Is the Bible Complete (See Poll) [for Christians and non-Christians]

[ringaling]

Personally I believe the bible is a bunch of fables, used by mankind at that time to control the mass majority. I read a book called 'Cashing in on God' ISBN: 1411686691 and it was a real eye-opener to me and my friends who are trying to really understand who and what God is. Not saying this is for everyone, but I found more things in that book that made more sense than the bible or Quran. The Zohar seems to perhaps make more sense to me also.

What does interest me in your poll is that if people think things have been added and taken out, why do they take it so literally. How many people have actually gone in search of the truth for themselves, i.e researched historical data to back up the claims of the bible, find the proof that Jesus did actually exist. Many people can often preach scriptures, but to me, it still doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know, or are closer to God any more than me.

I believe in a God but not as a man with a white beard/hair, more as a collective thought, energy.

 

[James the Persian]

I had to go with 'no', not because I believe that it's been deliberately tinkered with (though translations and copies are never perfect) but because it was never 'complete' to begin with. By this I mean that, whilst very important, it is not the be all and end all of the Christian faith. It never claims to be such and, in fact, states quite clearly that it is not complete in this sense. Basically, my argument would be that the Church can (and did) survive without the Bible as it is only a part of the Holy Tradition that forms Her teachings. The Bible, however, could not even exist without the Church.

James

P.S.
Note that by Bible I mean the whole Christian Bible, both OT and NT. Please nobody try to point out that the OT predates the Church. I'm aware of this but it doesn't alter what I said in the slightest.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

i voted the 2nd 1 down. but then again, why woudnt god mind it if the bible was revised?

 

[Fluffy]

Whilst the Bible is of immense value, it is fundamentally flawed due to both its age and its authors.

I should perhaps say that some of its message is of immense value. An important difference because I do not believe that the status of this message as part of the Bible adds anything to its authority. The message would still be just as important reiterated by anybody and I certainly do not believe that the Bible is the first attempt to express any of these ideas (although probably the first to collect them).

 

[nsantori]

Considering the New Testament has been in the hands of men, who are fallible, for almost two thousand years, I believe that the Bible has likely been modified, though I do not know to what extent. Some of the errors may be entirely innocent... a simple mistranslation or error in transcription. Some of the errors may not have been so innocent.

Having read the Gospels in Greek, I read today's translations and wonder if the Bible bears any resemblance to the original books. One small example, people ask Jesus "are you the son of God?". The original answer is "that's what you said". Today's Bible translates it as "it is as you say".

 

[Jainarayan]

That may have been true in the very early days when the stories were transitted orally. There had to be a system of mnemonics, meter and tone to pass on the recitations. Sanskrit took it to the 10^10 degree to preserve the integrity of the Vedas:

Vedic chant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vedic Sanskrit may have also been tonal or musical in nature.

 

[Hexagon]

You have simply to compare the current bible with a copy from almost 2000 years ago to see that it has changed. It doesn't take an atheist to see that.