The individual books of the Bible when they were originally written by the Prophets/Apostles were perfect and there was no need for any disclaimer. However, today we have many DIFFERENT versions of the Bible each with their own different meanings. And the Bible it self says that it is not complete.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
If you want to trust your soul to the arm of flesh, and rely upon incomplete and in some cases incorrect translations, then go right ahead. I will continue to rely on the revealed word of God.
Can't we ever just get a straight answer minus the deceptive spin from you lds apologist types?
I guess I'll use this opportunity to show lurkers & others exactly how an lds apologist likes to twist things ever so slightly:
Note Alan2's use of the word "today" re: the "many DIFFERENT versions of the Bible" & hence, the supposed need for Mormonism's qualification about the trustworthiness of the Bible.
What Alan2 doesn't mention is that this qualification/caveat of Mormonism was developed in 1842 -- not "today" as he says -- 1842 when the KJV was "THE standard." Sorry, Alan2, there weren't a whole lot of English Bible versions in wide-open circulation in 1842.
And the Bible it self says that it is not complete.
If so, so what? The Book of Mormon isn't "complete."
Does then the Mormon Articles of Faith add that same qualifier to the Book of Mormon?
The Doctrines & Covenants supposedly aren't "complete".
Same qualifier added there?
And tell us, what does completeness or lack of it have to do w/what's been translated already, anyway?
Are you capable of straight answers? Or are you just going to continue rambling re: 21st & 20th century versions of the Bible or "incompleteness" of the Scriptures -- all of which had absolutely NOTHING to do w/my original comment?