@AmberB Said
You keep coming back to this point, but I still don't see how it proves anything one way or another about the divinity of the books in question. The authors were telling their own story; why would they care about the others? That god didn't command them to include prophecies about other books that would be written and should be combined together to make the bible really says nothing about whether or not they were inspired by god. Perhaps the bible wasn't the goal of god. Perhaps many of the books left out of the bible were also inspired by god; they simply weren't chosen for the bible. Or perhaps, as you say, none (or at least not all) of them were inspired by god. I just don't see how that can be determined or supported by the fact that they don't mention other books written in the name of god.
I can't be bothered writing the the same thing all over again and I don't know how to make it clearer. But I'll try.
So the Church selected these 66 books to be the Holy Bible - they are supposedly the
right books to be at the absolute centre of Christian scriptural authority. Christian literalists will assert that they are divinely inspired because their authors were the specific people through which God wished to transmit his sacred message to humanity. The other books which were not included are heretical, false, not the work of God but of men (or possibly Satan).
Now, if these authors and their books are so phenomenally important to Christianity, if they are the ones which God specifically chose to spread his word and make himself known to humans, then you would expect this to be mentioned somewhere
in the scripture itself. God supposedly used the scripture and its authors to let prophecies be revealed, so that no one would be able to doubt that certain events were destined to happen. So why wasn't it planned, right from the beginning, that these books would be the Bible? Why didn't God reveal
that to his prophets?
You say that they were concerned about spreading their own message and not about the works of other people. In which case, there didn't appear to the different authors of the canonised books to be some special connection between them. They were unaware that they were writing for the Bible - from my perspective, that doesn't fit with the purported spiritual importance of the Bible. It implies that they weren't all receiving their message from the same divine source, which explains the presence of disagreements and inconsistencies between books.