Close Topic Options

Is The Bible Complete?

The Bible is a Book of Books, more specifically; ancient scrolls that recorded various events and times, but is it complete? Should more Books be in the Bible? Are there more scrolls that may have been left out that should be included? If they are included how would our perspective of Christianity change?

Complete Bible Is

This is interesting. I think many people consider the Bible to be complete, but if you know the history of how the Bible was compiled you would have to question that. One of the early Catholic Church leaders decided which books to include and which books not to include. I do not know if he did this all by himself or with assistance. I am not sure who it was, but I think it might have been Constantine. Anyway, the Catholic Bible contains a number of books that are not included in most Protestant versions. So, if the Bible is complete, which version is complete? The one with more or the one with less? Not only does the Catholic Bible contain more books, but Daniel is a longer book in their version.

There are many other religious writings, by early Church leaders and perhaps even apostles, that have been left out. Who is to say those should not be included?

Edited: funbikerchick on 14th Feb, 2005 - 9:13pm

Is The Bible Complete? Revealed Bible The

Some say there is other books but that it isn't time for them to be released. Like to my understanding we haven't totaly understood the books we have now and that when the otherbooks are released then that will be another sign that god is coming.
my .2 cents

Complete Bible Is

How long does a writing have to be to get the message across?

Brother John at the end of his Gospel (chap 21 vs 25) said it best... "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

So is the book of John complete?

The Divine hand of the Creator of Space, Time, Matter and Energy decreed 66 books by 40+ authors and put what we needed in the official handbook of God to man. God could have picked any group of people on the face of the planet for this task... He picked a middle easterner from Ur named Abraham and through his decendents, gave them care of writing and transmitting the history of the world and his plan.

I think it is fair to say that though there are many other writings out there that could be considered inspired and worthy of a good read and a little revelation... the Bible as we have it today is complete as God's official writ to man. Anything that contradicts it, is error.

These 66 books are being translated into all the languages of man... those other books, aren't.

Beginning in Genesis and finishing in Revelation... the story and the plan is unfolded with warnings to any who would add or take away from the content therein... (Rev 22:18-19).

That's how I see it.

Complete Bible Is

That is not a bad way to see it, but I think it ignores a few vital things.

1. Several books of the New Testament were written AFTER the Revelation of John.

2. There are several places within the current canon where refernces are made to other books of scripture, that aren't in the current canon. Jesus even refered to one of these missing scriptures in John 8:56. If scriptures that we accept as genuine refer to other books currently NOT accepted as such, or books not currently even available, doesn't create some caution in proclaiming that the Bible is complete, then I don't know what will.

3. The Catholic canon is much larger than the Protestant canon. Which is right?

4. Just because John wrote what he did in John 21:25 doesn't mean that there wasn't a lot more written, that early church leaders didn't want included.

5. If Jesus dwelt with the Apostles for 40 days following the Resurrection, what did he teach them? Where is it recorded? Would it be valid scripture if it came to light?

My opinion is that there is much more available than is currently in the Bible.

Is The Bible Complete?

SteveB, you still haven't really answered which Bible is correct. Many say exactly what you have said, but this is ignoring the fact that there are two very different versions of the Bible widely accepted today. Are you saying the Protestant version is correct and therefore the Catholic one is not? Are you saying the extra books in the Catholic Bible are not scripture? Or, are you saying the Catholic version is correct ,and, therefore, the Protestant version is not complete?

Is Bible Complete

I would have to agree with the version about constantine choosing a few of his scholars to help choose what to include in the bible. Then there was King James who chose scholars to do the same thing and interpret these books into Old English. Thus making it available to everyone. I do not know of the Catholic or Protestant bible that everyone is talking about but I have looked at a few versions over the last 30 years and some bible versions have been so simplified that when compared to the older ones, some of the meanings may have been lost or misunderstood. This is only from my experience as I went to different churches with different people when I was a lot younger. I do not feel that it is about whether which bible is true, for myself it is which one was interpreted correctly. If everyone understood what the message was from the bible it would be great but like the parables that jesus taught, only those who were in tune to his teachings understood it's meanings therefor the messages seen throughout the bible are repetitive because sometimes it takes repition for a genius to understand and to evaluate one's self.

Is Bible Complete The Bible Revealed

Funbikerchick

The fact is there is only One Bible. The 66 books sold in Catholic Bookstores are the same as those 66 sold in Protestant Bookstores. They are the same in content, story, etc.

The difference between the Roman Canon (you said version) and the Canon of 66 used by most everybody else is that Rome added selected Jewish literature to prop us doctrines that filtered into the Church after Constantine 'Romanized' Christianity in his region. Byzantium didn't go for it... nor did the African Copts and many others. These 'Apocrapha' are tacked onto the 66 and are not considered scripture (official writ and guide given to man by God). There are bibles like the Schofield reference Bible, Thompson Chain reference Bible and many others that have helps and commentaries and other things tacked on them... but those extras are not considered scripture just because they are between the covers containing the 66...

Now how can we know this 66 book thing is true? That's for another post if there is interest. Because even in this post I had to down edit by 2/3rds.