Posted on 02/19/2010 7:42:49 AM PST by restornu
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:
Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18
Book of the acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad the seer 1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the prophet 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29
Prophecy of Ahijah 2 Chronicles 9:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22
Book of Shemaiah 2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19
An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 5:9
An earlier epistle to the Ephesians Ephesians 3:3
Epistle to the Laodiceans Colosians 4:16
Prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude Jude 1:14
Book of the covenant Exodus 24:7 (may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus)
The Manner of the Kingdom, written by Samuel 1 Samuel 10:25
Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah 2 Chronicles 26:22
The "Acts of Abijah...in the Story of the Prophet Iddo" 2 Chronicles 13:22 (seems to not be the same as the Prophecy of Ahijah or the Visions of Iddo)
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. Matthew's reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no such statement. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.
Luke noted (Luke 1:1) that "many" had written about "those things which are most surely believed among us," yet our Bible has only two earlier Gospels, those of Matthew and Mark (John having been written after Luke). The Bible doesn't contain the earlier books to which Luke had reference. The books of 1-2 Kings frequently speak of the "rest of the acts" of the kings contained in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Some readers undoubtedly believe that these refer to the books known as 1 and 2 Chronicles in our present Bibles. But an examination of the latter shows that they generally do not reveal any of the additional information about these kings that we expect to find there. Moreover, there is good evidence that the biblical books of Chronicles are really later reworkings of 2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings, with deletion of much more material than they add. Consequently, they cannot be the chronicles referred to in the earlier books.
Another reference to a writing not found in the Bible is in 2 Chronicles 35:25, where we read that Jeremiah's lamentation for the slain king Josiah is "written in the lamentations." Many Bible readers have assumed that Josiah is the "anointed of the Lord...taken in their pits," mentioned in Lamentations 4:20. There are two problems with this identification, however: 1) The book of Lamentations was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, two decades after the death of Josiah, and 2) The "anointed of the Lord" taken in the pit clearly refers to the last king of Judah, Zedekiah, who, at the time the Babylonians took Jerusalem, was caught "in their pit" and taken captive to Babylon (Ezekiel 19:8-9). In connection with the Nazarene prophecy, we might add that the scriptural quotes by Jesus found in Luke 11:49 and John 7:38 are not found in today's Old Testament. Similar unsupported quotes are found in Ephesians 5:14 and James 4:5f, as well as in Acts 20:35, where Paul attributes to Jesus a saying found nowhere else in the Bible, including the Gospels.
Guess Chick is next!:)
- - - - -
UGH, I hope not Chick tracts gave me nightmares as a kid.
Chick will not be allowed at all.
Consistency does not seem to be the theme BWDIK!
Facts are facts and Ehrman’s “facts” are questionable at BEST.
The D&C, which has only had 2 ‘manifestos’ in the last 150 years and contains several questionable ‘prophecies’.
There is a biblical test for a prophet and JS fails it (prophecy that does not come to pass) so...that makes all of his ‘revelations’ invalid according to the Bible.
It is indeed an area of historical mystery.
- - - - - - -
It is not, that is a fallacy that those who promote distrust of the Bible use.
For starters, read the books I listed then, if you wish, I can give you some more works on the process and history but start with the basics.
Smith was suppose to have "fixed" this with his version of the KJV. How much did this clarify the KJV? Actually this 'supernatural' repair of the KJV did nothing to repair it - but it did display the totally bogus translation power of smith.
And none of the so called variants were ‘fixed’ by smith either.
LOL.
Actually, efforts to correct the NT text were well underway before the 1800s. Today, NT textual criticism has come a long from those earliest efforts. Joseph Smith penned, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”, and today the rest of the Christian world agrees. Except for those who cling to the obviously false belief in inerrancy.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
The point I was making is that the history of the D&C is much clearer than the history of the NT. I hope you can agree with that. It doesn’t require any belief in the D&C as revelations.
Come on Don - comparing apples to rocks here. The efforts to improve the TR were based upon the discovery of older, more reliable MS that allowed Textural critics to more readily identify the errors contained in the vulgate (and thus the KJV). Not suprisingly, smith carried these same errors into the bom through his volumous copy of the KJV. Not suprising that Smith plagerized the KJV for major portions of the bom.
Smith's work of 'fixing' the KJV was done in complete ABSENCE of these ms. In fact ALL of smith's changes are not even REMOTELY supported by these ms record. Just like the results of smith's translation of the Joseph smith papyri eh don?
Let's see...the objective of NT textual criticism is to improve the version of the NT to be closer to the original manuscript and thus a better reflection of the version inspired by God. NT textual criticism uses the techniques of rational man. Who knows, they may be inspired!
Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, worked at improving the NT text to be closer to the original manuscript and thus a better reflection of the version inspired by God. As you pointed out, he was not using the techniques of NT textual criticism, nor did he have any other manuscripts to draw from. He was doing the work strictly based on inspiration from God.
Which technique do you think will be more successful? So you see, I agree that the comparison is apples to rocks. I prefer the inspiration of a prophet of God over the rational man any day. :-)
How about a few citations then? It shouldn't be hard given their are "many verses in the Bible" which show this. Why didn't Paul know about these verses when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
This is really not meant to be contentious or a shot across the bow.
So you'd have no problem with people posting articles which question the foundation of the Book of Mormon in this "ecumenical" forum. Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And side by side, smith's 'translation' is bogus with typical signature of one who hasn't a clue with what he is dealing with. Example - Psalm 95:11 is quoted three times in Hebrews. The JST adds nothing to the first quotation (Heb. 3:11), adds 22 words to the second quotation (4:3), and adds 5 words to the third quotation just two verses later (4:5). Apparently, smith didn’t understand that Hebrews was quoting the same Old Testament text in all three verses.
Take also this
John 4:2 — (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) KJV
John 4:3 — Now the Lord knew this, though he himself baptized not so many as his disciples; JST
John 4:2 — 
So if smith was so 'inspired' why didn't he translate to the more correct MS?
Smith's translation skills are bogus - he went about trying to force his doctrine upon the bible - regardless of the 'correct'. No, I trust God in the preservation of His word - and not that of a convicted treasure seeker.
Only from Thomas Jefferson's Bible. ;^)
That is funny!LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.