Is the Bible incomplete?

[Cynthia_Oluchi]

It can't be! What the author did is understandable— throw light to the stories.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think the Bible is incomplete is some ways. But the stories in it are very inspiring and helpful.

That is true. Whether complete or incomplete, it contains lot to learn

[Sushan Ekanayake]

It can't be! What the author did is understandable— throw light to the stories.

Author has filled in the fine details and more or less has completed the stories

[MorganKnightOfficial]

I, myself, believe that the Bible is as complete as we need it to be. Ons day, when we die and ascend to heaven, we will receive the rest of the information that we didn't need as humans.

[Hester3]

The Bible is a religious text, so naturally, it only describes what is pertinent to our relationship with God. Killing Able is fiction so it focuses on the human aspect of events. One does not have anything to do with the other because they were written for different purposes.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I, myself, believe that the Bible is as complete as we need it to be. Ons day, when we die and ascend to heaven, we will receive the rest of the information that we didn't need as humans.

That is a more religious way of putting it. Maybe we don't need the minor details as humans

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The Bible is a religious text, so naturally, it only describes what is pertinent to our relationship with God. Killing Able is fiction so it focuses on the human aspect of events. One does not have anything to do with the other because they were written for different purposes.

That is correct. The purpose of these two are different and that maybe the reason for being under/over descriptive

[evraealtana]

If the Bible is "incomplete" because details are missing from the times between the events that are discussed, then every history book ever written is likewise "incomplete". We can't know what Nero ate for breakfast or what songs Hitler got stuck in his head. We can only know what is written down, which is by necessity limited to events deemed noteworthy by those who were present and, later, by those who studied what was left behind.

I am not a religious person, so to me the question has little weight. But if I were a person who gave credence to the Bible, I would not see its lack of fine-grain detail as evidence of incompleteness. A blow-by-blow account of Biblical history would be so unwieldy as to be virtually worthless.

[Kemmy11]

I believe the bible is complete as it only detailed relevant information about God and since the book is fictional, there shouldn't be a reason for comparison.

[Dee_Robert]

I believe that the Bible is complete. When you read the book of Revelation 22:18,19 you'll realize that adding or subtracting contents into or from the Bible is not right whatsoever.

I thought the same. But what about the feeling of 'stories are jumping from one point to the other', when reading the parts of creation?

I understand your view Sushan, some parts are left out of the stories in the Bible. Does it make the Bible incomplete, I doubt that. Infact I think it makes it beautiful in its own way, God allows for the use of imagination here.
Remember the use of the Holy Spirit, to bring us into all truth, to show us these ancient paths.


I believe God told stories necessary for our learning in the Bible as previously quoted but we can't know everything that happened, every thought every character had. There'd be no place for development of Christians. Just spoonfed babies

[Dee_Robert]

The author gives additional descriptions, which are not found in the original Bible, to the story from creating Adam and Eve, up to the worldwide flood. Most of who has studied the Bible must have had his/her own thoughts regarding these lacking parts. Does this mean that the Bible is incomplete? On the other hand, is it righteous to add after-notes to a religious book like the Bible?

I do not believe the Bible is incomplete. There would not be enough room to write everything about God! I believe it is as complete as God wants it to be, we are not meant to know everything because we are not on the same realm as God. We are human, He is spiritual so we could not comprehend it all in our present state. That is just my opinion. Is it righteous to add after-notes to a religious book like the Bible? I say it is not righteous. I understand the author is using his imagination to fill in the gaps, which is what makes the book fiction. However, in the story of Adam and Eve, there wasn't just gaps being filled in, there were changes made to what the Bible actually says, which I have a problem with. I will continue reading to see how it goes unless I feel too much is being changed and not just being 'filled in.' Thanks for these questions!

Changing the original scripture is not acceptable. Yet, if the whole thing is a fiction, can't it be taken as fair?

This may be where people will have problems. I have seen Christian writers who develop fictional stories from the Bibles plot making it more relatable taking care to remain on the original track.
The problem is when someone veers off, trying to rewrite history, develop a spinoff series or something
Christians may have problems with that

But really, just how much freedom does a writer have with the original plot?
What's considered fair?

[Maria Esposito]

The author was very straightforward in claiming that this is a work of fiction. The Bible is not incomplete but it needs to be interpreted. For example, Jesus spoke in parables, but this does not mean that the New Testament is incomplete. I might not agree with some interpretations but I firmly believe that all religious texts should be interpreted and talked about with an open mind. We must also remember that some parts of the Bible have been left out or heavily edited through the centuries.

[Maria Esposito]

I do not believe the Bible is incomplete. There would not be enough room to write everything about God! I believe it is as complete as God wants it to be, we are not meant to know everything because we are not on the same realm as God. We are human, He is spiritual so we could not comprehend it all in our present state. That is just my opinion. Is it righteous to add after-notes to a religious book like the Bible? I say it is not righteous. I understand the author is using his imagination to fill in the gaps, which is what makes the book fiction. However, in the story of Adam and Eve, there wasn't just gaps being filled in, there were changes made to what the Bible actually says, which I have a problem with. I will continue reading to see how it goes unless I feel too much is being changed and not just being 'filled in.' Thanks for these questions!

Changing the original scripture is not acceptable. Yet, if the whole thing is a fiction, can't it be taken as fair?

This may be where people will have problems. I have seen Christian writers who develop fictional stories from the Bibles plot making it more relatable taking care to remain on the original track.
The problem is when someone veers off, trying to rewrite history, develop a spinoff series or something
Christians may have problems with that

But really, just how much freedom does a writer have with the original plot?
What's considered fair?

I am Christian and I have no problem with fictional stories about the Bible, as long as the authors make it clear that they are fictional and make no claim to authenticity. Religious texts will always be talked about and interpreted. These interpretations will always be embodied and contextualized in the societies through which they travel. This is inevitable and I have no problem with that. As long as the core messages of Christianity are left intact, which I think they often are in these fictional stories, I do not see it as offensive or unrighteous.

Growing up, I was often told stories about the Bible and saints which I am sure were heavily "fictionalized," but the purpose behind it was always to bring me closer to God in a way that was suitable to my age. I think everything is considered fair as long as there are no claims to authenticity to the Scriptures and the core Christian values are not altered. After all, do we not see images of Jesus and saints that might not be even close to reality? And have they not contributed to us feeling closer to them and enhancing our spirituality?

[Wuoketch]

This was a fiction novel, therefore, the author had his own opinions on what to add and what to subtract. This otherwise should not change our minds on the completion of the bible.

[Amy Murdoch Coleman]

I don't think the two are connected at all. If the Bible had included every detail about every story beyond what is absolutely critical, then we'd never be able to finish reading it. Since the Bible was put together by councils who chose what would be canon, we know that some of what was originally written was left out. Nevertheless, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," so I tend to believe that what is in the Bible now is complete due to divine inspiration.

That is reasonable. So the bible might have been more lengthy in the early days of writing it?

Absolutely. When the early church was in development stages, they formed a council to choose what books of the Bible were most accurate and appropriate to serve as the foundational text of the church. That is what became the traditional Christian Bible. There are quite a few texts that were left out for one reason or another that are not considered "scripture," but they are interesting reading! Definitely worth checking out!