is the bible complete?

[Ghostdog]

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

 

The Bible mentions many entities (people, places, practices, items etc.) that have been lost to history. We trust that God placed everything in His Word that He determined necessary to convey His message to humanity. Therefore, we trust that God preserved His Word, and by contrast, did not take the same measures to preserve non-Biblical literature.

The fact that the Bible references things we no longer have access to does not logically undermine our trust in God's Word. For example, the fact that a book is described in the Bible that no longer exists, no more undermines the veracity of scripture than a city being described in the Bible that no longer exists. It simply means the referenced book was not scripture, and therefore not a work of God, and therefore not specifically preserved by God for our benefit.

 

[Jayne]

8 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

There are scores [literally] of books mentioned in the Bible that are not part of the Bible.  Why?  That's God's business and I trust him in that.  

He gave us what we needed to know and read.  I'm good with that. 

[Who me]

16 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

 

Yes the bible is comp.ete and is finished.

 

If you read about how the bible was formed, you will learn that it was compiled by agreement  a ong the various churches long before  Constantine's conference. 

Some books were omitted  because they did not pass the requirements  for inclusion. 

[DPMartin]

On 10/20/2022 at 10:12 AM, Ghostdog said:

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

The Bible with apocrypha is the recognized complete bible that has been preserved to date, books like the Book of Enoch or Jasher are documents that haven’t at least in the gentile world been maintain in recent centuries. There are translations of the two, the Ethiopian book of Enoch is considered most accurate and one can find the Book of Jasher which gives some back history to subjects like Abraham’s life before the Lord called him to the promised land which Moses did not include in the Torah.

[other one]

The Bible is all one needs to understand the Godhead and know what to do to be saved, however I don't think it has a monopoly on all information and truth.   Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't automatically mean it's not true though it may not be essential.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

On 10/20/2022 at 11:12 AM, Ghostdog said:

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

The Bible mentions regular books that are not inspired.  This clearly shows that the writers were free to mention things that didn't come directly from God. Even other writings by biblical authors were not always inspired and have long since disappeared.  For example,  we know from Paul's writings that he wrote other letters that didn't survive time like his others did. There is NO such thing as lost books of the Bible or writings that should have been included but weren't.  Nearly every time those claims are made,  it is always by unbelievers trying to discredit the Bible. 

[farouk]

On 10/20/2022 at 8:33 PM, Tristen said:

 

The Bible mentions many entities (people, places, practices, items etc.) that have been lost to history. We trust that God placed everything in His Word that He determined necessary to convey His message to humanity. Therefore, we trust that God preserved His Word, and by contrast, did not take the same measures to preserve non-Biblical literature.

The fact that the Bible references things we no longer have access to does not logically undermine our trust in God's Word. For example, the fact that a book is described in the Bible that no longer exists, no more undermines the veracity of scripture than a city being described in the Bible that no longer exists. It simply means the referenced book was not scripture, and therefore not a work of God, and therefore not specifically preserved by God for our benefit.

 

Hi @Tristen In the end we may indeed be assured of the sufficiency of Scripture........

[Not of the World]

It seems that the Roman Catholic Church believes the Bible to be incomplete based on all of the things that they have added that are not found in the original Bible.

[BeyondET]

On 10/20/2022 at 1:12 PM, Ghostdog said:

sometimes when im reading the ot ill come across a verse that mentions a book thats not in the bible if the bible we have the complete word of God then why mention these other books? and where are these books?

Well the Bible also mentions Jesus doing many things that are not mentioned and the whole world would not be able to contain the books needed. so on a smaller scale is it necessary to have the ones mentioned for the Bible to be the complete word of God I can't see how it would be if so many things done without man knowing any of it.

Edited December 10, 2022 by BeyondET