Are there lost chapters of the bible

There are 54 biblical passages that cite 20 different titles of "lost books," but scholars believe these titles are just duplicates. When we think of the Bible which is to be the inspired Word of God, we cannot believe that this book would not be complete. We know the Spirit of God worked through man who wrote the Bible, so we conclude man makes mistakes. Yes, mistakes are possible, but not mandatory. Human beings can and do produce writings with NO errors.

Divine inspiration solves that problem of human involvement as God insures the results so it doesn't make any difference who does the writing. It is also theorized that since man produced the Scriptures, then the Bible is not the Word of God.

It is made up of beliefs of the early church leaders, therefore, since they rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs and did not represent their point of view then they have the final word on what is included. Any books they rejected were never part of their Bible to begin with so the definition of "lost books" is not defined correctly.

The early church had within its authority to reject as non-canonical certain books, but they are not lost; merely discarded. Archaeology has discovered many manuscripts that are most valuable and significant, but while they are noteworthy and wonderful pieces of literature, they are not lost books of the Bible. Learn More about the Gospel of St. What do you think? Were they removed? They were recognized as not being God-breathed. One set of extra-biblical books are called apocryphal or deuterocanonical.

These are the books that are typically found in a Catholic Bible. These books can be helpful for understanding history, some have entertaining stories, and still others sound similar to wisdom texts or Psalms and Proverbs. So why were they not considered authoritative? They were never cited by Jesus or the New Testament authors though that is true of some others in the OT , but more importantly by the way Jesus spoke of the Old Testament division, it is clear that he would not have considered these to be on par with Scripture.

The Apocryphal books do not claim for themselves the same type of authority as other Old Testament literature. Likely, these book slipped in when Jerome placed them in the Latin Vulgate. He was uncertain of where to place them—though he found them beneficial—so he put them in as disputed literature, but eventually they were accepted by the Catholic Church as Scripture.

Another set of extra-canonical books are known as pseudepigraphal and sometimes Lost Books of the Bible , or Gnostic gospels. These were mainly written during the first few centuries after Christ and have unknown authors. Pseudepigrapha means fake author; they are falsely attributed to an apostle. As an example, the Gospel of Peter was not written by the apostle Peter. This alone answers the question of why they were not accepted as canonical. But a closer perusal of their content also would make it obvious why these are not recognized as Scripture.

It too fails the marks of authenticity and being God-breathed. On occasion they will not only contradict other writings, but they do not match up to the rule of faith. These works typically fail all three tests of canonicity. There are some letters and writings from the first couple centuries after Christ which are helpful and beneficial 1 Clement, Shephard of Hermas, Didache, etc.

What about the books which the Latter Day Saints consider to be Scripture? This question actually falls under a different category, new revelation. These too would fail tests of canonicity, but they also fail in regards to whether the canon of Scripture is still open. That is a topic which extends beyond the boundaries of this piece. Yet it is enough to say that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in several places.

Furthermore, orthodox Christians reject Joseph Smith as a prophet. Ultimately our trust in Scripture is a trust in Christ and His ability to faithfully rule over His Bride. Yes, we have been filled with schism.

Yes, there are differences of interpretation. But Jesus clearly believed that Scripture at least the OT was authoritative and infallible. He believed that the history which was presented was legitimate. Of course not. However, some compositions now exist as mere citations in the Old Testament. If this is a form similar to the 1 Chronicles reference to Samuel using the composite authors for the citation , then it is possible that this was a single compilation cited by mentioning its authors.

Another possibility is that these, along with the Acts of Jehu Son of Hanani 2 Chronicles , are all sections in a single work titled Acts of the Seers, which is mentioned in 2 Chronicles Since the authors were prophets or seers, their works could have been gathered into a single book of prophetic revelation, similar to the manner in which the works of the twelve minor prophets were gathered into a single book the Twelve Prophets.

It is possible that Ezra used the composite work if they were placed together , or the individual works, as additional source material in composing Chronicles, or that he cited them in the same manner as the single historical work. So far as we know, these books no longer exist, except in name. Two other non-extant, but cited, works are commentaries on certain books. The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo 2 Chronicles was a commentary on a specific writing that contained the record of King Abijah of Judah.

Another possibility is that it was Kings itself. These midrashim could have been a single work, with the two citations referring to different parts of it. Ezra used these midrashim either as sources for his inspired composition of Chronicles, or as places to look if the reader wanted more information—but the originals have been lost.

Two remaining Old Testament-era books no longer exist except through citations: the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia, and a book by Samuel. It seems to be referenced in Esther and , where the King of Persia is shown placing records in the book and reading from it.

The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia is a lost secular historical record. It is not a lost biblical record. The citation possibly could be a reference to the part of Samuel composed by the prophet Samuel 1 Samuel Six others were written by prophets and seers, and might have been sections in a non-extant prophetic work known as the Book of the Seers.

Two more were commentaries, which also could have been a single work, and two more were books of hymns or poetry. Paul, in Colossians , mentioned an epistle that he sent to the church at Laodicea.

Since an epistle by this name is not found in our New Testament, some have claimed that it is non-extant. While this is one option, there are other possibilities. Some scholars say that it may actually exist in the canon of the Bible, but under a different name. There is internal and external evidence to support this theory. However, there is another possibility. The text never stated that the epistle was from Paul to Laodicea. It simply says that the Colossian church was to procure a certain letter in the possession of the Laodicean church.

This would mean that the church at Laodicea probably had some canonical writing that Paul wanted the Colossian church to read, which would mean that there is no missing Laodicean letter. Of the three explanations lost Laodicean letter, encyclical Ephesians, or canonical epistle in the possession of the Laodiceans , the latter appears to make the most sense. Apparently, there was a section of it that Paul desired the Colossian brethren to read, and so he gave them directions for its procurement.

Technically, the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians could be called more properly 2 and 3 Corinthians, because Paul actually did write an earlier letter to the church in Corinth. What are we to say? This truly is a lost writing of the apostle Paul, and nothing is known about it except that it existed, it was sent to the Corinthian church, and it dealt with sexual immorality. Others were historical references used as sources for inspired books, such as Kings and Chronicles, and so the Jews saw no need to treat them with special reverence, nor to strive to preserve them.

Some were books of poetry or song that were uninspired, but served as a record of Hebrew culture. Others were non-Hebrew sources, making them non-biblical compositions and therefore not canonical writings. However, we must face the fact that some compositions cited by the Old and New Testament writers no longer exist. While under subjugation to the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, the Jews ultimately were able to preserve only those books that were holy and inspired—everything else was destroyed or lost.

While this is unfortunate, it should not affect our faith adversely. The books we have are inspired, and came from inspired men who sometimes mentioned non-inspired sources for recording historical fact, giving places to find additional information, or simply to make a point.