The Incomplete Bible

[dgirl1986]

Where did you hear this lie that it was editors who decided what went into the Holy Scriptures? You are just repeating what you have heard about supposed "lost books." God promised to preserve His word. I believe Him.

If the bible was actually hand written and compiled by god and sent down to the people of earth in the hands of angels I would probably be more likely to believe this.

however, there is no denying a human factor in the compilation of the bible and you will even find on christian specific forums people discuss what was left out and the possible reasons for it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... and you will even find on christian specific forums people discuss what was left out and the possible reasons for it.

... and on other forums you we even find people discussing yetis and alienn abduction. Therefore?

 

[dgirl1986]

... and on other forums you we even find people discussing yetis and alienn abduction. Therefore?

Maybe you have but I havent.

 

[ErikErik]

If the bible was actually hand written and compiled by god and sent down to the people of earth in the hands of angels I would probably be more likely to believe this.

however, there is no denying a human factor in the compilation of the bible and you will even find on christian specific forums people discuss what was left out and the possible reasons for it.

Then you would believe in Mormonism.

 

[ErikErik]

If the bible was actually hand written and compiled by god and sent down to the people of earth in the hands of angels I would probably be more likely to believe this.

however, there is no denying a human factor in the compilation of the bible and you will even find on christian specific forums people discuss what was left out and the possible reasons for it.

We need to be careful about repeating what others have said. Nothing has been left out of the Holy Scriptures. There are no "lost books."

 

[Shermana]

We need to be careful about repeating what others have said. Nothing has been left out of the Holy Scriptures. There are no "lost books."

There's no lost books? Right, what about Iddo the Seer and Gad and such that are mentioned in Chroncicles? Where is the "Book of Jasher" that's referred to as a defacto account of things?

And where is this Enoch that Jude quotes as Prophetic? Why can't it be the same Enoch that the Church Fathers were apparently familiar with and some quoted as authoritative? Why can't the Ethiopian Canon be correct? What about the books listed that the early Church Fathers like Clement and Iraneus considered canonical like the Apocalypse of Peter? Shepherd of Hermas was apparently canonical enough at the time to be included in the Sinaiticus. And certain books were disputed too.

Who are you to say that the Ethiopian Canon is wrong and yours is right?

 

[Shermana]

Where did you hear this lie that it was editors who decided what went into the Holy Scriptures? You are just repeating what you have heard about supposed "lost books." God promised to preserve His word. I believe Him.

Where did you hear this lie that the "Holy Scriptures" were established as a complete set for the entire church before Jerome's time? Do you discount the Apocrypha which was apparently considered Canonical by pretty much all Church Fathers until Jerome? Do you think Clement and Iraneus (and the Murotarian Fragment) were wrong for deciding that the Shepherd of Hermas was a legitimate writing? 3 Cortinthians I believe was accepted by the Armenian church (and the reasons against it would also disclude 1 John for the same reasons). Why were they wrong?

There were many different canons circulating even by the 300s, it just happens that the "official Roman" one gets all the attention.

And then there's the question of which manuscripts are the right ones.


Are you aware that the Roman Canon wasn't formalized until 692 at the Second Council of Trullan? Even in Eusebius time, epistles like James and 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation were in doubt. And Hebrews was far from universally accepted.

And are you basing your "promise to preserve His words" from Psalm 12:6-7? I can just as easily say that according to 2 Esdras, there are 24 books for everyone and 70 books that are "hidden for the Wise". So perhaps he did preserve His 70 "hidden words" word....to be shielded from the unenlightened.

 

[ErikErik]

There's no lost books? Right, what about Iddo the Seer and Gad and such that are mentioned in Chroncicles? Where is the "Book of Jasher" that's referred to as a defacto account of things?

And where is this Enoch that Jude quotes as Prophetic? Why can't it be the same Enoch that the Church Fathers were apparently familiar with and some quoted as authoritative? Why can't the Ethiopian Canon be correct? What about the books listed that the early Church Fathers like Clement and Iraneus considered canonical like the Apocalypse of Peter? Shepherd of Hermas was apparently canonical enough at the time to be included in the Sinaiticus. And certain books were disputed too.

Who are you to say that the Ethiopian Canon is wrong and yours is right?

[COLOR=#22222]These so[COLOR=#22222] [/COLOR]called "lost books" were known by the Jews in OT times as well as by Christians in the NT. They were not considered inspired Scripture. [/COLOR]

God obviously did not intend certain works to be preserved, because His hand would have guided their perpetuation, just as He guided the continuation of the canonical books. There is no such thing as "your" canon or "my" canon. God promised to preserve His word and I believe Him.

 

[ErikErik]

Where did you hear this lie that the "Holy Scriptures" were established as a complete set for the entire church before Jerome's time? Do you discount the Apocrypha which was apparently considered Canonical by pretty much all Church Fathers until Jerome? Do you think Clement and Iraneus (and the Murotarian Fragment) were wrong for deciding that the Shepherd of Hermas was a legitimate writing? 3 Cortinthians I believe was accepted by the Armenian church (and the reasons against it would also disclude 1 John for the same reasons). Why were they wrong?

There were many different canons circulating even by the 300s, it just happens that the "official Roman" one gets all the attention.

And then there's the question of which manuscripts are the right ones.


Are you aware that the Roman Canon wasn't formalized until 692 at the Second Council of Trullan? Even in Eusebius time, epistles like James and 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation were in doubt. And Hebrews was far from universally accepted.

And are you basing your "promise to preserve His words" from Psalm 12:6-7? I can just as easily say that according to 2 Esdras, there are 24 books for everyone and 70 books that are "hidden for the Wise". So perhaps he did preserve His 70 "hidden words" word....to be shielded from the unenlightened.

Can you tell me what is the definition of the word: apocrypha?

 

[Shermana]

These socalled "lost books" were known by the Jews in OT times as well as by Christians in the NT. They were not considered inspired Scripture.

God obviously did not intend certain works to be preserved, because His hand would have guided their perpetuation, just as He guided the continuation of the canonical books. There is no such thing as "your" canon or "my" canon. God promised to preserve His word and I believe Him.

1. There's no way of knowing what the Ancient Jews considered inspired Scripture. There were different sects apparently, and the Qumran community may very well have considered certain works to be inspired to the point they meticulously made many copies by hand. Just because a work is supposedly "Lost" to the public doesn't mean that it doesn't into the 70 hidden books for the wise. Perhaps he's just hiding them for a reason, as 2 Esdras states.

2. If we can't even tell which manuscripts of the NT are right, how can you say God intended to preserve the "right works"? Are you just basing the idea of the canon itself?

3. Of course there is such thing as "Your canon" and "Their canon", the Ethiopian Canon has been well preserved and fits your criteria. The Book of Enoch has never been completely lost apparently. So I guess by your own logic, the Book of Enoch is part of the Holy Scripture.

4. Many of the lost works, so-called "Apocryphal" Writings (which means "Hidden", just like the "70 Hidden Boooks for the Wise in 2 Esdras) are now being discovered, so obviously they have been preserved.

5. Many of the "official" NT works were heavily disputed by the Early Church themselves. You didn't address that.

 

[ErikErik]

1. There's no way of knowing what the Ancient Jews considered inspired Scripture. There were different sects apparently, and the Qumran community may very well have considered certain works to be inspired to the point they meticulously made many copies by hand. Just because a work is supposedly "Lost" to the public doesn't mean that it doesn't into the 70 hidden books for the wise. Perhaps he's just hiding them for a reason, as 2 Esdras states.

2. If we can't even tell which manuscripts of the NT are right, how can you say God intended to preserve the "right works"? Are you just basing the idea of the canon itself?

3. Of course there is such thing as "Your canon" and "Their canon", the Ethiopian Canon has been well preserved and fits your criteria. The Book of Enoch has never been completely lost apparently. So I guess by your own logic, the Book of Enoch is part of the Holy Scripture.

4. Many of the lost works, so-called "Apocryphal" Writings (which means "Hidden", just like the "70 Hidden Boooks for the Wise in 2 Esdras) are now being discovered, so obviously they have been preserved.

5. Many of the "official" NT works were heavily disputed by the Early Church themselves. You didn't address that.

Do you realize that this demonstrates a lack of faith and trust in God to preserve His word? Since the Bible is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we do not need to worry about manuscripts and "lost books." God is in control.

The Book of Enoch has been proven to be a forgery. It contradicts scriptures and in some places is nonsensical. It was rejected by Judaism and even banned by church council.

As for the Ethiopian canon, it has more books than our Bible and has the catholic deuterocanonical books.

When we look at these so-called "lost" books we can see why they were never considered part of the canon. Some contain myths and other things that conflict with what the bible as a whole teaches. There are also indications that they were written too late and some are outright forgeries.

It is not true that "many" of the NT books were disputed. Three of the books were very short books, which neither adds nor takes away anything. Origen, a church father, was considered a heretic and he was the one who rejected the other books. There is no evidence that they were heavily disputed. James was disputed because some thought it conflicted with Paul's teaching on justification by faith. Revelations was disputed because some false religious groups were using it to support a false end-times doctrine.

Trust God...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Book of Enoch has been proven to be a forgery.

By forgery do you mean pseudepigraphic? And what do you mean by 'proven'? How? By whom?

 

[Shermana]

Erikerik said:

Do you realize that this demonstrates a lack of faith and trust in God to preserve His word? Since the Bible is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we do not need to worry about manuscripts and "lost books." God is in control.

Not at all, in fact it represents a trust that God would keep some of the words hidden that He doesn't want everyone to know about as is made most clear in 2 Esdras. There's simply no reason to believe that the later canons were authorized by the Spirit. I asked you how we even know which manuscripts are correct, how about that?

The Book of Enoch has been proven to be a forgery.

Shenanigans. Not at all. The dating methods used for Enoch are notoriously shoddy and ill conceived for one thing. As if it was written just prior to its inclusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They tried pushing the idea that it was written even in the 1st century C.E. at one time, then when the DSS were discovered they tried to say it was written as soon as the oldest copy was stored. Explain your reasoning on how its been "proven".

It contradicts scriptures and in some places is nonsensical. It was rejected by Judaism and even banned by church council.

Being banned by later Judaism means absolutely nothing, (interestingly, apparently Sirach was considered Writ by the early Talmud writers, we don't know at what point the Apocrypha was totally rejected, especially since 2 Esdras may be including them as the "Books hidden for the wise", and Josephus used 1 Esdras) and it wasn't really banned even, just discluded from the later canon. Being banned by Church Council means nothing at all, especially considering the Early Church Fathers mostly accepted it, I think you're under the assumption that these orthodox "Church Councils" were guided by God . And it doesn't contradict scripture, it contradicts later-orthodox interpretations. Why don't you go over what's "nonsensical", because in Biblical discussions what's "nonsensical" is up for discussion even among the general canon.

As for the Ethiopian canon, it has more books than our Bible and has the catholic deuterocanonical books.

Yes, and? Is that supposed to render it unfit? Notice that you earlier said there is no "My Canon" and "Your canon", yet you now say "Our Bible".

When we look at these so-called "lost" books we can see why they were never considered part of the canon.

You can see according to Romanized orthodox theology and logic I suppose. And when you say "Never considered part of Canon", you mean by the later orthodox groups, certain works like Apocalypse of Peter were clearly canonical to Clement and many early Church groups.

Some contain myths

You should be careful before you say what is a myth when it comes to Biblical discussions.

and other things that conflict with what the bible as a whole teaches.

Not at all. It only contradicts what Orthodox theology and interpretation may say, not the text itself. I find the Apocrypha and some of the "Pseudipigrahical" "Lost texts" to perfectly conform to the accepted writings. What they don't conform to is Christian Orthodoxy and later-Talmudic Jewish concepts perhaps.

There are also indications that they were written too late and some are outright forgeries.

There are indications that 1 and 2 Timothy are written too late and are outright forgeries, along with 2 Peter. The grand majority of scholars seem to attribute the Pastoral Epistles as written after Paul died. Works like Shepherd of Hermas don't have to be written by the Apostles themselves, why can't a Prophetic work be written by a later Apostle exactly?

It is not true that "many" of the NT books were disputed.

Lying about and rewriting history are you? Does the word "Antilegemona" mean absolutely nothing to you? Or maybe we have different definitions of "many". And in the modern day, Ephesians as well is mostly considered a forgery, I'm not sure if it was disputed back then though.

Three of the books were very short books, which neither adds nor takes away anything.

That has nothing to do with it, if they're fake then theyr'e fake, and yes, some very central Theological concepts are contained within the disputed books no matter how short.

Origen, a church father, was considered a heretic and he was the one who rejected the other books.

Considered a heretic by who? The later orthodox Church? Why is their opinion so authoritative?

There is no evidence that they were heavily disputed.

Seriously? Even Eusebius records this.

James was disputed because some thought it conflicted with Paul's teaching on justification by faith.

Yes, that still means it was disputed.

Revelations was disputed because some false religious groups were using it to support a false end-times doctrine.

No, that's not the only reason it was disputed.

Trust God...

I do. The problem is that you have this concept that Trusting God means trusting the Orthodox authorities.

 

[ErikErik]

Erikerik said:

Not at all, in fact it represents a trust that God would keep some of the words hidden that He doesn't want everyone to know about as is made most clear in 2 Esdras. There's simply no reason to believe that the later canons were authorized by the Spirit. I asked you how we even know which manuscripts are correct, how about that?

Shenanigans. Not at all. The dating methods used for Enoch are notoriously shoddy and ill conceived for one thing. As if it was written just prior to its inclusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They tried pushing the idea that it was written even in the 1st century C.E. at one time, then when the DSS were discovered they tried to say it was written as soon as the oldest copy was stored. Explain your reasoning on how its been "proven".

Being banned by later Judaism means absolutely nothing, (interestingly, apparently Sirach was considered Writ by the early Talmud writers, we don't know at what point the Apocrypha was totally rejected, especially since 2 Esdras may be including them as the "Books hidden for the wise", and Josephus used 1 Esdras) and it wasn't really banned even, just discluded from the later canon. Being banned by Church Council means nothing at all, especially considering the Early Church Fathers mostly accepted it, I think you're under the assumption that these orthodox "Church Councils" were guided by God . And it doesn't contradict scripture, it contradicts later-orthodox interpretations. Why don't you go over what's "nonsensical", because in Biblical discussions what's "nonsensical" is up for discussion even among the general canon.
Yes, and? Is that supposed to render it unfit? Notice that you earlier said there is no "My Canon" and "Your canon", yet you now say "Our Bible".

You can see according to Romanized orthodox theology and logic I suppose. And when you say "Never considered part of Canon", you mean by the later orthodox groups, certain works like Apocalypse of Peter were clearly canonical to Clement and many early Church groups.

You should be careful before you say what is a myth when it comes to Biblical discussions.

Not at all. It only contradicts what Orthodox theology and interpretation may say, not the text itself. I find the Apocrypha and some of the "Pseudipigrahical" "Lost texts" to perfectly conform to the accepted writings. What they don't conform to is Christian Orthodoxy and later-Talmudic Jewish concepts perhaps.
There are indications that 1 and 2 Timothy are written too late and are outright forgeries, along with 2 Peter. The grand majority of scholars seem to attribute the Pastoral Epistles as written after Paul died. Works like Shepherd of Hermas don't have to be written by the Apostles themselves, why can't a Prophetic work be written by a later Apostle exactly?

Lying about and rewriting history are you? Does the word "Antilegmona" mean absolutely nothing to you?

That has nothing to do with it, if they're fake then theyr'e fake, and yes, some very central Theological concepts are contained within the disputed books no matter how short.

Considered a heretic by who? The later orthodox Church? Why is their opinion so authoritative?


Seriously? Even Eusebius records this.

Yes, that still means it was disputed.
No, that's not the only reason it was disputed.

I do. The problem is that you have this concept that Trusting God means trusting the Orthodox authorities.

It is difficult to respond to a post that makes unqualified statements. No, I never said I trust any "authorities". This would be like saying man is more powerful than God.

 

[Shermana]

It is difficult to respond to a post that makes unqualified statements. No, I never said I trust any "authorities". This would be like saying man is more powerful than God.

I did just fine responding to a bunch of unqualified statements. Which of my statements do you find so unqualified exactly, and do you think any of your own statements are qualified?

Did you not base your arguments on what "Church Councils" agreed on?

 

[ErikErik]

I did just fine responding to a bunch of unqualified statements. Which of my statements do you find so unqualified exactly, and do you think any of your own statements are qualified?

Did you not base your arguments on what "Church Councils" agreed on?

If you wish to believe the Holy Scriptures are incomplete and that man has the power to usurp God, then that is your prerogative. I firmly believe that how one views and treats God's Word is how one views and treats God. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

I wish you well.

 

[Shermana]

If you wish to believe the Holy Scriptures are incomplete and that man has the power to usurp God, then that is your prerogative. I firmly believe that how one views and treats God's Word is how one views and treats God. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

I wish you well.

And there's the rub again, you say that I believe that "Man has the power to usurp God", again you are attempting to correlate a belief that the Roman Canon is wrong to the idea that God is not in charge. I stand by 2 Esdras, that there was an idea at the time of its writing of "70 books hidden for the wise" which I agree with, and I see no reason to believe that the Roman Orthodox Canon reflected God's will. You have avoided the question three times of how we know which manuscripts are correct. Why didn't God make clear which manuscripts are correct? Why are so there many different textual variants, no matter how minor within the books of the standard canon? Why did he not preserve a standard canon in the days of Clement and Iraneus? Why did he wait til Jerome's time?

I do agree that how one regards "God's word" may reflect on how they regard God. The issue however is, what exactly is His word. Why can't 2 Esdras be His word? Why is the Roman Canon necessarily the complete and full (and finalized) collection of His word? Is it disrespect to Him to seek objectivity to reject books that most likely may not be His word and to seek what may be the "Hidden for the wise"?

 

[sojourner]

Erik:

Do you realize that this demonstrates a lack of faith and trust in God to preserve His word? Since the Bible is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we do not need to worry about manuscripts and "lost books." God is in control.

Do you realize that this demonstrates a lack of faith and trust in God's decision to hand us the keys to the kingdom, trusting us to do what we believe is best?

 

[ErikErik]

Erik:

Do you realize that this demonstrates a lack of faith and trust in God's decision to hand us the keys to the kingdom, trusting us to do what we believe is best?

To do whatever one believes is best is the very reason why we have many false religious groups and even some false teachings among christian groups. As Christians, we need to have a sole standard of Truth whereby we can test all things to see if they are of God or not. The noble Bereans didn't just automatically believe everything Paul and Silas taught. They went to the Scriptures.

1 John 4:1
do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world

 

[ErikErik]

Why can't 2 Esdras be His word? Why is the Roman Canon necessarily the complete and full (and finalized) collection of His word? Is it disrespect to Him to seek objectivity to reject books that most likely may not be His word and to seek what may be the "Hidden for the wise"?

Jesus referenced the Jewish OT canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51)


Jesus said the OT consisted of three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

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