The biblical canon...any books missing from the Bible that ought to be there?

[tribesman]

There are many people who know much about writings that ae included and excluded from the Bible as we know it today, the various Protestant versions, RC and EOC versions; I am not one of those folks.

Perhaps my understanding of God's Word and how it became as it is today is over simplified for most minds, but this is what I believe. I believe the Word has been preserved by God no matter how many scholars may have thought to perhaps improve upon it or make it more understandable. No matter, it has come down to us today with overwhelming blessings in understanding for all peoples.

It is possible there are books missing. It is possible there are books that may not be necessary. If either is so, God will be certain to show mankind which are what be it His will.

The original King James translations included the Apocrypha. I do not know the reasoning for rmoving it from most Protestant Bibles, but it is certain whether it is included or not, it will make no difference in the Gospel as delivered by Jesus Christ in both Testaments. Nothng will change the Salvation process as taught in the Gospels of the Evangelists.

Perhaps I have contributed something here, and perhaps I have contributed nothing, but it is worthy of some meditation I think.

God bless all who are in Jesus Christ.....

Would your primary reason for advocating the 66 books as canon (excluding the OT Apocrypha) be that the latter has no full preserved hebrew/aramaic text? As for the KJV 1611 including the OT Apocrypha (and having them in a section, named Apocrypha) it is correct. As to how they were removed from most KJV bibles is foremost to be found in that the calvinists at the time would see to it that they were removed. The lutherans kept them in their bibles, with Luther's disclaimer, in a separate section, named Apocrypha. The later London Bible Society, which popularized Bible printing, was on the calvinist position as to exclude the OT Apocrypha.

 

[tribesman]

as always, all i have is questions.

And yet you know the answers to these questions.

is the Most High more than able to give His children their full allotment of daily Bread?

Yes.

can anyone thwart the will and purposes of God?

No.

can we trust our Faithful God with what He has given us?

Yes.

would "He who did not spare His own Son" spare His Words to us?

No.

seriously.....can God be trusted?

Yes, even if we believe it or not.

shouldn't it be i who does so? (i know the answer to that one.)

You know the answer to all the above, this is merely for the record. Tc always sis.

 

[JaumeJ]

Thank you.. I have read what is called teh Apocrypha, and I enjoyed it. My faith has not been shaken because of reading it, and like my good example, Mary, mother of our Lord, I have kept it in my heart until I understand why it should not be include Good Book. I have noted in the New Testament, at least in one version or another, a direct reverence to those writings, but do not ask me where right now, please. As you and Psychomom have touched upon, and I did make mention alos, if any writings are to be cnonnized in the future or removed, our Father will see to it in His time and at the right moment, but I think what we have is more than sufficient for one's walk with Jesus after his salvation.

Would your primary reason for advocating the 66 books as canon (excluding the OT Apocrypha) be that the latter has no full preserved hebrew/aramaic text? As for the KJV 1611 including the OT Apocrypha (and having them in a section, named Apocrypha) it is correct. As to how they were removed from most KJV bibles is foremost to be found in that the calvinists at the time would see to it that they were removed. The lutherans kept them in their bibles, with Luther's disclaimer, in a separate section, named Apocrypha. The later London Bible Society, which popularized Bible printing, was on the calvinist position as to exclude the OT Apocrypha.

 

[Jason0047]

This is a good answer, Jason. It gives reason why we are to be at peace with the existing bibles available to us. However, just one thing, though it actually enters another topic it is still closely related, I am wary about the line of argument or rhetoric that says "What message does God intend to leave for his body of believers today?" (with big emphasis on "today"). Dispensationalists, for example, like to chop up the Bible message into dispensations, leaving us (except we are jewish) basically only with the epistles of Paul. Creating a false dichotomy, which isn't there.

Others won't go as far as the dispensationalists but they will make a great gulf between OT and NT and say "well, that was in the OT, now we are in the NT" etc. The result is plain to see, while there is no denial that the whole Bible is the Word of God in written form, the strong emphasis of either historical or evolutionary division of it makes a big part of the Bible less relevant to believers "today". The starting point must always be the entirety of all scripture as basis for all belief and practice for all believers, stressing the continuation of the biblical message rather than trying to find divisions within it. Having all scripture in equal value is to follow the formal principle. As Paul said of the times of old:

I will get back to you on this one. This could be a potentially long answer.

 

[psychomom]

You know the answer to all the above, this is merely for the record. Tc always sis.

been reading too much Luther?

gettin' into the rhetoric.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Uh, you are not making any sense. Just because the Bible is Holy or divine in origin doesn't mean we worship it.

Besides, my Bible says it is the "Holy BIble." What does yours say?

I mean, think about it; The Ark was a holy object but yet that does not mean the Israelites (who had their hearts right with God) had chosen to worship it. Moses stood on holy ground and was told to take his sandels or shoes off. It doesn't mean he started to worship the ground.

all bibles say Holy Bible. that does not make them God inspired.

get real!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Seriously, I don't worship the KJV. I told you I don't worship it. Please take a step back and listen to yourself, my friend. When you repeatedly keep making these kinds of mindless and hateful statements, you sound like you are a part of an angry mob or something (That won't listen to anyone).

lol. you need to practice what you say then.

everyone knows your worshiping an english translation which is even outdated.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is a good answer, Jason. It gives reason why we are to be at peace with the existing bibles available to us. However, just one thing, though it actually enters another topic it is still closely related, I am wary about the line of argument or rhetoric that says "What message does God intend to leave for his body of believers today?" (with big emphasis on "today"). Dispensationalists, for example, like to chop up the Bible message into dispensations, leaving us (except we are jewish) basically only with the epistles of Paul. Creating a false dichotomy, which isn't there.

Others won't go as far as the dispensationalists but they will make a great gulf between OT and NT and say "well, that was in the OT, now we are in the NT" etc. The result is plain to see, while there is no denial that the whole Bible is the Word of God in written form, the strong emphasis of either historical or evolutionary division of it makes a big part of the Bible less relevant to believers "today". The starting point must always be the entirety of all scripture as basis for all belief and practice for all believers, stressing the continuation of the biblical message rather than trying to find divisions within it. Having all scripture in equal value is to follow the formal principle. As Paul said of the times of old:

Not sure where you get this, I have never seen the bible split into sections as you claim. And I have been to many dispensational churches.

All true dispensationalism does is try to divide sections of time in which God dealt with man kind in different ways, to make it easier to understand how God progressed from adam intil the last day on earth.

 

[4enlightment]

Jasher 89:8 8 The sun and moon stood still in heaven, and thou didst stand in thy wrath against our oppressors and didst command thy judgments over them.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Jasher 81: 43 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, on the day when the Lord caused the Egyptians to fall before them.

44 And all Israel sang in concert, saying, I will sing to the Lord for He is greatly exalted, the horse and his rider has he cast into the sea; behold it is written in the book of the law of God.

2 Samuel 1:18 and he ordered that the people of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar):

 

[BibleReader]

....certain verses stick out to me more than others.

For example:
John 21:25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

I look at it like this, authors are selective, they self-edit themselves, we have only partial knowledge in Jesus, much more happened that is not written down, yet what is in the book(s) is all we need to know in order to live in faith.

 

[tribesman]

I will get back to you on this one. This could be a potentially long answer.

OK. Just go ahead.

 

[tribesman]

Not sure where you get this, I have never seen the bible split into sections as you claim. And I have been to many dispensational churches.

All true dispensationalism does is try to divide sections of time in which God dealt with man kind in different ways, to make it easier to understand how God progressed from adam intil the last day on earth.

The key element in dispensationalism is all about dividing divine intervention history into dispensations, ending with "church history". Always making a huge distinction between the Church and Israel they land with an emphasis stressing: this was the old covenant, this is the new covenant, this is for the jews, this is for the church. Some dispensational groups just take this to the extreme of having only the epistles of Paul as relevant for the church and its age.

 

[JaumeJ]

What would be called those who believe when the two flocks are joined they are Israel, albeit the spiritual Israel awaiting New Jerusalem?? Thank you.......

The key element in dispensationalism is all about dividing divine intervention history into dispensations, ending with "church history". Always making a huge distinction between the Church and Israel they land with an emphasis stressing: this was the old covenant, this is the new covenant, this is for the jews, this is for the church. Some dispensational groups just take this to the extreme of having only the epistles of Paul as relevant for the church and its age.

 

[tribesman]

What would be called those who believe when the two flocks are joined they are Israel, albeit the spiritual Israel awaiting New Jerusalem?? Thank you.......

Not sure there is a term for that? We have the 'two house' and the 'one house' crowds though. Being of the covenant theology position I have the privilege to view divine intervention history as a single covenant of grace, being ratified by the blood of Christ. The Church having always existed, being one people called Israel. Simple truth.

 

[JaumeJ]

This is what I was trying to say, a little clumsily, but I do that sometimes. Thank you.

Not sure there is a term for that? We have the 'two house' and the 'one house' crowds though. Being of the covenant theology position I have the privilege to view divine intervention history as a single covenant of grace, being ratified by the blood of Christ. The Church having always existed, being one people called Israel. Simple truth.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

This is what I was trying to say, a little clumsily, but I do that sometimes. Thank you.

that is my doctrine too and i like to call it 'unity theology'

 

[Jason0047]

OK. Just go ahead.

As for dispensations (or periods of time mentioned in the Scriptures): Well, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that there will be a Tribulation, and a 1,000 year reign of Christ; And that both believing Jews and Gentles will be present during both of those time periods (that are yet future). After that, there will be a New Heavens and a New Earth were all believers will reign with Christ for all eternity where there will be no more pain, sorrow, death, etc. If you are looking for Scripture on these different periods or ages of time, I can provide that for you (If you are interested).

As for believers today making a separation between the Old Covenant and a New Covenant: Well, think of it is terms of the Old Covenant as an apple seed that gets fulfilled into becoming an apple tree (i.e. the New Covenant). For Jesus said he came not to destroy but to fulfill. For if I destroyed an apple seed I would take a hammer and smash it. But if I took that apple seed and planted it in good ground and watered it properly, it would then have the potential to fulfill it's intended purpose by it growing into an apple tree.

For there are many things we can learn from the Old Testament (Like the confirmation of the New Testament teachings within the Old, the origin of things, and the Typifications of Christ, and seeing how God's entire plan of salvation was to be played out from the Old to the New). However, that said, I do not believe the Old Testament Law of Moses is still binding for us today, though. Based on Scripture, I believe a Christian obeys the Law of Christ or those laws set out under the New Testament. How so?

Well, for one, there are 1,050 + New Testament Commands and only 613 Old Testament Commands (Which would make it very complex to obey both of them). Two, many laws have changed when Jesus came (So the New Testament Commands actually conflict with the Old Testament Commands in certain cases). For Jesus changed the Law of an eye for an eye and said to instead to turn the other cheek. Peter was told to eat unclean animals by God in a vision. This was a change in the OT Law. Also, when Jesus was crucified, the Temple veil was torn in the Temple; Meaning, that the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary because Jesus is now our Passover Lamb now. For Christians are not seeking to rebuild the Temple today so as to sacrifice animals again. The animal sacrifices were just shadows or types of Jesus Christ. This animal sacrifices were a part of the Law in the Old Testament, but are no longer necessary in the New. For no man puts old wine into new wine skins otherwise it will cause them to burst.

Third, Scripture actually states that the New will replace the Old.

Check the many articles on this point of topic here at Grace Community International (Starting with this article):

https://www.gci.org/law/lawmoses

For GCI helped me alot to understand the difference between the Old and the New.

 

[Jason0047]

If you are interested I cover a lot of different territory on the Old Testament in my post here at TOL
(If you are interested):

ECT Christians and the Old Testament - Page 2 - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More


Side Note:

Please take note that I did say some similar things I have already said to you here.

Anyways, peace, blessings, and love be unto you from the Lord.