Do you think there were other books written for the bible but were not included? Why do u think they weren't?

Question

All things work together for good to those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose.(Romans 8:28)
With that verse in mind, I believe even if people in the past tampered with different books in the bible, that God's will is still done and His true Word has still been delivered, preached, and taught to His people via the bibles that we have nowadays. God is almighty and He has made His enemies (those who want to paint His word as being false, and take away from His Word, etc.) His footstool. (Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44) Thank God for His living Word! (Hebrews 4:12) God can and will use the things that the enemy designs for stumbling blocks and make them stepping stones. Praise God in Jesus' name!

Answer 1

"The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Macabese 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iranians, Tortellini, and Clement of Alexandria used the apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable Origin and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamie, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Obit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 2

Well, the new testament was formed until about 100 plus years A.D. And There were arguments over which ones should be admitted. And from what I understand, the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) The Acts of the Apostles, 1 Peter, and 1 John are correct, meaning they know who the author was. But some are suspect, meaning the author is unknown, and some are even blatant forgeries. (Not saying that the current Bible is false. LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR.) Eusebius (Known as "The Father Of Church History") even had some books labeled "Spurious."

Answer 3

Nothing was written "for the Bible." A council of bishops in the 4th Century compiled to be the Bible. The considered many writings, accepted some, rejected others They added their choices to the Hebrew writings and the Old and New Testament became what is now called the Bible.

Answer 4

If you want to read an excellent book on the subject, try Elaine Pagels' "Adam, Eve & the Serpent," or any of her books on the origins of Christianity.

The books in the New Testament canon were chosen precisely because those books happened to suit the needs of the developing orthodoxy and its bureaucratic infrastructure. They stressed the idea of "apostolic succession" - as the self-proclaimed inheritors of the tradition supposedly bestowed upon the apostles by Christ himself, they could speak with unique authority on all matters Christian, and brand all traditions outside of theirs as apostacy and heresy. This version won out precisely because it was institutional and authoritative and "ready-made" - i.e. they told their flock what to think rather than expecting them to figure anything out for themselves.

As for the texts, the canonical gospels are generally agreed to have been composed in the last few decades of the first century. But many of the "apocryphal" gospels of which we're aware were probably composed around the same time, or only slightly later. The real reason these texts - the "gnostic" gospels so-called - were not included in what became the NT was because they stressed the primacy of individual revelation or "gnosis," as opposed to blind subjugation to the external authority of the Church hierarchy. The quote "It is not enough to be a Christian - one must become a Christ" is typical.

Answer 5

fully conclusive is the e book with assistance from that tremendous Semitics pupil : The Pentateuch as Narrative with assistance from John Sailhamer those pupils is merely no longer at your area on the Judgment.; imagine for your self. As for me, i have translated all Genesis from both Greek and Hebrew and am attentive to it contained in the latin and contained in the 5 or 6 commentaries of St Augustine , etc. also understand that the Catholic Church at its maximum conservative merely opined the 'significant Mosaic authorship'. Our recommendations of authorship are literally not an identical because the Semitic cultures.

Answer 6

There were numerous writings during the early years of the church. But the compiling of the Scriptures was an act of God. We might say that God knew which ones He wrote. BTW: The Epistle of Barnabus, 1st Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas should still be considered worthy of study.

Answer 7

I had this discussion Sunday with one of our ushers. He was talking like we should take every book found and put into the Bible. In that case the Bible would be so large it would rival the encyclopedia. Hardly something we could get in a pocketbook edition. Many of the books are repetitious and are all are available in the archives and can be accessed on line. So its a moot point.

Answer 8

There were 100's of writings in existence during the early church. It wasn't until about the year 400 when the Catholic Church assembled these writings and, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, approved the 27 books of the new testament that we have today.

Answer 9

Ummm...yeah there was lots of them...look up the agnostic gospels...Gospel of Timothy and many many more

They are not included becuase they did not follow the basic criteria for the Bible. Some of the scenarios they present just do not add up to what we believe: ie Jesus killing a man and bringing him back to life to show how powerful he was. That is one of them but i am not quite sure which.

Answer 10

Moses has 5 books in the Bible. But in truth and in fact Moses wrote 10 books. I have the other five. It deals with conjurations and unseen forces along wioth seals and prays that were given to Moses by God. So you tell me why the left it out. They did that so they can feed us their image of what God is suppose to. Not the fact that he is creator of evey thing on this planet seen and unseen. he is a neutral being. A neutral force. He that created also destroyed and is and is still doing