and calleth HIS self the child of the LORD.

14 HE was made to reprove our thoughts

15 HE is grievous unto us even to behold, for HIS life is not like other men’s, HIS ways are of another fashion.

16 We are esteemed of HIM as counterfeits: HE abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: HE pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh HIS boast that GOD is HIS father.

17 Let us see if HIS words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of HIM.

18 For if the just man be the Son of THE MOST HIGH, HE will help HIM and deliver HIM from the hands of HIS enemies.

19 Let us examine HIM with despitefulness and torture, that we may know HIS meekness and prove HIS patience.

20 Let us condemn HIM with a shameful death: for by HIS own mouth HE shall be respected…..

Now this left me with some serious questions like:

  • What righteous man was Solomon speaking of killing with a shameful death?
  • Why did the Vatican vote to have these 14 books removed from our Bible?
  • Why did Solomon sound so evil in this book?
  • Did you know that Solomon wrote a number of books that were not included in the Bible?

I can go on and on, but the question is just: WHY did they remove these books?

Well I have a few possible answers to the questions that I have asked:

In my opinion Solomon is speaking of our Savior…. Who else could he be speaking of plus the similarities surrounding the crucifixion are just to similar to ignore…. So you think that Solomon was wise enough to prophesied something that happens 931 years after his death? Okay lets compare:

  • They killed the SON with a shameful death
  • The SON’s actions or fashions were different from everyone else’s
  • HE claims to be and IS the child of The MOST HIGH
  • Righteous poor man
  • HE professeth to have knowledge of The MOST HIGH
  • Then Solomon even knew What the Savior said to the people in the Temple ” HE esteemed us as counterfeits: HE upbraideth us with our offending of the law. ( Remember when the SON flipped over the table in the Temple and said that they had turned it into a den of thieves, sounds a lot a like)

Then listen to what Solomon has to say:

  •  HE was made to reprove our thoughts
  • We are esteemed of HIM as counterfeits: HE abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: HE pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh HIS boast that GOD is HIS father
  • For if the just man be the Son of THE MOST HIGH, HE will help HIM and deliver HIM from the hands of HIS enemies. ( This is what was said directly before HIS crucifixion)

If there is no truth to this, How did Solomon know Exactly the How, What, Where, When and  even the words used while the Savior was on the cross? I have always admired Solomon as a wise ruler….. but something is off here!

I am a believer that the folks in power are just Big Fat Liars, including the pope and whom ever approved the Bible without the Apocrypha! I know that they removed these books in order to keep us Ignorant of the Truth! Even though they hid it in Plain Sight! Just one More thing….. SOLOMON NEVER EXCLUDED HIMSELF AS ONE OF ungodly PEOPLE THAT HE SPOKE OF!

A link to the 1611 Bible is included in the comments!



The Testament Of Solomon


The Researchers Library of Ancient Texts: Volume One — The Apocrypha: Includes the Books of Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees

By The Commission on Global Governance Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance [Paperback]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

Someone Hacked NASA ….. and Look what they Found!~


Grey: Fifty Shades of Grey as Told by Christian


Your Fathers, Where are They? and the Prophets, Do They Live Forever?


Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA, Enlarged and Revised Edition

Nasa talks about Wormwood

Spinning Ice Circle’s …..

Reposted

This is a re-post from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of an article published by Richard C.J. Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Article Highlights

Two decades after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, most governments have agreed that limiting the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would represent a tolerable amount of global warming.

But the annual amount of human-caused global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is now about 50 percent larger than in 1992.

A failure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly within the next decade will have large adverse effects on the climate that will be essentially irreversible on human timescales.

Climate scientists like to think of themselves as wise planetary physicians, explaining to the world what they have learned about climate and advising humanity on how to cope with the challenge of climate change. This metaphor can also appear attractive to policymakers and the public. Consider the appealing similarities between deciding what you should do about your weight and what the world should do about global warming. You can ask your doctor’s opinion, but it is you who will determine your target weight. You can also ask your physician to recommend actions to reach that target. You can then experiment with diet and exercise, evaluate the results, and make changes. Throughout the process, you are in charge, and the physician’s role is simply to advise.

There are obvious parallels with the climate change issue. Instead of body weight, the global average temperature at the surface of the Earth is the main metric. In place of your physician, the world has the combined expertise of the global community of climate scientists, as assessed by national academies of science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Deciding what climate change policies to adopt is up to the governments of all nations. Their first task is to decide how much global warming they regard as tolerable. Governments have scientific input, but they will also take into account risk tolerance, national priorities, economic impacts, and political considerations.

Suppose the world’s governments could eventually manage to agree on a specific aspirational goal, such as limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average temperature of the mid-1800s, a time before human activities had begun to affect the global climate significantly. Governments could next ask climate scientists what reductions in the emission rates of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would be needed to meet the 2 degree Celsius target. Then governments could negotiate with one another, aiming for a binding international agreement, with specific and enforceable emission-reduction levels and timetables for all countries. Science will thus have informed this process, but governments will have made all the policy decisions.

Can this approach succeed? Some environmental challenges have followed this script faithfully. One example is the apparently successful attempt to limit stratospheric ozone loss caused by manmade chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons. Scientific research established the cause of the ozone loss. Then the political process — with substantial scientific input — quickly led to the Montreal Protocol and subsequent international agreements to halt the manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals. This paradigm is often cited as a role model for limiting climate change to moderate levels.

The stratospheric ozone story unfolded quickly. The key scientific paper predicting ozone loss due to chlorofluorocarbons appeared in 1974, the discovery of severe Antarctic ozone depletion was published in 1985, and the Montreal Protocol entered into force in 1989. The international community, however, has already taken much longer, both scientifically and politically, to come to grips with the climate change issue, and the doctor’s advice for dealing with the malady cannot be ignored much longer. A failure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly and soon — soon being within a decade or so — will have large adverse effects that are, because of the physics and biogeochemistry of the climate system, essentially irreversible on human time scales. This is not an ideological or political assertion but an unavoidable consequence of a simple reality: Once excess carbon dioxide is added to the Earth’s atmosphere, much of it will remain there for centuries or longer before natural processes remove it.
A century and a half of greenhouse gas research

Careful laboratory experiments by the Irish physicist John Tyndall, published in 1861, showed that water vapor, carbon dioxide, and certain other gases strongly absorb infrared radiation. Tyndall was the first to put the greenhouse effect on a firm empirical foundation, and he immediately recognized the potential implications for climate change.

In 1896, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated the sensitivity of climate to atmospheric carbon dioxide, asking how much global mean temperature would change if atmospheric amounts were doubled or halved. Through deep physical insight plus some good luck, Arrhenius obtained a result that is within about a factor of two of modern estimates.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that mankind had clear early warning about the need to rapidly reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases in order to avoid climate disruption. In the 1970s, two Swiss scientists carried out research that anticipated the challenge now confronting policymakers. Hans Oeschger and his doctoral student, Ulrich Siegenthaler, were pioneers in the development of Earth system models. Their 1978 paper in Science, based on simple models and limited data, concluded that, “For a prescribed maximum increase of 50 percent above the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level, the production [of carbon dioxide emissions] could grow by about 50 percent until the beginning of the next century, but should then decrease rapidly.” They were right. The most recent research, with vastly better data and models incorporating a far more complete understanding of the climate system, has refined the quantitative conclusions and confirmed that essential result.

The political process, by contrast, has been extremely slow. The Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 was attended by more than 100 heads of nations and was widely praised as a landmark in environmental statesmanship. This conference produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by nearly every country on Earth. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Deciding what that “dangerous” level should be, however, is a task that the Rio negotiators left for the future.

Some 20 years later, most governments have now converged on a working definition of “dangerous.” These governments have agreed that limiting the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would be a tolerable amount of global warming. Of course, this is a subjective decision, and some governments have argued for a lower and safer amount of warming. Officially, the European Union has accepted the 2 degree Celsius target as a concrete policy objective. Less formally, the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the 2 degree goal, has been agreed to by some 141 countries, which together account for the great majority of the world’s emissions of heat-trapping gases. This agreement, reached at December 2009 negotiations in Copenhagen, is not legally binding, however, and sets no concrete targets for emissions reductions.

And it must be said that very little significant progress has occurred toward actually making the large cuts in global emissions of heat-trapping gases that would be needed to meet the 2 degree goal. In fact, the annual amount of global carbon dioxide emissions from human activities is now about 50 percent larger than in 1992. These emissions increased the amount, or concentration, of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 10 percent during this 20-year period. This amount is now about 40 percent higher than it was in the mid-1800s. It is also an observed fact that the world has already warmed by about 0.8 degrees Celsius relative to the mid-1800s. That is nearly half the magnitude of warming judged to be tolerable by the Copenhagen Accord. Meanwhile, research and recent observations of the changing climate have shown that the effects of a 2 degrees Celsius warming may be far more disruptive than had earlier been thought. For example, in the range of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warming, the area burned by wildfire in parts of western North America is expected to increase by a factor of two to four for each degree of warming. Other climate consequences in this range of seemingly moderate warming include large changes in precipitation, increases in extreme weather events, losses in food production, rises in sea level, reductions in stream flow in many river basins, and losses of Arctic sea ice.
A sobering outlook

Recent research indicates that the climate in coming decades and centuries will be largely determined by human activities. The natural factors that have led to large climate changes in the distant past, such as changes in solar luminosity and in the Earth’s orbit, obviously still exist. These natural factors are simply too weak and too slow, however, to be significant over time scales of decades to centuries. On these time scales, human activities will dominate over natural factors. In particular, carbon dioxide is by far the most important heat-trapping gas produced by human activities, and the connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide amount and climate, while extremely complex in its details, can be summarized as follows: Substantial fractions of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities will remain in the atmosphere for centuries or longer. During that time, the carbon dioxide will become well-mixed by the winds, so that for climate purposes, the carbon dioxide concentration has effectively the same value everywhere on Earth. Even in the inconceivable event that emissions were to suddenly stop completely, the climate changes caused by carbon dioxide would persist for very long periods of time. The cumulative amount PDF of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities since the industrial revolution of the 1800s will largely determine the magnitude of the resulting climate change. For any specific target limit to global warming, such as 2 degrees Celsius, there is thus an allowed total amount of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions that must not be exceeded.

The quantitative implications of this scientific understanding are sobering. They confirm the 1978 insights of Siegenthaler and Oeschger. If global emissions of heat-trapping gases were to continue at current rates for the next 20 years, and then immediately cease entirely, the cumulative emissions will have exceeded the best estimate of the allowed amount, so the likelihood of meeting the 2 degree Celsius target would be low. Instead, in order to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, global emissions need to peak very soon, between now and about 2020, and then must decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, an almost completely decarbonized global world — with near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases — needs to be achieved well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well below one metric ton of carbon dioxide by 2050. This is about 80 to 95 percent below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
The climate system dictates a timescale for action

Decisions made by governments early in this century will have long-term consequences for the climate. Failure to take meaningful actions to reduce global emissions is a particularly serious decision. By continuing on its current path of increasing global carbon dioxide emissions, humanity is committing future generations to a strongly altered climate. Even beyond the current century, there are major implications for longer-term climate change. Higher temperatures and accompanying changes in climate caused by carbon dioxide emissions from human activity will be largely irreversible on human time scales. The effects are long-lasting. Atmospheric temperatures are not expected to begin to decrease substantially for many centuries to millennia, even after human-induced greenhouse gas emissions stop completely.

To meet the 2 degree Celsius target, the climate system itself thus imposes a timescale on when emissions need to peak and then begin to decline rapidly. Scientific understanding of this timescale shows that mitigation of climate change is urgent and cannot wait. A window of opportunity to decrease emissions has been open for several decades but will soon close and will remain closed. This urgency is thus not ideological or political, but rather is due to the long residence time of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the resulting near-irreversibility of climate change for centuries or longer. This is a critical shortcoming of the medical metaphor that likens the climate change problem to the task of an individual trying to reach a target body weight. If your current weight is higher than your target, medical science can advise you on how to lose weight. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere becomes higher than the amount compatible with the desired limit on global warming, however, the warming will exceed the target. There is no proven technology for removing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere economically.

In short, the urgency of acting to mitigate climate change is directly linked to the physics and bio geochemistry of the climate system. An enduring failure to achieve meaningful science-based international agreements to rapidly reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases will inevitably have serious consequences for the degree of climate change that the Earth will undergo. If the world as a whole continues to procrastinate throughout the current decade, allowing emissions to continue to increase year after year, then it will almost certainly have lost the opportunity to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Instead, our children and their descendants, and ultimately all living things, will be faced with the consequences of more severe climate disruption.