The Infancy Gosple of James?
438750
Because it was widely believed to be the work of gnostics, which were a mystical denomination of early Christianity. Their writings can be compared to our Christian fiction, like the Left Behind Series - which may or may not be true, but are certainly NOT scripture. The reason they were written was that in those days, there were few who had access to the Bible as a whole, and few could read. They read what they could, and when they had questions, they wrote these "gospels" and other works to answer those questions as best they could with limited resources. They also believed that one god created the earth and that another was actually God, which we know by reading the Bible is an unfounded conclusion. I suggest that you read a book on the subject of all the writings that were not included. The National Geographic Channel special on the gospel of Judas may also be helpful.
1014464
Thomas James ( first thing that popped int my head).
74658
Anybody that was born had/has a naval(a.k.a. belly botten) Mary gave birth to Jesus, so He would have one. As for Adam, who knows? He wan't born, but God could have given him one any way.
775289
the complete Jewish bible  but I have most of those you mention\nking ?James I rarely look at,  NIV,  American standard,  My complete Jewish bible. American children's bible   since I was a child  one of the king James I received as a child.amplified bible and more. I do not use all ever day  but can cheek verses when I wish to
685696
When he was in the womb.
567350
james. i think he was the son of elizabeth's cousin mary. there was this thing about mary wanting to get ride of elizabeth so that her son would get the throne since he is the closet in the line. the funny thing is that though she tried and didn't succeed, james was still the king.
338774
Because they think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.  It's long, feel like I just wrote a novel\n.\nPeople in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.\n\nDo these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?\n\nThe purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.\nFrom almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”\n\nThe translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.\n\nThe reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.\n\nKing James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals wa
487148
There is no evidence they arrived the night He was born. That is a teaching from drama programs. If fact there is evidence to the contrary. When Joseph and Mary went to make an offering   in the temple, the offering was turtle dove. That is what poor people gave. So some time after that the wise men came. \n\n2:1  After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem\n2  and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."\n\n11  On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.\n\n21  On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.\n22  When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord\n23  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"),\n24  and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."\n25
675549
King James.  He wrote the last and most commonly used version.  boy did he change things !!!!\n\n\ntom
917509
In context, it sounds as if King James was the 18th sovereign of England and Ireland (apparently counting from the conquest of William the Conqueror) and the 54th of Scotland, but that can't be right about Scotland. At any rate, he was James II of England and James VII of Scotland.\n\n"in ye year of the raigne of our soveraigne lord King James of England, France, & Ireland ye eighteenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. "
684880
Well there is certainly a part in the bible that says, James the brother of Jesus. Galations for one I am sure.\n\nI think someone up there has an obsession with Mary. Catholic perhaps? Gee, chill out!\n\nDo you think James really believed He was It? They had a great movement going on. They started some great churhes after He died. But did they really believe in the big picture? If they did, they would have understood Paul and they wouldn't have been going around teaching the old laws and rituals and starting churches!!
720959
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Doll
369626
Yes . please read James ch 5:13-15 .Mark 5:36 Be not afraid, only believe :) jita
57242
<">Jesus had both 1/2 brothers and sisters. no record that I know of exist of what any of his sisters reported.\nHis brother James did write one of the epistles.\nThere is of course only one Jesus
715442
Origin of the first life.
644388
Your question made me do some research because it truly got me thinking about the bible book of Jude. I found this paragraph from a bible encyclopedia\n\n2 But who was Jude? The opening words tell us that the letter was written by “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James, to the called ones.” Was Jude, or Judas, an apostle, since 2 of Jesus’ original 12 apostles were named Judas? (Luke 6:16) Jude does not speak of himself as an apostle, but instead he speaks of the apostles in the third person as “they,” manifestly excluding himself. (Jude 17, 18) Moreover, he calls himself “a brother of James,” evidently meaning the writer of the letter of James, who was a half brother of Jesus. (Vs. 1) As one of the “pillars” of the congregation in Jerusalem, this James was well-known, and hence Jude identifies himself with him. This makes Jude also a half brother of Jesus, and he is listed as such. (Gal. 1:19; 2:9; Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3) However, Jude did not make capital of his fleshly relationship with Jesus, but he humbly placed the emphasis on his spiritual relationship as “a slave of Jesus Christ.”—1 Cor. 7:22; 2 Cor. 5:16; Matt. 20:27.
612803
A book exists which is called the bible. Do I believe?\nI have serious doubts. First of all, isn't it not scientifically proven that having children with a sibling will create retardation?\nWith this being a fact, how do Adam and Eve populate the earth with only 3 sons?