Is the Bible the inherint word of GOD? What book chapter and verse has the Table of Contents?

Question

Since there is no Book, Chapter, or Verse, where God spoke the Table of Contents, are the Table of Contents suspect? Is it possible there are some books contained that should not be, or some that should be that were not permitted in at the time of assembly, despite the fact that they were the word of God?

Take for example the Gospel of Peter. Peter spoke to Jesus Why is Peter's Gospel omitted?


Is this question perhaps the most damning of all to Mere Christianity? Is there any response besides the preprogrammed Apologetics that I can get out of a book?

Answer 1

Why would the lack of a Table of Content have any bearing on the truth or falsehood of a book's contents? I don't follow you. As for the Gospel of Peter, most scholars view it as a forgery written in the 2nd century and largely based on the Gospels that were written earlier.

It was not uncommon for writers to say they were famous people to increase readership and lend weight to their words. The publication industry was far different in those days, without printing presses or copyright laws.

Answer 2

Well one thing for sure, you can easily check out the accuracy of the Table of Contents that you are looking at. Obviously, Table of Contents were added as an aid, just like the numbering system. But that in no way changes the content, or the validity of the content. It took the Church quite a bit of time to discern the books of the Bible - both Old Testament and New Testament. While today's Cannon was agreed upon in the late 4th century, they were not definitively defined until the 1500's! Even then, the Protestant movement removed books and parts of books from the Old Testament. But some of the books floating around were spurious, others while still good books, were not included. If you can accept the authority given to men by Jesus, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there is no reason to believe that anything has been left out.

Answer 3

The table of contents of the Bible is the last Book of the Bible. In symbolic form, it lists all of the major themes of the new and old testament. You are in error, when you say, 'the Gospel of Peter'. There are four gospels symbolized. It was many centuries before anyone knew what to do with the book of revelation. But, that is it's purpose, to organize the Bible, and serve as a 'Cliff's Notes' guide.

John, on Patmos was given the mission of making sense of all the stories and writings of the early church. The Bible was assembled, theme by theme, book by book. It forms a body of works, with a living, singular spirit. It lives.

If you arre into codes, patterns, etc. check this book out. It has no equal.

Answer 4

There are books in the Old Testament that were not included in the Bible or Torah. They are the writings of Enoch. Missing from the Bible are the Temple Scrolls and oratories from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Peter is represented in the New Testament under two epistles bearing his name. It is generally thought that Peter was illiterate, though he had much influence in the Book of Acts, though he did not write it. It is believed that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Ghost, God, and what writings are missing were excluded by God's design. Perry Stone has done a lot of study in the writings of Enoch and does not find an explanation for their absence in the Torah or Bible. The writings support those Books that were included and, therefore, it is believed that those books were omitted because they were repetitious of the ones included. Again, believers find the Bible to be precisely written by the hand of God. We don't really care what is missing and believe, because the Bible says so, that anything omitted was intentionally left out for God's own purpose.

Answer 5

The current content of the New Testament is based on something called "scholarship". Lets say you want to do a study of the life of Abraham Lincoln. You would collect as many of the early and original documents as you could find. You would then compare them to see what they do and do not have in common. Lets say that you found five documents. Four of them say that Lincoln was the president of the US during the Civil War. The fifth says that he moved to Tahiti as a teenager and spend the rest of his life as hula dancer. Which would you accept?

When decided what books should be contained in the the New Testament, the Nicene council, working about 300 years after the time of Christ, did some "scholaship". They began by looking at the all of the oldest collections of Christian's scriptures they could find. 100% of them were in agree on the 13 letters of Paul, of instance. There was not a single copy of scripture anywhere that did not contain all 13 letters, or that had more than the 13 letters. While there were several letters floating around with Paul's name on them (all claiming to the the "missing" letter that the Bible says was written to the Laodicians). But there was not a single church leader, scholar, or collection of scriptures that included any of them. Reasonable conclusion, they are not real. nobody every treated them as real.

Earlier church fathers had already written list of what was considered Scripture. This includes Clements of Rome around 96 AD, Origen in the early 100s, Ignetuis around 180AD. All agree with the same 27 books we have today.

We have about 2,300 quotes by early church leaders and in early prayer books. Ever single one of those quotes is from one of the 27 NT books. Every book is quoted. No books not in the NT are quoted.

The earliest manuscripts included the same 27 books that we have today, in the same order. There are only two early New Testaments that included additional books. One follows the 27 books we know today with two letters written by Clements of Rome. The other follows the standard 27 with a second "revelation" like book called the Shephard of Hermes. (The portion that contained Shepherd of Hermas is in fragments, so it full content was not known until a separate copy of the book was discovered in the early 1900s) Beyond that, none of the other "gospels" have ever been found in any collection of scriptures, nor on any list of accepted scripture. Several of them, however, do appear on list of books that were considered faults.

The official contents of the New Testament was finalized in the mid 300s AD. Since then additional early manuscripts of the New Testament - unknown to the council - have turned up. Several just in the last 50-60 years. Surprise, they are all 100% in agreement on the 27 books. (Not all are complete NTs. Some are just the gospels - but the same four we know toady. Others are the letter of Paul - same 13 we know today) Nothing added, nothing missing from the Table of Contents. All in collections created as long as 200 years before the council made its decision, and all already buried or hidden away long before the council so there is no way they could have somehow altered these manuscripts.

When you actually look at the evidence for the New Testament documents, you will discover that they are accurate and reliable, and can stand up to "scholarship" when questioning which books are included.

May I suggest you check out this information by the late Dr FF Bruce, one of the formost experts on the New Testament documents. http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

Answer 6

All anyone can be accountable for is that which they were given to know. If there were books left out of the Bible or added to it then the people responsible will have to deal with God. The rest of us can only hope we got the most important parts. Could there have been an epistle of Barnabus or any of the other seventy Jesus called to spread the word? Certainly. Were they relevant? Quite probably. Whatever God wants us to know that we may have been kept from knowing He will fill us in on as He sees fit.

Answer 7

A lot of people spoke to Jesus they did not all write a gospel and not all that wrote about Him are in the Bible. Take for example Josephus. The bible is a pretty exhaustive book there is no need for any other writings. Jim, a lot of people spoke to Darwin and most of them that knew him in his time knew he was a crack pot and many put it on paper. Why do you worship him?

Answer 8

Well, Take for example the Gospel (good news) according to Luke, Jesus never spoke to Luke. Luke took down eye witness accounts. Why did God include it? Because He could.

Answer 9

the present day bible was assimilated over 400 years after Jesus died. The books (letters) chosen by priests. Many letters were chosen as unsuitable because they did not further the position of the church. I am sure that position was to instill fear of eternal damnation to control the masses and collect their money. A man named Jesus may have lived, I am not disputing that, but the words that were said to have been spoken and the deeds said that he performed, were from the imagination of men.

Answer 10

Perhaps you will get your answer from the devil. However you may have to reject his answer too because it is preprogrammed by hate for centuries. But maybe you will find something that will help you here
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html

Here is another preprogrammed answer

God's Gospel:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"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." John 3:16

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10