"There are many Jewish/Christian Apocrypha (Including Jewish Kabbalist Writings such as The Zohar and the Sephir Yetzirah and Christian Gnostic Scriptures such as The Nag Hammadi Library and the Pistis Sophia and The Gospel of Thomas). However, there are also many 'lost scriptures' mentioned *within* the Holy Bible itself.
Here is a list of the 'lost books' mentioned *within* the Holy Bible:
The book of the covenant, through which Moses instructed Israel (Exodus 24:7).
The book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14).
The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:1.
The book of the manner of the kingdom (1 Samuel 10:25).
Possible books containing three thousand proverbs, a thousand and five songs, a treatise on natural history by Solomon (1 Kings 4:32,33).
The acts or annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41).
The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29).
The book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29).
The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29).
The prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29).
The visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29).
The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15).
The story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22).
The book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34).
The Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 26:22)
Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19)
The New Testament also refers to the Book of Enoch in Jude 14; a missing epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); a missing Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); and a missing Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). These writings were important enough to quote or refer to in subsequent writings preserved now as scripture. In addition, Matthew 2:23 cites a now fulfilled prophecy from "the prophets" that Christ would be a Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), but this prophecy is not found anywhere in any existing Old Testament canon. Matthew was citing scripture which is missing now. Another example of missing scripture is the text containing the words of Christ that Paul quotes in Acts 20:35: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This saying of Christ appears in none of the Gospels. Here Paul was writing to foreign converts who were not around to hear Christ preach, so how were they to "remember" those words? Paul obviously must have been citing it from a sacred writing that they had. We no longer have that writing. Something is missing.
Without question, the Bible alone shows that there are sacred writings that early Christians and Jews respected as scripture but which we no longer have. I could also add to that the many books such as the Shepherd of Hermas which were respected by many early Christians as scripture but which are no longer included in modern canons.
Those arguing for an inerrant Bible will say that whatever books we now have must be the ones God intended for us to have, and thus there can be no missing books worthy of being scripture or else He would have put the in the text. This is not a Biblical doctrine, to be sure (chapter and verse, anyone?). And it again raises the issue of which Bible God has chosen to personally compile (not to mention translate). Would that be the Bible that Timothy had as a child (some form of the Septuagint), or the Vulgate, or the Protestant Bible? And would that be with or without the disputed Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7,? Perhaps would that include the Book of Enoch that Jude and other early Christians saw as scripture? Perhaps it would include the Pastor of Hermas, viewed as scripture by other early Christians? Or did God not decide to offer a complete Bible until about 393 A.D.+, when the subset of writings now found in modern Bibles was canonized for the first time?"
I know a gnostic with too much time on his hands.
Right, I think that the claim that the Bible is complete is just that--merely a claim.
Not having any evidence to back this up, I would say that over a few thousand years, we might lose a page or two.
Yes, also the Gnostic gospels, eg Thomas and Mary Magdelene. The Catholic Church eliminated books to prevent dissent and unify the early church. eg Gnostic gospels. The Protestants eliminated even more books, eg Sirach and Wisdom. So the churches eliminated books to help unify, yet destroying the possible variations and history of the Christian faith. The Book of Enoch, that does exist, is very interesting, very scientific, incredible for its time.
The Bible was meant as a summary of beliefs via a compilation of the most pieces of scripture. Editing hasn't changed much in its function over the millennia.
