Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z

by Sergio on December 31st, 2005

Sergio

Question

Help answer this question below.

Does the Bible say anything about people (ex. Mormons) using other, non-Biblical books to define Christianity?

Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Anonymous on January 11th, 2006

    Anonymous

      In giving any useful thought to this question, there is an important point that must be understood.  The Holy Bible, as we know it, did not exist as a single volume until long after the last of it was written.  What we now have as the Bible originally consisted of many separate, unrelated documents which were written and distributed independently of one another.  It was not until a few centuries after that last of these was written that a project was undertaken to gather these documents; to sort through them and decide which to keep and which to discard; and then to edit and compile them into a single volume.

      There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that refers to this process, or to the product which was thus produced.  Therefore, there is nothing anywhere in the Bible which refers to the Bible.

      Much of Christianity has been taken in by a fallacy that holds the Bible to be the complete, inerrant, and final word of God; that there can be no other scriptural documents, and no other source of authoritative doctrine.  There is even a name for this fallacy; it is known as “Sola Scriptura”.  There's an important point here as well.  Sola Scriptura holds that no religious doctrine is valid unless it is found in the Bible; and any doctrine not found in, or support by the Bible must be rejected as false.  But the Bible does not contain anything anywhere that suggests or supports, much less states, anything resembling Sola Scriptura.  So by its own logic, Sola Scriptura declares itself to be false.

      This answer seems to have gone somewhat astray, by this point, from the question.  But I think the above explanation is necessary to get to a useful answer of the question itself.

      The Bible does not say anything about “non-Biblical books”, because the Bible itself — as I said before — did not exist until long after the last of it was written, so there could not have been any meaningful way for any of its authors to make a distinction between “Biblical” and “non-Biblical” books.

    Comments

    • as usual... half truths to support his own beliefs

      John Pacella

      by John Pacella on February 4th, 2006

    • the reason the Bible has 66 books is that they ARE related. the contradictions were thrown out. Macabees for one example

      wfbrad

      by wfbrad on February 11th, 2006

    • The Bible is the "inerrant Word of God." See your Concordance in your Bible for the scripture reference.

      Answers101

      by Answers101 on March 17th, 2006

    • the bible does indeed refer to itself... and also contains verses teaching its own inerrancy. research a little

      jonzim

      by jonzim on March 21st, 2006

    • Jonzim, what verses in the Bible refer to the Bible itself? What verses claim that the Bible is inerrant?

      Anonymous

      by Anonymous on July 1st, 2006

    • The "book of Abraham" is the unerrant word of Joseph Smith. And he stands at the gate of Heaven ready to call out the mormon's secret names, so only they can go in.

      Anonymous

      by Anonymous on September 14th, 2009

    • Like
    • Report

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Does the Bible say anything about people (ex. Mormons) using other, non-Biblical books to define Christianity?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company