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.
There would be no need for “as far as it is translated correctly” because “god” would have not only made the accurate BOM, a “companion” to the Bible, but would want the bible brought up to the same standard again. Unless of course “god” is just a slacker kinda guy.
I know, details, details...
However I am glad that God holds a tick higher standard.
The answer to your question is found in the word more.
As for your disbelief in a prophet of God, that is nothing new. The scriptures are full of such. :-)
It appears you missed the point of my previous post. Let me attempt to clarify. We have no access to the original NT manuscripts. Textual criticism only attempts to get as close to the original as possible. Therefore your comment that “Smith let STAND significant errors uncovered by textural criticism and more recent ms UNTOUCHED” has no bearing on the point you are trying to make. Joseph Smith was not attempting to correct the NT to make it conform to the earliest possible manuscripts, but to make it conform to the original manuscripts through inspiration from God.
No, I understood your point clearly - smith was acting by shear “power of God” or whatever.
The fact is that as soon as discussion of the Trinity pops up - one of the first areas attacked is the Johanne Coma - a section added by a scribe into 1 John. In smith’s time it was thought to be authentic - yet here we are 150 years later KNOWING it was added.
Here is the point Don - the origional ms did NOT contain this passage - therefore smith failed by allowing it to stay in untouched. Now by leaving it in place - smith prophetically condoned the passage as authentic. That passage as well as others were not excised.
And you have an original manuscript to confirm this? :-)
We have older, ms than the vulgate the KJV was based upon, the comma is not found in them.
So you are saying that Smith left the comma in place BECAUSE it was authentically in the origional ms?
I have no idea. I am unaware of any commentary by JS regarding JST.
You just made a claim that smith's edits to the KJV which have become the JST restored the word to "conform to the original manuscripts through inspiration from God" did you not? Come on Don, the logic is very simple
smith restored the text to conform to the origional ms via God's interpretation
smith didn't edit out the Johnnian comma
The Johnnine comma is properly presented in the KJV as conformed to the origional ms.
I'm certainly not certain that is the case. I would say it is more accurate than the KJV. But most any other version of the Bible is more accurate than the KJV. :-)
Clearly dodging the point don. do you even know what the Johannine Comma is?
Smith left that intact - which according to you means it is part of the origional ms given by God.
Did smith clear up the ending of Mark? If not, why not.
I don't agree with this point.
Again, your stated- Joseph Smith was not attempting to correct the NT to make it conform to the earliest possible manuscripts, but to make it conform to the original manuscripts through inspiration from God.
So smith made the KJV 'conform' to the 'origional manuscripts' Smith left the Comma in the KJV - did not delete it out as he did other portions of the bible. By default it means the passage was part of the origional ms.
I was not implying perfect conformance on the part of the JST, but rather an improvement over the KJV. If that was not understood, I make the clarification now.
That is a SIGNIFICANT change from your earlier defense.
What was smith's prophetic command in regards to this revision of the KJV? I believe it was to go a lot farther than just an improvement don. Again, items left untouched are defacto according to the charge of Smith's translations to be correct.
So it would appear that you are now rejecting smith's translation / fixing of the KJV bible.
Not at all. I am, however, rejecting your interpretation of my beliefs. :0)
Well, first you tell me your beliefs involve smith completely fixing the KJV back to its origional and correct wording.
Now you tell me otherwise? I thought that because I DIDN'T believe the first statement of your belief I didn't believe in the prophet.
Now if the material is accepted - I agree with the prophet, now you are wiggling again.
It certainly would be a change in behavior then for you to state your beliefs. With all the waffling I wonder if the 9th commandments has been suspended or something.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
This one is riding a jet plane...
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.