Missing chapters

Great Debates
1

Can I ask why you fundies are so vehement about quoting from an incomplete book? Even the Vatican admits now that there are several unpublished chapters of the bible in the catacombs. Unpublished because the bible has been edited, by the RC church(centuries ago). Yes, they do admit this.
Yet Catholics and Christians alike (and many more denominations) go about swearing by and on this incomplete bible.
No, I am not just starting shit. I really want to know why you don’t see it as incomplete…and why you don’t have a burning desire to see the rest of it.
I certainly would love to read the unpublished chapters, and the explanation of why they were left out.

JBW

*Oh No - Not another learning experience!

2

Without your being a bit more specific, it’s hard to know what we’re discussing. We’ve recently hashed over the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, for instance. Do you have that in mind, or something different?

If the Vatican had, say, a few missing chapters of one of the four acknowledged Gospels tucked away in the basement, I’d find that interesting and worthy of discussion. But so far, I’m not sure what we’re talking about.

3

Well, as these chapters are not published…I’d say that I don’t know the titles. I was refering to the old testament chapters that had been left out. Sorry, if I’m not specific enough for ya. This is a General Question, meant to evoke a General Answer.

JBW

*Oh No - Not another learning experience!

4

ALso there are other Gospels, that were not published…new testament stuff.

JBW

*Oh No - Not another learning experience!

5

apnea:

Do you feel that every thing written on the subject of their faith by any Jew or early Christian is worthy of being included in the Canon?

If so, how big a book do you want this to be?

If not, do you have a better method of determining what doesn’t really belong than a council of leaders (and scholars) from the religions in question?

Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”

6

Okay, nobody has a copyright on the Bible. And anybody who wants to can publish it, with or without whatever they want to include. (Caveat: various translations have indeed been copyrighted – you cannot set up your own press and bring out the New English Bible, for example, without paying royalties.)

Churches with some strong central control, and church agencies with specific charters, will have some say over what is included or excluded from a book they will give their aegis to or themselves publish. Examples: Roman Catholics are expected to utilize translations with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in public worship; AFAIK, they are free to study from any translation, bearing in mind that there may be “slanting” of the text in translations without authorization. The Society for the Promulgation of Christian Knowledge (AKA British and Foreign Mission Society) is required by its charter to publish Bibles without the Apocrypha.

Gospels other than the regular four have been known since my namesake was a teenager, and have been rejected as heretical, treating legend as Gospel (I can hear the comments on this one! :)), non-apostolic, etc.

Far from “hiding chapters in the Vatican,” the Catholic Church has been the one pushing the long forms of Esther and Daniel (the two books that have “missing chapters” in the normal 66-book Bibles), and a series of additional books that didn’t make the cut in the original Vulgate or the Common-Era Jewish canon. (Chaim, if you’re lurking, I would be extremely interested in knowing the Jewish “take” on the Writings that were left out of the modern Jewish Bible, such as Wisdom, Baruch, Judith, and Tobit.)

There have been several threads around the seven boards here recently on the Apocrypha, the Pseudopigrapha, the deuterocanonical books, and other off-the-wall stuff.

It’s only fair to note that two major denominations also accept the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants as Scripture. The Pearl includes several books that are alleged to have been written by major O.T. figures.

7

Poly - this is a bit off the thread, but other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who accepts as Scripture the books mentioned in your concluding paragraph?

And Chaim, I’ll second Poly’s request: I’d be interested in a Jewish take on the books that the Catholics added to their Old Testament along the way. To me, it always seemed apparent why they didn’t make the original cut: there’s nothing specifically wrong with them, but, IMO, they just lack a certain something. I’d rather read Zephaniah, who’s minor even by Minor Prophets’ standards. :wink:

8

You must have missed Monty and I exchanging comments on this:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, HQ Salt Lake City, UT, followers of Brigham Young, etc.

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, HQ Independence, MO, followers of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s son, some disagreement with the SLC group on doctrine

And c’mon, Zephaniah is “minor even by Minor Prophets’ standards.”? Anybody who comes up with the image of God dancing with joy over his people returning to him has gotta be somebody special. I like Habakkuk too, by the way. Now Obadiah and Nahum, they’re so minor that it’s considered offensive to expose them to the Song of Solomon! :wink:

9

Alrighty, let me set this straight. For all you religiously well-educated folks, I see that I have some more reading to do. My question comes from shows I have seen (tv, the fount of info) and stuff I’ve heard in church. What church? An odd one, I admit. My mother has been in a “New Age” religion since I was three, and my religious education was probably a little different from yours. Probably had less actual fact included in it. No, I am not a member of her church, just grew up in it. The difference you ask? Choice.
Now, I would like to learn more, including why ‘Fundamentalists Christians’ and the like are quoting this current King James version of the bible so vehemently. Especially as it is an admittedly incomplete book.

10

Sigh… I really must not be a fundie… I don’t even own a KJV…

::looks around::

Who do I give this ID card to???

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

11

Another problem with lumping all Fundamentalists together, Nav. Keep your card–some of us realize you’re not a Jack Chick type. :slight_smile:

My ol’ man is a Methodist preacher. He’s theologically conservative (like, Augustinian). As soon as people hear that they assume he’s fundy. Go fig.

-andros-