is the Bible complete

[apothanein kerdos]

The untranslated items and the edits made by people with an agenda means that the modern Bible versions may be incomplete. To me, if one word was changed that altered the meaning from the original Bible to the new Bible, it is incomplete.

This shows you don't understand the translation process.

Once again, I can take you to the manuscripts and show you that there is relatively little change. Certain times words have to be altered simply because some Greek words are not translatable into English words, so we have to convey the idea of the Greek word, which is extremely hard to do. The truth and systematic theology, however, is very, very consistent.

I challenge you to show me a different way to translate from Greek into English and to name one translation that is well accepted that did so with an agenda and altered scripture.

[mikado5001]

Translations(NIV, KLV, NASB, NLT and the like) are only a small part of what puzzles me. It's mans possible corruption that is the crux of the matter for me. It's just my own theory. But part of the reason I believe that Caiaphas, Annas, and the rest had Jesus crucified was because they feared their power would be deminished. And I think that might be why some of G-d's true and complete word is not among the 66 books of the Bible as we know it today.

Edited August 10, 2005 by mikado5001

[apothanein kerdos]

Translations(NIV, KLV, NASB, NLT and the like) are only a small part of what puzzles me. It's mans possible corruption that is the crux of the matter for me. It's just my own theory. But part of the reason I believe that Caiaphas, Annas, and the rest had Jesus crucified was because they feared their power would be deminished. And I think that might be why some of G-d's true and complete word is not among the 66 books of the Bible as we know it today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would God let His word be tainted? If He knew that, in the time after the apostles, all we had was the Word to be sure, would He let it be tainted?

The thing is, while there has always been a misuse of the Bible, there has been a general respect for it. Likewise, the early church, when composing the Bible, didn't really hold any power, so they couldn't corrupt it to hold onto something they didn't have.

The scriptures have always been considered holy. We see in the 2nd and 3rd centuries Christians being forced to read from the gospels and asked if they believe it. If they said yes, they were condemned. So there has always been a certain element of holiness and evidence that the scriptures were viewed as powerful by both believers and non-believers.

[Dad Ernie]

Translations(NIV, KLV, NASB, NLT and the like) are only a small part of what puzzles me. It's mans possible corruption that is the crux of the matter for me. It's just my own theory. But part of the reason I believe that Caiaphas, Annas, and the rest had Jesus crucified was because they feared their power would be deminished. And I think that might be why some of G-d's true and complete word is not among the 66 books of the Bible as we know it today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings Mikado,

I have to agree with Super Jew and others, the Word of God which we now have is complete for the purposes which God has intended it. We do have historical secular materials which give further clarification on some subjects, but these are NOT considered "inspired" as is the Word of God. These materials are "man inspired", and always have a bent to them to reflect the beliefs or agenda of men.

I don't have any problem with most translations or transliterations of the Bible because I look to the "original" Greek or Hebrew AND since God is consistent, that is He never changes, we can verify a particular tenet or doctrine by its replication in the scriptures. A worthy part of hermeneutics is "comparing scripture with scripture". If we see a verse that does not rightly correlate with the rest of the scriptures, such as "baptism saves", then we know we have misunderstood what that verse is really saying, for we know that "It is by grace we are saved, through faith, and not by works" of any kind. So what we now have available to us is fully adequate to give us understanding and to prepare the man of God in being made righteous with Him.

So, don't overly concern yourself with what is missing or is confusing in the Bible. Ask God who will give you wisdom in the matter. It is US that are confused.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[kittylover0991]

*tries to contain self.. but says it anyway*

I believe that the bible i have is the holy and pure word of God. I woudl hate to be the poor fool who stands before God and has to admit that while they were reading his word.. they didnt' believe it was complete..

Being translated from one language to another.. God kept watch over that.. i believe that in my heart.. In my own opinion, i belvie that the new versions such as NRSV, NIV.. and all the others are either missing verses or have changed the meanign of verses...

but i don't believe that the bible itself is incompete. I am holding a bible in my hands(yes, while typing) and i believe that this is the word of God that was given by inspiraiton of him. TO say that the bible is incomplete... is calling GOd a liar becuae he said he would preserve it.. to say that there are errors woudl also call God a liar and prove that he is not real... to say that the bible doesn't cover every subject is also a lie.. there is not ONE subject not covered in the bible in some way.. some might say that drinking beer isn't mentioned becaues it dones' specificailly say beer... but it says strong drink and that our bodies are the temple of the holy Ghost(we are to keep that pure)...

David.. please.. I am sorry.. but i dont' think i understand anymore what you are asking.. first you say that you believe that the bible is the complete word of God and then you ask if it is possible that it can be incomplete becuase of translation.. if you queistion it.. it isn't truly believing it wholly.. please help me to understand what you are asking here(yes, i have been reading the posts)

I am sorry if this seems bold, maybe offensive, and maybe carried away/out of hand.. but i have a firm opinion on the subject and some questioning that just "rubs me the wrong way".

Ok.. i will stop going off on rabbit trails for now..

[kittylover0991]

David... these manuscripts you keep talking about.. God put his word together after so many years.. he left them out for a reason.. nothing in the bible contridicts itself and nothing is left out.. if there was more to the bible.. then i think that GOd would have it in there by now..

*just saw Dad Ernie's post.. whoops*

[nebula]

Translations(NIV, KLV, NASB, NLT and the like) are only a small part of what puzzles me. It's mans possible corruption that is the crux of the matter for me. It's just my own theory. But part of the reason I believe that Caiaphas, Annas, and the rest had Jesus crucified was because they feared their power would be deminished. And I think that might be why some of G-d's true and complete word is not among the 66 books of the Bible as we know it today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you have any evidence to back up your theory?

[other one]

Translations(NIV, KLV, NASB, NLT and the like) are only a small part of what puzzles me. It's mans possible corruption that is the crux of the matter for me. It's just my own theory. But part of the reason I believe that Caiaphas, Annas, and the rest had Jesus crucified was because they feared their power would be diminished. And I think that might be why some of G-d's true and complete word is not among the 66 books of the Bible as we know it today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mikado, I would agree with you about Caiaphas and others fearing their power would be diminished. Partially because of the parable of the land owner who sent his son to check on things and those managing the farm killed him so as to rid themselves of the person who would inherit the farm.

I don't understand what this would have to do with parts of the word being missing. The word itself tells us about these people. If they had any way of changing the word, they would have done it to condemn Christ, and they had no part of the penning of the new testament gospel manuscripts.

Edited August 11, 2005 by other one

[mikado5001]

*tries to contain self.. but says it anyway*

I believe that the bible i have is the holy and pure word of God. I woudl hate to be the poor fool who stands before God and has to admit that while they were reading his word.. they didnt' believe it was complete..

Being translated from one language to another.. God kept watch over that.. i believe that in my heart.. In my own opinion, i belvie that the new versions such as NRSV, NIV.. and all the others are either missing verses or have changed the meanign of verses...

but i don't believe that the bible itself is incompete.

Edited August 11, 2005 by mikado5001

[kittylover0991]

*tries to contain self.. but says it anyway*

I believe that the bible i have is the holy and pure word of God. I woudl hate to be the poor fool who stands before God and has to admit that while they were reading his word.. they didnt' believe it was complete..

Being translated from one language to another.. God kept watch over that.. i believe that in my heart.. In my own opinion, i belvie that the new versions such as NRSV, NIV.. and all the others are either missing verses or have changed the meanign of verses...

but i don't believe that the bible itself is incompete.