Missing Scriptures

Because they contain information that the author was inspired to included.

Because "inspired" and "canoncical" are not the same as "trustworthy." Many things are trustworthy but do not have the divine imprimatur that caused them to be recognized as canonical.

Yes, but no.

 

Your examples reference other books, but they don't reference them "as scripture".

 

Reading Brian's response made me realize I didn't read carefully the first time. I stand by my previous comments but let me clarify that the Bible does not refer to these other books as "Scripture."

 

The Sovereignty of God.

HankD

 

Inspiration and preservation.

 

HankD and Pastor Larry made great responses. Just to expand a little: just because a true prophet writes something, that doesn't make that writing "scripture". In other words, only what is divinely inspired when that prophet writes is "scripture", and not everything a prophet a writes. And some prophets never wrote any scripture at all. Iddo would be one, as would Nathan, as you referred to. Elijah would be another.

I trust that God guided the early church to decide upon the list of books that make up the canon, not adding books and not missing any either.

 

The examples you gave are in the context of historical information. Even satanists can write down correct historical information that are useful for following generations. That doesn´t make them inspired.

But what about the Book of Enoch? It is referred to in Jude 14-15. Here an inspired writer of the NT is quoting a prophecy and makes it Holy Scripture.. what about the rest of the book

 

That particular prophecy became Holy Scripture when it was cited by Jude. It says nothing about the rest of the book. That clearly is not Holy Scripture.

 

The Book of Enoch, I believe, is included in the canon of the Ethiopian Church. However, pretty much everyone else doesn't regard it as canonical. Pastor Larry's explanation as to why Enoch can still be quoted in Scripture, yet not be Scripture itself, is correct.

 

Just out of curiosity (never having thoroughly read the book of Enoch), but is there anything in the book of Enoch that clearly (not just vaguely) contradicts the 66 book scripture?

I think that all Christians whould endeavor to read and study the apoctypha. We need not consider them inspired in like and kind, but they are. in the very least, better biblical commentary than most of the contemporary commentaries that are on the shelves today.

 

I believe with all of my heart that the Book of Enoch is not Holy Scripture. But if one of his prophecies is, he must be a prophet of God

 

The book of Enoch is easily available ON LINE - just use "book of Enoch" in your search window. You'll find it is so weird that it is a blessing not to have it in our canon.

 

I know. I even have a hard copy. It is weird and absolutely NOT biblical. But... the Bible quotes a prophecy of Enoch. That means he was a prophet of God...

 

Scripture also quotes Satan but that doens't make him a prophet of God. It would be better to say that the author of the prophecy of Enoch said something that was true. Let's not extend prophethood to it.

 

^Also, Paul quotes pagan writers on occasion (e.g., Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). That doesn't mean they were inspired, just insightful on a particular subject.