The Books Of The Bible Are Not So Random

An often misunderstood fact about the bible is that it was systematically edited, that books were omitted and included based upon the agenda of those in charge at the time.

This idea most likely comes from historical people such as Constantine who made Christianity the state religion in Rome and Pope Damasus who made the fist official decree as to what books should be included in the bible. There are also historical events like the ecumenical councils to decide which books would be canonical  and which books would not. Events such as these  lend a kind of credence to the idea that the bible was assembled by men or in other words that it was simply the preference of the people present, this however is not so.

In actuality the scriptures which are now assembled into the book called The Bible where pretty much always the same. The Old Testament scriptures even before they were written down where universally accepted by both first hand observers and community members alike these oral and later written traditions account the same people and historical events. While there are a couple books which have been included and then later removed such as the Apocyriful books the main canon of books has always been solid. Contrary to popular belief these books being excluded is more often than not due to evidence that the books where fraudulent or forged, the word Apocrypha means "secret" among other descriptive words all meaning about the same, was named the Apocrypha due to the questionable authenticity, however it is important to note that while some writings where in question at one point or another they where even then considered to be outside the normal body of inspired biblical text and this is not the same as the popular interpretation that the bible had been re-written or altered. 

You can read more details about the Apocrypha here Also here is the wiki

The New Testament writings also have some books that where found to be fraudulent or excluded because of the disassociation between the author and the events about which they wrote. But the new testament books where also already assembled and accepted by Christians before such a time that official decrees about the books of the bible had been made.

Just as the Old Testament writings there were questionable writings associated with the New Testament. 

You can read more about those books here.

Often times these writings where about the apostles however not written by the apostle or books that where proven to be forged or written by someone, sometimes hundreds of years after the face as if they where an apostle. These writings being so easily identified and rejected just as the questionable books from the old testament show that the bible is actually much more reliable than people think.

That having been said, it is true that many deep christian thinkers and scholars have commented about some of these works such as the book of Enoch and many of the Apocryiful texts as edifying to a christian even though they are not considered to be inspired works.

It seems that the general imagery in people's minds is that someone found a huge cash of scrolls in a cave in the middle east and picked through them and chose the ones they liked and called it the bible and just began preaching it, and took the rest of the scrolls and disregarded them, this too is not so.

The scriptures that are now the Bible are the Bible because they stood the test of time they have been proven and accepted from the beginning of recorded history. Contemporaries of the accounts evaluated the information as true by eye whiteness and passed it along through the generations. Many people tried injecting false doctrines and information into the bible and have always been identified and rejected. And throughout recorded time in both Christian and non Christian writings those whom upheld the integrity of these accounts have been tortured and killed for their adherence to what they knew to be true. Believing in the principal of preserving the truth has been a role that came fraught with peril and devoid of reward and yet we would know nothing true with out those who stood up for it.

When confronted with a skeptical point of view regarding the authenticity of biblical knowledge or the reliability of the Bible as a historical documents, i find its important to remember that all history comes to us via the same road. I think sometimes people speak about the bible as if it is an unreliable text and then as support for that point of view they sight  as being reasons all the things that are proper and acceptable when referring to other historical documents.

Your history book from school is filled with stories that where passed down through history and compiled through out the years to create a more cohesive story regarding a place or a time, an event or a person from history but by the time it makes it into a book in a class room who can say how many people have had a hand in it. The most you might expect from a history book is that it may say where the tradition of that story came from but surely no author has signed that account, often since a history book counts itself as reference they don't even bother to source their findings, the book insists upon itself. I point this out only because this is one of the main complaints given by non-believers that the bible insists upon itself.

The Bible however has all the same historical evidence, and proof that any other historical document has. they can be cross referenced they can be compared and proven correct but there is still one major difference... Those whom wrote these accounts stood by them. They signed their names them, they lived their lives by them and in many cases they died for what they wrote because it was true.

Good luck finding a history book contributor who's willing to stand behind their writing to that level.