Evidence for God from Science

Pardon me if I seem uneducated in such manners. I was always taught ....... or I always assumed that the current revision of the Bible (authorized KJV) and all the books therein was all there was. Now lately it seems I've been asking tough questions of my mentors and brothers in the faith such as.......(light in my head goes on) Hey..... King David...loves the lord and yet falls into sin and becomes an adultery... murdered etc etc. All charges of which pretty much bear the death sentence of being stoned to death. How is it he never got stoned to death? Those kinda questions.

Well some time ago I noticed various books in the Bible would quote or make reference to another book that wasn't there. IE: is it not also written in the book of Jasher? Joshua 10:13 .
I never gave these references a second thought until some time ago when I asked myself.. "Where or what happened to all these books"?

Well is so happens that from what I've found so far is that many of the books that were available were voted out of the bible by the World Bible Society sometime around 1500ad. They were not considered to be Canon. Yet some of which are directly quoted in current books of the bible.

Considering I'm no Bible scholar and barely educated by today's standards (No college) with not one shred of learned teaching on church history and keeping in mind that I'm a wretched (or I was) sinner, fallible and naive in my personal nature I did a little digging regarding these missing or lost books and found this brief explanation regarding church history and the missing books.

My question is rather simple. Is this really true or at least a good representation of the truth?
http://www.thelostbooks.com/intro.htm

Thank you for your input.

Hi Thwarp,

I have a BA in Biblical Lit and did some work in this area on my Senior Thesis. I haven't stayed deep into it since then but I'm familiar enough to answer your questions.

There are some other books that are mentionied in Scripture, some of which we have and some of which have disappeared. There are two categories generally for these books. The ones that are included in the Catholic Bible or Cannon but not included in the Protestant Bible are typically called The Apocrypha. Many of them are from what is called the Intertestemental Period between the times of the last book in the OT and the First one in the NT. DUring this time, Israel was occupied and subject to some severe persecution and attempts to turn them from God. During this time there was a popular uprising knows as the Maccabean Revolt (2 of the books in the Apocrypha are called I and 2 Maccabees for this reason. The Protestant church in general recognizes them as valuable and historically significant books that have important information but for various reasons they failed to make the Cannon.

The other broader category of Books is know as the PseudoPigrapha or "False Writings." It was not unusual in that day and age for people to write books under the assumed name of somebody whose name was known. In Christianity in the early centuries there were other groups that over time competed for the title of orthodox. It wasn't unusual for members of those groups to attempt to write books that they attributed to prominent figures of history (Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself even) and use their name. There are literally hundreds or more of them. Some of them are collections of esoteric sayings believed to contain mysteries needing special or secret understanding. This was common for example in gnosticism. Some were attempts to fill in missing history like the infancy of Jesus. Some of them sound somewhat reasonable and were written with serious intent. Some of them are just obviously off the wall (the infancy narrative of Thomas for example is a hoot.)

The site you have above I didn't look very closely at but it looks to me like one of many that have been a part of a resurgence in modern times of seeking to understand things like Gnosticism and these other strains of early Christiainity that didn't become known as orthodox. There's a fairly strong modern movement that questions the cannon of the church and they are returning to these books attracted to the mysticism and the ease by which they can be incorporated into new age type spiritual explorations. Too, they serve to allow them to question or diminish the canonical books of the Bible.

Probably the best thing to remember about why the Church elevates the books that it does is not that there was a gathering of leaders to determine which books were genuine and authoritative but that they basically came together to affirm what the church already knew were the books that could be traced back to people who knew and were with Jesus, and/or the Apostles. They were closer to the time than us and there were people alive at that time who could trace back pretty reliably what was needed. Yes there were a few that were close calls and some that have been questioned since, and differences of opinion abound and likely will for a long time. The cannon we have however has stood the test of time and been continuously affirmed as to their usefullness in seeing and knowing Christ.

Look carefully at sites that claim to be proclaiming or restoring "lost books." Often they're just hooks to bring people in to something that really isn't that "new" at all but old traditions that were declared heretical or in error a long, long time ago. You have to ask yourself, what do we think we know better than those who were closer to the events.

Now that my brother has been the best understood and yet directly comprehensive explanation anyone has attempted to give me. Its easily understood and more so...easier to swallow.

But if I may defer just an inch or two. Considering the books of the Apocrypha and their non canon like stature, yet as you said they are still considered important for their historical relevance, would you consider them an important read for the historical application? Much like the many that esteem Josephus and hist writings in the same context?

Now what about some of the OT refferals such as the book of Enoch? Just skimming some of those references it seems to have some historical basis as well. To my interest it seems to have some rather detailed information regarding fallen angels..... The Nephilim and some possible (without looking very deep into it) descriptions of antediluvian life.

Thanks again for taking the time Canuckster (I'm assuming you're Canadian from the name) to answer my post in as much detail as you did.

You're welcome. Glad it helped.

I wasn't as detailed about some of the other references in the OT. There were some referred to as you note. The thing that might help to keeo in mind is that with some obvious exceptions, (Moses and the first 5 books of the law and perhaps the Gospels in particular) many books that are now "scripture" weren't necessarily known to be destined to be scripture by the one's writing it at the time. This many be going a little off line from what you're asking, but I don't believe when men wrote the Scripture (and possibly women if you take some theories for the book of Hebrews seriously), that they necessarily knew that they were writing "scripture". They were functioning in different capacities; their intellects were engaged. They spoke about things familiar to them, including at times other records that tied into or confirmed what they were saying. Some of these books themselves were not inspired per se but they would have been known by those who were reading the originals.

Really to me, that is what in part argues for the authenticity of them. THe books incorporated into scripture, as mentioned, have stood the test of time. They're not contrived to take all the lose ends out in a designed way. THey were written as given through men guided by the Holy Spirit but not dictated with no human involvement. Scriptures are both consummately divine and human. You look at some of these posers and at times you can see the effort to make them neat and packaged and to answer anticipated questions. God didn't deliver scripture in a neat little package from the skies. Just as Jesus would be revealed as Divine and Human so too the Scriptures are in that category in their role to point us toward Christ.

When you look at these other books that we have that are "rejected" it doesn't mean there's nothing of value there. There can be history present which helps to give us a picture of the times and know the influences upon the writer and hearers of the time and that is valuable. But when you read these apocryphal and pseudolpigraphal works (and I've read the entire apocrypha and many, many pseudopigraphal works) there's just a different quality to them. Sometimes it's pronounced like the difference between Dickens and a Harlequin Romance. Sometimes is subtle and there's just not the sense of authority and genuineness that I believe the Holy Spirit gives to our spirit letting us know that these are the words God has given us, not to worship for themselves but to rejoice in for what they show us about God and how they point us to Jesus, whom if you read my tagline you'll see I believe is the greatest and most clear vision of God we can and will ever have.

To answer your direct question, I would say that reading the apocrypha is something that can benefit everyone. There's some very good history and there's some things there that we do no know anywhere else. Josephus is valuable as a historian of his day and particularly because he provides some confirmation outside of scripture to affirm Jesus s a true historical figure. Jospehus outside of that is actually not necessarily worthy of all the attention he gets. As was common in that day he was patronized by a sponsor who had expectations as to the spin that would be put on the writing. There were many just like that from those time frames.

Enoch is mentioned in Jude and appears by the way it was used to be familiar and known by both the writer and assumed to be familiar to the audience. THat's not unusual necessarily. Just because the a Biblical book refers to another doesn't necessarily attribute canonical status to it. Scripture quotes Satan. You can believe that Scripture does that for a reason and is true in it's preservation of the words but that doesn't affirm and endorse Satan as a source. Obviously that's an extreme example but it does illustrate the point well I think.

Don't be afraid to learn or look at these types of writings. There's some interesting things there and there's nothing wrong with investigating them if it's of interest to you. Just keep in mind that there's a time for hamburger and a time for steak.

Thanks for the information Mr. Bart. You've more than satisfied my question(s). I think your advice is correct in that reading them would be merely an interest and not a food source
I think latter on down the road I will probably look into the Apocryhpa.... perhaps even Enoch as well. But for now considering where I have been in life and the struggles I am currently undergoing because of where I've been , I think it best get more focused on Jesus and deal with some guilt and some doubt......learn a bit about what systematic theology is and perhaps stay focused on that for awhile.

Although I am curious if there's much (if any) information left about antediluvian life that's has any merit to it. I mean after all.....though there is a quandary of antediluvian relics out there such as a few geological sites both above and below the oceans (99 % inorganic items) I call into question the survival probability for any transcripts to have survived the flood and being buried for so long that all's there is left are stories of Folklore which we both know have seams of truth mixed in with run a muck imaginations. Its best to leave these things on the shelf to gather some dust and focus on whats really important right now. Though I will print up this post for future reference.

Thanks so very much for all the information as well as taking the time to got into detail.

My the Lord Bless you real good real soon

Thwarp wrote:Pardon me if I seem uneducated in such manners. I was always taught ....... or I always assumed that the current revision of the Bible (authorized KJV) and all the books therein was all there was. Now lately it seems I've been asking tough questions of my mentors and brothers in the faith such as.......(light in my head goes on) Hey..... King David...loves the lord and yet falls into sin and becomes an adultery... murdered etc etc. All charges of which pretty much bear the death sentence of being stoned to death. How is it he never got stoned to death? Those kinda questions.

Well some time ago I noticed various books in the Bible would quote or make reference to another book that wasn't there. IE: is it not also written in the book of Jasher? Joshua 10:13 .
I never gave these references a second thought until some time ago when I asked myself.. "Where or what happened to all these books"?

Well is so happens that from what I've found so far is that many of the books that were available were voted out of the bible by the World Bible Society sometime around 1500ad. They were not considered to be Canon. Yet some of which are directly quoted in current books of the bible.

Considering I'm no Bible scholar and barely educated by today's standards (No college) with not one shred of learned teaching on church history and keeping in mind that I'm a wretched (or I was) sinner, fallible and naive in my personal nature I did a little digging regarding these missing or lost books and found this brief explanation regarding church history and the missing books.

My question is rather simple. Is this really true or at least a good representation of the truth?
http://www.thelostbooks.com/intro.htm

Thank you for your input.

Just so you know and can feel at ease. Many of these books can still be read. The gnostic gospels are supposedly from books that didn't "make it" as it were into the bible. I have read many of them and I see why they were not put in with the rest of the bible, and it has nothing to do with controversial material at all. It has to do with the fact that they do not add anything of value to what is already there. Ones that were voted out were redundant or held no significant merit as to be included. Do not feel like this is anything that any Christian would be ashamed of at all. Please feel free to read as many of those books as you can in order to ease your mind and renew your trust in what the bible says. When you read them. Read the actual books and not books that contain bits and pieces combined with the authors own commentary on the material. You find all sorts of conspiracy theories and the like surrounding this issue and they have no merit besides confusion. -Read the books for yourself.

-Peace.

Seven please correct me if I'm wrong but dont the gnostic books have a poorer historicity than the rest of the new testament? I have also heard this being mentioned by various new testament scholars.

bippy123 wrote:Seven please correct me if I'm wrong but dont the gnostic books have a poorer historicity than the rest of the new testament? I have also heard this being mentioned by various new testament scholars.

I am no expert by any stretch. I just heard that the books were written by other apostles or followers of Jesus in the day. There is a book of Mary Magdalene etc and I read several of them online. From my understanding the historical authenticity of much of them are in question, but from what I read they dont need any scrutiny. They dont add or take away from the current gospels at all in my opinion. They are interesting reads that proclaim Christ and tell of other events not listed in the Biblical Gospels. I see them as benign.

Gnostic books tend to be somewhat light in terms of actual narrative. The focus in Gnostic Literature is more upon esoteric or secret knowledge that is "hidden" in the sayings of teachers or prominent figures. I have some posting up in other threads about the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas which was discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 50s. It was one of those "lost pieces of literature" that was mentioned in several places in early church or extra-church literature. When it was found it ended up just being a serious of quotes from Jesus Christ, many of whicih were for all intents and purposes identical to New Testament sayings of Christ. SOme of which were similar but differed in a significant manner and some of which were nowhere else to be found. It caused a stir in the academic world and as late as the 1970s there were those who suggested that we might now have something that comes from what is known in Biblical Scholarship as the "Q" document (q is from the French for "quelle" which means "what?"). There are not many who seriously entertain that today that have any strong credibility in my opinion.

The Gospel of Thomas introduces with this short phrase and then goes straight to the Logia or "Sayings" and there is not any narrative text beyond the introduction to hold the quotes together or provide them with context (very typical of Gnostic documents of this type.)

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

While this isn't much by way of example there are strong clues here as to the nature of the material that follows. The use of the term "living" in front of Jesus is a sort of title giving him status as a "master" or possessor of the secret knowledge and it's a relative common term in other gnostic literature. The "Didymos" is a term that means "twin." Twins too were very significant in gnostic circles. Twins were held as somewhat special and balancing expressions of one another. It's another "tell" as to the material to follow.

A lot of these documents are online.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

This is a good site for the Nag Hammadi collection.