ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Missing Books From Bible

Are there books missing from the Bible?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---jamea3475 on 11/11/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



Dear Peter

I apologize if you feel that I have bee accusatory. You are correct about the limitations here. I will endeavor to never be accusatory.

Agape.
---Samuelbb7 on 12/1/13


There are many writings contemporary with the Bible that were not included in it, yet were preserved because it was felt they had some value.

Among these are the Didache and the Letters of St. Ignatius.

There were other writings, such as the Gospels of Thomas (several under that name) that were either rejected as heretical or were no more than pious fiction.

Is this the question you were asking?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/30/13


Cluny, Samuelbb7: Don't go arguing about things that are really very complicated. The size of the essays you would need to accuse or defend the Apocrypha would be far too long to place here, and so you place short comments that more accuse than explain.

If you want to sort things out, share your email and chat in longer, proper, prose, explaining why you believe what you believe about the Apocrypha.

I am fine with your discussion, but I do not believe that you will gain anything except annoyance
---Peter on 11/29/13


Thank you Peter I hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.

Dear Cluny you wrote:
BTW, this same kind of Protestant Biblical scholarship leads to the Jesus Seminar, which winds up denying anything in the NT is reliable.

Sigh. A group of liberal scholars who deny the authority and validity of Scripture because they use the man made Historical Critical method which is based on doubt of GOD and miracles. That is not a valid argument Cluny. That is a libelous attack.

I have mostly seen you be better.

Agape to you all.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/29/13


Cluny, Samuelbby: Your dispute about the OT Apocrypha (as it is sometimes called) is complicated.

The real question is whether the Hebrew Bible includes them or not. We should obviously include all books that are in the Hebrew Bible.

As far as I can tell, today the Jews do not include books like Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, but in the past they must have - as they were included in the Septuagint.

So the question still remains somewhat open, and I have no idea why the Jews removed those books
---Peter on 11/27/13




wow cluny, I think you know those books that are known to be history and those which God chose. you always ask who....what.....when...when frankly most can't remember everything. I'm speaking for myself, the old memory isn't as sharp as it use to be.
---shira4368 on 11/27/13


\\Protestants and those Scholars from the days of Martin Luther and since have shown that these books are not part of scripture.\\

BTW, this same kind of Protestant Biblical scholarship leads to the Jesus Seminar, which winds up denying anything in the NT is reliable.

The difference is only of degree, not of kind.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/27/13


\\Protestants and those Scholars from the days of Martin Luther and since have shown that these books are not part of scripture.\\

Did they?

On whose authority did they exclude them?

The majority of Christians, including the pre-reformation Eastern Churches, still accept them?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/27/13


The so called "missing books" add nothing to this verse
2 Pet. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation,
---michael_e on 11/26/13


There are no missing books, only ones that have been wrongly added and then justly removed.
---micha9344 on 11/26/13




Cluny our individual churches do not cut out the Apocrypha.

Protestants and those Scholars from the days of Martin Luther and since have shown that these books are not part of scripture. All Protestants just agree to that. It is not individual churches that do this.

What major doctrines do you get out of these Apocrypha books?
---Samuelbby on 11/26/13


\\There is no missing books in the bible. While I am not a scholar, I do know God put in the bible exactly what He wanted to. He put exactly what He wanted us to know.
---shira4368 on 11/26/13\\

Then why does your church cut out Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, and the like?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/26/13


Trav, of course Morris et al are not prophets
.....because they are not prophets then by your reasoning neither should we listen to you.
That a confused bigot such as you does not consider me a brother is a relief to me.
---Warwick on 11/25/13

Thanks. You continue to uphold/witness the point without realizing it.
Which is who you reference for "gospel" or utilize/lean on for your confusion arguments. You prefer denom/men....not the prophets.

I confirm easily, that I'm no prophet. I easily can confirm that two or more prophets witness each others testimony. Something you've never attempted with scripture.
Yes i'm a prophetbigot. Yes, I'll always point to them rather than ur references.
---Trav on 11/26/13


There is no missing books in the bible. While I am not a scholar, I do know God put in the bible exactly what He wanted to. He put exactly what He wanted us to know.
---shira4368 on 11/26/13


Peter, for reasons I do not know "Psalms" was used to include all the books not included within the divisions of Law and Prophets. For example Dr Leon Morris Tyndale New Testament Commentaries wrote of Luke 24:44 "The solemn division of Scripture into the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms(the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible)."
---Warwick on 11/25/13


Trav, of course Morris et al are not prophets. Who said they are? You also are not a prophet so if we are not to listen to these acknowledged Biblical experts because they are not prophets then by your reasoning neither should we listen to you.

That a confused bigot such as you does not consider me a brother is a relief to me.
---Warwick on 11/25/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Warwick, you had said people divided the OT into the books of Moses, the Psalms and the prophets. But this leaves out the historical books (Kings, Joshua and such like) and books like Lamentations and one or two others
---Peter on 11/25/13


Trav,
Leon Morris writes "The solemn division....
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary .....
Because of your pedantic critical nature.....
---Warwick on 11/23/13

leon m, jamieson, fausett, brown are not prophets. They are your doctrinal judas goats.
There is no excuse for a didactic explanation/confusion of scripture. When scripture has been provided in multiple witness.
Unless one such as yourself wants to avoid these witnesses for your own purposes or doctrines.

I do not consider you a brother.... you change the meanings/purpose/truth of scripture.
Posing as a preacher you draw light to your didactic darkness from scripture. Which I'll gladly provide.....pedantically.
---Trav on 11/25/13


Trav, you would have us believe that "division" is not in the Bible, ......

It is always a good idea to check the meaning of words before making comments.
---Warwick on 11/23/13

Why sir, I'd have you believe nothing I point too. I point for the "sheep". It would be a good idea for you to be silent previous to tripping over your tongue.

I pointed out not that there were not divisions but, that you were trying to put words in Christ's mouth that were not stated.
He does not say divisions....he refers to the three witnesses. Which I made plain....but, like your brother in doctrine markv....you distort. As you distort scripture and it's message.
You failed in your deception.

Luk_21:8
---Trav on 11/25/13


Trav, you would have us believe that "division" is not in the Bible, and that it is always a negative word. "In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah...." Luke 1:5. Is "division" here used in some negative way? You know it isn't.

It is always a good idea to check the meaning of words before making comments.
---Warwick on 11/23/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Trav, you just cannot help yourself can you. You will go to any lengths to insult a brother Christian.

Regarding Luke 24:44 Leon Morris writes "The solemn division of Scripture into the Law of Moses and the prophets, and the psalms (the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible)." Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary "law prophets psalmsthe three Jewish divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures."

Because of your pedantic critical nature you imagine "division" is always a negative word. It can be but it has many meanings the one used here simply means the common and convenient division of the OT Scriptures into 3 different parts.
---Warwick on 11/23/13


So what? The Jews also denied the New Testament was inspired by God. If you believe their rejection of one, you must believe their rejection of the other. Otherwise, you're not consistent as to whether or not they are an authority.
---StrongAxe on 11/21/13

Exactly. A careful seeker, asking the only teacher Christ can discern between witnesses. (Mat_23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,..)

If man does not authorize ....it may be useful as a witness. Either for or against. Against the men/man denying or for the men/man.
It should be further witnessed in what we have by prophets/Apostle/Lord Denom/doctrined preacher/teachers cling or rail when scripture witness is clearly against their testimony.
---Trav on 11/22/13


Jesus also spoke about the three divisions in these Scriptures which research shows....
---Warwick on 11/22/13

You are the only division. Christ did not call them divisions.
You do...you see them as such. Each can stand alone, but are unified with no division.
The witnesses you reject....for your own denomalogic.
Over the years you've rarely quoted O.T. regarding any witness. Which is a witness/mark unto itself.

Divisions are mentioned, not by Christ. You are marked by me, and cause scriptural offences contrary to doctrine.

Rom_16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.

---Trav on 11/22/13


StrongAxe, taking it step by step.

Did Jesus have access to the Hebrew Scriptures? Yes He did.

Do we know what books they contained? Yes.

Does the NT record Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluding to the Hebrew Scriptures? Yes it does.

Did they quote from or allude to all of what we call the OT books? Yes.

And Jesus also spoke about the three divisions in these Scriptures which research shows contained all the books in our OT. By quoting from alluding to, including referring to the 3 divisions Jesus verified all the books.
---Warwick on 11/22/13


Locate Education Jobs


Trav:

If one speaks of Jesus and Apostles only referring to general divisions of the scripture (e.g. law, prophets and writings) and therefore legitimizing them, without reference to WHICH books were in those divisions, one cannot use such an argument to thereby distinguish which books belong within those divisions. If, say, one includes Esther because it's a writing, even though Jesus didn't quote from it specifically, one cannot discount Tobit, because it is also in ths same category.

Warwick:

So what? The Jews also denied the New Testament was inspired by God. If you believe their rejection of one, you must believe their rejection of the other. Otherwise, you're not consistent as to whether or not they are an authority.
---StrongAxe on 11/21/13


\\Tell me Cluny since you believe that tradition actually is of a higher authority than scripture why do you need these extra books?\\

Actually, EVERYTHING in the Church is tradition--that is, what has been received from the time of the Apostles and passed down.

The Bible is simply the WRITTEN part of that tradition.

If you don't believe me when I say that everything in the Church is tradition, what authority do you have for the books of the Bible that you accept? God didn't send down a list from heaven.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/21/13


Tell me Cluny since you believe that tradition actually is of a higher authority than scripture why do you need these extra books?

Is there some major doctrine of the Orthodox based on those passages that you can not use your tradition to support? I know the RCC have a belief based on some of those books.

Also do not forget according to the RCC it was they who established the Bible. They discount the Orthodox contribution.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/21/13


Cluny, that which I have read says the Hebrew Canon was established long before Jesus time on earth. These Scriptures (from which Jesus read) were commonly divided into 3 sections, as Jesus said. The books you mention (e.g Esther...) were contained therein but the apocrypha was not.
---Warwick on 11/20/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


\\The Jews denied the books of the Apocrypha were inspired by God.\\

They did not deny this until 60 years AFTER the founding of the Church, who had already accepted them as part of the LXX.

The Rabbinical synod of Jamnia rejected these books in 90 AD. And who attended this synod? The spiritual children of the very people that Jesus condemned as fool, blind guides, and white washed tombs, who themselves rejected Jesus.

If you want to be of one mind with them, I can't stop you.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/20/13


\\He would have, somewhere, spoken against any He did not include.\\
Please tell me where Jesus spoke against Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees, Sirach, and the other books of the Apocrypha.
---Cluny on 11/19/13

Asian logic, is not applicable regarding Israel.
The three so called divisions, are the witnesses...provided by GOD which he/liom does not respond or adhere to. Appropriate that he would/must call them "divisions".

We do not have all that Israel's redeemer said in 27 epistle/letters. Which contain "witness" verses confirming all that the prophets and David spoke of. And every thing that the liom doesn't. (Legend in own mind),liom.
---Trav on 11/19/13


Warwick, Again you're using absence of evidence as evidence contrary to what you told me!
---1st_cliff on 11/19/13


Cluny, in Luke 24:44 Jesus speaks of the 3 divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as concerning Himself. He had no need to mention Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees, Sirach, and the other books of the Apocrypha because they are not included in the Hebrew Scriptures, whereas Esther,Obadiah, Job,and Ecclesiastes were. Too simple!

The Jews denied the books of the Apocrypha were inspired by God. In the NT all the books of the OT are quoted from or alluded to, as Scripture. Though the apocrypha is referred to twice in the NT it is not referred to as inspired.
---Warwick on 11/19/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


\\He would have, somewhere, spoken against any He did not include.\\

Please tell me where Jesus spoke against Tobit, 1-4 Maccabees, Sirach, and the other books of the Apocrypha.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/19/13


Trav, I answered your ambiguous challenge, and you complain!
---Warwick on 11/18/13

Ha, outlining facts on your evasive habits are not complaints. One complains when a service does not meet expectations.
I find no serviceable fruit in you to complain about. Your evading post help a sheep find and distinguish truth by prophets/apostles or your doctrines of men.
Gotta run for a while.... Ponder scripture.
Eze 37:28 the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
---Trav on 11/19/13


Cluny, you attempt to play games, but are poor at it.

Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to most of the OT books, therefore authenticating them. Further, and separately, in one comment (Luke 24:44) Jesus authenticated all the books of the Jewish Scriptures, including those you obsess about, by referring to the 3 divisions within the Jewish Scriptures. Therefore, by doing so, He has authenticated all the books as all are included in one of these groups. As He knew what books were included in the Jewish Scriptures He would have, somewhere, spoken against any He did not include. It is His Bible after all. If any book within these 3 groupings was not authentic He would have told us so.
---Warwick on 11/18/13


\\These 3 divisions are those Jesus spoke of. He therefore authenticated all books in these divisions.
---Warwick on 11/17/13\\

In other words, you can give no specific allusions to the books I mentioned.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/18/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Cluny, Jesus divided the Jewish Scriptures into the standard divisions-Law of Moses, Prophets, Psalms (Luke 24:44). These divisions are testified to by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary Luke 24:44 "Law, prophets psalms, as do other commentators.

They are:
1) The Torah or law: 5 books, Genesis to Deuteronomy,
2)The Prophets: 8 books, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 minor prophets are grouped into 1 book,
3)The Writings or Kethubim contain eleven books, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

These 3 divisions are those Jesus spoke of. He therefore authenticated all books in these divisions.
---Warwick on 11/17/13


\\Cluny, I did not say Jesus or the apostles quoted from Esther, Obadiah et al. Do not misrepresent what I have written. Do you know what "allude" means? \\

Then give His allusions to them.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/17/13


Cluny, I did not say Jesus or the apostles quoted from Esther, Obadiah et al. Do not misrepresent what I have written. Do you know what "allude" means?

Jesus who had perfect, unique, access to what the Jewish 'Bible' contained, (of course including Obadiah, Job, Esther, and Ecclesiastes which bother you so much) verified their authenticity, as they are within the three divisions he spoke of, as I previously mentioned.

Having alluded to Obadiah et al via the three traditional divisions He spoke of, do you imagine Jesus did not know whether these books should have been included or not? Or do you imagine He, if He knew they should not be included in His book, didn't bother to tell anyone?
---Warwick on 11/17/13


Warwick ,**That they did not quote from other books mentioned here is good evidence...**
You're the one that told me that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
touche'
---1st_cliff on 11/14/13

Well now Cliff it depends on which side of his mouth you are standing. Go too the other side.
Jas_1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Jer_23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.
Jer_23:2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people, Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.
---Trav on 11/17/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


\\Cluny, throughout the NT Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to the OT books. In Luke 24:44 Jesus divided the books of the OT into 3 groups, in line with the Jewish practice of the day.\\

In other words, Warwick, you cannot give quotes from Obadiah, Job, Esther, or Ecclesiastes made by Jesus or the Apostles.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/16/13


jamea3475:

It depends on just what you mean by "missing".

Both old and New Testament authors refer to books that aren't in the Bible (Jasher, Laodiceans, Enoch, etc.) Paul even quotes some pagan Greek philosophers. if one insists that the former are missing, wouldn't the latter also be considered missing? Also, Jesus and the apostles didn't quote from every old testament book. So one can't use what is quoted as an absolute yardstick of what to include OR what to exclude.


Elder:

You said: I heard that the cartoon, The Simpsons were based on these books. Is that also true?

Somehow, I don't recall any of the Apocrypha mentioning anything about nuclear power plants, sociopathic clowns, etc.
---StrongAxe on 11/16/13


"Then He said to them, 'These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.'" (Luke 24:44)

"'You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of Me.'" (John 5:39)

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (in John 14:6)
---willie_c: on 11/16/13


Cluny, throughout the NT Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to the OT books. In Luke 24:44 Jesus divided the books of the OT into 3 groups, in line with the Jewish practice of the day. He shows all of the OT contains a witness to Him. And I believe this is the only place in the NT which mentions this threefold division. In the Hebrew Bible were three divisions Torah or Law Genesis-Deueronomy, the Prophets, and the Writings. All our OT books are included within these 3 groups, as they were in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus hereby authenticates them all.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary Luke 24:44 "Law prophets psalms-the three Jewish divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures."
---Warwick on 11/15/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Scott1, Not so with the Pharisees. Because, although they had in their possession the "Letter of the Law", GOD's Written Word, they absolutely did not understand those Words.

If they did, they would have recognized Yahushua (JESUS CHRIST) for Who He really was,

because those same Written Words spoke of Yahushua.

The Pharisees were a law unto themselves.
Which is why Yahushua condemned most of them.

But, GOD, on the other hand, puts so much value on HIS Word, that HE exalts it even above HIS own Name (which in itself is most exalted).

PSALM 138:2b "...for THOU hast magnified THY Word above all THY Name."
---Gordon on 11/15/13


As Gandalf the grey has said "A wizard is never late, he arrives at the correct time he means to..."
Likewise God is never wrong, "he provides at the correct time exactly the words he means to..."
reading Lord of the Rings.

Scripture is not God, if scripture was God the pharisees should have been the most godly people ever but they were not. We read to allow the Holy Spirit to teach us the character of God. Our level of knowledge far exceeds our level of obedience.
---Scott1 on 11/15/13


\\From my research and that of my betters Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to all of the books which constitute the OT.\\

Please give ONE quote from Esther and ONE quote from Obadiah and one quote from Ecclesiastes and one quote from Job (or allutions) from Jesus and the apostles.

I shall await with interest.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/14/13


Warwick ,**That they did not quote from other books mentioned here is good evidence...**
You're the one that told me that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
touche'
---1st_cliff on 11/14/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


From my research and that of my betters Jesus and the apostles quoted from or alluded to all of the books which constitute the OT. That they did not quote from other books mentioned here is good evidence they were not God inspired writings (Scripture) but books of history or human wisdom as Elder and Samuel have pointed out. Further I cannot imagine our perfect God would allow part of His vital revelation to us to be lost.
---Warwick on 11/14/13


Paul told the Colossians to see that they "read the epistle from Laodicea." If this letter was inspired and is not in the Bible, does this mean it is missing? Isaiah 55:11 says >

"'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth,
. It shall not return to Me void,
. But it shall accomplish what I please,
. And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Isaiah 55:11)

Even if the letter "from Laodicea" is not in the Bible, still it has accomplished what God pleased, if it was His word. It could have helped the Colossians and Laodiceans share with one another, by sharing letters. If it helped with loving, this is a purpose of God's word.
---willie_c: on 11/14/13


Cluny not really. The Septuagint was not the standard Jewish Bible. It was translated into Greek in Egypt at Alexandria if I remember correctly.

The Hebrew Bible in Israel placed the Wisdom books on a different platform in Israel long before 1200. It was just not official. Jerome disputed their place long before they 1200.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/14/13


When Jesus sent out disciples and told them (Mat.28.19) "GO make disciples of all nations, baptizing, teaching..." They had no new testament, They didn't say "We don't have the whole bible!"
They had sufficient information , and we have even more!
---1st_cliff on 11/14/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


\\Cluny the Apocrypha was part of the Septuagint. But not part of the Masorite text. If memory serves me. They were consider wisdom books and History. \\

But the Masoretic text wasn't stabilized until the 1200's!

Rather late, don't you think?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/14/13


Thank you Elder. You are right most do not even read or try to understand the parts of the Bible we have.

Cluny the Apocrypha was part of the Septuagint. But not part of the Masorite text. If memory serves me. They were consider wisdom books and History.

Scripture is to tell us what traditions are good or okay and which are false.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/14/13


\\God being perfect and all knowing put everything in the bible that should be there. God makes no mistakes. the bible is exactly how God planned it.
---shira4368 on 11/13/13\\

Where in the Bible did God give a list of books of what should be in the Bible, shira?

God used the CHURCH to decide what should be there. He didn't send a list from heaven.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/14/13


God being perfect and all knowing put everything in the bible that should be there. God makes no mistakes. the bible is exactly how God planned it.
---shira4368 on 11/13/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


"JOSHUA 10:13 and II SAMUEL 1:18 both mention the (excluded) Book of JASHER."
Gordon

So what? In II Chron 12:15 there is the acts of Rehoboam written in the book of Shemaiah. There is also the genealogies by Iddo.

These books could be history books that have nothing to do with God's ordained Scripture. But, no matter what, God has given us enough in what we do have to learn of Him, serve Him and live for Him.

We worry so much about books not included but still don't understand or know about what we do have.

So, what should we do? Maybe seek "lost books" so we can ignore them also? Or, should we learn about what we do have?
---Elder on 11/14/13


JOSHUA 10:13 and II SAMUEL 1:18 both mention the (excluded) Book of JASHER.
---Gordon on 11/13/13


\\\Multitudes own the Bible just like you (but you're one up, and that's because you have the "whole Bible"), but if the Spirit of God has not quickened you, it profits you NOTHING! Get it?
---christan on 11/13/13\\

Apply it to yourself, christan.

**Yes Cluny Protestants have the Complete Bible because we have the Bible that the Jews use. It is called the Tanak. It does not include the Apocryphal books that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic include. **

Actually, the Jews did not exclude these books until 90AD, two generations AFTER the founding of the Church, and nearly 300 years AFTER they were translated as part of the LXX.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/13/13


When I was a kid about a hundred year ago there was this old woman, she would hand out small book.
Each the sizes of a match book with only a few words of the gospels in them.

She would always say after giving us the book
"Respect it, it's the word of God!"
I always have and still do feel it was, Complete!
She remind me of Old Man Wrigley, who lived in that white house down the street.

The books had things in them like this:
Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

What could be more complete?
But that's just me, right!
Peace
---TheSeg on 11/13/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


"The Orthodox have always had the whole Bible. Most Protestants have a Bible with a great big hole in it."

Wow! What a bold statement. Let's put it this way, you can imagine you have the "whole Bible" but have you not understand what the Lord declared?

"It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

Multitudes own the Bible just like you (but you're one up, and that's because you have the "whole Bible"), but if the Spirit of God has not quickened you, it profits you NOTHING! Get it?
---christan on 11/13/13


Yes Cluny Protestants have the Complete Bible because we have the Bible that the Jews use. It is called the Tanak. It does not include the Apocryphal books that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic include.

Daniel wrote the book of Daniel but not Bel and the Dragon if memory serves me. That was written much latter.

You do not include the Gospel of Judas in your Bible why not?

While the books have some good stories. They are not scripture. Saying it all you want to does not make it so. As a Protestant we reject Tradition from being above the Bible. We look to find truth in History and the Word of GOD.

Agape.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/13/13


"If you don't have Bel and the Dragon, Susannah, and Song of the Three (either as part of Daniel or separately), Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and others in your Bible, then you don't have a complete Bible"

I heard that the cartoon, The Simpsons were based on these books. Is that also true?
---Elder on 11/13/13


\\Well, what were you implying about the "great big hole"?

What makes you think we don't have the complete Bible Cluny?\\

If you don't have Bel and the Dragon, Susannah, and Song of the Three (either as part of Daniel or separately), Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and others in your Bible, then you don't have a complete Bible

**If the bible was a single book you could say there are pages missing, but actually the bible is a collection of 66 books bound in one volume **

WRONG!

It's some 77--depending on how you divide them.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Only people who have worldly knowledge of the bible think that books are missing or books were added. God chose certain people, unbeknownst to them that they were carrying out the will of God, to put together only what was important. If all the testimonies and witnesses wrote down everything for the first two hundred years after Chris had risen, it would fill all the libraries of the world.

There is a certain point in one's christian life that the learning converts from worldly knowledge to spiritual knowledge. That spiritual knowledge is not bound by the worldly knowledge - i.e. the bible itself, opinions of authors, concordances, and other christian reference books. Spiritual knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit.
---Steveng on 11/12/13


"You don't think you do, do you?
Glory to Jesus Christ!"
---Cluny on 11/12/13


You didn't say that Cluny? Are you sure? Well, what were you implying about the "great big hole"?

What makes you think we don't have the complete Bible Cluny?

Good question Elder.
---Leon on 11/12/13


If the bible was a single book you could say there are pages missing, but actually the bible is a collection of 66 books bound in one volume
There are non missing just those which were not included!
It was ,after all , put together by committee!
---1st_cliff on 11/12/13


Elder, I think you are correct. It is somewhat like the evolutionary missing link. You first have to have something before you can call it missing.

Can you imagine this scenario: a woman goes to the police and says my children are missing. The officer asks-what are their names? She replies I don't know, I've never seen them. OK!
---Warwick on 11/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Is the Gospel message missing? I believe that message is complete.
---kathr4453 on 11/12/13


If they were missing how would you know?
---Elder on 11/12/13


See the Wikipedia article: Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible for a more complete listing see: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments by James H. Charlesworth
---Blogger9211 on 11/12/13


\\ Like Cluny, do you think God would've allowed His book to be incomplete? \\

I never said that.

\\Wouldn't the alleged "great big hole" defeat God's purpose for Christians worldwide, who aren't of the Orthodox persuasion, to have God's divinely inspired Bible?\\

But Protestants don't have the complete Bible. You don't think you do, do you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Are there books missing from the Bible?

Think so Jamea? Why? Like Cluny, do you think God would've allowed His book to be incomplete? Wouldn't the alleged "great big hole" defeat God's purpose for Christians worldwide, who aren't of the Orthodox persuasion, to have God's divinely inspired Bible?

It's not about what mere men think & have practiced down thru the ages. It's all about what God wills & performs past, present & future ~ ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

I firmly believe the canonized 66 books of Scripture is God's will. The rest, as Samuel has said, is a good historical read, but isn't an integral part of Holy Scripture.

No, the Bible is complete. There's nothing missing!!!
---Leon on 11/12/13


Cluny is referring to the the Biblical apocrypha which denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible. The term apocrypha has been in use since the 5th century, it was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate intertestamental section. Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. St. Jerome in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments, stating that books not found in the Hebrew scripture and were not received as canonical by the Jews.

I have read them. They are good history and should be read. But they are not truly part of the Bible. Just like other books rejected from the Bible.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/12/13


There are books missing from almost all English Bibles beginning with the New American Standard Bible of the mid 60's, but the ones before it, including the original KJV are complete.

The Orthodox have always had the whole Bible. Most Protestants have a Bible with a great big hole in it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/12/13


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.