Other Books?

[Pard]

Are there other books to the Bible that are gone and lost now? Or are all the books currently in the Bible the only Words of God?

MA keeps saying that there is a Book of Jesus or something and that it is lost because we Christians are evil, or something... Is this true?

I know there is the Apocrypha, those are other books, but they are not the divine Word of God, they are just books of wisdom that we may read, but should not heed the way we heed the books of the Bible, right?

 

[PouringRain]

In some ways, I think this is a question that only you can answer.

Most Christians will say that the Bible is complete as God intends it, and there is no need to read excluded texts.

The Catholic Bible, as you may know, includes books that the protestant Bible does not. The Codex Sinaiticus also contains books that are excluded from the protestant Bible. So, not all Christians agree on which books belong in the Bible also.

There are a lot of books left out. Yes, there are books that are now said to be lost also. Most Christians would say that God intended for them to be lost, and they were never meant to make it into the canon.

Overall, you have to decide on your own what value the omitted books have, if any. I prefer to call the books the omitted ones, rather than apocrypha, because the term apocrypha can refer to different things depending on who is using it. For some, it is only used to refer to select books, and for others it may refer to all omitted books.

 

[Pard]

I see.

And as to the Apo. that claim on the 365 years can be made to many things that changed after the division from the RCC.

Rain,

That is a nice way to look at it. Maybe I should pray and read some of these omitted books...

And also, do you think that we still have books being written that are God's Word and should be added to the Bible, or did the whole Book adding deal stop at a certain disclosed date?

 

[PouringRain]

And also, do you think that we still have books being written that are God's Word and should be added to the Bible, or did the whole Book adding deal stop at a certain disclosed date?

That is an interesting question, Pard. I have never even thought of it, and my first inclination would be "no." On second thought, I am sure that there were people of yesteryear who would have said "no" back before our current Bible was assembled as well.... and yet things were added to it. The letters of Paul for example. He wrote letters to the church, and at that time they were not a part of the "scripture," nor would they have been referred to when he wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...." At that time, "all scripture" would not have referred to the very scripture in which it was written. That is a prime example of where books were written and were not a part of the "canon" of the time, yet were later added.

Back among the early church, there were many "books" that were being copied and circulated. There was no NT as we now know it.

Taking your question, I think one of the first things we would need to ask ourselves is for what purpose would it serve to add present day books to the Biblical canon. There are a lot of other questions that I think would need asked as well.

My personal opinion is that no, I do not think there are any present day books that should be added to the canon. I am not sure I see a need or reason for doing so. I have not read any arguments for such either, so maybe someone else out there has some good reasons for doing so and I have just not read them.

I personally believe that ALL scripture is inspired by God......(and all the remainder of that verse). This includes things that are not included in the current protestant canon, but that is all I will say.

 

[veteran]

The original 1611 KJV Bible FIRST EDITION, did include the Apochrypha books in them, and it is not a Catholic Bible.

The KJV translators included two Letters in the front, one to King James, Defender Of The Faith, and another to the Reader. They did not recognize any pope in authority over them, but deferred only as one Christian brother to another. Those two letters in the original first edition have been removed from later 1611 KJV Bibles, along with the translator's margin notes that give alternate readings of certain difficult Scripture.

If you study The Bible first and become familiar with it, only then will you know how the Apocrypha books fall short. And you'll especially know about false works someone claims should be included in The Bible.

The reason is simple. The existing Books of The Bible weave together and support each other in doctrine and events to a degree that is unmistakeable when compared to each other. That was one of the measures to show they belong. But the Apocryphal books don't do that. The Book of Enoch (Ehtiopic translation) has many comparable prophecies that align with The Bible canon, but it also includes events that have little support or no mention in The Bible.

So if you pick up a work someone says should be part of The Bible, and that work says something like our Lord Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children, then you should know that is a false work, because no such idea is written in The Bible. The existing Bible canon is the ultimate Measure. If one doesn't yet know what The Bible teaches or doesn't teach from the start, then they won't know what's true and what's false. That's why the "Lost Books of The Bible" suppositions are especially aimed as a prey upon a new babe in Christ.

 

[HisSheep]

I really like Veteran’s take on this, thanks.

I have a NAB Catholic Edition which I like very much; I use it along with 3 Protestant translations. It has the Apocrypha, being a Catholic Edition. I’m sure there are plenty of people here with more expertise then I, but having read the Apocrypha, I find it inoffensive. What I mean is that I don’t think these books were excluded for the purpose of “eliminating†or “denying†a Catholic doctrine. There is nothing controversial in them; nothing that I can find that contradicts Protestant beliefs. (Praying to Mary or Purgatory for instance.) It would be controversial for Protestants to have removed such a text. As it is, Protestants wouldn’t discourage reading it. Many might actually find wisdom in the Book of Wisdom!

I’d like to add this thought: I think (MHO) that these books don’t contribute to our understanding of God and man. Many of the reformers that I respect had this view of the purpose of scripture. They felt that its purpose, in a very broad sense, was to expose for us the character of both God and ourselves. Protestants feel that the Apocryphal books fail to contribute to that knowledge, but I don't think they'd say that it detracts from it either. Except that to include the books would mean including less than pertinent material.

-HisSheep

 

[francisdesales]

I really like Veteran’s take on this, thanks.

I have a NAB Catholic Edition which I like very much; I use it along with 3 Protestant translations. It has the Apocrypha, being a Catholic Edition. I’m sure there are plenty of people here with more expertise then I, but having read the Apocrypha, I find it inoffensive. What I mean is that I don’t think these books were excluded for the purpose of “eliminating†or “denying†a Catholic doctrine. There is nothing controversial in them; nothing that I can find that contradicts Protestant beliefs. (Praying to Mary or Purgatory for instance.) It would be controversial for Protestants to have removed such a text. As it is, Protestants wouldn’t discourage reading it. Many might actually find wisdom in the Book of Wisdom!

Which begs to ask, why did Luther remove it, then??? Is there more "wisdom" in Philemon???

I would disagree, in that some of the material of the "Apocrypha" (the 7 books found in your NAB, not the books that correctly bear that name, like Enoch) are very pertinent to our understanding of God, but Luther disagreed on the theological results - Purgatory especially being the case... To remove that offending book of 2 Maccabees, he decided to rely on the Jewish Hebrew canon, put together by Jews who rejected the Messiah, rather than the LXX, which the Apostles used 3 times more often when citing the OT...

Wisdom, I would suggest all Christians look at that, it clearly points to the personification of "the Word", and John 1 alludes to it. Also, the Synoptic crucifixion account bears a strong resemblance to it.

2 Macabees explains the historical background of Judaism in the 150 BCE area. Explains the feast of Hanakkuh. VERY CLEAR belief in the resurrection and life after death, the clearest in the OT NAB. Also, the idea of vicarious suffering. Read the story of the 7 sons and their mother! Wow... THAT is faith in God! How many Christians would even consider undergoing such torture for what WE would call "minor"? All that missed because it contains the strongest evidence of Purgatory in the Bible.

Sirach was considered Scriptures by Jewish rabbis according to the Talmud and was translated into Hebrew well into the 11th century, so it was highly regarded and there would be no reason to remove it if the Jews AND Christians highly considered it.

Tobit is no worse a story than Jonah... Especially on the theme of gracious giving and trust in God, even in difficult times. Judith is similar to Esther, except there is MORE a reason to keep Judith, than Esther... God is not once mentioned in Esther, at least the Hebrew version. The Greek does.

All Protestants should be thankful that other Protestants did not fully agree with Luther's "cleansing" of the Scriptures, he also wanted to remove the NT Deuterocanonicals, such as James, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, and 2,3 John... You would have even been more short-changed then now...

Regards

 

[elijah23]

Are there other books to the Bible that are gone and lost now? Or are all the books currently in the Bible the only Words of God?

MA keeps saying that there is a Book of Jesus or something and that it is lost because we Christians are evil, or something... Is this true?

I know there is the Apocrypha, those are other books, but they are not the divine Word of God, they are just books of wisdom that we may read, but should not heed the way we heed the books of the Bible, right?

Certainly nothing important has been lost.

 

[True]

All Protestants should be thankful that other Protestants did not fully agree with Luther's "cleansing" of the Scriptures, he also wanted to remove the NT Deuterocanonicals, such as James, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, and 2,3 John... You would have even been more short-changed then now...

Something which most Protestants fail to consider...

 

[HisSheep]

Right, Elijah23!

Francisdesales, I knew you’d chime in on this!

Much of what you say is true. (We’ll have to discuss the Purgatory part. That’s just inconsistent with Christianity, and is really a good subject for a thread of its own). However, Protestants feel that the Protestant versions provide a sufficient portrait of God. Any additional texts are therefore clutter within the Book, and should be taken separately.

I do not mean to say that the other texts are worthless, only that they are not necessary to Christianity. That they have value is not in dispute. I agree that the story of the seven sons is a very compelling picture of martyrdom that Christians should be encouraged to read.

All Protestants should be thankful that other Protestants did not fully agree with Luther's "cleansing" of the Scriptures, he also wanted to remove the NT Deuterocanonicals, such as James, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, and 2,3 John... You would have even been more short-changed then now...

I am thankful to the Roman Catholic Church for preserving/delivering the scriptures to us across the centuries.

You know well that I am a predestination guy. All that has occurred and will occur is fully in accordance with the will of God. The Bible therefore, is exactly as God intends. It is not by chance that there are different versions: it was all ordained by God. Even this very discussion is part of His plan.

Where do I look in Maccabees for Purgatory?

-HisSheep

 

[stovebolts]

Pard,

When looking at the Bible as an authoratitive work, I view it as Kanon (canon / rule), which is to say that it sets the standard and boundries of our faith. (Galatians 6:16, rule = kanon).

Thus, when you read things outside of the Canon, it is not so much a matter of reconcilling them with the Canon, but disernment though the Canon because it's our current Canon which sets the standard for all else.

 

[stovebolts]

I am thankful to the Roman Catholic Church for preserving/delivering the scriptures to us across the centuries.

Hi HisSheep,

Just a correction... It wasn't the "Roman Catholic Church" that solely preserved or delivered scriptures across the centuries. Rather, it was the uninfied Universal (Catholic) Church as a whole to which the west (Rome) was a part.

 

[Mike]

In some ways, I think this is a question that only you can answer.

Most Christians will say that the Bible is complete as God intends it, and there is no need to read excluded texts.

The Catholic Bible, as you may know, includes books that the protestant Bible does not. The Codex Sinaiticus also contains books that are excluded from the protestant Bible. So, not all Christians agree on which books belong in the Bible also.

There are a lot of books left out. Yes, there are books that are now said to be lost also. Most Christians would say that God intended for them to be lost, and they were never meant to make it into the canon.

Overall, you have to decide on your own what value the omitted books have, if any. I prefer to call the books the omitted ones, rather than apocrypha, because the term apocrypha can refer to different things depending on who is using it. For some, it is only used to refer to select books, and for others it may refer to all omitted books.

PR, I'm not calling you a relativist, please understand that. But this sounds like relativism. While this isn't in the same category as Truth being relative, it still begs the question: Are we to decide on our own what the Inspired Word of God is and what isn't? We can focus on worthy readings to compliment the Bible, but I do believe that we need to be careful in determining this by how we feel personally. I believe there is a stark difference between words that are Inspired and words that aren't.

I guess I'll put this out there if anyone cares to comment. Would you agree that some works are definitely Inspired and some aren't? Do you see a danger in treating books as Inspired when they are not? I do, inasmuch as I rely on the Bible for inerrant Truth and will not place my complete faith in books that aren't.

Books lost. I'm quite certain God would not allow any of His Word to be lost. If it's important to our faith, we have them. And I'll further say that the Bible is the complete Word of God to His people. Any teachings that are not in the Bible can not be on the level with It.

 

[Mysteryman]

I do not understand the disagreements,nor do I understand the arguments.

All one needs it the Spirit of truth in you.

The first century Church did not have any church epistles that we now read. Nor did they have any latter epistles. Yet, God added to the church daily, such as should be added.

Either the epistle of Christ is written on your hearts, or it is not. The written scripts we have today, are only reference material. You should not totally rely upon them, as they have been corrupted throughout the ages.

And even though that which we do have, is approx. 85 % accurate. That small 15 % is enough to cause much confusion among the brethren.

In fact, that which we do have, seems like others need to add to it, that which was never a part of the script to begin with. So from that POV , the spoken Word can be said to have more than 30 % inaccurate teachings. That would be at least 15 % added false information that men insert where they feel the need from an oral introduction . We can attest to this by just looking at the many translations. We can also attest to this by just listening to teachers who constantly add their own perspective with no reguard to the 85 % that is accurate.

 

[dadof10]

PR, I'm not calling you a relativist, please understand that. But this sounds like relativism. While this isn't in the same category as Truth being relative, it still begs the question: Are we to decide on our own what the Inspired Word of God is and what isn't? We can focus on worthy readings to compliment the Bible, but I do believe that we need to be careful in determining this by how we feel personally. I believe there is a stark difference between words that are Inspired and words that aren't.

I guess I'll put this out there if anyone cares to comment. Would you agree that some works are definitely Inspired and some aren't? Do you see a danger in treating books as Inspired when they are not? I do, inasmuch as I rely on the Bible for inerrant Truth and will not place my complete faith in books that aren't.

How are we to know which Books are inspired and which aren't?

Books lost. I'm quite certain God would not allow any of His Word to be lost. If it's important to our faith, we have them.

We have them, but do we recognize them as part of the Inspired Canon?

And I'll further say that the Bible is the complete Word of God to His people. Any teachings that are not in the Bible can not be on the level with It.[/b]

If the Bible is the "complete Word of God", then shouldn't that teaching and the teaching that "any teachings that are not in the Bible can not be on the level with It" be in there, at least explicitly?

 

[dadof10]

You should not totally rely upon them, as they have been corrupted throughout the ages.

And even though that which we do have, is approx. 85 % accurate. That small 15 % is enough to cause much confusion among the brethren.

In fact, that which we do have, seems like others need to add to it, that which was never a part of the script to begin with. So from that POV , the spoken Word can be said to have more than 30 % inaccurate teachings. That would be at least 15 % added false information that men insert where they feel the need from an oral introduction . We can attest to this by just looking at the many translations. We can also attest to this by just listening to teachers who constantly add their own perspective with no reguard to the 85 % that is accurate.

Here we go again....You couldn't prove your "corruption" theory in the other thread and you can't do it here. Simply saying "just look at the many translations..." is not proof.

I'll ask again. Which parts are "corrupt" and who is to be the "corrector" of the corrupted bible, you?

 

[Mysteryman]

PR, I'm not calling you a relativist, please understand that. But this sounds like relativism. While this isn't in the same category as Truth being relative, it still begs the question: Are we to decide on our own what the Inspired Word of God is and what isn't? We can focus on worthy readings to compliment the Bible, but I do believe that we need to be careful in determining this by how we feel personally. I believe there is a stark difference between words that are Inspired and words that aren't.

I guess I'll put this out there if anyone cares to comment. Would you agree that some works are definitely Inspired and some aren't? Do you see a danger in treating books as Inspired when they are not? I do, inasmuch as I rely on the Bible for inerrant Truth and will not place my complete faith in books that aren't.

How are we to know which Books are inspired and which aren't?

Books lost. I'm quite certain God would not allow any of His Word to be lost. If it's important to our faith, we have them.

We have them, but do we recognize them as part of the Inspired Canon?

[quote:2slcclws]And I'll further say that the Bible is the complete Word of God to His people. Any teachings that are not in the Bible can not be on the level with It.[/b]

If the Bible is the "complete Word of God", then shouldn't that teaching and the teaching that "any teachings that are not in the Bible can not be on the level with It" be in there, at least explicitly?[/quote:2slcclws]

Hi dadof10

Books were never inspired by God. Scripture was inspired - II Timothy 3:16

And there is no such thing as an inspired Canon.

The so called Canon was allowed by God, but never inspired. The same holds true with the corruptions that have taken place over time. God allows these as well, but never inspires them !

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales, I knew you’d chime in on this!

I like "canon" subjects...

Much of what you say is true. (We’ll have to discuss the Purgatory part. That’s just inconsistent with Christianity, and is really a good subject for a thread of its own).

We can discuss that, but you'll have to admit that the concept of a third state of existence IS consistent with Christianity, even before the days of Christ. The Catholic Church, predating the Orthodox/Roman split, also believed in the concept, although the Orthodox don't call it "Purgatory"...

However, Protestants feel that the Protestant versions provide a sufficient portrait of God. Any additional texts are therefore clutter within the Book, and should be taken separately. I do not mean to say that the other texts are worthless, only that they are not necessary to Christianity. That they have value is not in dispute. I agree that the story of the seven sons is a very compelling picture of martyrdom that Christians should be encouraged to read.

"Clutter"... Can you explain what Philemon is? What great lesson do we get from it that is not elsewhere?

A lot of Paul is repetition, is it not? How about the Gospels? Maybe we could edit and streamline it to say, twenty chapters? How about John's "woman in adultery" story or the 21st chapter? It's not in all manuscripts, maybe we should just get rid of it as clutter???

I do not think that any canonist considers "clutter" as a deciding factor on rejection or acceptance. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who has read the Deuterocanonicals to say that the Deuterocanonicals are "clutter", wouldn't you agree?

Your rejection or acceptance will depend upon your theological background.

I think the rejection of ANY book by ANY religious community is dependent upon what THAT community already believes. Thus, various sects of Judaism accepted a variety of books as "inspired text". The Saduccees, Essenes, and Pharisees all had different idea of what was inspired by God. The Diasporian Jews also had an idea of what is inspired. Western Catholics had a different idea of what was inspired, vis the Eastern Orthodox (3 and 4 Macabees is inspired literature, for them, they do not proclaim Revelation at Divine worship. Interesting). Thus, I am saying that Luther and his Protestant brothers are NO DIFFERENT than any other religious community. They come together, they have a mind of what God has revealed, and they look through literature available and determine what best expresses THEIR COMMUNITY'S view of inspired texts, sacred scriptures.

Thus, the issue is not "clutter", but theological rejection. All of the above have rejected books based on that, primarily. They didn't meet the "sniff" test! It smelled funny.

I am thankful to the Roman Catholic Church for preserving/delivering the scriptures to us across the centuries.

Praise God that despite fallen men, God's Word comes to us and to future generations...

You know well that I am a predestination guy. All that has occurred and will occur is fully in accordance with the will of God. The Bible therefore, is exactly as God intends. It is not by chance that there are different versions: it was all ordained by God. Even this very discussion is part of His plan.

I believe in secondary causes - most "predestination guys" do not understand that St. Augustine taught this, which explains man's free will with God's Providence. Further discussions later, this is another topic...

Where do I look in Maccabees for Purgatory?

I will just point to it, I don't think this is the place to argue it, although I would elsewhere...

2 Macc. 12:43-45

Baruch 3:4, on similar logic. (another book of the LXX in your NAB).

The logic is that prayers and offerings FOR the sake of the dead are pointless, if only heaven and hell exist. Not needed for heavenly saints, not of any use for those wicked in hell. Thus, prayers for the dead presume a "holding place" where God finishes perfecting His saints predestined. Our intercessions are an appeal to God for the sake of these in the "holding place".

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Any additional texts are therefore clutter within the Book, and should be taken separately.

I do not mean to say that the other texts are worthless, only that they are not necessary to Christianity. That they have value is not in dispute.

According to who? If what you call the "apocrapha" is allowed to be removed after over 1000 years of unanimous Christian witness, why not other Books? Who is to make this decision, and how? Is it acceptable to remove books if your personal doctrine disagrees with them?

Great avatar, BTW. Baldies unite!!!!

 

[dadof10]

Hi dadof10

Books were never inspired by God. Scripture was inspired - II Timothy 3:16

And there is no such thing as an inspired Canon.

The so called Canon was allowed by God, but never inspired. The same holds true with the corruptions that have taken place over time. God allows these as well, but never inspires them !

How many times have you ignored these questions? I've lost count. If you can't tell us which parts are corrupt and why, if you can't PROVE YOUR CONTENTION, stop posting the same drivel over and over.

Which parts are corrupt and why? Please give us chapter and verse and the reason for your conclusion.

If you are not qualified to give us the corrections, please just point to someone who is. Thanks.