[Vicomte13]

Radioman,

Sir Francis Bacon didn't "leave out" the Gospel of Thomas from the Authorized Version (the "King James Version").

It wasn't in the Vulgate, which was the primary template for the KJV, in the first place. It isn't in the Catholic Canon (and never was). It isn't in the Orthodox Canon (and never was). It isn't in Martin Luther's Canon (and never was).

It wasn't even considered for the Authorized Version.

The original King James Bible was a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate, and it included the deuterocanonical works of the OLD Testament, later downgraded to the status of "apocrypha" and banished from the Protestant canon. Nobody in the English Church seriously suggested bringing in the Gospel of Thomas.
It wasn't in the Bible that then existed everywhere in England (the Catholic, Latin one). It wasn't in Tyndale's translation of the Catholic, Latin one. It wasn't in Luther's German bible. And it wasn't on the table to be included "by Sir Francis Bacon" (who was not an English Bishop, and did not, therefore, have the ecclesial authority to determine the content of the English Bible.

In short, Bacon's a red herring when it comes to the KJV and so's the Gospel of Thomas.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The original King James Bible was a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate,***

Strange, I thought it was Eurasmus' Greek text and Beza's texts, then compared with the Latin texts.

[radioman]

In short, Bacon's a red herring when it comes to the KJV and so's the Gospel of Thomas

Don't travel much, do you?
There are still Christians that follow older traditions. There are even Christians who pilgrimage to the Tomb where the body of Jesus lies.

There is no red herring. Every comment I've made could have easily been explained by me to a non Christian, if I were a Christian.

None of this matters a hill of beans. I just pointed out one example and the response proved my point. The blindly obedient can't even defend the faith they claim for America.
.