There are a number of mainline churches though that add the following books to the above list: Tobit, Judith, Additions to the Book of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), Baruch, The letter of Jeremiah (separate from the Book of Jeremiah in the previous list), The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, 2 Esdras (not to be confused with the Book of Nehemiah in the previous list), and 4 Maccabees. These books make up what is commonly referred to as the Apocrypha, which some churches include in their Bible. To be clear, my church doesn't count it as part of Holy Scripture, and neither do I.
And then the Jewish synagogues, minus the Messianic congregations, include all books from Genesis to Malachi in their Holy Scriptures, but not the Apocrypha, and not the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation). At least, it is to the best of my understanding that this is so.
I begin with this tangential disclaimer not to put any church down or even to pump myself up with any sermon along the lines of "this is right and that is wrong" (although personally I do stand with what I listed in the first paragraph as what are the true Biblical books). Rather, my purpose is to attempt to illustrate the climate of the common beliefs among places of worship (churches and synagogues alike) as my backdrop for my main point: that the Bible is a history book, or at least, much of it is. While not all churches and synagogues will agree on what the full compilation of our "history book" actually is, I still choose to hope and believe that we do agree that it is a history book, that it is true, and not just something we refer to in our worship services because it's tradition.
In 2019, we are beginning to reach the point in the United States (and have already been there awhile across Europe) where not only do the majority of people consider the Bible non-historical, but also consider it "hate speech." This has been the result of a slow decay not only in morality but also in the pervasive belief that there is not only a God but only one God, that Jesus Messiah is the one and only way to heaven and there are no shortcuts, etc. This belief -- and truth -- has been replaced not only by science (which by the way I think science is good, to a point), but also an accompanying belief that, if science cannot prove it, it therefore cannot exist. That is to say, science can neither prove nor disprove that God exists, so the natural conclusion (if science is now the be-all, end-all for all things) is that somehow, God must not exist at all. And if God doesn't exist because science cannot prove it, then the result is a godless world where the only real plumb line of right and wrong is our own feelings, our own "innate sense" of right and wrong, finicky in and of itself. Then things like divorce, abortion, sex (of all kinds), and now "gender identity" become new gods and new religions unto themselves. In place of a god who no longer exists (because science cannot prove it), we begin to look at things like churches and Bibles as either unnecessary or evil.
And that presents an interesting quandary: because churches are run (stewarded) by human beings, they have the power to change their mission statements, either in accordance with what people want, or in outright hostility to what people want, or (hopefully) to stand true with what God has called them. But at least churches have the power to change or not to change. The Bible cannot change. Sure, new translations can arise that are more palatable to modern human sensibilities. Even then, that presents a new danger: if we change the Bible to appease humans who now view the Scriptures as unnecessary at best and evil at worst, then we are compromising the Bible to suit people's wants, rather than God's will. And that's dangerous.
But, if we don't, then we risk at best passive indifference, or at worst open hostility to the Scriptures. We're seeing it in Europe now: the idea that the Bible is "hate speech" has been floating around. I of course disagree, and not only that but can prove that it is rather love speech, with this one passage: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16, NIV.
Notice that it doesn't say: "for God so hated the world." It says: "for God so loved the world." Loved. Loved. Loved. Check out the subsequent verse: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17, NIV. Let's break it down into its three parts:
1.) God sent Jesus (His Son) into the world. It clearly states that Jesus is God's Son. It clearly states that God sent Him. It also clearly states that God sent Him into the world, meaning that Jesus did actually exist in our time at one point in time in our past.
2.) God didn't send Jesus into the world to condemn us. This directly contradicts the belief that the Bible is "hate speech." Because condemnation and "hate speech" are one and the same. A modern way of looking at that part of the verse could be: "God did not send His Son Jesus to hate on the world..."
Side note: Another verse from Apostle Paul that clearly talks about the Bible: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV. It clearly says that the Bible was breathed by God. What it means is that while humans did jot down the words themselves, God still directly dictated every word, from each book of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation (but not any of the books from the Apocrypha, for they were written quite a bit later, well after the early church was underway). So, as far as I'm concerned, the Gospels are not hate speech, Jesus is not a hater (He was angry with the Religious Right of the Jewish leaders during the Roman times when He appeared, but He didn't hate them), and coming off Apostle Paul's note to Timothy, if the Gospels are not hate speech, then neither is the entire rest of the Bible. And for anyone reading who directly opposes this truth, might I remind you that there is a bevy of historical scholarship that supports it, as well as sites across Israel and neighboring lands that stand as physical proof of these places recorded in the Bible.
Back to John 3:17. 3.) God sent Jesus into the world to save us. To save us. Not to hate on us; not to condemn us; but to save us. Why? Well, because humans are inherently selfish and evil by nature. If the story of Adam and Eve isn't enough proof for you, then this verse will have to suit you: "As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;'" Romans 3:10, NIV. Want context? Here it is:
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Romans 3:9-20, NIVIt states that Jews and Gentiles (basically, every other race on this planet) alike are all under the power of sin. To double down: every human being who has ever lived has been under the power of sin. As such, every human being who has ever lived stills needs to be saved. And the fact that Jesus came to save us is good news. Not bad news. Not hate news. Good news. And to bring it back full-circle regarding an increasing number of human beings who proclaim the Bible as "hate speech," who am I inclined to believe? The Bible which solidly and unequivocally calls itself God-breathed and the Good News for all, or a bunch of evil human beings who claim that the Bible is "hate speech"?
At this point, I will leave my defense there. As far as I'm concerned, the text passages I have shared are sufficient for me. If the above verses do not suffice for any of you who are still in sharp disagreement with the Bible being true, and moreover "love speech" and not "hate speech," I will need to continue that in another post or in another space.