In the Bible what chapter and verse is the Table of Contents?

Question

Question always gets such a reaction,

but seriously, some Bibles have an Apocrapha some don't.

How do you know which books and verses are supposed to be included in the Bible.

Answer 1

apocrypha

1. a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.
2. various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
3. writings, statements, etc., of doubtful authorship or authenticity.

On the provided information,

Lack of authorship and authenticity bringing about doubt could possibly mean that one has no faith as of it's origin.

How do you know which books and verses are supposed to be included in the Bible.

My answer is faith.

Answer 2

Good question, Jim. If the Bible is infallible and the sole source of truth, why doesn't the Bible specify anywhere what's in the Bible?

Answer: the canon of scripture evolved slowly over the first three centuries of the church. Contrary to the whole da Vinci Code thing, it was largely settled long before Constantine, and its final form wasn't decided at Nicea, but at the Council of Gangra.

However: Christianity was a complex phenomenon, with many different groups competing for legitimacy, each with its own scriptures. The orthodox won out, ultimately by connecting themselves with imperial power, and suppressed the others. That's why we have the books we do.

The Apocrypha come from intertestamental works written mostly in Greek by Jews in the Diaspora (in Egypt, for example) under Gentile influence. They were not accepted as scripture by Jews in Palestine. The victory of Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the temple ensured that it was the Palestinian (rather than Alexandrian) canon of the Old Testament that became the "official" Jewish version. The Apocrypha were preserved only in Greek, and only by the Christians.

When the Protestant reformers came along, they wanted to go back to original languages, and they thought that meant Hebrew for the Old Testament, so they bagged the Greek Apocrypha.

Answer 3

There is a real reason for that. The word apocrypha comes from Greek means uninspired. Jewish Rabbis decanonized some Jewish Bible books that were written in Hellenistic Greek during the diaspora. Although they are no longer considered scripture, they are still used for teaching purposes by Jewish people. This happened after Christianity was well established as a separate tradition. The earliest Christian Bibles contained these 7 books in their original locations in the Old Testament. Catholic and Orthodox Churches maintain this traditional Bible structure and do not call these books apocrypha because we consider them actual scripture. Anglicans follow the Jewish line on these books and use them for teaching but do not consider them scriptures. Anglican Bibles have these books in their own section usually placed in between the Old and New Testaments. Fundamentalists do not use them at all and if they even know about them will usually cal them false books added by Catholics.

Answer 4

When the printing press was invented and people started to put together the Bible, there was a debate as to which texts should be included. The Catholic theologians had one point of view vs. the Protestants who took their lead from the Hebrew (Jewish) Old Testament. In the Catholic Bible, there are 7 more books in the Old Testament. This was done hundreds of years ago by people using the technology available at that time. If we were to do it today, there would be a completely different Bible.

Answer 5

I've come to the conclusion (all on my own), that the book of revelation is what you're looking for. It's like a 'Cliff's Notes', that uses exotic symbols to represent the themes of each of the books.

As for the old testament, the begets and begats form the framework for the original oral tradition.

This opinion, if accepted, makes that book rather dull, so most people don't accept it. Pity....

Answer 6

We believe those who have come before us and studied the Bible just like you believe those who have come before you and studied science...

Answer 7

I don't, I interpret the original hebrew and arameic ramblings written on sheepskin ;)