Veschengro
Favorite Answer
Because it is unprovable And filtered not to contain all of its original books so is therefore incomplete
Rico
It’s not considered incomplete, unless you’re comparing what is considered canonical by Protestant standards against Orthodox or RCC standards
Anonymous
The Bible itself says not everything is included in it.
Annsan_In_Him
Only by those who need extra-biblical sources to get a following after themselves. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses have lots of publications saying what the right interpretation of the Bible is; that if you read the Bible alone, without their publications, you will go into darkness. That's why Joseph Smith Jr. had golden tablets of ancient Egyptian put into English, "The Book of Mormon". That's why the Gnostics had to depend on unbiblical writings to back up their unbiblical doctrines. On this question you are speaking for yourself, for the JWs, and for the Gnostics.
Bobby Jim
The opinion that it is an incomplete canon comes from those that accept the apocrypha as part of the canon. The apocrypha was separated out from the Bible for specific problems with those texts. The problems span a whole spectrum of difficulties: authorship, dates of the writings, doctrines supported by canonical books, lack of reference to them from accepted canon, etc. etc. Some are even considered to have been written by spiritists.