Why has the bible been completed?

[Curious Atheist]

I keep thinking of new questions, sorry about that.

Firstly it would be helpful to know over what period of time the bible describes because I have no idea.

But a certain period of time has been documented in various stories, but then it was decided the bible was complete. But why? Did God run out of miracles to write about? Is there no-one left qualified to write scripture?
If so this contradicts what most of you are saying about modern day miracles happening all around us. That prayers have been answered and that you have a direct relationship with God which would allow you to write his will. Are none of these things worth documenting anymore? Surely a miracle from God shouldn't be ignored?

On a related topic:

To me, the bible isn't a very well written book either. It can be interpreted any way you want to read it, as well as the many errors and contradicting theology (which are rationalised in different ways). Not to mention the outdated language which ads to the confusion.
Would it not be better to re-write the bible in one, universally accepted manner? I think the most damaging thing to the validity of Christianity in particular is the alarming different views and belief systems.
I hope you don't take the defensive and you try to see my point of view here, as it would logically make the bible easier for people to understand and easier to teach if it were different. So it would aid Christianity and unite you all as one group if it were feasible.
One book has spawned thousands of contradicting views and they can't all be right. So maybe you just need a majority rule and define exactly what the bible is saying. I think this is too optimistic...Why are you scared to write the bible in plain english and avoid reinterpretation?

Thanks

(ps, you could make a christian wikipedia style bible, that constantly gets updated with the latest miracles so the story never ends. I never know if my ideas are stupid enough to be genius, so please give me 25% of any earnings if you steal my idea )

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The Bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books.

As such it is a collection of books that compose what we call a Canon of Holy Scripture. A canon because it is a collection of authoritative writings which the Christian Church receives as inspired by God for the good of His Church.

The Canon is closed because the Church, by general consensus of the Faithful have received these books as Holy Scripture and no others. Some churches have definitively closed the Canon:

The Roman Catholic Church officially closed the biblical Canon at the Council of Trent in part in response to Protestants questioning the Deuterocanonicals which they placed in a special appendix between the Old and New Testaments (we Protestants have traditionally called these books "The Apocrypha"). Most Protestant Bibles do not contain these books at all, as many Bibles (English ones anyhow) had the books removed entirely between the 17th and 19th centuries.

Protestant churches generally define in their confessional statements exactly what they regard to be Holy Scripture, limiting to sixty-six books and thereby wholly excluding the Deuterocanonical books.

I do not believe the Eastern Orthodox Church has definitively closed the Canon, but effectively it's remained the same for hundreds of years: The Old Testament Canon is the LXX and the New Testament being the twenty-seven books which had become more-or-less universally accepted by the 4th and 5th centuries (though debates continued into following centuries).

The Coptic Church (Oriental Orthodox) receive the same Bible the Eastern Orthodox do, while the Ethiopian Church (Oriental Orthodox) receive a number of books not accepted by any other communion, having the largest Bible of any historic Christian body.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zaksmummy]

I keep thinking of new questions, sorry about that.

Firstly it would be helpful to know over what period of time the bible describes because I have no idea.

But a certain period of time has been documented in various stories, but then it was decided the bible was complete. But why? Did God run out of miracles to write about? Is there no-one left qualified to write scripture?
If so this contradicts what most of you are saying about modern day miracles happening all around us. That prayers have been answered and that you have a direct relationship with God which would allow you to write his will. Are none of these things worth documenting anymore? Surely a miracle from God shouldn't be ignored?

The reason is that the bible is about the Messiah Jesus.

What Christians call the Old Testament are the basis for our faith and Judaism. Judaism calls it the TaNaK - meaning the Torah (Law), the prophets and the writings.

A chrisitans we believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament/Tanak, hence the New Testament, which is made up of the Gospels (ie the life of Jesus) and the Epistles (ie letters written to the emerging church to instruct the people).

So this is the authority by which Christians mold their lives. Miracles and such are very nice but we must not mold our lives around them because they are temporary and need to be weighed up against the authority of the biblical scriptures.

 

[nubs]

The reason is that the bible is about the Messiah Jesus.

What Christians call the Old Testament are the basis for our faith and Judaism. Judaism calls it the TaNaK - meaning the Torah (Law), the prophets and the writings.

A chrisitans we believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament/Tanak, hence the New Testament, which is made up of the Gospels (ie the life of Jesus) and the Epistles (ie letters written to the emerging church to instruct the people).

So this is the authority by which Christians mold their lives. Miracles and such are very nice but we must not mold our lives around them because they are temporary and need to be weighed up against the authority of the biblical scriptures.

Do you not believe no one after Paul or John has seen a vision of Jesus? Why couldn't someone have a vision like Paul or John did and write something which a sect could deem as part of the Bible?

 

[drich0150]

I keep thinking of new questions, sorry about that.

Firstly it would be helpful to know over what period of time the bible describes because I have no idea.

The word bible is derived from a word meaning books. The bible is a collection of 66 separate books and letters.
The first 5 books were written by Moses some where in the 13th century . The accounts of Genesis were given to him by God. The account there, goes back to creation. Then the New testament starts with the birth of Christ/AD. and goes to about year 77AD

But a certain period of time has been documented in various stories, but then it was decided the bible was complete. But why?

Because the plan of salvation from inception/creation to the foundation of the church had been established.

Did God run out of miracles to write about? Is there no-one left qualified to write scripture?

It's not the case. Everything after is attributed to church history.

If so this contradicts what most of you are saying about modern day miracles happening all around us. That prayers have been answered and that you have a direct relationship with God which would allow you to write his will. Are none of these things worth documenting anymore? Surely a miracle from God shouldn't be ignored?

To those they happen to they aren't. But now like then, those who want to believe are allowed to believe, and those who do not are allowed the freedom not to believe.

On a related topic:

To me, the bible isn't a very well written book either. It can be interpreted any way you want to read it, as well as the many errors and contradicting theology (which are rationalized in different ways). Not to mention the outdated language which ads to the confusion.
Would it not be better to re-write the bible in one, universally accepted manner? I think the most damaging thing to the validity of Christianity in particular is the alarming different views and belief systems.

This diversity represents freedom and the atonement that Christ offers. If we can find forgiveness in our open rebellious nature, we can also find forgiveness in our purest most heart felt worship. We only have two commands. all of the rest of the law given by God hang on these two commands. One, We are to love our Lord God with all of our Heart, Mind, Spirit, and strength and two we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Now because we are all different that means one all encompassing love manifesting into worship will look different from person to person, personality type to personality culture to culture, and so fourth.

With a command so complex as this, thier can not be one way to worship God. If their were then that would mean some of us would be giving 100% of themselves, and some would have to give less to obtain the same measure, and others would have to dig down beyond what they are able to give, but still fall short..

as it is we have the freedom to worship God will all of the gifts and short comings we have at our disposal. to unify our faith to one set of rules would abolish the works of Christ. For He took one prescribe method of worship, and splintered it, so no one man or one group of men would have the authority of God at their disposal.

I hope you don't take the defensive and you try to see my point of view here, as it would logically make the bible easier for people to understand and easier to teach if it were different. So it would aid Christianity and unite you all as one group if it were feasible.

We are all one body now, but like any body we have many different parts. Some faiths act like a hand (they work) for the body of Christ, and other faiths act like an eye(They see what others do not) Some act like ears and they listen to the hurting. Without our diversity we could not offer the diversity God would have us offer.

One book has spawned thousands of contradicting views and they can't all be right.

What if I were to say none are 100% right?

So maybe you just need a majority rule and define exactly what the bible is saying. I think this is too optimistic...Why are you scared to write the bible in plain English and avoid reinterpretation?

Because this is not what God intended. Are you not aware of Christian church history? Do you know what happens when a hand full of men take the authority of God for themselves? (the dark ages happen)

 

[razeontherock]

Great responses so far! I'm going to try to round out the very little bit that hasn't already been addressed, but first I want to emphasize a few words by Drich that are too easy to skip right over:

"to unify our faith to one set of rules would abolish the work of Christ"

But a certain period of time has been documented in various stories, but then it was decided the bible was complete. But why? Did God run out of miracles to write about?

There are more miracles today than ever, and people write about them. That does not make it Scripture! We should develop the idea of what separates Scripture from other writing. This is something I recognize immediately, but won't try to verbalize. Instead I'll hope others can address this better than I.

Crypto Lutheran is a great contributor here, but I'm surprised to see him say the Church "decided the Bible was complete." Actually those weren't his words but our OP's, but he did seem to affirm that. I have encountered both EO and RC posters on CF that deny this, but that in no way means anyone is open to the idea of there being "more Scripture." For that you need to leave Christianity and go to Ba'hai or Mormonism

Is there no-one left qualified to write scripture?

This should be addressed along with the difference between Scripture and other writing. Some of the most amazing aspects of the Bible is who is recorded in it and who contributed to it! (Not who you'd expect)

To me, the bible isn't a very well written book either. It can be interpreted any way you want to read it, as well as the many errors and contradicting theology (which are rationalised in different ways). Not to mention the outdated language which ads to the confusion.

There are many modern translations, so that complaint is off the table. Islam's Koran is said to be not truly the Koran unless you red it in the original arabic, and while that is not said about any part of the Bible, it is true that without being able to hear it the way the original audience did, we miss a lot. The pursuit of closing that gap is called "hermeneutics." It sheds a lot of light on things.

The fact that you can twist it's meaning so easily is done on purpose. God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with! The Bible also acts like a mirror; we can see ourselves reflected in it. For 2 people to get the exact same thing out of it, would be very strange indeed. And the fact remains, as long as you are seeing contradictions in it, there are false ideas one is clinging to about what it means.

Would it not be better to re-write the bible in one, universally accepted manner?

It cannot be done. One particular modern translation is SO good, I think it should become the new authorized English version. (Except it's weak in the Gospels) Any mention of it as anything other than the spawn of satan and it seems there'll be a lynch mob at my door in the morning

it would make the bible easier for people to understand and easier to teach if it were different.

Yes it would. Compromising Truth is not what Christianity is about.

 

[aiki]

Firstly it would be helpful to know over what period of time the bible describes because I have no idea.

From the moment of Creation to the time shortly after Christ's death during which his apostles established the Early Christian Church.

But a certain period of time has been documented in various stories, but then it was decided the bible was complete. But why?

At its core the Bible is the record of God's redemption of mankind through His Son, Jesus Christ. God's work of redemption, in a sense, is complete. That is, He has done all He is going to do to make a way for all people to be reconciled to Himself. Therefore, the Bible's account of this work of God is also complete.

Did God run out of miracles to write about?

The Bible isn't simply a record of God's miracles. See above.

Is there no-one left qualified to write scripture?

Since the apostles there has been no one who could claim the same qualifications to write as the apostles themselves could claim.

If so this contradicts what most of you are saying about modern day miracles happening all around us. That prayers have been answered and that you have a direct relationship with God which would allow you to write his will. Are none of these things worth documenting anymore?

There has been much that has been recorded over the centuries about God's miraculous doings and His direction of His saints in fulfilling His purposes in the world. Such things have been very much worth documenting. However, God has fully revealed His general will for all humanity in the Bible (Love God, love your neighbor, etc). There is nothing more in regards to His general will that He needs to communicate to us. He may have something particular for Jane to do in Africa or for Bill to accomplish in Russia, but God's specific will for the individual is not broadly applicable to all Christians. He wants all of us to love one another, as He has commanded in the Bible, but He doesn't necessarily want all of us to do so in Africa with Jane or in Russia with Bill. So, although Bill or Jane writing about what God has communicated to them as His will for them specifically is good, what they are writing does not qualify as Scripture.

On a related topic:

To me, the bible isn't a very well written book either. It can be interpreted any way you want to read it

It may be interpreted in a variety of ways, but just like not all opinions are equally valid, not all interpretations of Scripture are either. This is where the value of good hermeneutics comes in to play. The best interpretation of Scripture simply restates the meaning of the author in the interpreter's own words. Interpretation isn't asserting an entirely new meaning on what is written. As well, the best interpretation is always the simplest one (which ought not to be confused with an interpretation that is simplistic). Immediate and broader context also have an important role to play in how one interprets Scripture. Really, there are very few instances where Scripture properly interpreted allows for a variety of differing interpretations.

as well as the many errors and contradicting theology (which are rationalised in different ways). Not to mention the outdated language which ads to the confusion.

You're indulging in a bit of Strawman arguing here. What you've written above does not accurately reflect the true state of affairs of the Bible. Whatever errors in copying have entered into Scripture over the centuries have been identified and corrected in modern translations. The more than 20,000 extant ancient manuscripts of the Bible allow us to do this very accurately. As for alleged contradictions, well, asked and answered is all I can say. There are dozens of sites on the 'net that answer exhaustively the charge of Scriptural contradictions. Finally, the language of the Bible has been regularly updated to fit with modern usage. Check out the Living Bible or the NIV.

Would it not be better to re-write the bible in one, universally accepted manner? I think the most damaging thing to the validity of Christianity in particular is the alarming different views and belief systems.

You're assuming the fault is with the belief system and not the people implementing it. Human history makes it pretty clear I think that humans have a great knack for eventually messing up whatever they get their hands on. How many times I've witnessed people arguing over road maps! Is the road map at fault for the argument? No. It simply indicates where the roads are. The ones looking at the map, however, think one route better than another, or misread the map, or whatever, and end up in fights about it. None of this is the fault of the map, though. In the same way, there is nothing wrong with Christianity; only with the flawed human beings who follow it.

I hope you don't take the defensive and you try to see my point of view here, as it would logically make the bible easier for people to understand and easier to teach if it were different.

I don't have any problem with how the Bible is. Nor do the many Christians I know who use it daily. We learn from it quite easily...

So it would aid Christianity and unite you all as one group if it were feasible.
One book has spawned thousands of contradicting views and they can't all be right.

Yup. But this isn't the fault of the Book.

So maybe you just need a majority rule and define exactly what the bible is saying. I think this is too optimistic...Why are you scared to write the bible in plain english and avoid reinterpretation?

I'm sorry. Who's scared?

Thanks

You're welcome.

Selah.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Thanks for the replies. I don't think I understand what makes scripture, scripture though. Why does being old mean it is sacred? Surely the bible has been edited several times throughout its existence and that was still considered scripture. So why would it be wrong to remove certain bits you don't agree with anymore? Like the parts about slavery which don't belong in the 21st century. Our society has evolved a lot in the last 2,000 years so it doesn't seem wrong to teach something a bit newer...How do you know God doesn't want a new bible to be written that incorporates new scientific ideas and modern morality?