The Holy Bible, Is it Complete and Infallible?

"Three men testified that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power and gift of God. And in addition to this, we have the testimony of eight witnesses and that of the Prophet Joseph himself. Have we any such testimony to support the inspiration of the Bible?" - Apostle Heber J. Grant, September 9, 1888

Although somewhat shocking to the Christian world, which relies heavily on the various editions of the Holy Bible, the Mormon Apostle Heber J. Grant makes a valid point. Any such testimony of the Bible would of necessity be found outside of the Bible itself, since the Bible was compiled long after the death of the individual writers. Martin Luther wrote that only the Bible should be used as a source of truth, and this creed of "Sola Scriptura" has been adopted by virtually every Protestant sect. Such a creed has the unwelcome side-effect of ignoring any other religious experience, even if it testifies of the truth of the Bible.

"I will now turn linguist. There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me." - Joseph Smith, (Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings)

From a linguistic standpoint, there are many scriptures which are poorly translated, including one of the few scriptures that give "scripture" any kind of authority. Take a look at the following verse from the King James Version.

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
(2 Timothy 3)

Initially it looks straight forward, but it only does so because of the assumptions of the reader. It doesn't actually define "scripture" or give us a list of which books should be considered to be scripture. In fact the words scripture and script come from a Greek word that just refers to writing - any writing. Now the verse makes no sense at all - How could all writings be inspired of God? Joseph Smith, in his inspired translation of the Bible, made a slight change to the KJV, and rendered a meaningful verse from an incomprehensible one.

"16 And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

This is what revelation from God can do - it can restore meaning to a scripture that has been mistranslated or corrupted by men. God certainly knows the correct translation, and he is able to reveal such things to the sincere seeker of truth. Of course, if Martin Luther is right, and the Bible is the only source of truth, then such errors will of necessity be perpetuated indefinately, and people will go right on believing in their false assumptions.

The idea that the Bible is complete is an important idea for those who follow Martin Luthers "sola scriptura" creed. If they must rely only upon those things that are written therein, then they must have confidence that everything that they could possibly need is contained therein. Unfortunately, no prophet or apostle ever gave us a list of books which should be considered inspired to the exclusion of all others. In fact, the Bible tells us of inspired books that are not found in the modern canon of scripture. Where are the writings of Iddo the Seer or Nathan the Prophet? These books are mentioned in our modern Bible, but long lost to history.

I suspect that many modern Christians simply assume that the books in our modern Bible were the only books available. In fact there were over a hundred books that were evaluated by Catholic scholars and from which the Catholic Bible was derived; the Protestant Bible is a subset of the Catholic Bible - it has even fewer books. Those books which were not selected, are all heaped into the category known as the psuedopigrapha. They are believed to have been corrupted, or of questionable authorship. If a doctrine disagreed with Catholic tradition, the book was likely to be put aside. The Book of Enoch was one such book. It was popular among both Jews and Christians at the time of Christ, but it didn't pass the test of Catholic scrutiny. Some of these books have been lost to history as the Catholic church has a history of burning books which challenge its doctrines.

When the Catholic church first sent missionaries into Mesoamerica to teach them the Christian religion, they were shocked to discover that the Aztecs, the descendants of the Maya, already had a religion that greatly matched their own. In order to promote their own beliefs over those of the Aztecs, the Pope elected to have all of the Aztec libraries, which contained their religious books, destroyed. Only about six books survived this holocaust.

Some Christians have the naive notion that God will protect his word from corruption. Two thousand years of religious history tell a different story. John the Apostle wrote in the Book of Revelations that whoever added or took away anything from his book would be cursed. He obviously had no faith that God would preserve it.

The next obvious question is what, if anything is missing? I don't just mean from the Book of Revelations, but from the Bible, et al.

"It is from the Book of Mormon that we gain the concept of a 'plan of salvation.' This phrase is not a part of the vocabulary of theology of the Bible-believing world. The idea is not found in the Bible. We know it should be there, because we have it in the book of Moses (Moses 6:62), but the Bible as we have it today does not contain any reference to a divine plan for the salvation of men." -
(Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon v1 R. Millet)

This seems like it should be central to the theme of the Bible, yet only allusions are made to any type of divine plan. The Bible is like the painting of a beautiful women, which has been vandalized - a piece of canvas is missing, the piece with the face of the women. We know that baptism, and the laying on of hands, and the Melchizek priesthood, and a quorum of twelve apostles are central to his plan, but little mention is made on how they tie together or their individual importance. Nowhere does it mention the requirements of baptism. Some say it can only be done by immersion. Others say that sprinkling is acceptable. Some require one baptismal prayer, and others another. Some say that a man cannot be saved without baptism, yet others say it isn't important. All we know for sure, if we were to rely solely upon the Bible, is that Jesus was baptized, and that his apostles traveled long distances to preach his gospel and baptize people. It is a similar story with the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Why is it important? What does it do? At what age should a person receive it? Can they receive it without the laying on of hands? If so, then why did the apostles lay their hands on people to confer it? What kind of authority does a man need to have in order to confer the Holy Ghost? These questions are not minor - they are critical to understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ, and how to direct the Church of Jesus Christ, yet the Bible is strangely silent. I am not aware of any churches - other than the Mormons - who have an ordinance to confer the Holy Ghost. Clearly, the silence of the Bible has led to inaction on the part of most modern Christian churches. Things have been lost.
Paul mentions in his Letter to the Hebrews, that Jesus had the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Bible tells us very little about Melchizedek, and nothing about his priesthood, or why the Son of God would need it the priesthood of some ancient prophet. Did the apostles also have the Melchizedek Priesthood? What ordinances can be performed by such a priest, and at what age is it to be conferred? Once againg the silence of the Bible bespeaks censorship. It is as if someone cut out the most important parts, leaving us only the frame and a few pieces of torn canvas.

"...who, in his right mind, could for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? No one can tell whether even one verse of either the Old or New Testament conveys the ideas of the original author" - Orson Pratt, (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 28)

"...ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors, many plain and precious things were deleted, in consequence of which error and falsehood poured into the churches. One of the great heresies of modern Christendom is the unfounded assumption that the Bible contains all of the inspired teachings now extant among men" - Bruce McConkie (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 82, 83)

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors"
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327)

"The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike." - Apostle Orson Pratt
(The Seer, p. 213)