if something is not in the bible?

Question

does that make it untrue ?
i ask this in referance to the question about Lilith and seen the responses from some that said ... the bible doesnt support it
but what about the other books that were taken out of the bible ?
what about the parts that didnt make the final cut at the council of Nicaea ?

Answer 1

Bible means library. Libraries are composed of books selected by mankind.

If you want to find the truth, look far and wide.

Seek and you will find.

Most Christians accept that The Devil is a fallen Angel but where is it mentioned in the bible about the fall? 1 Enoch.

Read The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gnostic Scriptures and The first/Ethiopic Book of Enoch to help you on your way.

Enjoy them.

Answer 2

It might be true or it might not, its just hard to tell. Christians accept the bible as is as authoritative, although there are some differences - eg the Catholics accept the Apocryphal writings, also many of the writings of the fathers of the church as inspired, and on an par with the standard biblical books.
Anything outside the basic stuff might be right, but how do you know that the person who wrote them wasn't making it up, or wasn't partly deceived, or hasn't let his own notions colour what he believes is from God? You have to make a judgement in that case, hence its easiest to establish a canon that is reliable, which has been established by a group of the wisest people in the church.
If you read Ecclesiasticus its easy to see why the Apocrypha is deprecated and regarded as part reliable by the Protestant denominations and Jews. Some of it is highly misogynistic, for starters. Also what is one to make of an instruction to beat your slave very severely if he is lazy - it doesnt fit in with the canonical Old Testament ideas at all.
I read one of the gnostic gospels alledgely by Mary Magdalene and I think most genuine people would dismiss it pretty quickly; it took pride in being obscure and disjointed.

Answer 3

Hmm... My personal view is that the problem lies in the interpretation of the phrase 'word of God'.

Clearly the Bible was written by men. But was what they wrote effectively dictated by God (and so literally true in every detail, like the Qur'an is said to be) or inspired (and so limited by the writer's own knowledge and experience of the world) ?

If you think that the Bible is literally the Word of God then I guess anything that was left out is indeed untrue, for why would God leave it out?

If on the other hand the writers did their best to describe the lessons and knowledge God wished to impart in a way that would be understandable by a contemporary audience then there may well be books subsequently deemed to be 'inconsistent' and therefore left out of the canon.

The latter seems to me more likely and would account for the introduction of external references such as Lilith, Hell or whatever. I suggest that these were simply allegorical, but commonly understood, concepts that the writers used to best convey their meaning.

They are of course separate form heresies, which are interpretations of doctrine which did not fit in or have fallen out of favour.
.

Answer 4

No. If you take the generous view, the Council put the most important documents in to a book called The Bible, which gives us the essential information needed to understand how God wants us to lead our lives. It all gets a bit difficult to resolve if there is a complete conflict with another document. But some of these have been shown to be untrustworthy for reasons unrelated to the point of issue. Also some are suspected of being mischevious.

Answer 5

Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another, and all because of the private interpretation of the Bible.


One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother, and likewise, one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher. It is the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, which alone preserves God's Word from erroneous interpretation.

It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity. That adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.

Answer 6

What kind of measuring stick is the bible? Who knows who actually wrote what is left in it? Who knows how many "translations" have altered it's original meaning? Who knows what was really omitted and included in it's original format? If anybody actually does, it's in their best interests to keep schtum, that's for sure.

Anyhow, it's just a book, written by people. Even if they did their best to be brutally honest and not at all biased to make their religious/ political point of view more credible (which is unlikely), there would have been mistakes.

And that's assuming that there actually is a God in the first place, which is a pretty sweeping assumption and has no empirical backing.

Believe what seems right to you - if there is a god, he's supposed to know the truth in your heart etc., so you'll be okay if you get it a bit wrong.

If there isn't, it's a moot point anyhow.

Answer 7

No. Jut because it's not in the bible, it definitely does not mean it is not true. I find people often use that excuse to claim that dinosaurs never excised and that aliens do not exist. We know dinosaurs existed, and there is no proof to the non-existence of aliens. These are just examples of course. So, just because it isn't in the bible, doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

Answer 8

And what of those books that were eliminated later such as Tobit which is in the Catholic and Orthodox canon, but not in the King James Version? The Apocrypha are most interesting.

Answer 9

The definition of the Trinity is not in the Bible but Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are mentioned. Jesus is not in the OT, but Isiah speaks of 'the suffering servant' which the christian church takes to mean Jesus.

Answer 10

The Church (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) maintains that there are two sources of reference. The Bible and Sacred tradition. Sacred tradition is the accounts which are authentic and passed down from the apostles and early fathers. These are documented in books that are not part of the bible.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Tradition