Is our bible complete? - Page 5

edjen01 · #41 05-19-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I disagree with what this line of thought lends itself to.

When one says our Bible is not 100% correct, then it opens most folks up to the idea that they can believe and practice whatever they feel is worth practicing or believing.

The Bible we have is complete enough for the salvation of the souls who read and adhere in faith in Jesus Christ.

there is a difference between being "complete enough" and being "100% correct".

JD...do you believe that everyone is suppose to believe & practice everything written in the 80 books of the original canon?

mfblume · #42 05-19-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

I ask this because in 1st Corinthians 5:9, Paul mentions a previous letter. I have read in various other places that there were at least four letters to Corinth in total.

My questions are this:

Where are the other two? Why aren't they canonized? Should we, as Christians, assume they are not important, because they are not canonized?

We just have to trust God that we have -- and He has provided us with what we have -- for what we need.

Praxeas · #43 05-19-2009, 04:43 PM

One other thing to consider:

There may be some letters that, though written to a specific church, contain instructions and things of importance to all churches.

And there may be letters written to a specific church that were not written in that way.

We know there were specific instructions given for letters to be spread to other churches

Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

Jermyn Davidson · #44 05-19-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edjen01

there is a difference between being "complete enough" and being "100% correct".

JD...do you believe that everyone is suppose to believe & practice everything written in the 80 books of the original canon?

I only know about the 66 Books.
Are you referring to the Apocrypha-- I thought these books were histories, without doctrinal teachings?

You are right in emphasizing the difference between "complete enough" and "100% correct".

I will not say that there is any part of the Bible that is incorrect.

I think there is a strong possibility of some mistranslations and/or misunderstandings of the Word of God, i.e. Mt 28:19.

However:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (King James Version)

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

FaithtoFaith · #45 05-19-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It either means that current letter....the text does not say "a previous letter"....what translation is that?

1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people

Or it does refer to a former letter that does not exist anymore.

Does that make the bible not complete? Not at all. We'd have to assume there are new commands of God found in that letter not found in the NT anywhere. We have to assume also that such a letter in the eyes of God is or was necessary for us to have and God screwed up somewhere in not getting it to us

There is positively at least 1 and most scholars believe 2 additional letters that Paul wrote to Corinth.

FaithtoFaith · #46 05-19-2009, 05:59 PM

I affirm and believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallable Word of God.

Justin · #47 05-19-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

One other thing to consider:

There may be some letters that, though written to a specific church, contain instructions and things of importance to all churches.

And there may be letters written to a specific church that were not written in that way.

We know there were specific instructions given for letters to be spread to other churches

Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

That brings up an interesting point... Since we have the letter Paul wrote to the Collosians as canon, how come we don't have the letter written to the Laodiceans?

We can safely assume that the two letters are different, as Paul wanted them to share the content of the letters.

Jason B · #48 05-19-2009, 10:25 PM

I believe that God is more than able to give us His word as He wanted us to have it, no matter the council. I wonder if some of you even believe God is able to protect His own Word.

Just because Paul wrote other letters (exp. Epistle to the Laodiceans) doesn't mean everytime He picked up a pen He was inspired and infallible (requirements if it is scripture). I'm sure many Biblical authors had other works, doesn't mean they should be scripture. Do you think Malachi only wrote 4 chapters in His entire life, James only wrote a short letter, etc.

IMO, questioning if the Bible we have is complete (thus we have only a partial version of God's Word) is questioning the ability of God himself to preserve His Word, and by extension questions the omnipotentcy of God Himself.

Fiyahstarter · #49 05-19-2009, 10:29 PM

66 Books. Odd number to be.

Praxeas · #50 05-20-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

That brings up an interesting point... Since we have the letter Paul wrote to the Collosians as canon, how come we don't have the letter written to the Laodiceans?

We can safely assume that the two letters are different, as Paul wanted them to share the content of the letters.

with each other, however that does not mean necessarily God felt it was necessary for the whole church