Daniel Book Missing?

They could be part of the deuterocanon (which protestants largely don't recognize), but I thought it was only a few verses rather than two whole chapters.

Those chapters only are extant in Greek -- the rest of Daniel we have manuscripts in Hebrew and Aramaic -- Catholic and Orthodox have these additions to Daniel in their canon.

They are deuterocanonical, not found in Protestant canon

Daniel is not part of Torah, neither is it part of THE PROPHETS -- Daniel is in "THE WRITINGS".

The deuterocanonical parts are not all together at the end; the story of Susannah is at the first -- song of the Three young men somewhere in the middle, as is Bel and the Dragon, and at the very end is an account of the prophet Habakkuk being carried by an angel from Judah to Babylon to give Daniel some food.

confusedmanxx said:

Part of the old testament is my point meaning Jewish Holy Books
So Christians disagree with the jews on daniel right?

Click to expand...

The Jews were as diverse a people back then as they are now- even more so, I'd say. Greek speaking Jews (those who were displaced by the Babylonian exile) would have accepted these additional writings.

confusedmanxx said:

So there are wide disagreement about the bible chapters and books that should be part of the holy bible?

Click to expand...

I don't know if "wide disagreement" is the right term, but there are differences...

Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox have the same 27 books in the New Testament.

Catholics have a handful of extra Old Testament books -- Orthodox have those as well, an extra Psalm, Prayer of Manasseh, and also the numbering of the Psalms is slightly different in Orthodox canon -- as is the ORDER of the prophetic books and Daniel (Daniel being the LAST Old Testament book in Orthodox canon)

Ethiopian Tewahedo Church has a handful of additional books in the New Testament, may also include Enoch also

Christians disagree with EACH OTHER about parts of Daniel, additions to Esther, and whether or not to include Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon...

Numbering of chapters and verses is a very LATE addition anyhow, originally there were no chapters and verses

The Bible quotes from and/or alludes to other books that are not IN the Bible - Jashar, Enoch, Assumption of Moses and others...

The 66 books of the Protestant Bible are in ALL Christian Bibles -- when you say stuff is MISSING from the Bible, that's a misnomer -- there are works that were not accepted into the Canon; there are REASONS; and a few days on a message board is not going to cover it all

confusedmanxx said:

Which bible do orthodox follow?
Its KJV and NIV bibles. Don't the orthodox read from those 2 books?
Daniel is also part of the Torah.

Click to expand...

You would have to ask the Orthodox what books they accept. I can't speak for them.

The Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy only. I think the word you are looking for is 'tanach' or 'tanakh', the Jewish Bible. That has the same OT books as Protestants have settled on, but when they settled on their canon they were particular to exclude anything Christian. The Christian Bible was more expansive, with the OT taken from the Greek Septuagent translation of the OT. The Jewish authorities, rejecting all of this Greek stuff (Greek gospels, Greek letters of Paul, Greek OT) ended up with the truncated Bible. But Christians included all of that until rumblings started with the Reformation.

The difference you have discovered among Bibles is that Protestants generally have a bit less in their Bibles. There are seven books they disposed of, and parts of a few others, like you have discovered in Daniel. But the Christian canon of Scripture has included those up until, in the case of the KJV, the mid 1600's. The original KJV had all of those books. Only later were they ripped out of new KJVs in subsequent printings.

If you want a whole Bible, the canon accepted by Christians for over 1500 years, the best current version is the RSVCE, a Catholic edition, and it is currently published by Ignatius Press. See ignatius.com to order one.

confusedmanxx said:

How do we know which one is telling the truth?
_
There gnostic books and apocalypse and even epistles and gospels missing from the bible
too. How do I know which one of them are the words of God?

Click to expand...

You can either make up your own mind on what you personally feel like accepting, OR you can follow what the Catholic Church has taught for over 1500 years on which books belong. It comes down to authority, either your own personal authority or the authority of the community of believers Jesus himself called and assembled and commissioned to teach His new way.

confusedmanxx said:

The Book of Daniel Chapter 13-14 [last two chapters] are missing from KJV And NIV Bibles

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+14&version=RSVCE;KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+13&version=RSVCE;NIV

Any one knows why?
Are those chapters not inspired?

Click to expand...

Here is a summary about Daniel 13-14 and why they were considered non-canonical by Protestants.

However the article from Bible.org is in error:

1 - It doesn't include the most famous of the apocryphal books, 1 Enoch.
2 - It misrepresents the church fathers when it way "none argued for canonization." Tertullian and others argued for 1 Enoch at least.
3 - It misrepresents OT quotes found in NT as "0" from apocryphal sources, passages from 1 Enoch are found in Gal., 1 Cor., and Jude.

So like anything on the internet take it with a grain of salt.


"Apocrypha, term coined by the 5th-century biblical scholar Saint Jerome for the biblical books received by the church of his time as part of the Greek version of the Old Testament (see Septuagint), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Derived from the period 300 BC to New Testament times, the books of the Apocrypha included Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees. Also generally included with the Apocrypha are the two books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther (Esther 10:4-10), additions to the Book of Daniel (Daniel 3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh."

https://bible.org/question/why-are-some-books-missing-kjv

Uber Genius said:

So like anything on the internet take it with a grain of salt.
https://bible.org/question/why-are-some-books-missing-kjv

Click to expand...

This particular 'story' found at bible.org needs numerous grains of salt.

confusedmanxx said:

Which bible do orthodox follow?
Its KJV and NIV bibles. Don't the orthodox read from those 2 books?
Daniel is also part of the Torah.

Click to expand...

The canon has never been closed in the Chriatian East/"Orient" (where the two communions claiming Orthodoxy come from), so you can find variations between different traditions, though to what degree they may vary depends on which particular chirches you are looking at.

The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Slavic, Arab, etc. churches) published some time ago the Orthodox Study Bible, which uses the LXX for its OT (this is the case for all Orthodox churches). I don't own it, so I can't comment exactly on its content, but knowing the general Eastern/Oriental approach to what Protestants call the 'Deuterocanonical books' (that they are just part of the Bible, no special status required), I would expect it to contain whatever the Protestant translations have removed.

chevyontheriver said:

This particular 'story' found at bible.org needs numerous grains of salt.

Click to expand...

So you liked the grains I highlighted, what are the grains you would highlight?

Uber Genius said:

So you liked the grains I highlighted, what are the grains you would highlight?

Click to expand...

well, it definitely took a side. And reduced the complexity of the whole thing nicely to bolster it's side.

I thought their point 1 was clever in claiming only Augustine for support of the full canon. Were that so, and given the Orthodox distaste for Augustine, the Orthodox would certainly have a truncated Bible. But they don't.

I thought point 2 was clever in claiming those books were only added in 1546 at the council of Trent. Never mind it was all settled over a thousand years earlier to have the complete canon. Regional synods in North Africa pretty much resolved it in the West.

I thought the 'lack of quotes' in point 3 was special because it selectively ignored quotes from their excluded books. And yet it did note that (I have not checked the factuality of this yet) there are no quotes for three other canonical books. I like your point about quoting Enoch.

The last issue was too inventive by half.