Thanks for the link ramhi4x. It confirms much that I have read regarding the compilation of the Old & New Testaments.
To quote from the link,
"A canonic text is a single authoritative edition for a given work. The establishing of a canon text may involve an editorial selection from biblical manuscript traditions with varying interdependence. Significant separate manuscript traditions in the canonic Hebrew Bible are represented in the Septuagint, the Masoretic text, and the Dead Sea scrolls"
This first line clearly states that the included works were NOT a complete collection of available manuscripts, but were editorially selected. The disparancy between the scriptures accepted and rejected were made on the grounds that not all conformed to the beliefs of those canonizing them.
"New Testament Greek and Latin texts presented enough significant differences that a manuscript tradition arose of presenting diglot texts, with Greek and Latin on facing pages. New Testament manuscript traditions include the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Textus Receptus, Vulgate, and others."
Ditto for the New Testament.
From one of the external links:
http://www.ntcanon.org/
"This survey covers a small part of the huge body of New Testament studies --- how the Church selected certain writings as authoritative and separated them from a larger body of early Christian literature. In view of the central importance that the New Testament has within Christianity, it is amazing that there is an absence of detailed accounts of such a significant process."
.....
"The history, as covered in this survey, spans the first four centuries of Christianity, and was a long continuous process. It was not only a task of collecting, but also of sifting and rejecting. It was not the result of a deliberate decree by an individual or a council near the beginning of the Christian era. The collection of New Testament books took place gradually over many years by the pressure of various kinds of circumstances and influences, some external and others internal to the life of congregations. Different factors operated at different times and in different places. Some of the influences were constant, others were periodic; some were local, and others were operative where the Church had been planted."
Again, this further illustrates that not all of the information and manuscript material has been made available. Instead, over a period of time, the material was "sifted and rejected" as needed.
This is an example of negative historical revisionisn. Instead, the great book should continually be updated to contain all of the newfound materials, versions and ideologies. It would then become the greatest book to all.