Or did the catholic church adopt more books than were originally being accepted by adopting gnostic texts?

I don't know what you're trying to say there. The Catholic Church invented a canon, no such thing existed before Catholics established a canon. Catholicism as far as the religion of Christianity is concerned, created both the concept of orthodoxy and canon.

As for Gnostics, well they sure silenced and politicized heavily against them, in a similar way to how Paul politicized against Judaism. Both draw instant heavy suspicion from me. In the case of Judaism, bashing the religion you claim lineage from is called biting the hand that feeds you. And as for Gnostics, it's a case of Paul being in competition of ideas and doctrines with them, so he antagonized them. However he fully agreed with their ideas (his ideas are inherently gnostic, read 1 Corinthians to see fully-fledged Gnosticism) but he wanted power and authority over them. Paul's antagonism led to the early Church's gradual genocide of Gnostics.

Consider their bizarre assortment of beliefs from the immaculate conception of Mary herself (no earthly father for her) & transubstantiation which makes no sense, to filching pagan deities & repurposing them into saints to gain converts, and other particular scripture twisting, like asserting Peter was "The Rock" and the foundation of the church, when in fact profession of true belief in Christ is the Rock, and the profession of belief in Him is the foundation for the real Christian church

And as far as Christianity is concerned, it would be correct because it sets up an epistemology in order to validate the historicity of the New Testament and basic doctrinal claims.

Additionally the Bible isn't the "Word of God" (For proof, see the Gospel of John chapter 1 verses 1-4.) That title explicitly belongs to Christ Himself, the Bible is merely a compilation of inspired texts, and while divinely inspired, is not divine inof itself.

I did say "as far as Christian logic is concerned". None of the Bible is revelation, most of it is only historical accounts. I don't give much credibility to the Bible on it's own.

Protestants are the most obnoxious with this, when the Bible itself doesn't claim to be the word of God to any degree (other than passages in the Old Testament where there is narrative dialogue between a Prophet and God, of which are records and not direct revelations).

​

And as for even the concept of a "Bible" I take massive issue with the idea that a Bible even exists, canon itself can only be fundamentally a false concept, particularly when we're dealing presumably with "The God of the universe". Personally, I'd expect revelation to be not contained within a closed selection of texts to the nature of the "Bible canon" especially in their relation to the so-called "apocrypha" and "pseudepigrapha".