They might be saying they are books written by certain people,but does that mean they are to belong to the Bible.
And if they were added to the Bible would they make a difference,for it seems like what we do have covers everything,so what would they say that is important,a king we should know about,a mountain we never heard of,or a repeat of something or theology we already know about.
And if they were supposed to be part of the Bible,but happened to be not added,then how is God in charge of His word,seeing man can add or subtract without any power from God to stop them.
If they are supposed to be part of the Bible,but were not added,then how is God in charge of His word,to have the Bible according to how He wants it.
The truth is I believe they said there are books written by certain people,but of course I should for it is in the Bible,but that does not mean they are supposed to be part of the Bible,and whatever they wrote would not be beneficial to us,seeing the Bible,as it is,is already sufficient for us,and to add anything else would only be a repeat of what is already mentioned in several places in the Bible.Do we need 12 witnesses to tell us the truth of one certain thing,for the Bible has many witnesses in it about every theology,but that is not what those books are about,to tell us something beneficial for us,but only telling us what the king did during their reign,and do not need to be added to the Bible.
The books that were written were the acts of David or Solomon,or someone else,but don't we have enough knowledge of the acts of David and Solomon,or at least the important things,and do we have to know everything they did,and God seems to think we know enough about David and Solomon,or any other king without having to resort to those books.
It would seem like the books telling of the acts of David and Solomon,or any king,was for the benefit to those that lived back then to know of the things that the kings did,but it is no benefit to us to know everything the kings did,what war they were engaged in,who they had peace with,and basically what the king did,which is all it is,what the king did,and that is no benefit to us in any way,but only telling what the king did during his reign,no spiritual lesson,no lesson to be learned at all,but what the king did during his reign,ho hum,sorry for my sarcasm,but it is of no benefit.
Those books are only telling us what the king did during his reign,and has nothing to do with a spiritual lesson,or anything to do with a beneficial lesson,but the king went to war,the king had peace,the king had a celebration,and so forth,and all the important things of king David,and Solomon,and Rehoboam,or any other king,is already in the Bible,the things that are important,and telling us enough of what we need to know.
We do not need to know everything about the kings,but in the Bible it tells us the important things the kings did,but the books by Asher,and who else,is only telling Israel of the things the kings did during their reign,and not directed to the saints,and is not only telling the important things the kings did,but giving an account of what the kings did during their reign.
And that is the truth,those books do not have necessarily anything to do with a spiritual lesson,or beneficial to us,but only books telling us what the king did during his reign as king,whether went to war with this nation,or had peace with this nation,or had a celebration,or whatever he did,but of course they could have a spiritual lesson,but that is not what those books mean entirely,but telling what the king did during his reign.
Those books are a history of the king,not meant to be a spiritual lesson there,although the king could have done good things during his reign,like a preacher could preach the Gospel and good things written in a book,and someone writes another book telling all the preacher did during his time being a preacher,lived in Arizona,moved to California,got married,had 3 children,and what not,not necessarily focusing on a spiritual lesson,as with the kings.
The books seem to only be books for the Jews in the Old Testament,to tell what the king did during his reign as a history of the kings to the Jews,an autobiography of the kings,and not actually meant to be a spiritual significance,at least not focused on that part,but might point out he was a good king who loved the LORD.
The books are saying it is the acts of those kings,the acts signifying what they did during their reign,and they do not need to be added to the Bible,for if it pointed out good acts,do we not have enough accounts of good acts of the kings in the Bible already,which tells the story,and spiritual lessons quite well,and must we know what all the kings of Israel did.Is not the Bible big enough with enough spiritual lessons for us to learn.Must we hear the account of 12 kings that did good to get the message.
The truth is those books would not reveal any new information,would not point out any new morality,would not point out a new spiritual lesson,would not point out something that God wants us to know,for the Bible,as it is,already covers everything we need to know,and do we have to know the history of all the kings of Israel,and what they did.
