Is the Bible Complete? - Portions are Missing Nephi Said So

In 1 Nephi 13:24-26 we have a claim by Nephi that portions of the gospel were lost.
Many scriptures mentioned in the modern Bible either no longer exist or have been altered to the point they are no longer accepted as authoritative. These include:

1. The book of the covenant - Ex 24:4, 7*
2. The book of the wars of the Lord - Num 21:14
3. The manner of the kingdom recorded by Samuel - 1 Sam 10:25*
4. The book of Jasher - Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18
5. A book of statutes - 1 Sam 10:25
6. The book of the acts of Solomon - 1 Kings 11:41
7. The book of Samuel the seer - 1 Chron 29:29
8. The book of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chron 29:29; 2 Chron 9:29
9. The book of Gad the seer - 1 Chron 29:29
10. The prophecy of Ahijah 2 Chron 9:29
11. The visions of Iddo the seer - 2 Chron 9:29; 12:15; 13:22
12. The book of Shemaiah the prophet - 2 Chron 12:15
13. The book of Jehu - 2 Cron 20:34
14. The acts of Uzziah recorded by Isaiah - 2 Chron 26:22*
15. The sayings of the seers - 2 Chron 33:19
16. An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians - 1 Cor 5:9
17. An epistle to Paul to the Ephesians- Eph 3:3
18. An epistle to Paul to the Laodiceans - Col 4:16
19. An additional epistle to Jude - Jude 1:3
20. The prophecies of Enoch - Jude 1:14

Note: Listings with the "*" may be included in other books of the Bible but are not readily identifiable.

Some have objected to the above list, saying that those writing not included in the Bible must not have been truly inspired. We might then ask, why would we exclude the books of Samuel and Gad the seers, the prophecies of Ahijah and Enoch, the visions of Iddo the seer, the book of Shemaiah the Prophet, the three missing epistles of Paul, and a missing epistle of Jude? It is hard to believe that the writings of prophets , seers, and apostles would be considered uninspired, especially when they are mentioned in the scriptures as worthy of further study.

To the above list we can add missing prophecies which include: Mathew's references to a prophecy that Christ would be a Nazarene [Matt 2:23; see LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 726], a prophecy that Elias "shall first come, and restore all things" [Matt 17:10-13], and a prophecy by Jeremiah concerning teh 30 pieces of silver [Matt 27:9]. None of these prophecies is found in our modern Old Testaments. We might also add to the above prophecies reference that do not match Old Testament scripture, such as Matthew's quote from Jesus referring to Zecharias, son of Barachias, being slain between the temple and the alter [Mat 23:35; see also Jesus the Christ, p. 567, note 9], Johns reference to a scripture about envy [James 4:5], and John's reference to wicked deeds of Balaam not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament [Rev 2:14].

Stephen E. Robinson makes an interesting point regarding the Bible "canon" which deserves mention:

The real Achilles heal of canonical exclusion . . . lies in the idea that there is one single Christian Canon or one single Christian Bible, for historically there has not been one Christian canon or one Christian Bible, but many. For example, just before 200 AD someone in the Christian Church at Rome wrote a list of books that were accepted as canonical by the Roman church at that time. A copy of this canon list was discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and for this reason it is called the Muratorian Canon. According to it, the Roman church at the end of the second century did not consider Hebrews James, 1 Peter, or 1 Peter to be scripture, and they accepted only two of the letters of John, although we cannot be sure which two. They did accept as canonical, however , two works now considered to be outside the New Testament, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. Clearly their canon of scripture was different from that of modern Christians, but does that mean that the second and third century Roman Church was not Christian? Remember that they were the same people who were dying in the arenas for the sake of Christ. Can anyone seriously argue that they weren't Christians just because their canon was different?

The famous church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, writing about the 300AD, proposed another canon [Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.25.1-7]. He listed only twenty one books as "recognized", and listed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as questionable or spurious . . . Metzger summarizes, "The Eastern Church as reported by Eusebius about 325AD, was in considerable doubt concerning the authority of most of the Catholic Epistles as well as the Apocalypse" [The Canon of the New Testament, p. 209].

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the book of Revelation in the fourth century cannon list, which was ratified three centuries later in 692 by the Trullan Synod,. . .

Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian cannon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian's Diatessaron, but excluded the four Gospels, Philemon, and seven general Epistles, and the book of Revelation. Syrian Christians from the fifth century on accepted the Syriac Peshitta version of the Bible which included the four Gospels in place of the Diatessaron and excluded 3 Corinthians, but recognized only twenty two books in all as canonical: the four Gospels, the book of Acts, the fourteen letters of Paul, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. To this day both the Syrian Orthodox church and the Chaldean Syrian church recognize only these twenty-two books, rejecting 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and the book of Revelation. It is also interesting to note that the Greek Orthodox Church has never included the book of Revelation in its official lectionary. . . .

The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos and Qalementos [both attributed to Clement of Rome], the Book of the Covenant [which includes a post resurrection discourse of the Savior], and the Ethiopic Didascaleia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch [cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude] and the Ascension of Isaiah. . . .

Among Protestants, Martin Luther suggested that the new Testament books were of varying worth and divided them up into three separate ranks. In the prefaces of his early editions of the New Testament, Luther denied that the lowest rank [Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation] belonged among "the true and noblest books of the New Testament" and went so far as to call the Epistle of James "a letter of straw." He complained that Hebrews contradicted Paul by teaching justification by works; and that Jude merely copied from second Peter and from apocryphal books; and that Revelation dealt with material inappropriate for an Apostle, it didn't teach enough about Christ, and its author had too high an opinion of himself [W.G. Kummel, Concordia Theological Monthly, #37 [1966], "The Continuing Significance of Luther's Prefaces to the New Testament" pp. 573-78]. As a direct result of Luther's judgement, some subsequent Lutheran editions of the Bible separated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the rest of the New Testament, and even went so far as to label them "apocryphal" and "non canonical." As Bruce Metzger points out: "Thus we have a threefold division of the New Testament: 'Gospels and Acts', 'Epistles and Holy Apostles' and 'Apocryphal New Testament' - an arrangement that persisted for nearly a century in half a dozen printings". . .

Finally, it should be understood that there is still no single Christian canon or Bible, for Protestants and Catholics disagree on whether the "Deuteroncanonical books" [what Protestants call the Apocrypha] are scripture. At the Council of Trent in 156, Roman Catholics officially adopted a canon of scripture that included the Apocrypha as fully inspired and fully the word of God. Consequently these twelve books are found in modern Catholic editions of the Bible. The collection of books includes Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Eccesiastics or Ben Siriach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, additions to Daniel [comprised of prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna and the Elders, and Bel and the Dragon].

These books were part of the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint which was used in Egypt as early as the second century BC. The Septuagint was also the version of the Old Testament used by the early Christian church, and so had passed into the Latin Vulgate of the Roman church, and is still the version used by the Greek Orthodox. The conciliar decree De Canonicis Scripturis, issued on April 8 1546, declared that all who did not accept these deuterocanonical books [the Apocrypha] as Christian scripture were anahema [accused]. . . .

On the other hand, most protestants broke with centuries-old tradition of accepting the Septuagint and all its contents, and preferred the version of the Old Testament which had been preserved in Hebrew by the Jews. These medieval copies of the Hebrew Old Testament did not have the Apocrypha in them as the Greek Septuagint translation did, and consequently the books of the Apocrypha are not generally accepted as scripture by Protestants. . . . in the interests of Christian unity Protestants and Catholics have "agreed to disagree" among themselves on the issue of canon [Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? pp.51-55; see also Hugh Nibley; Since Cumorah, pp. 32-51].

Many scholars have observed that several other books not included in the King James Bible were routinely quoted by early Christians. These include:

1. The Testament of Levi [3:1-4 quoted by the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount [Eugene Seaich, Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, p. 48]
2. The Testament of the 12 Patriachs
3. The Shepard of Hermes - widely quoted in the church from the Second to Fouth Century AD [Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, p. 48]
4. 2 Baruch - considered as legitimate Christian scripture by the early church
5. 4 Ezera - considered as scripture by the early Church
6. Odes of Solomon - considered as scripture by the early Christians
7. The Assumption of Moses - quoted in Jude 1:9
8. Wisdom - quoted in 1 Clement [ca 95 AD] and Barnabas [70-132AD] and by Irenaeus [ca 190AD], [J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp 52-60]
9. Ecclesiasticus - quoted in Barnabas
10. Tobit - quoted by Polycarp [ca 136AD]
11. Didache - quoted by Polycarp [ca 136AD]
12. Hisotry of Susannah - quoted by Irenaeus
13. Bel and the Dragon - quoted by Irenaeus

Justin Martyr gave two examples of writings in the Second Century AD that had been removed from Meremiah [Dialogue with Trypho as quoted in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:234-35]. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth [168-177AD], complained of falsification of the gospels and his own letters [Joseph Fielding McConkie, Sons and Daughters of God pp. 60-65].

To these we could add other Apocryphal books [such as the Maccabees, Judith ect.] quoted or listed as inspired by Tertullian [ca 200 AD], Hippolytus [ca 200 AD], Clement of Alexandria [ca 200 AD], Origen [ca 240 AD], and Cyprian [246 AD]

Modern scriptures also attest to the fact that large portions of scripture have been lost [1 Nephi 19:10-16; 2 Nephi 3; Jacob 5; 6:1; Words of Mormon 1:1-11; Alma 33:3-17; 34:7; Helaman 8:19-20; 15:11; 3 Nephi 10:16; Ether 1:1-5; 4:1-4; D&C 84:7-13; 107:56-57; Moses 6:5 and others; see also History of the Church, 1:363 and other texts to many to mention. All the foregone omissions attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all the words that the Lord revealed to his people in former times. We can only conclude that our modern Bible is incomplete since so many important prophecies, sacred books, and epistles now appear to be missing from our modern Bible text [see Michael T. Griffith, Signs of the True Church of Christ, pp. 86-87] and Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word pp. 117-28 for additional references on the subject].