is the Bible complete

[mikado5001]

First let me say this. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE. But through the centuries, translation, and possible corruption of men. The true word has gotten lost. I can't shake that nagging suspicion that something has gone astray from G-d's true word. Jesus's early years for one. The whole Gnostic gospel situation. Even before DaVinci Code brought about public discourse. I had this suspicsion. G_D DID NOT LIE NOR CONCEAL OR CHANGE. MAN DID. Not G-d. I just want you to understand that part.

What are your thoghts?

Edited August 8, 2005 by mikado5001

[Remnantrob]

Only if it contains the 66 books of Genesis through Revelation.

[Catsmeow]

To: Mikado

Friend, God's Word has been faithfully preserved throughout time and always will.

Man, (as always) attempts to corrupt God's Word (i.e. The "Da Vinci Code" is written by a man making a buck.) It's nonsense.

The Gnostics were a cult. Cults are a dime a dozen, especially these days.

[Keith]

mikado,

The Bible is not an errant book. Most, if not all, of the Bible "errors" can be explained logically. As a matter of fact, 99% of the Bibles today are in agreement. Most of the "errors" are differences in punctuation, the order of words, grammatical issues or word endings. These are the types of "errors" that may have occurred during the transcription of the Bible the thousands of times it's been copied. There are no major or important Biblical issues that are in contradiction or doubt. Saying that these men, or scribes, made theological errors is the nonChristians easy way out of feeling like they have a valid reason not to believe.

The Bible we have today is very closely the same as the original texts of 2000 years ago. Studies were done on a 14th century Bible to test it's accuracy from one of the 3rd century. They were remarkably similar. There is absolutely no evidence that the early Bible manuscripts have been edited or tampered with in any way.

As far as Jesus' childhood missing from the Bible, don't fall under the impression that the Bible is a novel and gives complete "character histories." The only impression of Jesus' childhood is given in Luke 2:51-52. Why isn't more of Jesus' childhood recorded? Maybe because these verses tell us that Jesus went with his parents to Nazareth and was obedient. Maybe nothing happened that God thought we needed to know. The point is, the story of Jesus' childhood wasn't lost or hidden from us by men, it simply wasn't told by God. We have to trust God. If He was able to bring the Bible together after all the many centuries it was written, I think we can trust Him to preserve it, too.

As a Christian, we either need to believe that the Bible is the true, inerrant Word of God and that every word of it is true and applies just as much today as it did when it was written... or that's it's just one fantastic novel. There is no picking it apart. To believe one part and not another is a lot of people's way of trying to justify their wanting to believe what they want to believe and that's it. Like our relationship with Jesus, we need to be hot or cold. Be lukewarm and you'll get spit out.

As far as the DaVinci Code book goes... you can get a lot more value out of that by burning it in your fireplace. At least then, it will provide some heat for your house in the winter. Personally, I wouldn't use it to steady a wobbly table.

[kittylover0991]

I have one thing to say.. I believe that the bible is the whole and complete word of God.. and in my own opinion and experiences I believe that the newer "versions of the bible" are not God's pure word and they changed around what he said. The bible was inspired by God and these new translations are what men think God meant when he said.. well, what he said. This is not meant for a debate on the differnt versions of the bible, but that is where i stand with the KJV and the pure word of GOd...

Now that i have said that, i can go on to answer your question Mikado. God said in Pslams that he would preserve his word and that it would be tried as silver and gold seven times.. God said he would preserve his word, and if he didn't, that woudl make him a liar. God is not a liar. Therefore, yes, God has preserved his word throughout time and will continue to preserve his as he has from the beginnnng(in the beginnign was the word and the word was God, and the word was with God). There are versions of the bible.. some that are even corrupted with the sins of this world such as homosexuality and other sexual sins.. and thigns that are immoral... GOd preserved his word.. most definitly..

However, one must ask the Lord for discernmetn as to which is his true word and which should be followed to the fullest...

*sticks foot in mouth again before gets in trouble for going off on a tangent*

Amen Keith :) Amen...

[apothanein kerdos]

Is the Bible complete? The truth of the Bible is absolutely complete. Let me explain.

I can take you back to manuscripts dated to the second and third centuries that contain what we consider the new testament. I can translate them for you and show you that, in fact, they say the exact same thing our translations do. While we don't have the originals, we have manuscripts (copies) of the originals that are not older than 200 years...some less than 100 years (though there are maybe less than a dozen of these). In other words, we can go back to an early time to back up what we have now. While certain manuscripts may disagree in grammatics or spelling of a name or town, the truth of what they say it 100% reliable among almost all manuscripts.

As for the Gnostic gospels, what exactly are you hinting at with them? Are you wondering if they should have been included, or if gnostic thoughts entered into the Bible?

[Leonard]

1. If you ever bothered reading the Nag Hamadi texts, you would realize they are NOT Christian writings. They are religious writings which use some Christian jargon, but the ideas and doctrines they present are completely opposed to both the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers.

2. By the end of the 2nd Century, the letters of the Early Church Fathers had quoted the entire New Testament except for 15 verses. Yet they did NOT cite ANY of the gnostic texts.

3. To wax mystical on you: In the Tabernacle of Moses, the only light came from the menorah; the six-branched candlestick. Now the construction of the menorah was quite interesting. It was a single beaten piece of gold, divided into groups of three objects: An almond, a pomegranate, and a 'knop.' The central stem was made up four (4) groups of these objects, and each of the six arms was made up of three (3) groups of these objects. So the central stem contains 12 objects, each arm has 9 objects. The total of the six arms then, is 54 objects. So the total number of these almonds, pomegranates and knops is 66, just like the 'light' of the Bible given to Christians. Further, the central stem and arms on the left of the candlestick add up to 39 objects, just like there are 39 books in the Old Testament, and the arms on the Right add up to 27 objects, just like there are 27 books in the New Testament. Given the correlation of the 66 pieces for the total light of the Tabernacle, and the 66 pieces of the Bible for the total light of Believers, I am not apt to start adding books to the Canon!

I think your suspicions are unfounded, and a little investigation into the historicity of the Canon will dispell the darkness for you.

Fr. Onesimus

[apothanein kerdos]

2. By the end of the 2nd Century, the letters of the Early Church Fathers had quoted the entire New Testament except for 15 verses. Yet they did NOT cite ANY of the gnostic texts.

Good point. Not only did they not cite any of the gnostic texts, but more than 80% of the scriptures they quoted were in works written to defeat gnostic teachings.

[Trektiger Jack]

Mikado5001,

You ask, "What are your thoughts?"

Here's what I think.

When you say that you believe the Bible is true and complete, then imply the contrary, it causes me to wonder who and what are you listening to. When one starts thinking God incapable of inspiring and preserving His Word, when He clearly states He did, and does, then you need to ask who's voice it is that you're listening to? There are only three sources, God, the Adversary, and man's (our) own carnal thinking. It behooves you to discern which voice it is you are hearing.

[other one]

First let me say this. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE. But through the centuries, translation, and possible corruption of men. The true word has gotten lost. I can't shake that nagging suspicion that something has gone astray from G-d's true word. Jesus's early years for one. The whole Gnostic gospel situation. Even before DaVinci Code brought about public discourse. I had this suspicion. G_D DID NOT LIE NOR CONCEAL OR CHANGE. MAN DID. Not G-d. I just want you to understand that part.

What are your thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mikado, I would have to say that I do believe that he bible is true, However I would have to ask what you mean by complete. It is not all the truth that exists in the world, but for it's purpose it is complete. To introduce us to the Father, the Son and the Spirit and to give the information necessary for us to know them and follow them and to attain eternity with them, it is complete.

There are many other things in this world that are not contained within the pages of the bible.... (how to make an airplane for one) because it does not pertain to attaining an eternal walk with the Lord.

Edited August 9, 2005 by other one