So what about the books that aren't in the Bible? What are we supposed to make of them? I know you probably don't like the ones with crazy stuff, but the Bible has some pretty crazy stuff too, lol.The decision of "what books should be in the Bible" was made when the Bible was compiled in the 300's. It's kind of a long-dead issue, but I can discuss it, if you want.
The proper term for the Biblical-style books which are not in the Bible is "non-canonical" or "apocrypha". There are three types.
1. Good books, which are worth reading.
2. Bad books, which are not worth reading.
3. Books which have a mixture of good and bad. They are sometimes worth reading.
It's not always easy to determine which non-canonical books are bad and which aren't. Who gets to pick what counts as bad, and what doesn't? A general rule of thumb is that the bad books contain false or misleading information. Examples would include books written by someone pushing a particular agenda, books which contain slander, and books which don't fit in with the other Biblical texts.
I can write more on the topic, if people want me to. Like I said, it's been a moot issue for 1600+ years. No real attempts have been made to add non-canonical books to the Bible. There have been attempts to remove books from the Bible, but adding books? Nobody has seriously tried that.