Christians: Is the Bible complete and perfect?

[tik 🪀✨]

I was brought up to believe that the (protestant) Bible was the perfect Word of God, divinely inspired and never to be questioned (interpreted and discussed and studied - sure, but never fundamentally questioned). Furthermore, it was complete - there was nothing missing or lost or that would ever be added later.

I'm curious as to whether or not this teaching is a common part of other common and uncommon Christian upbringings and beliefs. Obviously my experience was very narrow, although I went to a non-denominational protestant school for 10 years and this belief was not debated whatsoever despite other ideas being freely debated. But I don't have a broader theological idea of why this is thought to be true. The more I learned about the Bible itself, the more I found it to be rather arbitrary (although still remarkably consistent, cohesive, and compelling as an overall text sure.. but not perfect).

[© tweed]

in a sense it is "complete", as it would be hard to add anything to it (though there are scattered things we can learn from the Apocrypha that provide context and clues if nothing else).  perfect, no.

[tik 🪀✨]

I was taught that if you don't believe it is perfect, it can be fundamentally questioned, and therefore isn't worth putting your faith into. Is this something you reconciled or does it not affect you?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's complete, but it's definitely not perfect in the sense of being inerrant. It's only 'perfect' or 'infallible' in that nothing that it doesn't contain is necessary for salvation, and nothing that it does contain is actively detrimental to salvation. I guess it could be considered to be perfect in the sense that it is as good as it could be at being what it is, but that strikes me as something of a platitude.

[© tweed]

I was taught that if you don't believe it is perfect, it can be fundamentally questioned, and therefore isn't worth putting your faith into. Is this something you reconciled or does it not affect you?

I don't see the Bible as something I "put my faith into".  I regard that sort of religion as a form of idolatry: the idea that the Word of God could be reduced down to human language strikes me as absurd, particularly as the supposed God-man Jesus never said "now all you blokes better write this stuff down, word-for-word."  he wasn't thinking like that.

I read the Bible as a

1) the doctrine of creation/fall in Genesis 1-3, which explains the human predicament as concisely as I have seen;

2) the spiritual struggle of "God's chosen people", Israel, who often were in tumult as a result of disruption from outside (even forgetting Egypt, we have the Babylonian Exile, then colonization by the Greeks and then the Romans);

3) the appearance (probably as a split-off disciple of John the Baptist) of Jesus of Nazareth, who both in his own incomplete way took on the Jewish cause as his own, attempting to fulfill the convenant, condemning the accomodationist Jewish power structure of his day as well as preaching the here-and-now, egalitarian revolutionary Kingdom of God; then being crucified by the Roman imperial power;

4) his "Resurrection", in whatever form it took, made his followers absolutely certain that he had passed though death and had a continued ontological existence as the Christ;

5) the NT appears as the early Christians grapple with what had happened and try to make record of it, with varying underlying motives, honesty, etc.


I don't put my faith into the Bible, but am fascinated by it and seek to live in continuity with its overarching story.  Jesus did say "all authority goes to me" (Mat 28:18) and the last thing the Resurrected Christ supposedly said in Acts 1 was "it's not for you to know the day or the hour, go on building the Kingdom along the four corners of the Earth".

so I don't spend a lot of time trying to harmonize an obviously polyphonic Bible, as if it only has one message.  my only rule is Jesus breaks ties, in cases of apparent contradiction.

(I don't even necessarily place the Canonical texts in any special position vis a vis the Apocrypha, though I do think the Councils in the 4th Century did a good job in picking the documents closest to the historical Jesus of Nazareth.  as for the OT Apocrypha, that's a whole different story, as evidenced by the difference in Canons throughout Christendom).



hope that made some sense

[© tweed]

It's complete, but it's definitely not perfect in the sense of being inerrant. It's only 'perfect' or 'infallible' in that nothing that it doesn't contain is necessary for salvation, and nothing that it does contain is actively detrimental to salvation. I guess it could be considered to be perfect in the sense that it is as good as it could be at being what it is, but that strikes me as something of a platitude.

even plainly reactionary pseudopauline letters, like 2 Titus?  which are used primarily to beat women over the head in conservative churches whenever they feel called to raise their voice, or to "preach"?

[tik 🪀✨]

Madeleine, do you then suppose because it is not inerrant that some bits could not be done away with? Or isn't it possible that a particularly enlightening new interpretation be considered essential doctrine and so be added? What you say regarding salvation I agree needs nothing, of course, but there are just a lot of, well, little things.

Tweed, what you said regarding idolatry is where I ended up. I called it book worship. I think your general outline is good, although I feel like it's necessary to state that a lot of the Law / temple provisions / general struggle of Israel serves to provide an essential (and often allegorical) outline for Christ and salvation in the New Testament.

But what you both said does make sense. I can't help but wonder how mainstream your viewpoints are, though, within the Christian community.

I, for instance, in my youth intensely studied New Testament books for Bible quizzing, if you've ever heard of it, and again it was emphasized that every single individual word was important and essential. It is refreshing to hear that this isn't the case for everyone, although it does present a bit of a paradox.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's complete, but it's definitely not perfect in the sense of being inerrant. It's only 'perfect' or 'infallible' in that nothing that it doesn't contain is necessary for salvation, and nothing that it does contain is actively detrimental to salvation. I guess it could be considered to be perfect in the sense that it is as good as it could be at being what it is, but that strikes me as something of a platitude.

even plainly reactionary pseudopauline letters, like 2 Titus?  which are used primarily to beat women over the head in conservative churches whenever they feel called to raise their voice, or to "preach"?

Yes, even with 2 Titus, while it's clearly wrong, God wouldn't damn someone for doing what it said (presuming they didn't go, uh...above and beyond the call of duty, shall we say, about it). But that is a feature of God and a promise that I understand God to have made rather than a feature of the Bible. Ascribing this sort of special and unambiguous saving power to the Bible itself is wrongheaded on just about every level.

Madeleine, do you then suppose because it is not inerrant that some bits could not be done away with? Or isn't it possible that a particularly enlightening new interpretation be considered essential doctrine and so be added? What you say regarding salvation I agree needs nothing, of course, but there are just a lot of, well, little things.

It could be but it won't. That's a practical fact of the way the faith works that I understand as more important than theoretical possibilities for the way the faith might work in another world.

[© tweed]

Tweed, what you said regarding idolatry is where I ended up. I called it book worship. I think your general outline is good, although I feel like it's necessary to state that a lot of the Law / temple provisions / general struggle of Israel serves to provide an essential (and often allegorical) outline for Christ and salvation in the New Testament.

But what you both said does make sense. I can't help but wonder how mainstream your viewpoints are, though, within the Christian community.

I, for instance, in my youth intensely studied New Testament books for Bible quizzing, if you've ever heard of it, and again it was emphasized that every single individual word was important and essential. It is refreshing to hear that this isn't the case for everyone, although it does present a bit of a paradox.

I wasn't raised in any religious tradition -- unless Jewish preschool camp and a few years as a Unitarian Univeralist youth group (say ages 8-10) count.  so I never learned even the most basic things about religion as a child, and wouldn't until my interests started leading me there around age 19.

I would say my 'positions' are not exactly mainstream in American Christianity, but well within the boundaries of what can be called 'progressive Christianity', the left-wing of the mainline protestant churches.

[TJ in Oregon]

When I was growing up (raised Catholic), this was a question we never discussed at all. Like it wasn't on the radar screen. We were taught the Bible was the divinely inspired written word of God but that was about all regarding the legalism of Bible reading.

Officially the Catholic Church does believe in Biblical literalism: we believe the truths contained in the Bible are literally true. The thing about Biblical literalism is that no one literally believes in it as there are parts of the Bible that are obviously not meant to be taken literally. Naturally, we can't agree on which ones they are.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think Jesus implied that the truth is nearly impossible to discern, so follow him.

In that the Bible contains that it is complete and perfect.  

All that stuff about not eating pigs or clipping your dick sheath off as a downpayment don't really jive for some reason.  But maybe it does to you.  How you marry that together is generally ugly.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think Jesus implied that the truth is nearly impossible to discern, so follow him.

In that the Bible contains that it is complete and perfect.  

All that stuff about not eating pigs or clipping your dick sheath off as a downpayment don't really jive for some reason.  But maybe it does to you.  How you marry that together is generally ugly.

What do you mean by this post? I've read it like 6 times and I still have no idea what you're saying.

[RI]

The Protestant Bible certainly isn't complete.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think Jesus implied that the truth is nearly impossible to discern, so follow him.

In that the Bible contains that it is complete and perfect. 

All that stuff about not eating pigs or clipping your dick sheath off as a downpayment don't really jive for some reason.  But maybe it does to you.  How you marry that together is generally ugly.

What do you mean by this post? I've read it like 6 times and I still have no idea what you're saying.

The main point is that Jesus is the way.  Beyond that the Bible is subject to misinterpretation.
So insofar as that is the only message you actually need...the Bible is complete.  The rest...especially the old testament teaches all kinds of lessons to all kinds of people.  But no matter how far astray you are led, you can always go back to square one with Jesus.

[Associate Justice PiT]

When I was growing up (raised Catholic), this was a question we never discussed at all. Like it wasn't on the radar screen. We were taught the Bible was the divinely inspired written word of God but that was about all regarding the legalism of Bible reading.

Officially the Catholic Church does believe in Biblical literalism: we believe the truths contained in the Bible are literally true. The thing about Biblical literalism is that no one literally believes in it as there are parts of the Bible that are obviously not meant to be taken literally. Naturally, we can't agree on which ones they are.

     Similar to Judaism, the Catholic Church maintains the existence of a hidden sense in the Bible. There are parts of the Bible that are true (the entire Bible is true after all), but in a way other than the plain sense of the text. The story of creation is true, but not in the way that a plain reading of the text would suggest.

[tik 🪀✨]

Madeleine, do you then suppose because it is not inerrant that some bits could not be done away with? Or isn't it possible that a particularly enlightening new interpretation be considered essential doctrine and so be added? What you say regarding salvation I agree needs nothing, of course, but there are just a lot of, well, little things.

It could be but it won't. That's a practical fact of the way the faith works that I understand as more important than theoretical possibilities for the way the faith might work in another world.

I'm disappointed with how dismissive this is, especially because it's not difficult to imagine circumstances where it would be useful to change things without losing the core of the message, but I won't press it any further. It's going off-topic anyway.

When I was growing up (raised Catholic), this was a question we never discussed at all. Like it wasn't on the radar screen. We were taught the Bible was the divinely inspired written word of God but that was about all regarding the legalism of Bible reading.

Officially the Catholic Church does believe in Biblical literalism: we believe the truths contained in the Bible are literally true. The thing about Biblical literalism is that no one literally believes in it as there are parts of the Bible that are obviously not meant to be taken literally. Naturally, we can't agree on which ones they are.

With the answers so far, it's beginning to look like the brand I was taught was very fringe. Even so, even we understood that not everything everything was to be taken literally. Most things, however, certainly were.

I think Jesus implied that the truth is nearly impossible to discern, so follow him.

In that the Bible contains that it is complete and perfect. 

All that stuff about not eating pigs or clipping your dick sheath off as a downpayment don't really jive for some reason.  But maybe it does to you.  How you marry that together is generally ugly.

What do you mean by this post? I've read it like 6 times and I still have no idea what you're saying.

The main point is that Jesus is the way.  Beyond that the Bible is subject to misinterpretation.
So insofar as that is the only message you actually need...the Bible is complete.  The rest...especially the old testament teaches all kinds of lessons to all kinds of people.  But no matter how far astray you are led, you can always go back to square one with Jesus.

Without the Old Testament the reason that Jesus is the way, what Jesus is the way from and towards, and how Jesus is proven to be that way, don't make sense. I do like your sentiment although it feels wishy-washy. I don't think it's false exactly, but I think having context is important to appreciating what Christianity is about. Not that that makes you any more saved than if you don't, but.. you know.

[Mr. Smith]

Nope

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the answers so far, it's beginning to look like the brand I was taught was very fringe. Even so, even we understood that not everything everything was to be taken literally. Most things, however, certainly were.

Keep in mind that this forum doesn't attract many religious traditionalists.  Even the believers here tend towards the liberal end of the theological spectrum.  Context matters.  Of the two churches I attend most, at one I'm one of the most liberal people there and at the other I'm one of the most conservative people there.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Not until the Constitution is officially added!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Madeleine, do you then suppose because it is not inerrant that some bits could not be done away with? Or isn't it possible that a particularly enlightening new interpretation be considered essential doctrine and so be added? What you say regarding salvation I agree needs nothing, of course, but there are just a lot of, well, little things.

It could be but it won't. That's a practical fact of the way the faith works that I understand as more important than theoretical possibilities for the way the faith might work in another world.

I'm disappointed with how dismissive this is, especially because it's not difficult to imagine circumstances where it would be useful to change things without losing the core of the message, but I won't press it any further. It's going off-topic anyway.

I'm sorry, I'm just too much of a Boston Pragmatist about this to be able to answer it any differently. I could give this more thought and PM you a more elaborated answer if you'd like.

[tik 🪀✨]

Keep in mind that this forum doesn't attract many religious traditionalists.  Even the believers here tend towards the liberal end of the theological spectrum.  Context matters.  Of the two churches I attend most, at one I'm one of the most liberal people there and at the other I'm one of the most conservative people there.

Oh, I'm very aware of that. I do remember jmfcst quite well, and that he was a bit of a lonely voice. His approach to the Bible was still much more familiar to me and my upbringing, though, as much as I always disagreed with them/him. But so far it seems like I grew up in an oddly extra fanatical pocket (which is comforting in a weird way).

But one of my original questions, though it may not have been terribly clear, was whether or not Biblical perfection was "a common part of other common and uncommon Christian upbringings and beliefs." Most of the answers have pointed towards no.. but also were just about their current personal beliefs - not what I was aiming for exactly, but still enlightening. Otherwise TJ added that, although in a technical sense Catholics in his life believed that the Bible is the divinely inspired "Word of God," the question of perfection and completeness wasn't considered. To me, calling the Bible the "Word of God" does imply perfection, otherwise you could be calling God a liar

Ten years of Christian school with chapel once a week and Bible classes every year, church twice every Sunday and Wednesday, Christian summer camps and winter retreats, listening only to a Christian radio station for long times, Bible quizzing and competitions, mission trips, discussing religion online on other forums.. and I never encountered any Christian who didn't believe the Bible wasn't complete and perfect. And basically no one here mentions that it was common in their upbringing or personal religious history. Even knowing about the slant of this forum, I'm still a little surprised.

I'm sorry, I'm just too much of a Boston Pragmatist about this to be able to answer it any differently. I could give this more thought and PM you a more elaborated answer if you'd like.

That's okay, I think I understood what you meant and everything. There doesn't need to be anything more or less, and even if parts may be flawed it isn't fundamentally broken. My only thought is that in certain contexts it may be beneficial to adapt parts (without changing the core concepts) to make it more easily understood by other cultures in other situations. But, you know.. meh

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Transfiguration or Moses event on the 10 Commandments gave birth to Judism and Christianity.  But one doesn't have to take them literal, they can take it in the spiritual context, that Moses talked to the Holy Ghost, and it was Jesus Holy Ghost or Spirit went back to Heaven, not the body.

But, most of the other text, can be taken at it's value.  Because Jesus or Moses used parables, and miracles can be taken into that context. Like Revelations and Living in a Spiritual Realm or Earthly Plane.

So, no the Bible isn't complete.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be God's Word.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be God's Word.

And there you have the reason I'm not a fundamentalist. Despite the abundant evidence that it was written by fallible men about God they cling to the simplifying assumption that the Protestant Bible is God's Word.

[ingemann]

Of course not, only a illiterate heretic would think so.