Is the Bible incomplete?

[María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda]

I don't think we can say the Bible is incomplete if we assume it is the word of God and, hence, perfect. But I don't think there's nothing wrong in adding up or creating taking the Bible as a base, as long as you don't claim its God's word.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I don't think we can say the Bible is incomplete if we assume it is the word of God and, hence, perfect. But I don't think there's nothing wrong in adding up or creating taking the Bible as a base, as long as you don't claim its God's word.

There are so many work of fiction that based on the biblical stories, but they are only fiction, not the word of the God

[Alexandros92]

The Bible is an ancient collection of stories, so old that it takes a scholar to really track their roots and understand the exact circumstances under which these were written and influenced by other ancient religions and traditions. Many parts of it are anachronistic and full of riddles and ambiguity open to many different interpretations.

Asking if it is incomplete is the wrong question. Either you are a believer and therefore it is perfect since it is the word of God, or you are not and thus you see it from another perspective as a semi-historical text that really leaves much to the imagination. It has to do with you, not the Book itself.

Beyond that, what does "complete" mean anyway? Is the Qur'an or the Talmud really complete and if yes compared to what? Religious texts are not novels with a clear storyline but instead are collections of guidelines and lives of prophets that wish to transmit a certain message. Obviously it could contain more info about anything and be more detailed but that would not necessarily add more value to it.

Peace

[adeff1]

I mean, it's an intriguing question, theologically speaking, but I certainly don't believe it's incomplete in the way that you mean. This book is not claiming to be an addition to the Bible itself, it's a work of fiction.

[Lian]

In the first place, the bible has never been exactly complete. It is a library of separate works that were told/written hundreds of years apart. In fact, a lot of the content was passed down through oral tradition, particularly by fishermen. As a result, the details and interpretation were always changing until Constantinople used Christianity as his political campaign. This led to the era of transcribing, finding, compiling the separate stories that make up the bible today.

This is true.
Debatable but true.

I just learned it from my theology readings. There are also documentaries about the history of Christianity and how it was popularized.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The Bible is an ancient collection of stories, so old that it takes a scholar to really track their roots and understand the exact circumstances under which these were written and influenced by other ancient religions and traditions. Many parts of it are anachronistic and full of riddles and ambiguity open to many different interpretations.

Asking if it is incomplete is the wrong question. Either you are a believer and therefore it is perfect since it is the word of God, or you are not and thus you see it from another perspective as a semi-historical text that really leaves much to the imagination. It has to do with you, not the Book itself.

Beyond that, what does "complete" mean anyway? Is the Qur'an or the Talmud really complete and if yes compared to what? Religious texts are not novels with a clear storyline but instead are collections of guidelines and lives of prophets that wish to transmit a certain message. Obviously it could contain more info about anything and be more detailed but that would not necessarily add more value to it.

Peace

Completeness of the bible can be a subjective matter, according to the point of view that a person looks at it. What is more important is the message given underneath

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I mean, it's an intriguing question, theologically speaking, but I certainly don't believe it's incomplete in the way that you mean. This book is not claiming to be an addition to the Bible itself, it's a work of fiction.

Yes, it is certainly a work of fiction. But those fictional parts are inserted in between the story line of the bible

[Dee_Robert]

In the first place, the bible has never been exactly complete. It is a library of separate works that were told/written hundreds of years apart. In fact, a lot of the content was passed down through oral tradition, particularly by fishermen. As a result, the details and interpretation were always changing until Constantinople used Christianity as his political campaign. This led to the era of transcribing, finding, compiling the separate stories that make up the bible today.

This is true.
Debatable but true.

I just learned it from my theology readings. There are also documentaries about the history of Christianity and how it was popularized.

That's amazing
Sound theology never fails and explains things like this

[Scerakor]

No recounting of any time period is going to be complete and can always be added upon. One telling - or even multiple tellings from different perspectives - is going to get every single detail involved. Therefore - yes - by default - the Bible is incomplete.

[Gift Nwagu]

The Bible is a very complicated documenT. By nature, it should be incomplete, as many documents from the ancient middle east had been severely damaged and even unrecognizable by the time the Bible was being composed. There are even ideas that gospels written by women might have been expelled, possibly due to the misogyny of those times. There is a lot we modern-day skeptics do not know. I believe the author might have inserted additional information not because he might have believed it to be true, but possibly because it served the purpose of moving the storyline along.

[Arite Seki]

I wouldn't say the Bible is incomplete, I think since this book is fiction the author is entitled to their interpretation of events, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bible itself is missing that information.

[Dayodiola]

This is blasphemy of a holy book.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

In the first place, the bible has never been exactly complete. It is a library of separate works that were told/written hundreds of years apart. In fact, a lot of the content was passed down through oral tradition, particularly by fishermen. As a result, the details and interpretation were always changing until Constantinople used Christianity as his political campaign. This led to the era of transcribing, finding, compiling the separate stories that make up the bible today.

This is true.
Debatable but true.

I just learned it from my theology readings. There are also documentaries about the history of Christianity and how it was popularized.

Yes there are many theories as well as facts. They help to understand the current status of the bible as well as Christianity

[Sushan Ekanayake]

This is true.
Debatable but true.

I just learned it from my theology readings. There are also documentaries about the history of Christianity and how it was popularized.

That's amazing
Sound theology never fails and explains things like this

If all has been already known, there would not have been a subject called 'Theology' in the first place

[Sushan Ekanayake]

No recounting of any time period is going to be complete and can always be added upon. One telling - or even multiple tellings from different perspectives - is going to get every single detail involved. Therefore - yes - by default - the Bible is incomplete.

If it was written then and there, it would have been almost complete. But still there is the chance that some facts would have been altered