>>3916
>I don't know a whole lot on how the church compiled the bible but how do you decide on what's not worth keeping?
The ancient did a great job of selection, according to current historians. Basically, if Jesus flies in the air and shoots fire at His enemies, it's probably not authentic. I've read a bunch of the gospels that weren't selected for the Bible, and they are in very stark contrast. We now know they were also written much later.
>Even if revelations or ezekiel is a schizophrenic nightmare that doesn't have any use if it's the divine word of God then shouldn't it stay in?
The OT is different. You have the Torah, and nobody even discussed whether the books of the Torah were to be taken, since the selecting process had already been done by then. It's the Jewish Bible, essentially. Then you have various canons: Catholics took them all, Protestants removed the Deuterocanonic stuff because Hebrews didn't consider them as canonic as the rest.
The difference between Ezekiel and John of Patmos is that Ezekiel's book was already tradition for centuries, so for better or worse, it's there; another difference is that Ezekiel makes far more sense. Nobody today can really tell you what Revelation is about. Some think it's just code from John to other Christians being persecuted by Rome. After all, John of Patmos does write to various churches, so that version wouldn't surprise me.
I certainly don't think it's the divine word of God. It could be that the author had mental issues. God's visions generally make more sense and have a point. Nobody knows the point of Revelation.