Did God promise us a complete bible?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by David J, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did God ever promise us a complete Bible?

    This question came up during a bible study when looking at how KJVOist wrongly apply Psalm 12:6-7 as proof for the KJVO myth.

    I got to thinking that God did not promise me or anyone else a complete bible. I consider being able to have a bible a huge blessing from our Lord. If all the Lord had given me was just a few books of the NT then I am blessed beyond measure!

    Not to start a KJVO flame war. Would anyone care to comment on this subject. I would like to have some input so that maybe we can have a very good study this weekend at work about the Word of the Most High.

    Thanks
     
  2. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting passage. In the KJV, the antecedent of "them" in verse 7 seems to be the "words of the LORD."

    "5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
    6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

    In the NIV, verse 6 is parenthetical, and verse 7 says "us," and seems to refer to the righteous in its entirety.

    "5 "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise," says the LORD. "I will protect them from those who malign them."
    6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.
    7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."

    In the NASB, the "them" of the first sentence of verse 7 refers to "the words of the LORD" saying He will keep His word, that is, keep His promise. But the second sentence
    says "him," referring us back to God's protection of the righteous.

    5 "Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy, Now I will arise," says the LORD; "I will set him in the safety for which he longs."
    6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
    7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.

    Three versions, three different antecedent splits. I don’t believe it addresses anything having to do with the Bible’s “completeness” at all. But it does seem to me that it's a good defense for the fact that what we need here is not the KJV, the NIV, or the NASB, but the Hebrew.

    Any comment from Hebrew scholars out there? What does the original really say?
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    There can be no doubt that God has chosen His Word as the avenue to speak to His people. In the Old Testament it was often the spoken word (2 Peter 1:21) and, at times, the written word (Jeremiah 36:20). In the New Testament, God communicates to man almost exclusively through the written word.

    There are several passages that declare to us exactly why the Scriptures are given to us.

    1. God gives us His Word (the Bible) so we can believe and be saved.
    John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (KJV)

    2. God gave us His Word (the Bible) so that we might benefit and learn from the example contained therein.
    Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (KJV)
    1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (KJV)

    3. God gave us His Word (the Bible) so we could have the assurance of eternal life.
    1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (KJV)

    Without the Bible, we can fall into error. Jesus tells us that error is a result of not knowing the Scripture.
    Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? (KJV)

    God would not leave us without that guide through life. He has made available to us a lamp for our feet and a light for our path.
    Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (KJV)

    What kind of God would make knowing the Scriptures a prerequisite for shunning error, and then not provide the Scripture for us?

    God clearly commands that we use the Word of God as an offense weapon to defeat Satan.
    Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: (KJV)

    Again, what kind of God would suggest a weapon and then not make that weapon available to us?

    It is my opinion that we have the complete Word of God as He intended for us to have. He commanded us to know them and heed them; He must have made them available to us.
    John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (KJV)

    Deuteronomy 17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: (KJV)

    There is not a single doubt in my mind that the Bible I hold in my hands each day is the inspired, preserved Word of God in its entirety.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    It refers back to PEOPLE, not the words. There is no other way of looking at it in the original.

    Even the marginal notes in the 1611 reflects this. The AV does NOT say in this place that it is the "words". It is loosely worded and hence people can mistake its meaning.

    But the Word of God refers clearly to people.

    (BTW, there are other passages that speak of God's Word being kept/preserved. Can't imagine why folks pull this passage out for "support"!)
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    David asked "Did God ever promise us a complete Bible?"

    No. The NT and half of the OT was not even written at the time that Psalm 12:6-7 was penned. For many decades after the resurrection, the NT was not written let alone complete. Throughout history, and even today, many people do not have a Bible in their native language.
     
  6. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree! This is a great example of how the KJV, like any other translation, can't necessarily be taken at face value. The original is the only standard.
     
  7. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that God did give us a complete Bible, the King James Bible.

    Taking it into context, the context refers to God's word. BTW, how did you look at it in the original, since there are no originals?
    Of course the Bible was not complete when Psalms was penned, but that does not mean that we don't have a complete Bible. God gave us his complete word in English, why else do you thing America is blessed. He gave it to us to go out and spread the Gospel(the Great Commission).

    Curious, what part of the Bible do you believe that is not complete?

    God bless,
    RR
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That question is irrelevant to the KJVO, since their contention is to translationism, not completeness of source texts.

    If no translations existed, we'd have a complete bible by way of existing source texts that still exist. For example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have a near complete OT that dates to the time of Christ.
     
  9. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, come on, now. By "original" we all mean "the oldest and best we have in Hebrew." Whatever Hebrew text they teach in seminary.
     
  10. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    No, God promised to preserve His Word for all generations, but He never promised us to put them all on paper between two leather (or hardbound) covers for us. It appears that the church did that - not because they had to - to make it easier. Less work than searching around for different manuscripts.
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    RR said "Of course the Bible was not complete when Psalms was penned, but that does not mean that we don't have a complete Bible."

    I agree. I never said we don't have a complete Bible. I said God never promised a complete Bible - but I believe we have one anyway.

    RR said "God gave us his complete word in English, why else do you thing America is blessed."

    Amen. Praise God for the Geneva Bible brought over by the Pilgrims and Puritans, escaping the persecution of Europe.

    RR said "Curious, what part of the Bible do you believe that is not complete?"

    I don't believe it is not complete. I believe that there were times when it wasn't, therefore God did not promise a complete Bible or else his promise would have been a lie during those times.
     
  12. DeaconLew

    DeaconLew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a few questions:
    1.) If we do not have a complete word of God, then how can anyone know they are saved, since the only reason we know of salvation comes from the scriptures? And if you say that you are saved, by what authority can you make such a statement?
    2.) If your name is Debbie would you accept it if I called you Doug? Then why is it ok for a person to mistake "oldest and best" for "orginal?" That is called lying. Fact is there are no originals! God never promised to preserve the originals.
    3.) Please provide me one reference in the bible where God promised to preserve the original. Even Jesus (The Incarnate Word) was not, after the ressurection, the same as before.
    4.) How many books are there in the canon of scripture? Where did that number come from?
    5.) Is the God-head a trinity? What verse (just one) do you use to prove it?
    6.) Do you believe in a Pre-Trib translation (rapture)? Can you show me where believers are before God BEFORE the tribulation? By the way, Enoch was translated that he should not see death. Do you suppose that God translated Enoch only 97% or 100%?
    7.) Do you believe that every scripture is given by inspiration of God? If so, kindly explain why Matthew 18:11, and Act 8:37 are missing from the versions of the bible where the publisher also publishes Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse dung!

    These are my humble questions. I anxiously await your response. Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

    -DeaconLew
     
  13. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    DeaconLew said "1.) If we do not have a complete word of God, then how can anyone know they are saved, since the only reason we know of salvation comes from the scriptures? And if you say that you are saved, by what authority can you make such a statement?"

    Someone can be saved by hearing the Gospel preached. The scriptures are not the only way we know of salvation, or no one could be saved until the NT was completed.

    DeaconLew said "2.) If your name is Debbie would you accept it if I called you Doug? Then why is it ok for a person to mistake "oldest and best" for "orginal?" That is called lying. Fact is there are no originals! God never promised to preserve the originals."

    I agree. But a mistake is not a lie, it is a mistake.

    DeaconLew said "3.) Please provide me one reference in the bible where God promised to preserve the original."

    There are none. Just as there are no references in the Bible where God promised a complete Bible, to perfectly preserve it in a single 17th century English translation, etc.

    DeaconLew said " 4.) How many books are there in the canon of scripture? Where did that number come from?"

    Church authority, through tradition and councils.

    DeaconLew said "5.) Is the God-head a trinity? What verse (just one) do you use to prove it?"

    I usually do not prove things with "just one" verse, but with scripture as a whole.

    DeaconLew said "6.) Do you believe in a Pre-Trib translation (rapture)? Can you show me where believers are before God BEFORE the tribulation?"

    I do not believe ni a pretrib rapture.

    DeaconLew said "By the way, Enoch was translated that he should not see death. Do you suppose that God translated Enoch only 97% or 100%?"

    100%. I fail to see the relevance to the discussion at hand.

    DeaconLew said "7.) Do you believe that every scripture is given by inspiration of God? If so, kindly explain why Matthew 18:11, and Act 8:37 are missing from the versions of the bible where the publisher also publishes Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse dung!"

    Those verses are missing because manuscript evidence strongly suggests they were added sometime after scripture was originally penned. BTW, that publisher also publishes KJVs. [​IMG]
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    RaptureReady:I believe that God did give us a complete Bible, the King James Bible.

    I believe likewise, except that I KNOW God didn't retire in 1611 & that He's continued to provide His word in the English current for the times, and provided it in over 2400 other languages also. He is NOT limited to just the one version.


    (Ps. 12:7)It refers back to PEOPLE, not the words. There is no other way of looking at it in the original.


    Taking it into context, the context refers to God's word.

    Then, why did the AV translators include this marginal note:"Heb. him, i. euery one of them". Even as I type, I have my replica AV 1611 before me. Do YOU know more about the AV than did the men who made it?

    As Dr. Bob said, there are many verses clearly indicating God has preserved His word, and as a Christian, I believe He did, and as a Baptist, I am sola Scriptura, believing God has given us His WRITTEN word as a foundation for all our faith and worship, since the written word cannot be readily altered as oral tradition can be. But Ps. 12:7 is NOT a verse of word preservation, as the AV translators themselves proved. BTW, the Geneva Bible reads, "him" in that verse.

    BTW, how did you look at it in the original, since there are no originals?

    I'm sure Debby meant the source that was translated, as close to the originals as God has permitted.


    Of course the Bible was not complete when Psalms was penned, but that does not mean that we don't have a complete Bible.

    No one here is saying it isn't complete.


    God gave us his complete word in English, why else do you thing America is blessed. He gave it to us to go out and spread the Gospel(the Great Commission).

    And whaddya think the FIRST English Bible brought to these shores was? It was the GENEVA BIBLE. And whaddya think the first Bible version PRINTED within these shores was? It was Eliot's ALGONQUIN-LANGUAGE Bible. It's still in print today.

    Curious, what part of the Bible do you believe that is not complete?

    I believe Natters was referring to the pocket testaments, tracts, and other literature containing some PARTS of the Bible, and not the entire Bible itself. In more than one place, this is all some people have for a Bible.
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    God DID promise to preserve His word, and in several councils by the people in the best position to disseminate the Scriptures in their day, they decided, with much prayer, what writings actually were Scripture, and there's been little dissention since, except concerning the Apocrypha. I fully believe GOD guided the men in those councils, regardless of their faith or chosen denomination. Therefore, I believe God has provided a complete Bible for us, complete by HIS standards, whether it meets OUR standards or not.
     
  16. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I'd have to disagree with you on this one. When I say "originals," I am referring to the actual autographs penned by the authors themselves. Anything beyond that is simply a copy of the originals (apograph).

    I do like how you described the manuscripts. You said the "oldest and best." I believe you are correct to make a distinction between these two groups of manuscripts. The oldest is not necessarily the best; the best is not necessarily the oldest.
     
  17. DeaconLew

    DeaconLew
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natters: Someone can be saved by hearing the Gospel preached. The scriptures are not the only way we know of salvation, or no one could be saved until the NT was completed.

    DeaconLew: The only way to preach the Gospel is for someone at some point to have read it. Remember Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of mouth, right? No! By the word of God. Where is it?

    Natters: I agree. But a mistake is not a lie, it is a mistake.

    DeaconLew: Granted

    Natters: There are none. Just as there are no references in the Bible where God promised a complete Bible, to perfectly preserve it in a single 17th century English translation, etc.

    DeaconLew: Here is my point on the matter. When Moses came off the mount and threw down the tablets, God never told him to pick up the pieces, God simply rewrote it. When the Jehudi took a pen knife and cut up the word and put in the fire, God never instructed Jeremiah to instruct Baruch to gather the fragments and use them. Nope, God simply rewrote it (Jeremiah 36). Jesus is the word, Amen? When the word died what did God do? Did he go and get the original, that, while it had no sin, was plagued by the flesh (got tired and hungry)? Not at all, he ressurected it in a more perfect state. Let's not forget the words of the Apostle Paul (who wrote the book of Hebrews to believers) when he said: 1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
    10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. We have that which is perfect in the KJV.

    Natter: DeaconLew said " 4.) How many books are there in the canon of scripture? Where did that number come from?"
    Church authority, through tradition and councils.

    DeaconLew: I am still waiting on the answer for the number of books in the bible. [​IMG]

    Natter: I usually do not prove things with "just one" verse, but with scripture as a whole.

    DeaconLew: What whole scripture will you use to let me know if the God-head is a trinity?

    Natter: 100%. I fail to see the relevance to the discussion at hand.

    DeaconLew: If God can translate a sinful man 100%, can't he translate the bible that redeems sinful man 100%?

    Natter: Those verses are missing because manuscript evidence strongly suggests they were added sometime after scripture was originally penned. BTW, that publisher also publishes KJVs.

    DeaconLew: The manuscript evidence that you are referring to (probably Westscott and Horte) were the works of infidels and God haters. If you are referring to Vaticanus (sp) or the Saniaticus (sp) they were found, in modern parlance, the dumpster. You mean to tell me that an educated man cannot see the falacy of using such "manuscript evidence?" By the way, Zondervan does publish a KJV bible. BUT they do not own the copyright. The word of God is not bound. Those that wish to use the NIV et al must get permission for doing so from folks that hate God and his word.

    -DeaconLew
     
  18. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are saying that God's word is not complete and that it will never be complete, right?

    Marginal notes are not scripture, therefore I do not believe them over what is in the context.
    You say that you believe that God preserved his word, but why would he preserve it in different versions that say something different? You spoke of the language thing, why not just change the language and leave everthing else the same? It is the devils trick for man kind.

    Context my friend, context. Look here http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm
    Closeness only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes, this is neither.

    Wow! I've never even heard of this one.
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Proof?
     
  20. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd have to disagree with you on this one. When I say "originals," I am referring to the actual autographs penned by the authors themselves. Anything beyond that is simply a copy of the originals (apograph).

    I do like how you described the manuscripts. You said the "oldest and best." I believe you are correct to make a distinction between these two groups of manuscripts. The oldest is not necessarily the best; the best is not necessarily the oldest.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Pastor_Bob for saying this. Amen!
     

Share This Page

Loading...