Why are we so sure??

[tamborine lady]

I am going to play devils advocate on this one, and you'll see why when you read the queston!

Why are we so sure that the bible, the one book we all quote so freely on this board, is ALL the scripture there is? How do we know it contains ALL of the word of God that He wants us to have?

SDA have E.G. White, Mormons have the book of Moroni, Jehovahs Witness have their own version, the New World Translation, and the Catholics have all their different books.

Then there's the Koran, etc. well you get the idea!

So how do we know OURS is the correct one???


Peace,

Tam

 

[StefanM]

The same way we know that ours is the correct religion--faith.

 

[jacob62]

Because it is the one book that is the most attacked,most misunderstood(and you know who you are),most misquoted,most widely read,and most widely distibuted.And foremost as Stefan said,faith.Plus all the prophecies that have come to pass.

 

[icthus]

The Evidence that the Holy Bible contains, in what ever it speaks on, is 100% correct. Every single prophecy about the Lord Jesus Christ has been fulfilled. The Book of Mormon, for exapmle is know to have many errors. The Koran is found on blood-shed, and portrays a God who is bent on revenge. It has been said that the Koran is 5% true, that is when it quotes from the Bible. BTW, the Koran actually has a higher place for Jesus Christ (Virgin Birth, Sinlessness, Second Coming, etc), that it does for their own man!

But, having said all of that, we can only know that the Holy Bible ALONE is the True Word of God, is when we meet with the Living Saviour, have our sins forgiven, and are filled with the Holy Spirit. It is He Who leads us into all Truth. It is not a head thing, but based on a Faith which can only come from God Himself

 

[BobRyan]

Correction - SDAs do not view Ellen White as having written scripture - or "more scritpure" or "other scripture".

"Sola scriptura" means the same 66 books everybody else is reading.

 

[music4Him]

Did Ellen White write prophecies?

BTW, I agree with some of what icthus exspecially on the prophcies that have been fulfilled by Jesus. I know there are other books and haven't read them. They are mentioned in the OT. Now whether they were lost or what I have no idea but they are mentioned but not a part of our bible.

 

[tamborine lady]

Bob Ryan said:Correction - SDAs do not view Ellen White as having written scripture - or "more scritpure" or "other scripture".

"Sola scriptura" means the same 66 books everybody else is reading.

Correction noted, but there are a lot of SDA who believe EGW was absolutely 100% correct, hence the tired old statement in SDA churches, "one of my favorite authors".

But back to the question. How do we know that the Apocrypha in the Catolic bible should not be included?? How do we know that some other books shouldn't be included?

How can we be sure that the guys that put together the bible we use today got it right?

Selah,

Tam

 

[BobRyan]

I guess my point is that there were a lot of "inspired" prophets in the NT that did not get books/letters written/included in the NT.

For example - the 4 daughters of Philip, Anna, all the women in 1Cor 14 (Corinth) that had the gift of prophecy.

They did not run around saying "well how much scripture should we add today?"

If the OP is about actual claims to scripture - going beyond the 66 -- then Philip's 4 daughters do not qualifify "just because" they were prophets nor do the women in 1Cor 14 not does Ellen White. It required something "more".

In the case of the book of Mormon -- they DO claim that it is "another Bible".

In the case of the Apocrypha - the RCC DOES claim that it is "MORE BIBLE".

The Quran (or Koran) is a claim to "another" Bible or "the REAL Bible" as they think of it.

So these are valid "alternatives" to our idea that "sola scriptura" represents just the 66 books of scripture.

Your previous post makes it sound like "if it is not error then it must be scrpture". That is not the case with Nathan speaking to David (no book of Nathan) nor of Philips daughters, or agabus or Ellen White or ...

THE TEST of a prophet's message is that it has to be doctrinally correct. But once you validate that the source is God (HE is infallible BTW) then it makes the message "inspired" but does not make it scripture (applicable to all mankind).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tamborine lady]

But all the other people of different faiths beleive their "book" is THE word, and that they are right and all of us are wrong.

The ones that have the Bible plus some other books are quite sure we are wrong!!

So how do we know WE are correct and they are not!

Peace,

Tam

 

[BobRyan]

It is not as hard as you may think.

Take the book of Mormon for example. Mormon's "claim" that this is "Another bible" but look at the "story they make up" for where it came from and look at the content of the book. They take none of their doctrines from the book itself because it does not support Mormonism and in fact it condemns polygamy at a time BEFORE Joseph Smith thought of introducing it! So for "doctrine" they go to Smith's OTHER books -- books that do not teach what the book of Mormon teaches. In fact few of them even know what is in the book of Mormon outside of a few favorite chapters.

In any case - the BoM is most likely a document written by an early Amillenialist Baptist (anabaptist) Solomon Spaulding as a "Pilgrims Progress style" work of fiction based on an American Indian context. Smith got a hold of the manuscript made some small changes and added an introduction and "presto!" book of Mormon.


As for Islam's Qu'ran. Islam claims that the OT and NT texts (manuscripts) have been tampered with. BUT THEY HAVE NO evidence - no early manuscripts showing their point to be true! WIthout that key point sustained - their entire system collapses -- and it is a an obvious blunder.

Both Smith and Mohammed where Christian to start with. So it is a case of their admitting to have fallen off a more direct path to God.

So basically the problem of figuring out "the obvious failings" of some of those competitive "Bibles" is not as complex and difficult as one might think.

The Bible on the other hand is composed of reliable ancient manuscripts that provide more detail in a lot of areas than any competing source. They are always older and always composed of more historically accurate details as well as predictions.

Nothing compares to it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[av1611jim]

To answer the OP;
In a word...prophecy.
Only the 66 books of the Bible as we now have it can prove to have fulfilled prophecy as its validation.
No other "religious" book has this componant.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[TexasSky]

Prophecy fulfilled.
And the fact that many of the other books you reference actually contradict the word of God.
In fact, I know one Mormon Elder who now teaches that the Bible is not the infalliable word of God, and he bases his theory on the fact that the Bible disagrees with the Book of Mormon.

Then, there is the simple fact, that the bible says not to add or take away from the bible.

 

[Nevertheless]

Then, there is the simple fact, that the bible says not to add or take away from the bible.

Not quite. The book of Revelation says not to add to or take away from the words of that prophecy. There is nothing to indicate that this was to apply to all of the books of the Bible, which at the time Revelation was written, were not even compiled!

 

[tamborine lady]

As I said in the opening post. I have played Devils advocate on this one.

I believe that the bible we have is all we need to live by. The Bible can be PROVED to work.

It has been the overall best seller for the longest of any book.

In any part of the world, when you bring in the Bible, lives change. When people accept Jesus as Savior, their lives change for the better.

Does it contain all the "scripture" there is? That I don't know for sure, but what I do know for sure is that it is all we need to live our lives for Jesus.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

[jacob62]

Originally posted by Nevertheless:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then, there is the simple fact, that the bible says not to add or take away from the bible.

Not quite. The book of Revelation says not to add to or take away from the words of that prophecy. There is nothing to indicate that this was to apply to all of the books of the Bible, which at the time Revelation was written, were not even compiled! </font>[/QUOTE]I beleive it was God who wrote the bible,and He had it compiled before it happened.And if you think you can add or take away any part of scripture,your treading on thin ice.

 

[TexasSky]

I always smile when I see the question of "how do we know" come up because the Bible itself, and its survival, is a miracle we take for granted.

There are 39 ancient texts that confirm or refer to events, people or various other things known in the Old Testament which were not the texts the bible itself comes from. No other historically accepted document has such supporting evidence.

No other book is written by so many different people, from different walks of life, different regions of the world, over thousands of years - and yet.. supports and confirms what is written. In one place you have a prophecy, in another you have historical recording of the fulfillment of that same prophecy.

No recorded document in history has had so many powerful enemies try to destroy it, and yet survived. Its been burned, banned, the writers or printers or distibutors put to death, and yet - IT survives.

It doesn't change. Sure, new translations come out, we obtain better understanding of what is written, but the basic message NEVER changes. Always God is the Creator, always the Alpha and Omega.

The book of Mormon changes when the prophet of their church changes. The Koran supports the old testament to a point, then splits off, and changes.

How do we know the bible is really His word? He protects it. We can't even destroy His word when we try.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The book of Mormon changes when the prophet of their church changes. The Koran supports the old testament to a point, then splits off, and changes.

The Jews would say that the New Testament supports the "Old Testament" to a point, then splits off, and changes as well.

 

[TexasSky]

Actually, I don't think that is true, Thomas.
I have discussed Christ at length with many Jews, and the thing that never ceases to amaze me is that they don't object to Christ, they just really know nothing about Him.

Often I'm told things like, "He can't be the Messiah, he is from Nazareth." (Which really stunned me. How can anyone in this country not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?)

When I sit down and say, "Do you believe this and this referred to the Messiah?" And then show them how Christ fulfilled those prophecies, they are usually amazed, and occasionally they come to the Lord.

 

[jacob62]

You might as well write a Baptist bible,a Penticostal bible,a Church of God bible etc.That way,instead of saying things no longer apply,you can either take it out or twist it to your Baptist doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

The book of Mormon changes when the prophet of their church changes. The Koran supports the old testament to a point, then splits off, and changes.

#1. The book of Mormon did not change much at all. (Which is a huge problem for the Mormons sinc the book of Mormon continues to deny some of their major teachings. For example it condemned polygammy BEFORE Joseph Smith thought to do it - and STILL condemns polygammy. It also continnues to condemn the idea that a person might die and then have another chance for heaven or that a person could ever be redeemed out of hell. Basically it is the anabaptist, amillenial views of Samuel Spaulding not Joseph Smith that is in the book of Mormon).

The only thing they use the BoM for is to show that Smith is divinely inspired and to argue for the fiction about Indians coming from the Hebrews. On every other point they take you to Perl of Great Price or Doctrines and Covenants to get "Joseph Smith" doctrine.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

The Jews would say that the New Testament supports the "Old Testament" to a point, then splits off, and changes as well.

Apples and Oranges.

The Koran seeks to "replace and rewrite" the OT making it say that Ishmael was the son of the Promise - the one sacrificed and then saved NOT Isaac.

The Christian approach is to take the Hebrew Bible "AS IS" and leave it untouched. The NT is then an ADDED text not a "replacement" or a "rewrite" of the OT.

So although some Jews might accept the NT and become Christians - they would not have to "rewrite" or "replace" the OT accounts to do it - like they would for Islam.

Islam is the only religion that takes another relgion's Bible and "rewrites it".

In Christ,

Bob