Why are there no new books of the Bible?

is discussion of the dead sea scrolls relevant to this discussion.

 

I was thinking maybe it's because we have more information now, with the Internet and all, and people have become more skeptical and critical. But after thinking about Scientology, Raelians, Virgin Mary sitings in cheese sandwiches, and some of the recent discussions going on on the Christian forum, I thought: Nah. Scientology and the Raelians are interesting cases. Do they have Scriptures? Maybe L. Ron Hubbard's writings could qualify. And there's another interesting case involving the appearances of the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje, Bosnia. She's been giving out lots of new stuff, originally to some kids (now adults) that's being published by somebody in ads that appear from time to time in my local newspaper. It's become a big tourist mecca, and many people attending have reported miracles, like the sun changing position--although some people in the same crowd don't see them, and staring at the sun long enough can do things to your eyes. Two successive bishops over there have denounced it as a scam, but it continues and the ex-kids have a handler, a Rasputin-like Franciscan monk. Some of the messages countermand the authority of the bishops.

 

The gospel of thomas kix arse and contradicts the bible. It teaches that we are all god. Which is why christians hate it.

 

I don't read it quite that way, but it does teach that: "the kingdom of heaven is spread out everywhere around (us) and (we) do not see it." Didymus, eh.?

 

maybe soon....http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

 

I dunno, the cynic in me says that if someone showed up declaring that God was speaking through him, humanity's normal reaction would be to give him a good drubbing. But maybe that's just England.

 

That is only because it challenges their current pre-conceived beliefs.

If Jesus Christ himself showed up, in his true form... humanity would also give him a good drubbing and throw him in a crazy house.

 

The Bible talks about the creation of the world and the End, and your survival guide for in between. According to the Bible that's all you need. Case solved.

 

ok didnt read the whole thread so this could have been answered already.

its been a long time since any new books have been added, though in relativity not as long as from when they were first compiled.

the original books the torah, genesis, exodus and leviticus were the first, carried threw scribe and extreme protocal to ensure every dash and dot were the same, though more so many other books of the prophets and simply the history of the plight of isreal compiles, laws and structure compiled upon compiled , to modern day judasim, and as a branch christianity as a further branch mormosisim, johova witnesses, and so many others...like any tree really carrying branches.

though if we follow the christian vine the prophets ( old testament ) and the cannon/gospels were picked out of hundreds around 500 years after the death of christ, comparison extremely close to the dead sea scrolls, one of the latest finds of judis christian heritage, and upholds many beliefs in this faithg of the divinity of the books nature...

after this councile that elected the cannon, now certain guidlines had to be kept for every included gospel or letter in the new and old testament, one of them was prophecy fullfillment and repidition.

proof threw other scripture.
( the old testament for 98% weas written in hebrew)
the new testament written in greek/latin
though yeshua himself....
yeshua was the name jesus was called in his day translated into latin...jesus.he didnt speak hebrew....isisnt that a kicker huh?

any way
when the latin was translated this brought a slow to the concise nature of scripture passed and repeated dash and dot.
though some theologians argue that in one gospel when christ asked his father to remove this cup from his hands the same where he sweat droplets of blood is prayer, manyargue that a scribe changed this after the fact though before the council to recognise the humanitya nd suffering he knew he would endure in his enevidal crucifiction...

though the the other argument is...he told peter to get behind himsatan, as peter rebuked the notion that harm would come to him....it all gets complicated from there and its been a while since my studies so Im not going into that...ANYWAY

from luthers translation came the slow demise of the apophrica
certain books that didnt really have the original guidlines of prohecy and fullfillment and repidition.

many books in this hailed by the vatican as truth were cleary seen as education spured following the dark ages to prove the foolishness and greed of such things as peragtory...though argued by some of the tale of lazureth who fell into haities and seperated by a void but was able to call into paradise asking for water...again not going into it...pick up a bible.

still paying money to get out of hell???? come now.

never the less, new translations ecoured increasingly threw out the last century from the original ...k original ISH version of the king james to now we get amplified versions, todays standars, study bibles ect.....

lazyness and foolishness on the part of the church to allow scripture the chance of miss interpretation...something that never happens right????

come on no one ever hears of anyone miss quoting the bible.......smirk!!!!


lovin yall

peace
drew


been a while since I could write about that chapter in my life

though hundreds of years later martin luth translated

 

Good to hear from you man. I've been a fan, but in a different context. Didn't know you were a deep thinker and Bible scholar.

 

many sides to me, I grew up n a monastry in north carolina and a buddist temple in woodstock ny theology is just..well my thing

 

My point was that, since the Bible we know and love was compiled over a number of years, from a number of books written over a number of years, why did they "dry up", so to speak? There was definitely a point in the Bible's history when it was not complete, and was added to. So I don't think there's no reason to believe that it might legitimately be added to again.

That's if we believe that God is as active now as He was then, of course.

 

But would people recognize them? The Abrahamic religions have the idea that it's all settled. It might be that new stuff is coming out in odd quarters--maybe Carl Sagan's writings or the latest book by Dawkins or Sam Harris. Possibly Darwin's Origin of the Species.

 

I guess what I'm appealing to/against is the idea that the Bible cannot be rewritten or edited; that even though at one point it was mutable, it is now immutable, and that if that just so happens to mean that hating gays or brainlessly supporting corrupt regimes is okay, well, we can't exactly go against the (now) unwavering word of the Lord, can we?

I guess I kind of want to know also what happens to the guys who followed the rules in the Bible before it was fully completed. Are they okay, or do they get punished for not having obeyed laws that are absolute but which hadn't been introduced yet? And if they don't, then does that mean the Lord made a mistake?

 

The Bible is complete as it is.

 

Why do you believe this?

 

Because I believe the Bible already answers all the major questions, who, what, where, when and how, so anything else would be superfluous.

Also because the Bible itself says so.

 

Does the Bible never repeat itself?

 

well then according to the bible, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

According to the Bible, is genetic engineering okay?