is the Bible complete

[mikado5001]

Ok. First of all I seemed to have touched a nerve. I am sorry for offending. I AM NOT, HOWEVER, SORRY FOR ASKING QUESTIONS, AND SEEKING ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS. Here is one more question. What of the Apocrypha(sp) which I found in a bible at one Episcopal Church, and than never again? That's the kind of thing I am talking about. I DO NOT DOUBT G-D!!! At least not anymore, as I used to in my agnostic/borderline atheistic days. Where in the Bible is the miracle of the oil? The basis for Hanukah on the Jewish Calender.

Here's another one. He claims to be a Christian and claims the Bible is true and complete and yet posts this in the same post? Again, I don't think he should be allowed access to the Outer Court around new and seeking Christians. Those who come here to make trouble and lure people away from Christ could take any of mikado's posts and shred him for his lack of logic and make it appear like, "See? Even Christians can't defend what they believe! Even they doubt it!"

I know this is a delicate issue as to what to give access to and what title to give others, but I'm sure we can come up with something if we feed off each other's ideas.

Put away the sword there Keith. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO QUESTION THINGS. And those who don't need reality more than most. Read Gethsemane. Even our savior had questions. Sorry if you can't deal with it. Last time I checked we were supposed to help each other out. I am overjoyed that you have no doubts. I however, even as a Christian, do. G-d is cool with questions. Why not you? Have I hit a nerve? Brought to mind old memories? Maybe I am having a spiritual identity crisis. But sometimes I see myself as just a pathetic sinner saved by Christ giving his life for me on the Cross. And trying to carry on Christ's teachings. Love, respect, kindness, and the rest. Not a Christian per se. If that make me Christian. Then I am a Christian. Never enjoyed labels is all.

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.

Well what and where are these 15 verses? Even a Bible group leader said that Isaiah 53, the clearest, to me, prophecy of Christ was ommited at one time from the Jewish Tanach or Old Testament for a time. Ergo, man corrupted G-d's word.

I am sure, beyond doubt. That G-d keeps his promises. How is also the question. I seem to find G-d's hand in almost everything I do. Books(Yes even the DaVinci Code, to me, has something to say. What truths I can only pray), Movies, music. You name it. I just pray that HE will show me what is his and, what is not. So I will know the truth. Let us, for a moment, assume that man has corupted G-d's word. Where and how would HE get the truth back out there into the world. After all, where in the Bible does G-d command folks to elect a Pope? Carry out murder in his name? The inquisition anyone? You see my point about mans coruption of G-d and, G-d's word. Ask yourselves is it possible that G-d is keeping his promise in ways most people have not yet thought of?

The Vatican said the DaVinci Code is "Anti-Church". Well, does anti-Church mean anti-God? To me it may be more pro-G-d than we think. Who here is absolutley sure that the Gnostic Gospels are not part of G-d's plan. Which I find in Christian sections of bookstores I might add. Along with, it seems, endless DaVinci Code pro/con debates. And that this is how he gets it out there. And yes I have thought about the possibility that Satan could be behind my whole doubts. And I pray that G-d will guide me, or cast these Satanic thoughts out of my life. And they seem to be getting stronger. So either I am nuts. Or I am not nuts.

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.

Trek tiger; Perhaps in my haste to get all this down on "paper" I misspoke. I BELEIVE THAT G-D's WORD IS TRUE AND COMPLETE. IT'S THE BOOK KNOWN AS "THE BIBLE" THAT GIVES ME PAUSE. I am not talking about KJV vs NIV vs NLT vs NASB and the like. I have seen myself, owning one of each that they match up. That's not the issue I have. Somewhere between G-d spoke and through the ceturies to Man writes what G-d spoke. Something got lost, stolen or otherwise. Just because KING JAMES authorized a Bible. Does not mean G-d authorized it too.

Again please don't thrown stones. We have all had questions in life. About ANYTHING and EVERYTHING on G-d's great Earth. Mine just tend to be more controversial than most.

Leonard: I never even heard of the "Nag Hamadi" you mentioned. What are they?

To borrow an excellent quote from another message boards. I have no problem with G-d. Just certain members of the fan club.

Edited August 9, 2005 by mikado5001

[Guest Sleeker]

I agree with Mikado. Throughout time, humans have mistranslated, either from error or the lack of a synonym in the other language, and have purposely edited the Bible to suit their purposes.

Why else would there be different versions of the Bible?

[apothanein kerdos]

I agree with Mikado.  Throughout time, humans have mistranslated, either from error or the lack of a synonym in the other language, and have purposely edited the Bible to suit their purposes. 

Why else would there be different versions of the Bible?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

THis doesn't mean the Bible isn't complete. I can take you to the manuscripts in Greek and show you the truth there as well.

[Guest Sleeker]

This doesn't mean the Bible isn't complete. I can take you to the manuscripts in Greek and show you the truth there as well.

No, it doesn't, but it shows that it may be incomplete.

[apothanein kerdos]

This doesn't mean the Bible isn't complete. I can take you to the manuscripts in Greek and show you the truth there as well.

No, it doesn't, but it shows that it may be incomplete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it doesn't

It shows that when translating from Greek to English there is an inspired residue, or untranslatable items, that is left over. Doesn't show the bible is incomplete.

[nebula]

No, it doesn't, but it shows that it may be incomplete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

May?

Show your evidence, please!

[kittylover0991]

God said he would preserve his word in Pslams, God instructed King James to have the bible tranlated into English as it was going to become the most-well known language... There are still no errors in the bible..and no one can prove it is incomplete. People change around God's word for themselves(again, hence the differnt versions).. but that doesn't mean that God's word is no longer preserved..

[Trektiger Jack]

Mikeado5001,

Is it Mike? Excuse me if it's not, just seems a little more personal on a first name basis.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong in having questions about doctrine. As with your question - a question regarding the Doctrine of Scriptures. However, when one is pondering doctrines and asking publicly for opinions, it must be done with a sensitivity which does not put your audience on the defensive. Your question involves the Canonicity of the Bible, which requires an in-depth look into the Canon of the O.T., and the principles and formation of the N.T. Canon. Now that in of itself is a worthy subject to study.

Then there are at least three major groups of people who we could categorize thusly:

1. The Canonized Bible alone, the Sola Scriptura group, for the most part those who belief the Bible as the sole source of faith and doctrine. The Bible is self-authenticating and church councils have only recognized the authority inherent in the books themselves. That God guided the councils so that the canon was recognized.

2. The Bible "plus" group, the other books and letters (IMO spurious) that go beyond the 66 contained as in the KJV and NAS, as well as the words of Oral Traditions of the Church fathers, such as with the Catholic Church.

3. The Bible "plus" spurious books (including gospels, letters, writings), being a number of that, go beyond the 66 contained in such versions as the KJV or the NAS. Usually these are foundational books and writings by the founders of Christian Cults.

It's my belief if one so desires to use the "writings" which go beyond the 66 books of the Bible, they should be kept for one's private reading, but not for public reading in the church. The tested writings passed on in the canon which we consider to be Divine and inspired of the Holy Spirit are the official Scriptures. And these only are the ones to be used in public, in the church, for teaching and preaching from. Now if the spurious writings such as the Gospels of Barnabas are to be accepted as divine, then they need to be able to pass all the tests that the official writings had to when canonized before being used in the church. Otherwise they, along with the hundreds of other spurious writings should be read in private. Some spurious writings obviously are a waste of one's time, which would be better served reading the Bible.

Permit me a short detour here. In my case, having been an Agnostic, I grew up and learned of God from what I'll term a natural theology, the learning of God thru His creation. Actually I view this as good now, since I never had major conflicts of faith to deal with after becoming a follower of Jesus Christ as a young man. It's been approximately 50 years since I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and over those years I've bent the ears of many friends, pastors, and teachers with my questions. Wore out some Bible in the process. This I have learned -- only after I achieve mastery over the 66 books I now have in my Bibles, then and only then will I ask the Holy Spirit to give me more books to study. I never expect to make this request of Him. I bid you well Mike in your search for truth.

Jack Anderson

P.S. You wrote me, "again please don't thrown stones." No stones thrown to my knowledge, if I did, please forgive me. I did not offer you any opinion or course of action that I do not apply to myself. Even to this day I tests the spirits to ascertain the source. Is it my Father's voice that I'm listening to, or is it the Deceiver's voice, or is it my own? Discernment improves with study, experience and age, but I'll never let my guard down until the day Jesus returns for me.

Jack

Edited August 9, 2005 by Trektiger Jack

[apothanein kerdos]

Very good post Jack

[Leonard]

"Well what and where are these 15 verses? Even a Bible group leader said that Isaiah 53, the clearest, to me, prophecy of Christ was ommited at one time from the Jewish Tanach or Old Testament for a time. Ergo, man corrupted G-d's word."

First of all, I don't remember which specific 15 verses were left unquoted. As to where they are: They are in the New Testament; that's how we know they didn't quote them!

Any Bible group leader who says the Jews EVER left Isaiah 53 out of the Bible is entirely incorrect. I am quite knowledgeable on these matters, and I assure you, except for an occasional 'wierdo sect' such as crops up from time to time in every religion, the Jews have EVER AND ALWAYS accepted Isaiah 53 as the Word of God. They put a different interpretation on it than do Christians obviously, but they have always included it in their canon.

Up to this point, your questions seemed rational and logical, but then you go off on a wierd tangent. You seem to be sort of shooting a shot-gun pattern here: I don't see what fiendish acts committed by some professing Christians has to do with the reliability of the text of the Bible, any more than the fact the ancient Greeks tortured P.O.W.'s has to do with the text of the Iliad & the Odessy! The subject of textual continuity is unrelated to the subject of the Inquisition(s). Are you just looking for reasons to doubt? If so, you have our full permission. Reject anything you like, but do not pretend you have done so for logical or scholarly reasons.

We have very accurate and unbroken chains of ancient documents which help us very clearly establish that the text stands VERY SUBSTANTIALLY as it stood in the autographs themselves.

Again, I think your doubts are unnecessary, and a little study in the area of textual criticism will probably set your mind at ease.

Fr. Onesimus