Daniel Book Missing?

[ViaCrucis]

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?

These are the Greek chapters of Daniel, and as such are Deuterocanonical (i.e. part of the LXX but not the Hebrew tradition). You'll find them in their ordinary place in Bibles which include the Deuterocanonicals in their traditional place. Traditionally Protestant Bibles shifted the Deuterocanonical material to a separate appendix, following the tradition of Luther's German Bible. So the traditional location of chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel in the KJV is under the heading of "The Apocrypha", being titled Susanna and Bel and the Dragon respectively.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/kjva/susanna/1.html

https://www.biblestudytools.com/kjva/bel/1.html

"The Apocrypha" isn't usually published in modern versions of the KJV. English printing houses stopped printing Bibles with them back in the late 19th century. The primary reason is probably to save costs in printing, and because the majority of Protestants at the time considered these books "too Catholic" and weren't really using them anyway. Outside of Anglican and Lutheran circles the Deuterocanonicals don't get much attention among Protestants.

But if you want Protestant Bibles with the Deuterocanonicals, they exist. Either included in a full volume of the Bible such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible with The Apocrypha which uses the NRSV translation, or printed separately, such as the KJV and ESV versions of the Apocrypha:

Or you can get a Catholic or Orthodox Bible if you want the Deuterocanonicals in their traditional Old Testament locations.

Are those chapters not inspired?

Debate over the Deuterocanonical texts is a big one, and remains a major point of controversy between Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand, and Protestants on the other. Beginning with Luther these books (and the Deuterocanonical portions of Esther and Daniel) were moved to their own appendix, as already noted. Luther held to the opinion that these books are not properly Canonical, but are nevertheless important and good to be read by Christians. This was the position that other Protestants began to take as well.

But it is worth noting that Lutherans actually don't have a formal position on the matter. Perhaps ironically since Luther's opinion became the dominant one in Protestantism, but Lutherans have never taken Luther's opinion as authoriative in any way. For us the question of the Deuterocanonicals is an open one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

How do we know which one is telling the truth?
There are other Books as well missing in the bible

Joshua 10:12–13

z“Sun, stand still at Gibeon,

and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,

until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
_
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?

The only debates concerning the Canon have been over the Deuterocanonical books for the Old Testament and the Antilegomena for the New Testament. The various Gnostic and heretical texts were never under debate or discussion. Neither were lost texts such as Jasher, or various apocryphal or fanciful texts, such as some of the 2nd Temple period apocalypses or the various Christian romances such as the so-called "infancy gospels" or various "Acts" literature.

The Antilegomena (i.e. "disputed books") means what it says on the tin. Some books were disputed, these disputed books include some which we have in the New Testament Canon today (e.g. Hebrews, the Apocalypse of John, Jude, 2 Peter, etc) because a consensus was eventually reached. Others, out of this same consensus, ultimately were not included: Barnabas, Clement, the Didache, the Shepherd, and a couple others. There's nothing wrong with these books, per se, they just ultimately didn't make the general consensus of the Church.

The Bible is not the result of some heavy-handed decision from councils or bishops (though councils and bishops helped along the way), but is an example of something a lot more grassroots and democratic. Fundamentally the Canon has been shaped by the practice and broad consensus of the Church, that is, what Christians actually are doing on the ground, when they come together for worship. Certain books were ubiquitous throughout the Christian world, such as the Four Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles; others enjoyed use in some places and not in other places. The Antilegomena refers to this second situation: used by some, but not all. So we have, for example, the Muratorian Fragment usually dated to around 200 AD: http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

The Muratorian Fragment, along with many of the writings of the fathers, gives us a lot of insight into what sorts of conversations and debates were going on about these things.

-CryptoLutheran