What plain and precious things are missing from the Bible?

[pelz86]

I hope you will pardon me for not taking the time to read everyone else's replies before posting my own.

I believe the holy scriptures as they were originally written were without error, and 100% inspired by God's holy spirit.

What I do not believe, is that the word of God as we have it today is completely without error. Infallible, yes, but not without error.

However, as in Isaiah 55:11- "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

No matter what version of the Bible you are reading, there are errors in it, whether they are translation errors, punctuation errors, or some other kind of error.

In fact, the KJV Bible, which I myself read, has an entire verse added to it (called the Johannine Comma) that was not in the original manuscripts (1 John 5:7). This is a verse that is sometimes used to support the doctrine of the trinity. I believe in the trinity, but this verse is spurious, meaning that at some point, an over-zealous scribe added it into the text where it didn't belong.

Also, in the original Hebrew and Greek, there were very few forms of punctuation. Only when the scriptures were translated into Latin, German, English, etc. were punctuation marks added. No one can say that the punctuation is inspired. Slight changes in punctuation can change the meaning of entire verses.

One other thing I should mention is that in the book of Jude, which you quote, Jude makes reference to two pseudepigraphical books, the 1st Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses. If holy scripture quotes from these two books, then why are they not included in the biblical canon? Some would even go so far as to say that in 1 Peter 3:19, the "he" that is referred to in this verse is not Jesus, but Enoch, based on their reading of the book of Enoch, which describes how Enoch went to preach to the spirits in Hades.

Basically, the point I am trying to make is that even though the Bible is not 100%inerrant, it IS 100% infallible according to Isaiah 55:11, in that anyone can pick up any version of the Bible and be saved by reading it. I think all the arguing about which version of the Bible is the best, most accurate, etc. is all nonsense, for God would not allow man to pervert and twist His holy scriptures so much that they lose their power to save people. God preserves His word, no matter what man does to it, whether he waters it down, adds to or subtracts from it, or even burns it. If the Bible is 100% inerrant, as many people claim, then what purpose does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 serve? If God's word could not be tampered with, surely these two verses are in vain. But Jesus said in John 10:35, that the scripture cannot be broken.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I hope you will pardon me for not taking the time to read everyone else's replies before posting my own.

I believe the holy scriptures as they were originally written were without error, and 100% inspired by God's holy spirit.

What I do not believe, is that the word of God as we have it today is completely without error. Infallible, yes, but not without error.

However, as in Isaiah 55:11- "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

No matter what version of the Bible you are reading, there are errors in it, whether they are translation errors, punctuation errors, or some other kind of error.

In fact, the KJV Bible, which I myself read, has an entire verse added to it (called the Johannine Comma) that was not in the original manuscripts (1 John 5:7). This is a verse that is sometimes used to support the doctrine of the trinity. I believe in the trinity, but this verse is spurious, meaning that at some point, an over-zealous scribe added it into the text where it didn't belong.

Also, in the original Hebrew and Greek, there were very few forms of punctuation. Only when the scriptures were translated into Latin, German, English, etc. were punctuation marks added. No one can say that the punctuation is inspired. Slight changes in punctuation can change the meaning of entire verses.

One other thing I should mention is that in the book of Jude, which you quote, Jude makes reference to two pseudepigraphical books, the 1st Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses. If holy scripture quotes from these two books, then why are they not included in the biblical canon? Some would even go so far as to say that in 1 Peter 3:19, the "he" that is referred to in this verse is not Jesus, but Enoch, based on their reading of the book of Enoch, which describes how Enoch went to preach to the spirits in Hades.

Basically, the point I am trying to make is that even though the Bible is not 100%inerrant, it IS 100% infallible according to Isaiah 55:11, in that anyone can pick up any version of the Bible and be saved by reading it. I think all the arguing about which version of the Bible is the best, most accurate, etc. is all nonsense, for God would not allow man to pervert and twist His holy scriptures so much that they lose their power to save people. God preserves His word, no matter what man does to it, whether he waters it down, adds to or subtracts from it, or even burns it. If the Bible is 100% inerrant, as many people claim, then what purpose does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 serve? If God's word could not be tampered with, surely these two verses are in vain. But Jesus said in John 10:35, that the scripture cannot be broken.

Good post. Thank you.

 

[pelz86]

"The implication of your use of the phrase 'baby making' is most assuredly implicit of 'sexual intercourse'."

This made me laugh.

 

[Rescued One]

The implication of your use of the phrase "baby making" is most assuredly implicit of "sexual intercourse".

The problem with the phrasing "baby making" rather than eternal increase is that it insinuates that we know how spirits are created and that we believe it will be in a carnal sense as well.

Which definition of the word carnal are you using?

carnal
ADJECTIVE:
1. Relating to the physical and especially sexual appetites: carnal desire.
2. Worldly or earthly; temporal: the carnal world.
3. Of or relating to the body or flesh; bodily: carnal remains.
carnal - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education


Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage" ("Chastity," True to the Faith, 2004, 29–33).
Sexual Purity - The Law of Chastity: Sexual Purity

Why would God make sure each exalted person is rewarded with a celestial body of flesh and bone and deny that couple physical intimacy (beautiful, sacred, and ordained of God)? Is the body no longer for the creation of children and expression of love within marriage? If the body is not involved in creating spirit children, what is the purpose of that glorified body? If there is another way to have or beget spirit children, why is the couple still married?

 

[Rescued One]

Three verses of LDS hymn by William W. Phelps:

If You Could Hie to Kolob

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

This sounds extra-biblical to me. Are these plain and precious teachings?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Three verses of LDS hymn by William W. Phelps:

If You Could Hie to Kolob

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

This sounds extra-biblical to me. Are these plain and precious teachings?

Wow! Either Mr. Phelps had quite the gift of imagination or he was expressing the views of a church that had substantially added ideas to its theology that are assuredly not to be found in the Bible.

 

[ldsfaqs]

Wow! Either Mr. Phelps had quite the gift of imagination or he was expressing the views of a church that had substantially added ideas to its theology that are assuredly not to be found in the Bible.

Who says the "Bible" is the end all to all Truth from God?
The Catholic Church? The Protestant Version which only lifted from the Catholic Version?

The Bible certainly doesn't say it. Yet, you willingly add to the Word saying it does say it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Who says the "Bible" is the end all to all Truth from God?
The Catholic Church? The Protestant Version which only lifted from the Catholic Version?

The Bible certainly doesn't say it. Yet, you willingly add to the Word saying it does say it.

At least we agree that the Bible doesn't say it.

 

[Son of Zadok]

This is a thread about teachings that are NOT I'm the Bible. Any teaching that can be legitimately defended in the Bible, cannot be missing from it.

So what does that leave us?

(signature follows).....
Jud 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

As I said before three teachings missing from the Bible are:

1. That a bible be defined.

2. What scriptures should be included in a Bible

3. That the scriptures should be (modified) translated and combinded and then still considered as much scripture and more so than any of the individual manuscripts from which they came (were versionized and translated).

Son of Zadok

 

[Lionroot]

As I said before three teachings missing from the Bible are:

1. That a bible be defined.

2. What scriptures should be included in a Bible

3. That the scriptures should be (modified) translated and combinded and then still considered as much scripture and more so than any of the individual manuscripts from which they came (were versionized and translated).

Son of Zadok

So were these in the Bible once? Or are they just things you wish were in the Bible.

I recommend the book, Case for Christ. There is an excellent chapter on those issues.

(signature follows).....
Jud 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

[Son of Zadok]

So were these in the Bible once? Or are they just things you wish were in the Bible.

I recommend the book, Case for Christ. There is an excellent chapter on those issues.

(signature follows).....
Jud 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Obviously this person either misrepresents their understanding of LDS - claiming to know and understand sacred things which they really do not - or they do understand very well and what they post is intended as a sacrilege of LDS doctrine and the LDS responses are of no real surprise - but a pretense of honest innocence (see post 29 of this thread)

We are discussing what is lost and missing from the Bible - Why do you recommend anything other than the Bible to solve questions - if the Bible deficient and the ideas of man superior to scripture? If man does something that was not commanded by G-d then it is the work of man not G-d. For this reason Jesus said that he did nothing but what the Father commanded him.

My point is that if the creation and translation of the bible is truth - then that truth is obviously missing from the Bible. The question that started this thread was concerning what truth could possibly be missing - the obvious answer is that there are three

1. That a bible be define
2. A list of scriptures that are Biblical Canon
3. That man may pick and choose from many versions what is really scripture.
If these things listed are not true then the Bible is obviously not true. If these things are true then they are precious truth missing from the Bible that man has taken upon himself without any guidance from G-d - and that answers the question.

It is my purpose to use rhetorical logic to demonstrate both possibility and definite logical probability that the Bible as we have it today does not contain rhetorically necessary truths. Anciently when the scriptures were written there was no Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove it. So we are faced with a real question - Does the Bible contain all truth available to man when the scriptures were no longer dictated through prophets to mankind - yes or no. And thus if it is possible that a truth is indeed missing and the answer is no - which is the only true answer - then it is the obligation of those that believe otherwise to demonstrate that the scriptures does contain necessary and sufficient truth. Not to make excuses for what is obviously missing.

Do you understand the rhetorical logic necessary to demonstrate necessary and sufficient conclusions?
Son of Zadok

 

[Lionroot]

All rhetoric aside this isn't a thread about the veracity, validity, and value of the Bible. So far you are the only one to question that, if only rhetorically.

It seems as if you are trying to muddy the waters. Perhaps so that we avoid what you perceive to be more vulnerable issues.

Would it not be more honest to deal with them up front?

(signature follows).....
Jud 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

[Son of Zadok]

All rhetoric aside this isn't a thread about the veracity, validity, and value of the Bible. So far you are the only one to question that, if only rhetorically.

It seems as if you are trying to muddy the waters. Perhaps so that we avoid what you perceive to be more vulnerable issues.

Would it not be more honest to deal with them up front?

(signature follows).....
Jud 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

You asked for truths missing from the bible. I gave you truths that are missing from the bible that should be there if in truth the Bible contains the necessary and sufficient truths. How does answering your question muddy the waters?

I did not say the bible was not valid scripture - but we could have that discussion. My answer is not as “muddy” as you are implying - anciently there were lists of scriptures considered holy. There was one among the Dead Sea Scrolls but that was mostly the Old Testament. There is another list that included the New Testament from one of the oldest knows Christian churches of antiquity as well but that document has never been made public. It was almost made public following the fall of Communism in Russia but the documents were given back to the Eastern Orthodox Church that after much deliberation on the subject decided not to publish the list or the scriptures. Part of the reason the library of Alexandria was burned is because the scriptures to be included in the “canon” was in dispute and Theodosius wanted his opinion to prevail. And so history gives us an Alexandrian, Gnostic, Coptic, Semitic, Greek, Ethiopic, Babylonian, Masoretic, Septuagint, Nestorian, Orthodox and many others. The truth is that many lists existed, even among the revered “Christian Fathers” - with one very glaring exception - The list that may have or may not have ever existed for the Bible we have today.

Son of Zadok

 

[Lionroot]

If one claims to be a Christian in a faith that says the Bible is in error, or is missing something, please share what those things are.

So Son of Zadok
These are the specific claims of your faith?

(signature follows).....
Jud 1:3
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.