“Bible” means collection of books.
One can have in their collection books that are written by men who know God and which books are true and are historical, but which are not “Thus saith the LORD”. Their books will not contradict anything that is written as “Thus saith the LORD, if they are indeed true. Joseph Smith’s books contradicted “Thus saith the LORD”.
FYI: Enoch 1 is included in the list of Canon by the Ethiopian Coptic Church, and it has been since the beginning of the NT Church in Ethiopia.
The Book of 1 Enoch confirms all OT and NT doctrines about the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ. It was written for the world, for all nations, and it was written for it’s own day and also for this “day”, which is why it was brought back from Ethiopia in the late 1700’s and translated to English in the early 1800’s; for the Holy Spirit has overseen it coming into fashion again, in the west, so that those who seek the LORD who are left alive on earth in the day of tribulation -after the Believers in Christ are taken out of the midst of the earth- will understand. That is what the opening of it begins with, and that is what Jude quoted from.
The final book, Revelation, given us by Jesus Christ is only a fulfillment of all that Enoch first saw, and the one explains the other.
There is nothing any man has written since Revelation of Jesus Christ that is a word from God in any manner, shape, or form.
Men may write books expounding the Gospel of Christ, and they do write excellent books doing so, but there is nothing added or taken away from that which Jesus Christ has spoken, and His last word is the book of Revealtion.
“Bible” means collection of books.
One can have in their collection books that are written by men who know God and which books are true and are historical, but which are not “Thus saith the LORD”. Their books will not contradict anything that is written as “Thus saith the LORD, if they are indeed true. Joseph Smith’s books contradicted “Thus saith the LORD”.
So let me get this straight, the Bible having been corrupted by things like
The Johannine Comma, is now the Standard for truth, and God cannot correct any misstatement in the Bible because he would be contradicting his own word even though his word was corrupted?
I am going to make a bald assertion and back it up. "The Bible disagrees with itself."
The Bible is so fragmented that religions concentrating on one scripture or another have broken Christianity up into little fiefdoms of scriptural following. Those who concentrate on one scripture end up in one church and those who concentrate on another in a completely different religion, don't believe me? then you explain why there are so many Christian religions based on this one homogeneous Bible that completely agrees with itself.
If the Bible can be shown to contradict itself in only one place, your argument ceases to hold water.
Now I will give so specific examples where the Bible disagrees with itself: A short and incomplete list of contradictions, more can be found,
here.
You get all sanctimonious on me about how you can't contradict the Bible when just about every book in it contradicts something else in it somewhere, thus I submit to you it is impossible for anything to completely agree with the Bible, because the Bible itself is inconsistent. Thus since the Bible violates your very premise either your premise of no contradictions is wrong or the Bible ceases to be Scripture, the Bible has been witness testified of as scripture to me By God therefore your premise is wrong. (shocking, I know.)
FYI: Enoch 1 is included in the list of Canon by the Ethiopian Coptic Church, and it has been since the beginning of the NT Church in Ethiopia.
The Book of 1 Enoch confirms all OT and NT doctrines about the Person and work of the LORD Jesus Christ. It was written for the world, for all nations, and it was written for it’s own day and also for this “day”, which is why it was brought back from Ethiopia in the late 1700’s and translated to English in the early 1800’s; for the Holy Spirit has overseen it coming into fashion again, in the west, so that those who seek the LORD who are left alive on earth in the day of tribulation -after the Believers in Christ are taken out of the midst of the earth- will understand. That is what the opening of it begins with, and that is what Jude quoted from. I couldn't agree more, so far, but your next sentence...
The final book, Revelation, given us by Jesus Christ is only a fulfillment of all that Enoch first saw, and the one explains the other.
Many people believe the Books of the New testament are placed in the order they were written, this is not true, the Catholic Church which compiled the Books of the New Testament were complied by Subject and then length (Gospels, letters, etc
See link, Revelations is placed at the Back of the bible for a reason, they didn't understand it, most people still don't, it just makes their head hurt.
Revelations was written in AD 60-65, because John references
The seven Churches naming Laodicea by name. Laodicea was in the Lycus valley, which was destroyed in AD 60, rebuilt and destroyed again in AD 65, no reconstruction was started until after Revelations was "out" Revelations had to have been written before AD 65.
There is nothing any man has written since Revelation of Jesus Christ that is a word from God in any manner, shape, or form.
Since The Gospel of John was written by John himself in AD 90-100, not to mention that In
Deuteronomy 4 : 2 - 3 There is a similar scripture commanding men not to add to or diminish from it, then obviously, John is talking about the Book of Revelations, thus Revelations was neither intended to be nor is is the final revelation of God to men.
Men may write books expounding the Gospel of Christ, and they do write excellent books doing so, but there is nothing added or taken away from that which Jesus Christ has spoken, and His last word is the book of Revelation.
I repeat, Revelations was neither written last, nor intended to end all revelation from God, neither did Deuteronomy end all revelations from God and if your argument is truly what you believe than you will repudiate the Trinity as a doctrine of men and not of God since it was adopted in AD 325 as the definition of God, and is not to be found anywhere in the Bible.
There will be many who will now claim I am attacking the Bible, I am not, it is the word of God, however, your interpretation of it is not the word of God, and IMHO is not correct.
Did you really want to discuss what is in the Bible, or just the Dogma you have been taught about it?