Missing Historical books?

[Jamdoc]

Constantly in the books of Chronicles, they say that the rest of a King's deeds are written in other books, such as the book of Shemaiah the prophet, or the story of the prophet Iddo, or books written by the prophet Nathan or Gad the seer, or Ahijah the Shilonite (in Kings they just say they're written about in the books of Chronicles).
Now supposedly traditionally the book of Samuel (so 2 Samuel) was picked up by Nathan after the prophet Samuel's death, so I guess somehow they're referring to 2 Samuel when saying the book of Nathan the prophet, even though we're talking about Solomon and almost all of 2 Samuel is about David his father.
I'd think that maybe they're referring to 1 Kings as a book written by Nathan, Iddo, etc, but it seems the traditional view is that the books of Kings were written by Jeremiah.
are they wrong? Or are we just plain missing the books written by Iddo, and other books written by Nathan and Gad and Ahijah and Shemaiah?

 

[com7fy8]

I personally have accepted . . . assumed . . . they mean books which are not in the Canon and possibly have not been found and identified.

By the way > our Apostle Paul speaks of the letter "from Laodicea" >

"Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." (Colossians 4:16)

I do not know of any Bible epistle which is "from Laodicea". But I understand that if the Holy Spirit directed Paul to tell them to read that epistle, it could be Canon qualified scripture.

But I would not call it "missing", but it has been doing its job, wherever it has gone, however God has used it

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Constantly in the books of Chronicles, they say that the rest of a King's deeds are written in other books, such as the book of Shemaiah the prophet, or the story of the prophet Iddo, or books written by the prophet Nathan or Gad the seer, or Ahijah the Shilonite (in Kings they just say they're written about in the books of Chronicles).
Now supposedly traditionally the book of Samuel (so 2 Samuel) was picked up by Nathan after the prophet Samuel's death, so I guess somehow they're referring to 2 Samuel when saying the book of Nathan the prophet, even though we're talking about Solomon and almost all of 2 Samuel is about David his father.
I'd think that maybe they're referring to 1 Kings as a book written by Nathan, Iddo, etc, but it seems the traditional view is that the books of Kings were written by Jeremiah.
are they wrong? Or are we just plain missing the books written by Iddo, and other books written by Nathan and Gad and Ahijah and Shemaiah?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Constantly in the books of Chronicles, they say that the rest of a King's deeds are written in other books, such as the book of Shemaiah the prophet, or the story of the prophet Iddo, or books written by the prophet Nathan or Gad the seer, or Ahijah the Shilonite (in Kings they just say they're written about in the books of Chronicles).
Now supposedly traditionally the book of Samuel (so 2 Samuel) was picked up by Nathan after the prophet Samuel's death, so I guess somehow they're referring to 2 Samuel when saying the book of Nathan the prophet, even though we're talking about Solomon and almost all of 2 Samuel is about David his father.
I'd think that maybe they're referring to 1 Kings as a book written by Nathan, Iddo, etc, but it seems the traditional view is that the books of Kings were written by Jeremiah.
are they wrong? Or are we just plain missing the books written by Iddo, and other books written by Nathan and Gad and Ahijah and Shemaiah?

I think those books/scrolls are lost to history, and I'm not sure why this should be an issue. Just because an extra-canonical book is mentioned in the canon doesn't mean that the referenced book should be also be canonical. Paul quotes the pagan Cleanthes....should we canonize the Hymn to Zeus? Seems to me like we shouldn't.

While it may be nice as a point of history to have these other books mentioned, it's not a canonical issue as far as I can tell.

 

[1watchman]

Certainly the main Books to be reading are in our Holy Bible: the four Gospels and the Epistles. So many Christians fail to understand the Epistles, which show what Christian assembly is, and how the various Assemblies interacted (not as denominated sects) and were of "one mind" and "one accord" ---even sending letters with saints as they traveled to visit gatherings elsewhere. We need to get back to that expression of "unity of the faith" (note 1 Cor. 12:25-27). I learned that at the site: Biblecounsel.net, which values God's mind for collective worship and holding to Bible-only.
Well, keep reading our Word of God, friend, and not be exploring religious writings everywhere; for there is the source of real and true knowledge, which we MUST know --would you agree?

 

[Jamdoc]

Certainly the main Books to be reading are in our Holy Bible: the four Gospels and the Epistles. So many Christians fail to understand the Epistles, which show what Christian assembly is, and how the various Assemblies interacted (not as denominated sects) and were of "one mind" and "one accord" ---even sending letters with saints as they traveled to visit gatherings elsewhere. We need to get back to that expression of "unity of the faith" (note 1 Cor. 12:25-27). I learned that at the site: Biblecounsel.net, which values God's mind for collective worship and holding to Bible-only.
Well, keep reading our Word of God, friend, and not be exploring religious writings everywhere; for there is the source of real and true knowledge, which we MUST know --would you agree?

I look at it as wanting the whole counsel of God.

 

[Acts29]

Constantly in the books of Chronicles, they say that the rest of a King's deeds are written in other books, such as the book of Shemaiah the prophet, or the story of the prophet Iddo, or books written by the prophet Nathan or Gad the seer, or Ahijah the Shilonite (in Kings they just say they're written about in the books of Chronicles).
Now supposedly traditionally the book of Samuel (so 2 Samuel) was picked up by Nathan after the prophet Samuel's death, so I guess somehow they're referring to 2 Samuel when saying the book of Nathan the prophet, even though we're talking about Solomon and almost all of 2 Samuel is about David his father.
I'd think that maybe they're referring to 1 Kings as a book written by Nathan, Iddo, etc, but it seems the traditional view is that the books of Kings were written by Jeremiah.
are they wrong? Or are we just plain missing the books written by Iddo, and other books written by Nathan and Gad and Ahijah and Shemaiah?

Those books were just historical information regarding long dead kings. Not of much value. The words God spoke through His prophets are infinitely more valuable and we have those. I don't need to know every detail of history. I just want to know God and His ways. The books we do have are more than sufficient for that. Just my opinion.

 

[Jamdoc]

Those books were just historical information regarding long dead kings. Not of much value. The words God spoke through His prophets are infinitely more valuable and we have those. I don't need to know every detail of history. I just want to know God and His ways. The books we do have are more than sufficient for that. Just my opinion.

Well, I mean I guess but if scripture references them, I would figure there's something of value in them.