read this message: Do not add to God's Word.
Bride For Christ Ministry
Feel free to comment
Um, which one of the many Bibles are you considering the "correct" one, not to be "added" to?
Christians have often changed or added books, as they felt was right, just as you do yourself. That's why the canon of the various Bibles is not only not settled today (there are Bibles with 73 books, 66 books, 100+ books, other numbers, etc), and that it really never has been settled. Early Christians often excluded books such as Revelation, Jude, and others, and the Protestants removed several Old Testament books, and there were many different sets in use before that too.
The NT books were written between ~50 AD and ~150 AD, along with a wide range of many Gospels, letters, books and so on, all being discussed and alternately used by various Christians. For, some of our earliest references to a Gospel are to the Gospel of Peter, which along with the Apocalypse of Peter, was widely seen as part of the scripture at the time.
around 200 AD, the muratorian fragment shows that the NT canon was not settled, and puts forth a canon that doesn't match our current NT canon (including books like the Apocalypse of Peter and excluding 3 Jn, etc.)
Our Bibles from the 4th century still don't match the NT canon, including books like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas.
Eusebius doesn't clearly give the NT canon, questioning James, Jude and others.
From 330 AD, the Codex Claromontanus includes the Acts of Paul, the Ap of Peter, Barnabus and Hermas as above, and excludes Phil, 1 & Thes, and Hebrews.
The council of Laodicea was called to settle the canon in 363, and produced a list of 26 books (excluding Revelation).
Athanasius is the first, of all those various canons, to match our current canon but that wasn't until 367, and more importantly, was just one voice of many, since highly various canon lists continued for centuries after that.
the Apostolic canon #85 in 380 listed the books of the NT canon, including the epistles of Clement.
In the western Catholic church, this was still being discussed in the council of Carthage in 419 AD. - and of course the western church is not the only church.
The Peshetta New Testament is used to this day in much of the eastern Syrian church, and many versions of it keep the 22 book NT that it has had without dispute until recently.
The Armenian NT included 3rd Corinthians until the 1200s AD.
Luther rejected James, Jude, Heb and Rev in the 1500s.
The Roman Catholic church added
Mark 16 (and other verses) to it's NT in 1870. - Which you cited in your blog post, even though scholars agree that it wasn't in the original gospel of Mark.
And of course, even today the both the Coptic and Ethiopian canons don't match the 27 book NT we use.
And that's not to mention the 11 million Mormons who have added several whole volumes to their New Testament.
And even that is a simplification of the many changes over time. More can be found here (which is itself an incomplete summary).
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia
The NT canon has never been settled. It wasn't settled in the 5th century, nor in the 9th, nor in the 11th, nor in the 17th, and not today. It doesn't look like it will ever be settled.
And that's not to mention the Old Testament, which is also said to be infallible by literalists, which has even more changes, different versions used today, and convolutions. The latest change by a major church was the removal of some old testament books by the Roman Catholic church in 1979 - within the lifetime of many of us. More on that is here:
Development of the Old Testament canon - Wikipedia
And all of those miss all the many changes
inside the books - which KJV onlyists add up to, in just the new testament, more total text than the whole books of 1st and 2nd Peter.
So there never really was one "Bible". It doesn't look like there ever will be a Bible that Christians agree on.
At least we can agree on Jesus, right?
In Christ-
Papias