Is the Bible Complete?

[SoloBoshek]

So many people make the statement that the bible is complete? If it is... how... and if not... how?

[beale]

While speaking to God the other day he told me he's still working on the punchline.

[Cetti]

I like that beale!! It all depends whether you believe the Bible to be the word of God - or not. If 'yes', then look at the very last page to the Book of Revelations. It's a very plain warning that says " If anyone adds anything to them, (words, that is) God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him ....etc So in other words it is finished.

[woofgang]

yes but which version is the complete one?

[TommyC]

The original canon of the inspired Scriptures - the Hebrew Tanakh - was fixed and accepted without question by the Jews before the time that Jesus walked the earth. The next major event in their theological timetable was well understood to be the coming of the Messiah - although they had little understanding of his purpose. The apostle Paul then later made clear that the various letters written to the early Christian congregations by himself and various other apostles had also been inspired by God's holy spirt, and were therefore to be read as holy Scripture, along with the later gospels of Jesus's ministry, and the book of Revelation which looked far ahead to the restoration and new order. The Christian Greek scriptures quote directly from the Hebrew scriptures literally scores of times, as support for the points made. Much later on, however, the corrupted and valueless Catholic church fathers deliberately and wrongly added to the canon a number of apocryphal books (Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees) which are simply collections of popular myths, have little historic and absolutely no religious value, and simply confuse the whole issue. These, however, still appear in the Catholic Jerusalem and Douay bibles today. The New World translation of the Bible rendered and published free of charge by Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide since the 1950's, and based directly on the original King James (Authorised) version of 1611, is universally accepted to be the finest modern-English translation available, taken directly from the Greek Septuagint texts that Paul himself and the apostles used, long before they were re-translated back into the original Hebrew.

[passatman]

What I want to know is how come moses was a biker when 2000 years ago bikes didnt exist....I quote "and the roar of Moses's Triumph was heard throughout the land!"

[Elfin]

Oh yeah, it's complete ok. Complete tosh! Hey Cetti, does that bit on the last page mean that the bible was actually the earliest recorded poison pen letter?

[who_knows]

why do people believe in god???

[lesfleures]

To "who_knows", why do people not believe in God? It is a conscience choice that every human being makes. To BElieve or not to BElieve.

[SoloBoshek]

Here, I found something interesting... The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).

[SoloBoshek]

Very interesting... So the bible is far from complete, and Cetti's remark, well, John wrote the book of Revelation, and he was referring to only the book of revelation, He had no idea that his book was going to be put at the end of the bible, so that doesn't come across as a sound answer. And the bible can't be complete because it also says in the same chapter that those verses you quoted are from, the angel told John not to close this book of prophecy. So you might want to rethink that. But thanks for the reply...

[Merlin]

PASSATMAN (Do you really drive one of those?): I've heard the quote so many times, but where is it? You know the oldest ice-cream vendor was present where the triumph was heard - Walls of Jericho (SEE HEBREWS 11:30) - and I always thought it was Joshua's triumph. He brought down Walls of Jericho by making the Israelites walk around in the desert for 7 days - they just couldn't get the stocks out there quick enough.

[zgma]

There are lots of other books that were written to be part of the bible but not included in the canonized version. In fact, the people choosing the books to be included had very specific agendas... they didn't want to include books that had ideas they didn't like. It was all very political. Try googling "old testament pseudepigrapha" or see if your library carries them. These are some really crazy documents, that were accepted by many people as part of the bible when they were written.