Do we have a complete, perfect, and sufficient Bible?

[SilverFox7]

That's rather my understanding. I'm don't know whether any of the books of the Apocrypha are blessed to have been given through the work of the Holy Spirit to some follower of God, but I haven't yet found anything within them that isn't already testified to among the 66 books that we have. And honestly, any doctrine that is supported solely on some piece from the extrabiblical accounts would be questionable in my understanding.

Amen Ted - I read the Apocrypha a number of years ago, and it's good literature but not "God-breathed" like the "books" that make up the OT and NT of our Holy Bible. Like you noted, "I haven't yet found anything within them that isn't already testified to among the 66 books that we have." On top of that, I saw some strange ideas in some of the Apocrypha that didn't align with the core doctrines of our Christian faith. Our doctrine needs to be firmly rooted in the Bible.

That doesn't mean we can't gain insight and wisdom from extra-Biblical works like the Apocrypha and Jasher as @FollowerofShiloh expressed. I was so blessed to have an excellent pastor during my formative undergraduate days who encouraged me to devout serious study of the Bible and make it my "foundation of knowledge" that everything else I learned should be built upon. That was great advice, and I have learned so much from great Christian writers like Tennyson, Lewis, and Eliot through the years.

As much as I enjoy reading other literature, I still spend the bulk of my spare reading/study/writing time to the Bible. It never fails to offer new insights and inspiration, and frankly I need it to survive this crazy life and world. It is food for our whole being, and coupled with the Holy Spirit, there isn't another "book" out there that is living and active for strengthening us to think and live like Jesus Christ.

 

[Dino246]

No thanks, the seed placed within Mary's womb came from the Father and that's where the word begotten reveals this truth. This truth is important in connecting the image of Christ as the image of the invisible God. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You’re engaging in circular reasoning… again.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

a KJV Study Bible. it is still my first choice " go to " Bible.

Amen, Precious friend, and, A Very Warm Welcome Back to 'Chat.'

Grace, Peace, Mercy, And Love!
+
Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified In
Christ, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!:

Basic Distinctions Between Prophecy and Mystery!
+
“Things That Differ”

Amen.

 

[FredVB]

There is nothing that establishes the Textus Receptus as the one authorative set of passages to the exclusion of the other ancient manuscripts, and there are many points of disagreement, it is unsupported faith that the King James Version Bible is the one correct translation and others are wrong on any point of difference. This has no basis from what is said in scriptures, it is one of many vain traditions to hold others to. I have spoken with those just using the King James Bible and caught where they were wrong about something from reading it, even a pastor and a Sunday School teacher. The use of comparisons among the ancient manuscripts is the way to figure out what was in the original writing, and that is reliable. But not all believers can manage to do that, and very few will. The use of comparing translations is what some will manage much better, and there are tools that are very useful, like the Blue Letter Bible online. On points of proper doctrine though there are not disagreements between the ancient manuscripts, the differences are among sentences with less importance than teaching the right things. All of it remains available to us if we look for it, it would go beyond one translation where we find that needed.

You’re engaging in circular reasoning… again.

The Word with God who is God came in the flesh and dwelt among us, that is shown at the beginning of the gospel account of John. The one who was being conceived within Mary, the mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit over her, would be called the Son of the Most High, shown in the first chapter of the gospel account of Luke. What is circular about that? He and the Father in heaven are One.

 

[GWH]

There are many today who refuse to accept the fact that our Protestant Bible (and I refer to the King James Bible or KJB) is not complete, perfect, and sufficient.
Firstly we have the Catholic Church, which has insisted that the seven apocryphal books in the Catholic bible are necessary (in spite of Jerome).
Then we have the Orthodox churches which also include twelve apocryphal books in their bibles.
Then we have almost all the textual critics since Westcott and Hort, who claim that the Received Text is corrupt and their corrupt Critical Text is “pure”.
Then we have all the translators and translations of modern English bibles, which claim that they have to make revisions to their bibles every few years, since what they originally claimed to be perfect is really not so. So we have revision, after revision, after revision,
Then we have the thousands of deceived evangelical Christians, evangelists, pastors, and teachers who believe that their modern versions are superior to the KJB.
Then we have almost all the seminaries and bible schools which believe that the Critical Text and the modern bible versions are more reliable than the KJB.
Then we have the deluded Christians who believe that they need prophets and new prophecies today, because presumably the existing Bible is inadequate. They do not wish to believe that prophecies would cease.

With such a major onslaught on our Protestant Bible, is it any wonder that most churches have abandoned the King James Bible?

So what is the truth about our Bible?

1. The first thing to understand and believe is that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself approved the entire Old Testament as the Word of God and as Scripture. He was using the Hebrew Tanakh (not the corrupt Greek Septuagint which has all the apocryphal books). And Christ made it crystal clear that the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible were totally reliable.

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself… 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24:27,44-48)

What do we see here? Christ calls the Hebrew Bible “all the Scriptures”. Then He goes on to speak of the three major divisions which are (1) the Law or Torah (5 books), (2) the Prophets or Nevi’im (8 books), and (3) the Psalms or Ketuvim (11 books) for a total of 24 books (corresponding to our 39 OT books). This is now what we have in the Masoretic Text which supports the KJB.

Paul told Timothy that the OT Scriptures were able to bring a person to salvation. And 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. (2 Tim 3:15). But as an apostle-prophet, he anticipated the complete Bible, so he followed up with this: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

When we come to the New Testament (NT), we find that the canon of the NT was already established by the second century AD. Here is what we read about the Original Peshitta: “This is a translation of the complete Peshitta Aramaic Bible into English- the 39 Old Testament books and the 27 New Testament books. The Peshitta Bible was very likely written in the 1st century AD. The Peshitta Old Testament is an Aramaic translation of proto-Massoretic Hebrew manuscripts, similar to those from which the Greek Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC. The Peshitta New Testament is the original Aramaic New Testament text from which the Greek manuscripts were translated and disseminated for the Greek speaking Roman citizens of the 1st century” . The Peshitta Holy Bible Translated (lulu.com)

Please note that the 27 books of the NT were already in this Syriac translation as early as the first century (no later than the second century). The Gospel of Mark was probably the first book of the NT, written in the 50’s. Revelation was the last book written around 95-96 AD. All the other books were written between those dates. Fourteen out of the 27 books in the NT were penned by Paul, and Peter put all of them at the same level as the OT Scriptures (2 Pet 3:15,16). But he also included his own Scriptures as divinely inspired (“a more sure word of prophecy"). The apostles who wrote the NT books were Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul. Jude was not an apostle but one of the brothers of Christ who was later converted and wrote Jude.

The whole Bible is deemed to be “prophecy”, since prophecy means divinely inspired speech or writings. It also means forthtelling and foretelling. Moses was already considered a prophet, but Christ called the rest of the OT “all the prophets”. At the same time, the apostles and writers of the NT were also prophets, as we see in their writings. And Paul – speaking prophetically – said that prophecies would cease (1 Cor 13:8). While the KJB has “they shall fail” the Greek katargeo means “cease”.

Strong's Concordance
katargeó: to render inoperative, abolish

Original Word: καταργέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katargeó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-arg-eh'-o)
Definition: to render inoperative, abolish
Usage: (a) I make idle (inactive), make of no effect, annul, abolish, bring to naught, (b) I discharge, sever, separate from. And John confirmed this in the last chapter of the last book of the NT.

So how did the Received Text develop?

Firstly there were many translations of the Greek NT since the first century. At the same time the Greek Orthodox Church had what are known as Lectionaries or Lesson Books, which quoted the Greek NT. Then we have the quotations of the Early Church Fathers. At the same time, the NT was copied and recopied over the centuries between the 1st and the 14th centuries, and now there are over 5.000 Greek manuscripts (and only a few have been collated).

So when Erasmus sat down to produce a printed Greek NT (finished in 1516), he had a wealth of evidence. But he chose only nine manuscripts, along with the Complutensian Polyglott (which used many other manuscripts). In the end there was little difference between the two and this became the basis of the Received Text (or Textus Receptus).

Then came Stephanus with four editions (between 1546 and 1551), followed by Beza (1565-1611), then followed by the Elzevir brothers (1624-1641) with three editions. The KJB used the 1550 edition of Stephanus (Robert Estienne) but also included readings from other editions. This edition of Stephanus became the Textus Receptus.

For the Old Testament, the King James translators used the Great Rabbinic Bible (Mikraot Gedolot) of Jacob ben Chayyim (1524-25), who was a Masoretic scholar who became a Christian. This is the Masoretic Text of the KJB.

While the KJB is sufficiently reliable, I find modern English translations preferable with the NIV being my favorite. They are like brands of gas: put them in the tank and they all will get you where you need to go.

 

[Burn1986]

What really matters though? Most of us aren’t reading the Bible that we have anyway. I should’ve told that to the little boys in Sunday school that got the little Gideon New Testament. Your Bible is worthless. Don’t even read it because it’s not complete.

 

[GWH]

What really matters though? Most of us aren’t reading the Bible that we have anyway. I should’ve told that to the little boys in Sunday school that got the little Gideon New Testament. Your Bible is worthless. Don’t even read it because it’s not complete.

Well, it is apparent that some do not read the parts of the Bible that do not support their dogmatic opinions, or at least they prefer to argue rather than engage in a systematic study with the goal of learning how to harmonize all relevant statements rather than win the argument.

 

[Burn1986]

Well, it is apparent that some do not read the parts of the Bible that do not support their dogmatic opinions, or at least they prefer to argue rather than engage in a systematic study with the goal of learning how to harmonize all relevant statements rather than win the argument.

Fair enough

 

[Dino246]

The Word with God who is God came in the flesh and dwelt among us, that is shown at the beginning of the gospel account of John. The one who was being conceived within Mary, the mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit over her, would be called the Son of the Most High, shown in the first chapter of the gospel account of Luke. What is circular about that? He and the Father in heaven are One.

The circularity is in John146's use of his understanding of "begotten" to justify his understanding of "begotten".