>
>
>>>(all from NASV)
>>>Numbers 21:14
>>>Therefore it is said in the
>>>Book of the Wars of
>>>the LORD
>
.
>
>
>So is "inspiration" defining factor of
>the scriptures ccepted as the
>'Holy Bible?"

Responce: Correct, it has to meet a certain criteria.

The preceding passage
>call the book of the
>"Lord."
Responce: Does'nt that say that its the book of the wars of the Lord?(meaning its only a recording of the wars) And no thats not part of the criteria.

Is that not
>enogh to make "Bible status."
> Also if "inspiration" was
>so important, then why aren't
>so-called "Gnostic Texts" considered "Holy?"

Responce: No, not at all. Why? because the gnostic gospels don't reach the canon of scripture. First let me give you some criteria for your own research here are five.

1) Was it written by a prophet of God? Duet 18:18 tell us that only a prophet will speak the word of God. This is the way that God will speak the Word of God.

2) Was he confirmed by an act of God? Heb2:3-4 gives us the idea that we should expect some miriculous confirmation of those who speak for God. Moses had his rod that turned into a serpent, Jesus had a resurrection, and the apostles continued Jesus's miracles. Many of the prophesis were fufilled shortly after they were made.

3)Does it tell the truth about God? It has to agree with all earlier revalation is essesntial. This dictum also ruled out false prophets.

4)Does it have the power of God? Any writing that does not exhibit the tranforming power of GOd in the lives of the reader does not come from God.

5) Was it accepted by the people of God? Like Moses books were immediatly put in the ark of the covenant. Paul thank the Thessolonians for recieving the gospels, Joshua's writings were done in the same fashion as Moses.

For both the old and new testament there are certain books that were accepted by everyone, some were later disputed and some were rejected by all. the gnostic gospels are part of the new testament pseudepigrapha which means "false writing". They were called this because the use the name of some apostle instead of there own such as the gospel of Peter and the Acts of John. The books teach two of the earliest heresies, both that deny the reality of the incarnation. They said that Jesus was really only a sprit that looked like a man; so his resurrection was just a return to spiritual form. They claimed to provide information about Jesus' childhood, but the stories they recorded are highly unlikely and are not from eyewitnesses. NO one accepted these as scripture in any sense except the heritical factions which created them.