Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does this book contain anymore to it all that's not in there now?

It missed stuff ,then fake stuff was added for filler.

Some people think so and some people dont, depends on what form of christianity you're.

missing the truth

Huh?

We need to get rid of Revelations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We need to get rid of Revelations.

Just not Rev 22:20

It's been rewritten/translated many times, since around 500 B.C. or so... I'm sure plenty of information has been added/removed.

It seems unlikely the Bible has lost content since its formation at the hands of the Romans - however that alone is relevant - the exclusion of the various documents at the council. Should or shouldn't they have been included? Are they relevant? They don't all fit the Biblical narrative; which ones are incorrect?

And even ignoring that the Bible has many holes, many areas that are vague which followers debate about endlessly. And we still don't know what Jesus was doing for a big chunk of his life. Is the Bible missing stuff? Definitely. Was this intended? Possibly. Will it ever be rectified? Unlikely as the answers don't exist (and no one has the authority, what with the originals authors being dead, to fill in the holes.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It seems unlikely the Bible has lost content since its formation at the hands of the Romans - however that alone is relevant - the exclusion of the various documents at the council. Should or shouldn't they have been included? Are they relevant? They don't all fit the Biblical narrative; which ones are incorrect?

And even ignoring that the Bible has many holes, many areas that are vague which followers debate about endlessly. And we still don't know what Jesus was doing for a big chunk of his life. Is the Bible missing stuff? Definitely. Was this intended? Possibly. Will it ever be rectified? Unlikely as the answers don't exist (and no one has the authority, what with the originals authors being dead, to fill in the holes.)

Good post, and true for the most part. Most of it has to do with alternative gospels and documents that weren't considered divinely inspired. It's entirely possible the council that decided these things was guided by God, but it's more likely that they simply had their own ideas, agendas, and biases to form what we consider to be the 'canon' books of the Bible.

And the gap in Jesus' life isn't so surprising if you look at similar stories. A popular motif in the hero/savior tale is a period of anonymity or total disappearence between childhood and adulthood. The ministry of the Buddha, for example, started at a similar time in his life, though his leave-taking was to an ascetic life-style rather than a complete disappearence. If we take the whole thing as metaphor it becomes easier to swallow (because, let's be honest, even the accepted Gospel writers weren't firsthand accounts and were written well after Jesus' death).

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Does this book contain anymore to it all that's not in there now?
This is the Mormon view:


Here is a blatant example of missing text, pay attention to the movement from verse 3 to verse 4:



We also believe that areas have been translated and retranslated, and so some words have altered due to interpretational translation being translated.

Yeah, it's missing fact.

Lots of fiction though!

Theres well over a thousand books that were considered for the bible,we only see the books that best proclaim faith in God today as well as 1500 years ago.
And yes lots of fiction, there always is in most organised religions.

the Bible isn't missing anything, for it to miss something, it first need to have something, which as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't.

Originally posted by ThePittman
missing the truth I agree, being that the bible is not the oldest holy book on the planet.

The Vedas are probably older then the Bible. Do you have a point you're trying to make?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Does this book contain anymore to it all that's not in there now?

The Bible is missing Facts

I think that the Books of Enoch should be in the Bible.

Originally posted by lord xyz
the Bible isn't missing anything, for it to miss something, it first need to have something, which as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. Burn fire2

The Bible is missing parts like 18 years of Jesus's life, that's the big thing I'd like to see

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think that the Books of Enoch should be in the Bible. If certain books are to be believed, then the Bible is missing a couple Gospels too

Originally posted by Strangelove
If certain books are to be believed, then the Bible is missing a couple Gospels too
Definitely not. The New Testament is missing nothing. The Gnostic Gospels are definitely not canon.

Ya, they are missing things that aren't Gnostic.

Originally posted by Gregory
The Vedas are probably older then the Bible. Do you have a point you're trying to make? My point being, the bible had to come from another source. It's not the oldest holy book on the planet and man have believed in god before the bible was introduced to them. The Hebrews were not the first to aknowledge that there was a god, and being they are the authors of the old testament. That means the concept of a higher being came from else where. The oldest holy book on the planet I would say is the "Book of the coming forth by day and by night". It was the first book on record made by man, with regards to a higher being as the creator of man. It was written 3,400 yrs before the old testament and 4,200 yrs before the new testament.

Originally posted by heru
My point being, the bible had to come from another source. It's not the oldest holy book on the planet and man have believed in god before the bible was introduced to them. The Hebrews were not the first to aknowledge that there was a god, and being they are the authors of the old testament. That means the concept of a higher being came from else where. The oldest holy book on the planet I would say is the "Book of the coming forth by day and by night". It was the first book on record made by man, with regards to a higher being as the creator of man. It was written 3,400 yrs before the old testament and 4,200 yrs before the new testament.

The Bible has been heavenly influenced by Zoroastrianism, Greek, Persian, And Egyptian mythos.

Check out my thread "Christian Mythology" for more details.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Definitely not. The New Testament is missing nothing. The Gnostic Gospels are definitely not canon. the definition of 'canon' is "universally accepted"; and the gnostic gospels aren't canon because the Church doesn't want it to be

The bible is missing stuff !? Nooooooo..... SERIOUSLY ?

P.S: not intended as an offense.

The bible is missing lots of books......The cannon is lacking.

Thats because its cannon...a gross oversimplification fed to the masses.