ou know, your post makes me think of when I read the “Lost Books of the Bible” and they were speaking of Lillith.
Yeah, I understand there is that "thinking" that is out there ... but that one is "made out of whole cloth" -- and doesn't exist, in the very least, in Scripture.
Now, while this particular idea (that I was talking about above) is very, very limited in what it does say, at least it does say it ...
I'm very reluctant to accept something like that, totally without even a single expression of support in the Bible, while this (above) does have several places of support in the Bible.
I hope you see what I mean there. :-)
And... what kind of goes along with this idea that you're talking about -- is the idea that there is something missing from the Bible. Well, of course there is something missing from the Bible... LOL ... Does someone expect that the entire world's history is going to be included in the Bible? :-)
Nothing is missing from the Bible that God intended to tell us and that we should know about and that we can depend upon -- as 100% inerrant and infallible and without error of any kind. What we have in the Bible right now is exactly what God intended for us to have (He's powerful enough to make sure of that, I have no doubt ... :-) ...), and we can depend upon it. We can't depend upon anything else like that.
‘I’m very reluctant to accept something like that, totally without even a single expression of support in the Bible, while this (above) does have several places of support in the Bible. “
I do understand your implication there, and believe me, I have heard this all my life from my grandfather preachers and others from church. “If it were supposed to be in the Bible, God would have made sure it got there” and yes, I totally understand that. But I also understand that the King James Version is a compilation of books that THEY felt was important. And given that they were released later in history, at a time when they would be more widely accepted... well, who’s to say God didn’t have a hand in that? I have a hard time thinking that the last time God would work on getting His word out there was at King James! If new writings were discovered today, would we say “Nope, not valid, it isn’t in the 17th century version!” I would hope not!
It’s hard to argue with a faith based argument on an issue, and “It’s not true or God would have made sure it was in there” is a complete faith based statement. Not that I am saying you are wrong, or saying that your faith in that statement is incorrect. I just have nothing that can counter a belief. *I* personally believe that while God’s word is most certainly in the Bible, politics has played a role in religion since time began. Right up the day Jesus was sentenced to die. And in studying King James and his religious group responsible for translating, choosing content and printing... politics can most definitely play a part and in my opinion most likely did. The idea that woman was originally created as an equal did not fit in with the idea of women of the day. Heck, it took a fear of a Catholic monarch for them to accept a woman on the throne! That was something that threatened men of that time and I can’t see them risking the idea of equality in that regard. For no other reason than King James wouldn’t want to tick off every other monarch in the region. In that respect, I can totally see God saying “I’ll let this part be left out because to leave it in risks people blocking the entire book!” Catholic priests weren’t happy with it in the first place.
Anyway, I’ll let it go at that. I was just saying that those books do support what you were saying.