Why isn't the bible edited to reflect modern times/value etc?

Cabaal

Ok so the bible has been edited in the past, numerous time throughout history infact.

But perhaps its time for it to be edited again?

Very clearly the bible has very many outdated, backwards entrys which have no place in our culture and actually go against the teachings of the the more modern church. So why not remove them in a new edition of the bible?

I've often pointed out entrys in the bible to people that claim this and that about the catholic church and their responses is often, "well the church doesn't believe that anymore", "thats not the word of god".

One has to ask, then why not remove it?

It sends a very conflicting message when you can claim peace, love and caring but at the same time you have entrys about rapists marrying their victims, how women should be stoned for wearing pants and other frankly insanely weird and disturbing entrys.

So do you think it should be updated?

If not, why not?

Manach

By whom. There is the bible and then there is the interpretative tradition that goes along with it. Just as every sentence in a consitution has a different weight and is interpreted in the light of either a paragraph, sentence or whole text - ditto with the bible.

martinedwards

it's been retranslated, but not had chunks taken out.

what are you suggesting?

changing the 10 commandments to have

Honour all religeons.... they might be right you know

Honour you designated care giver

thou shalt not steal unless employed by a bank

thou shalt not kill unless they REALLY deserve it

thou shalt commit adultery as often as possible

Benny_Cake

There would be no purpose in chopping up the Bible. It would probably be a convenient avenue of attack for antitheists if it happened, though.

I'd agree that some parts of the Bible present a problem for those who adhere to biblical inerrancy (creation in seven days, a worldwide flood, and so on). There's a lot more to understanding the bible than that though.

Cabaal

Edited by who?, I don't know. A council could be created perhaps, sure didn't the council of Nicaea edit it in the past? Whats stopping a new council being created and inviting all the bishops again? Vatican etc could be involved.

Its happened before, so whats stopping it now?

I never suggested editing the 10 commandments....now you're just being silly for the sake of it.

In all honesty, yes you can read into things in different ways, I'll agree with you there.
But how do you read into these in different ways exactly?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

or

Exodus 31:14

New International Version (NIV)

14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people.

or

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Benny_Cake

Cabaal wrote: »

Edited by who?, I don't know. A council could be created perhaps, sure didn't the council of Nicaea edit it in the past? Whats stopping a new council being created and inviting all the bishops again? Vatican etc could be involved.

I think your confusing the process by which it was decided which books were included in the Bible with actually going I and changing the text of the Bible to suit. There is no evidence that the canon of the Bible was discussed at Nicea. By the fifth century though, Christians had largely arrived at a consensus as to which books should be included though. Which books were trustworthy, in other words.

I'm not aware of any evidence that editing had taken place to suit an agenda. As regards dropping books from the Bible, Martin Luther may have briefly considered it (in relation to the Epistle of James) but thought the better of it.

Benny_Cake

Regarding the laws of the Old Testament, here are two decent explanations of how Christians approach such laws (note: the first is primarily about homosexuality, but it applies to this as well. If anyone wants to discuss homosexuality specifically - take it to the megathread!). The first is written from the perspective of a liberal, and the second from the perspective of an evangelical:

http://johnshore.com/2013/10/04/when-are-the-bibles-laws-on-homosexuality-unbiblical/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/07/christians-and-the-old-testament-dont-expect-jesus-to-solve-your-problems-or-do-it-depends/

claypigeon777

Here a few verses that should go:

"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)

"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." (Mark 12:19)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head..." (1 Corinthians 11:5)

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

"If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."(Leviticus 26:27-30)

Benny_Cake

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Here a few verses that should go:

"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)

"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." (Mark 12:19)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head..." (1 Corinthians 11:5)

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

"If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."(Leviticus 26:27-30)

Mod note: If you want to discuss this topic, you may do so, but don't just stick up a list of Bible verses. Unless you want to discuss your favourite verses, of course, in which case there is a sticky for that.

claypigeon777

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mod note: If you want to discuss this topic, you may do so, but don't just stick up a list of Bible verses. Unless you want to discuss your favourite verses, of course, in which case there is a sticky for that.

The subject of the thread is "Why isn't the bible edited to reflect modern times/value etc?" so that is what the discussion is about isn't it?
I opened by post with "Here are a few verses that should go."
The verses I have just quoted are clearly incompatible with modern times/values.
The verses speak for themselves don't they?

Benny_Cake

claypigeon777 wrote: »

The subject of the thread is "Why isn't the bible edited to reflect modern times/value etc?" so that is what the discussion is about isn't it?
I opened by post with "Here are a few verses that should go."
The verses I have just quoted are clearly incompatible with modern times/values.
The verses speak for themselves don't they?

Given that most Christians have lived with those verses into modern times, why would they be changed? There are plenty of excellent books which interpret those verses in a variety of ways, and that debate is what makes the bible so fascinating.

What would the purpose of rewriting the bible be? Should we apply the same logic to the scriptures of other faiths?

Walkingleys

The Bible warns us of interfering with it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A18-19&version=NIV

The "Queen James" Bible is an example of the word of God being edited by man to "reflect modern times".

http://queenjamesbible.com/

Benny_Cake

Walkingleys wrote: »

The Bible warns us of interfering with it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A18-19&version=NIV

The "Queen James" Bible is an example of the word of God being edited by man to "reflect modern times".

http://queenjamesbible.com/

The Queen James Bible is simply the free King James Bible with 8 verses removed. For which you get to pay $25 for the privilege. I suspect that it's intended as some kind of a joke.

claypigeon777

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Given that most Christians have lived with those verses into modern times, why would they be changed? There are plenty of excellent books which interpret those verses in a variety of ways, and that debate is what makes the bible so fascinating.

Are you having a laugh?
Look at the verses I quoted in my previous post.
What other interpretation could they possibly have?

What would the purpose of rewriting the bible be?

A large portion of it is an open incitement to psychotic cruelty

Should we apply the same logic to the scriptures of other faiths?

Yes.

There might be less brainwashed fanatics in the world maybe?

brian_t

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?
Look at the verses I quoted in my previous post.
What other interpretation could they possibly have?

Take one of your verses as an example.

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

Eunuchs—It was a very ancient practice for parents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, with a view to training them for service in the houses of the great

This would tend to discourage parents from thus treating their children

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/23-1.htm

As Benny_Cake said

There are plenty of excellent books which interpret those verses in a variety of ways

Benny_Cake

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?
Look at the verses I quoted in my previous post.
What other interpretation could they possibly have?

That's straightforward enough, every quote (bar one) you posted relates to the law of Moses, which Christians believe is superseded by the New Covenant. It has never applied to Christians, period. There are a whole host of Jewish interpretations of it though, from applying every letter to viewing it as completely irrelevant.

The one exception was the verse from Corinthians regarding headcoverings in church. Hardly an assault on human rights, but anyway, some churches apply it today, most don't. So why would the verse be removed?

I think suggestions that the bible be edited would largely come from those who don't have the interests of the Christian faith at heart. Historical texts - of any sort - should not be edited simply because certain parts seem inconvenient to is. Wrestle with the difficult bits, debate them, that's where the true value of them is. Censorship is just daft.

Soul Winner

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Here a few verses that should go:

"For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)

"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." (Mark 12:19)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

"If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."(Leviticus 26:27-30)

Context and perspective on this subject would be wise to employ. You have to remember that these verses only applied to God's people (Israel and Judah) in the OT. They did not apply to any other nation outside of these two nations even at that time. When Christ came and fulfilled the law i.e. by becoming the of the Law incarnate in the flesh, He laid it down by being crucified on a tree/cross. That was the price involved in order to do away with the Law. So from God's point of view this Law became the Old Covenant or Testament that He had with His people. So now even they do not have to go by if they accept the work done by Christ on the cross. That's why Christians called that particular Testament the 'Old' Testament. It had its day. It was valid at one time but its not any more.

The New Testament has a completely new basis by which mankind can relate to God. Not by works of the law any more but by faith/trust in God. Until you understand this you will always view the OT with a wrong perspective.

But I know there are Christians today who still preach this Old Testament Law as a way to get to God. They're full of it and have no understanding of what Christianity really is and what it was that Christ accomplished by laying down His life so that He could put this Old Law away for good. Anyone who preaches this as the only way to God are enemies of Christ. There is a new law now, the Law of Faith.

So leave the Bible alone. It is what it is. Try to read it in it's proper context if you want to understand it. If you have never read or intend to read then why do you care what it says anyway?

Doc Farrell

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That's straightforward enough, every quote (bar one) you posted relates to the law of Moses, which Christians believe is superseded by the New Covenant. It has never applied to Christians, period. There are a whole host of Jewish interpretations of it though, from applying every letter to viewing it as completely irrelevant.

The one exception was the verse from Corinthians regarding headcoverings in church. Hardly an assault on human rights, but anyway, some churches apply it today, most don't. So why would the verse be removed?

I think suggestions that the bible be edited would largely come from those who don't have the interests of the Christian faith at heart. Historical texts - of any sort - should not be edited simply because certain parts seem inconvenient to is. Wrestle with the difficult bits, debate them, that's where the true value of them is. Censorship is just daft.

Now that you mention it there's some stuff in the Didache and early Christian writing that doesn't float my boat. Who can I complain to here to get that stuff prettied up a bit?

Manach

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Now that you mention it there's some stuff in the Didache and early Christian writing that doesn't float my boat. Who can I complain to here to get that stuff prettied up a bit?

If you provide a number, Pope Francis I believe makes calls.

lmaopml

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok so the bible has been edited in the past, numerous time throughout history infact.

Actually no, it hasn't that's a myth that seems to be pretty predominant among some people.... - however, there is a difference between translating a document into a different language and also providing it to people who speak 'our current' language, and still keeping in step with it's original intent. There are 'dynamic' Bible translations that are for just reading through to understand etc. and there are literal translations into a native tongue that are very worth reading too, if one is driven to investigate.

But perhaps its time for it to be edited again?

It was not edited to begin with! If it were to be edited 'on purpose' than one would suppose that there are certain passages of text difficult to understand that would be lost in time, but they aren't, they are still there.

Very clearly the bible has very many outdated, backwards entrys which have no place in our culture and actually go against the teachings of the the more modern church. So why not remove them in a new edition of the bible?

Every single generation thinks it's the most modern, and all the others are 'outdated' - shyte happens like that when you live, love, and know you will die an leave the world to somebody else. That's no reason to basically 'lie' about the contents of Scripture, it is what it is whether we're 'modern' or think we are or not.

[/quote]I've often pointed out entrys in the bible to people that claim this and that about the catholic church and their responses is often, "well the church doesn't believe that anymore", "thats not the word of god".

One has to ask, then why not remove it?[/quote]

Give me an example please? I'd be happy to oblige you with an honest answer.

It sends a very conflicting message when you can claim peace, love and caring but at the same time you have entrys about rapists marrying their victims, how women should be stoned for wearing pants and other frankly insanely weird and disturbing entrys.

So do you think it should be updated?

If not, why not?

I guess, you don't really understand the birds eye view of Scripture - It's a fathers relationship with children in order to bring them home. That's not easily understood, except perhaps by grace. In saying that, you probably know plenty of Catholics and Christians, and you may indeed judge them and say they 'don't care, don't have faith..etc' or you may say 'they're a nice person' or indeed a 'pain in the arse, because they think they are so very right'.

What I think people don't see, and apologies if it sounds like a fly by view of people in general - is that the Church is NOT puritanical, it's not for perfect people, it's for people who are sinners and know it.

You see a person walking in the doors of the Catholic Church and you may have many misconceptions of them, but the biggest misconception is that they 'think' they are great and 'doing' what another should - some maybe give off that air, but most people are only there because they know they are not perfect and need grace to grow, and not only that, they recognise there is some 'growing up' to do - and it's rather beautiful. St. Paul says it best...especially about the best things one gives and receives in life. Merely Love.

lmaopml

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok so the bible has been edited in the past, numerous time throughout history infact.

Actually no, it hasn't that's a myth that seems to be pretty predominant among some people..... - however, there is a difference between translating a document into a different language and also providing it to people who speak 'our current' language, and still keeping in step with it's original intent. There are 'dynamic' Bible translations that are for just reading through to understand etc. and there are literal translations into a native tongue that are very worth reading too, if one is driven to investigate. Once again, the actual findings among scholars is that the original documents and their translations are remarkably, and spectacularly inline.

But perhaps its time for it to be edited again?

It was not edited to begin with! If it were to be edited 'on purpose' than one would suppose that there are certain passages of text difficult to understand that would be lost in time, but they aren't, they are still there.

Very clearly the bible has very many outdated, backwards entrys which have no place in our culture and actually go against the teachings of the the more modern church. So why not remove them in a new edition of the bible?

Every single generation thinks it's the most modern, and all the others are 'outdated' - shyte happens like that when you live, love, and know you will die and leave the world to somebody else. That's no reason to basically 'lie' about the contents of Scripture, it is what it is whether we're 'modern' or think we are or not.

I've often pointed out entrys in the bible to people that claim this and that about the catholic church and their responses is often, "well the church doesn't believe that anymore", "thats not the word of god".

One has to ask, then why not remove it?

Give me an example please? I'd be happy to oblige you with an honest answer.

It sends a very conflicting message when you can claim peace, love and caring but at the same time you have entrys about rapists marrying their victims, how women should be stoned for wearing pants and other frankly insanely weird and disturbing entrys.

So do you think it should be updated?

If not, why not?

I guess, you don't really understand the birds eye view of Scripture - It's a fathers relationship with children in order to bring them home. That's not easily understood, except perhaps by grace. In saying that, you probably know plenty of Catholics and Christians, and you may indeed judge them and say they 'don't care, don't have faith..etc' or you may say 'they're a nice person' or indeed a 'pain in the arse, because they think they are so very right'.

What I think people don't see, and apologies if it sounds like a fly by view of people in general - is that the Church is NOT puritanical, it's not for perfect people, it's for people who are sinners and know it.

You see a person walking in the doors of the Catholic Church and you may have many misconceptions of them, but the biggest misconception is that they 'think' they are great and 'doing' what another should - some maybe give off that air, but most people are only there because they know they are not perfect and need grace to grow, and not only that, they recognise there is some 'growing up' to do - and it's rather beautiful. St. Paul says it best...especially about the best things one gives and receives in life. Merely Love.

claypigeon777

Context and perspective on this subject would be wise to employ.

What context do you put this one in then?

(Deuteronomy 25:11-12) When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Clearly whoever wrote that was off his head on something.

Why does no priest read that passage at mass? It's already edited out by now being used because it's so utterly comically insane.

Did you know Jesus was in favor of castration? No? Well read this:

(Matthew 19:12) "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Also God of the Old Testament is a raving psychotic maniac:

"I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD. "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD. "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings." (Zephaniah 1:2-6)

The Bible clearly needs an edit to be acceptable in the civilized world.

There are passages of the Bible that are clearly an incitement to genocide.

lmaopml

claypigeon777 wrote: »

What context do you put this one in then?



Clearly whoever wrote this was off his head.

Clearly the one who quotes such texts 'selectively' and without context thinks he is not off his head, God bless him.


However, perhaps he may think that in a thousand or so years some future very modern dude will think he is without doubt a complete idiot, in fact very 'retro' and that he was so very wrong and also 'off his head'. Shyte happens.

Jesus doesn't change. Christians are merely Christ followers, surely that's not too difficult to understand?

claypigeon777

However, perhaps he may think that in a thousand or so years some future very modern dude will think he is without doubt a complete idiot, in fact very 'retro' and that he was so very wrong and also 'off his head'. Shyte happens.

So in the future it's going to acceptable to cut a woman's hand off for touching a guy on the privates during a fight?

lmaopml

claypigeon777 wrote: »

So in the future it's going to acceptable to cut a woman's hand off for touching a guy on the privates during a fight?

No, in the future one hopes that humans will put away childish ways and grow up in reason and faith too - St. Paul stresses very clearly that when he was a child he thought like a child, and when he became a man he put aside childish ways.

Hopefully, we can measure up to his vision, and see a brother even in an enemy, or a prejudice that over rides good judgement and most of all to have the wisdom to know when we are poor in all that matters.

Sulla Felix

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That's straightforward enough, every quote (bar one) you posted relates to the law of Moses, which Christians believe is superseded by the New Covenant. It has never applied to Christians, period. There are a whole host of Jewish interpretations of it though, from applying every letter to viewing it as completely irrelevant.

I never understood that reasoning. Matthew 5:17+ to me at least, pretty specifically refers to the Mosean law. What is used by christians to come to your conclusion that the laws of the OT are not to be adhered to?

claypigeon777

lmaopml wrote: »

No, in the future one hopes that humans will put away childish ways and grow up in reason and faith too - St. Paul stresses very clearly that when he was a child he thought like a child, and when he became a man he put aside childish ways.

Hopefully, we can measure up to his vision, and see a brother even in an enemy, or a prejudice that over rides good judgement and most of all to have the wisdom to know when we are poor in all that matters.

????

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok so the bible has been edited in the past, numerous time throughout history infact.

But perhaps its time for it to be edited again?

Very clearly the bible has very many outdated, backwards entrys which have no place in our culture and actually go against the teachings of the the more modern church. So why not remove them in a new edition of the bible?

So you assume its the bible thats wrong and not the church!
If we believe the Bible to be Inspired by God (and I do) it suggests that the Church is out out of line with the bible and not visa versa.

Its time for the church to return to the Bible and give up the man made stuff which it holds more important than the Word of God.

lmaopml

claypigeon777 wrote: »

????

In other words, hopefully we won't have people who pick and choose what causes division, and think it's cool to prejudge so very many people - but be given the grace to see what makes people love those who are by other standards unlovable, disposable, of no account etc - to cross boundaries and give the Gospel message to those who accept it. To seek God - God is Love and the only thing that we ever give worth anything at all is how much we were loved and how much we gave love to others - go figure!

You can't measure it.

Turtwig

Clay, you're making a shotgun barrage of quotes all over the shop. Unless a person has several hours (probably a full day) to spare they're not going to be able to address each and every quotation you make. Suggestion would be to pick one and focus a detailed discussion on that. Then move onto the next. As it stands it's just quote bombing and it's not constructive to the discussion inside the thread.

Benny_Cake

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I never understood that reasoning. Matthew 5:17+ to me at least, pretty specifically refers to the Mosean law. What is used by christians to come to your conclusion that the laws of the OT are not to be adhered to?

Generally, Acts is relied upon, Acts 15 in particular. Critical to the history of the early church, and ultimately to the split between Christians and Jews.

Cedrus

I believe there is a massive argument to update the language of the bible. The original scrolls were written in a variety of ancient languages, the versions handed down to us have been spoiled by translation, politics and other ancient contemporaneous issues. The King James was a leap forward in that it used vernacular but used intentionally obtuse 'Olde Worlde' Language.

Seamus Heaney made a translation of Beowulf, another ancient text, he went back to older versions for accuracy and made it much more readable, I had read a portion of an earlier reiteration, which was childish in comparison, it suited me at the time because i was a child but it would have been a poor place for Heaney to start.

Should any body tackle the challenge of reiterating the Bible, they would be best to go back to the ancient texts and translate them into a modern language. There would also be a need to interpret the place and rights of slaves, women and kings among other things.

Manach

To again add the refrain, put the OT in the context of an emerging tribe in a highly contested region and try not to image yourself in the ever present now or a re-imagined disneyfied past. The theologian Peter Kraift points out that the nation building narrative was of a chosen people who would be lifted out of their oppression from both external and internal elements. St. Paul recognised that Christians were not Jews 2.0, but a differing vibrant other community that could look on the OT as a source of inspiration and guidance but were not locked in step with it, it was as the historian Hitchcock stated a radical break from the Judaic laws.

Benny_Cake

Cedrus wrote: »

I believe there is a massive argument to update the language of the bible. The original scrolls were written in a variety of ancient languages, the versions handed down to us have been spoiled by translation, politics and other ancient contemporaneous issues. The King James was a leap forward in that it used vernacular but used intentionally obtuse 'Olde Worlde' Language.

Seamus Heaney made a translation of Beowulf, another ancient text, he went back to older versions for accuracy and made it much more readable, I had read a portion of an earlier reiteration, which was childish in comparison, it suited me at the time because i was a child but it would have been a poor place for Heaney to start.

Should any body tackle the challenge of reiterating the Bible, they would be best to go back to the ancient texts and translate them into a modern language. There would also be a need to interpret the place and rights of slaves, women and kings among other things.

There are paraphrases such as the Good News Bible or the Message which are in today's English and very readable.

I think what the OP is referring to is the notion of editing the actual text. Makes no sense to me, but maybe I could get a command to sit around in your underpants drinking beer all weekend added!

Cedrus

[QUOTE=Benny_Cake;86977493 but maybe I could get a command to sit around in your underpants drinking beer all weekend added![/QUOTE]

I take it then, that the Christianity Forum is just an insulting abusive forum after all, despite the demands of some to consider it an inclusive and reflective place.

Turtwig

Cedrus wrote: »

I take it then, that the Christianity Forum is just an insulting abusive forum after all, despite the demands of some to consider it an inclusive and reflective place.

You've completely misunderstood the remark.
He doesn't mean your, Cedrus', undies he posited as jovial remark that it would be nice if there was a commandment that anybody could sit around in their own underpants and drink beer all weekend.

lmaopml

Cedrus wrote: »

I take it then, that the Christianity Forum is just an insulting abusive forum after all, despite the demands of some to consider it an inclusive and reflective place.

Cedrus, the recommendations you gave in 'interpretations' of Scripture have already been thought of. It's not meant to be insulting to you at all..

With respect, it can get a little tired explaining that those who translated Beowulf etc. and even right back to translating Homer - were so far beyond good translations that are 'dynamic' translations ( a readable version for today's English speaker) that nobody ever thought about that until right now today etc. which is patently untrue - that has in fact been thought of, well before we did it right here and now, in fact we wouldn't have very many books were it not for their safe keeping and people who prized learning and keeping safe books and language, translation etc!

That is not changing Scripture, but translating Scripture...adding or subtracting nothing.


That has actually been 'thought' of, well before it crossed the mind of a modern critic - it's not a new phenomena - However, it doesn't mean that the original is corrupted, it's just 'translated' for your understanding - and hopefully one doesn't get too attached to a particular one and make it more than it should be.

Cedrus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There are paraphrases such as the Good News Bible or the Message which are in today's English and very readable. I think what the OP is referring to is the notion of editing the actual text. Makes no sense to me, but maybe I could get a command to sit around in your underpants drinking beer all weekend added!

Jernal wrote: »

You've completely misunderstood the remark.
He doesn't mean your, Cedrus', undies he posited as jovial remark that it would be nice if there was a commandment that anybody could sit around in their own underpants and drink beer all weekend.

Not in my language. I've reread it three times and I still can't see it your way.

Turtwig

Cedrus wrote: »

Not in my language. I've reread it three times and I still can't see it your way.

You mentioning editing the bible. He light heartedly mentioned editing it and adding a command that would enable anybody to sit around in their underwear ("your" when you refer to an unknown singular colloquially) drinking beer all weekend. It was a joke. Never an insult.

But, I guess you'll just have to wait for Benny to clarify.

Benny_Cake

Cedrus, it was a joke. Not a very good one obviously, but it wasn't a pop at you, the OP, or anyone else. The idea of editing the Bible seems foolish to me and I was making the point that if we were going to edit it, why not stick in various verses justifying some bad habits (my days of being a slob at weekends are behind me, unfortunately).

I thought you made a decent point about the need for translations in 21st century English.

Walkingleys

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The Queen James Bible is simply the free King James Bible with 8 verses removed. For which you get to pay $25 for the privilege. I suspect that it's intended as some kind of a joke.

Some would regard just the removal of 8 verses alone irrespective of content as a serious violation on Gods word and then to make matters worse, they profit out of doing this. I certainly would not like to be the editor of this book sitting before the judgement seat on this one.

Brian Shanahan

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There would be no purpose in chopping up the Bible.

The church fathers of the third and fourth centuries thought differently. In fact the bible as per the catholic church didn't enter its final form until 1545 with the conclusions of the Council of Trent. And this doesn't include textual revisions within books themselves, just the books to include or omit.

And that doesn't even begin to address the changes made by the various protestant churches.

So in fact the bible has been constantly changed over its history, so why not make it relevant to the world we live in, and exclude all the stuff that belongs in a bygone age?

Brian Shanahan

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?
Look at the verses I quoted in my previous post.
What other interpretation could they possibly have?

One of the big things modern religious apologists don't want advertised is how many of the scriptures laid down as "of old" are actually either ignored or actively disobeyed. For example, how much stuff in the bible, for which catholics are supposed to follow to the letter is disobeyed by catholics in Ireland?

And this is equally true for all religions, due to the evolving nature of human morality and mores and the sedentary nature of religious strictures.

Manach

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

One of the big things modern religious apologists don't want advertised is how many of the scriptures laid down as "of old" are actually either ignored or actively disobeyed. For example, how much stuff in the bible, for which catholics are supposed to follow to the letter is disobeyed by catholics in Ireland?

And this is equally true for all religions, due to the evolving nature of human morality and mores and the sedentary nature of religious strictures.

You are misreading from an offbase position and prone to wide generalisation. It was Church councils at Hippo, Cartedge and Trent that decide the form of the bible. Some writings made the cut others did not but there was no rewrites to intertwine then culture norms. Human nature has been a constant over recorded history, with differing modes of morality being expressed due to societal factors. These factors are such that drive the individual to assume in a lot of cases whoever shouts the loudest has a point. Atheists 2.0 are loud. However, a doctrine of basic rules and norms that the bible has inspired since its foundation has been a formative part of laws and ethics and the Catholic Culture is one of community, stability and transformative value than trumps the base non-value materials that are cast in the mode of evolving (which is a meaning Darwin would disaprove off BTW) ethics.

Brian Shanahan

Manach wrote: »

However, a doctrine of basic rules and norms that the bible has inspired since its foundation has been a formative part of laws and ethics and the Catholic Culture is one of community, stability and transformative value than trumps the base non-value materials that are cast in the mode of evolving (which is a meaning Darwin would disaprove off BTW) ethics.

The so called "doctrine of basic rules and norms" is either the church passing off societal rules which are much older than any of the abrahamic faiths as uniquely their own, or morals so barbaric (like for example forcing a woman to marry her rapist) that the church spends a massive amount of time hiding the fact they are still on the books.

Manach

Right, if that the case then Rousseau's noble savage should be held as an ideal, as both being closest to the basic rules and norms and untainted by Church teachings. Unfortunately historical findings have shown that to be not the case, to paraphrase Hobbes, instead the morality was likely to be nasty and violent.
As for latter point, not-dwelling on your heighten 21st mores to decide on what is/is not barbaric, if that were the case and given all the Church's time spend hiding it, under a bushel perhaps, then there should be a gapping historical legal record of this. Offhand from my reading on Roman Law as the basis of Civil (which intermingled with Canon law - 'Roman Law in European History by Stein') I did not come across this. As well, given the influence of Catholic Social Justice theories on the constitution, I cannot quite recall seeing it in various commentaries either.

jemlad

Cabaal, Just wondering what you're referring to when you say the bible has been edited many times? As in the English translation?

As far as the actual manuscripts in the ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are concerned, from which the King James version was translated, they have never been changed and this is just the new testament I'm talking about.

Scientifically speaking there have been 26,000 fragments found from many different countries and time periods that are all in agreement with each other with only minor things like spelling errors as a difference between them. The text itself is exact in all of them. The Bible is the most scrutinised book in the history of the world and not a single scholar or ancient historian would claim it has ever been changed.

As far as the Old testament is concerned, the main source of authoritative Hebrew Old Testament was the Masoretic texts which are about 1200 years old but that changed when the dead sea scrolls were found, which dated to about 300 BC and the text still matched absolutely flawlessly letter for letter in every book of the Old Testament. Ancient scribes of the Old Testament took their job of copying the text so seriously that if a mistake was made to one word they would destroy the entire book.

As far as the King James version is concerned it is a very accurate translation etymologically speaking. Etymology literally means "true meaning" or "root meaning". Once a word is created it's original meaning never changes. It's the reason etymology exists. Although we may assign new meaning to words, ultimately they will always hold there original meaning. It's why any half decent dictionary will always have the obsolete or archaic meaning still present in the explanation of the word.

An example would be, The KJV doesn't use the word "nice" but the modern NIV uses it quite a few time. The original meaning of the word is foolish. The KJV is known as the book when God spoke English and it still stands today as it forces you to properly study the bible as opposed to taking your own meaning from it which the bible warns not to do. The bible should always be studied hermineutically which is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts so to be sure you understand the context which the text was written.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

So seeing as the Bible has never been changed I don't think it should be changed now.

As far as Catholicism declares that they don't believe something in the bible doesn't mean it should be taken out. The Bible is older than catholcism and has more authority. The Bible is the word of God whether they want it to be or not, Catholocism is the word of man. In fact the Bible repeatedly warns against organised religion and it is obvious by looking at the state of the catholic church that we should take heed. If you want to know what the bible says about organised religion just refer to the pharisees and sadducees. One of the biggest exclamations of the bible is to stop following man made traditions and follow God.

Hopefully I didn't bore you too much.

God bless.

lmaopml

I'm a Catholic - and may I just say that the 'Bible' or 'Sacred Scripture' as we would call it is 'Sacred' - it has been translated, but never 'edited'..

Sacred means just that -

There are many scholars who discuss 'translations' and many more conspiracy theorists that discuss the 'translations'..and many more who argue to just be right.

The originals are there for those with the urge and savvy to satisfy themselves, and their common sense will tell them that lots of stuff could have been 'edited' out for convenience, but that didn't happen. The hard passages are still there...as any follower of Christ should expect them to be.

Brian Shanahan

jemlad wrote: »

<snip>

Before you go about talking about how the bible hasn't changed read this. The contents of the bible have changed over the years, and only solidified after the major churches themselves had been fully formed.

And your reckoning of the Masoretic texts being the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls (which shows that it is nearly identical with some, not all of them) is largely meaningless, because for most christian denominations, the old testament was largely created from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Torah, which in some cases was significantly different from the original Hebrew text (e.g. the mistranslation of the Hebrew for "young woman" into the Greek for "virgin", which necessitated the whole mythology of the virgin birth of Jesus).

jemlad

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm a Catholic - and may I just say that the 'Bible' or 'Sacred Scripture' as we would call it is 'Sacred' - it has been translated, but never 'edited'..

Sacred means just that -

There are many scholars who discuss 'translations' and many more conspiracy theorists that discuss the 'translations'..and many more who argue to just be right.

The originals are there for those with the urge and savvy to satisfy themselves, and their common sense will tell them that lots of stuff could have been 'edited' out for convenience, but that didn't happen. The hard passages are still there...as any follower of Christ should expect them to be.

Hi Imaopml, Unfortunately the catholic version of the bible has been heavily edited and is one of the worst versions to refer to as a translation from the original scripture.

A few errors would be rosary beads, the pope, praying to mary and saints, purgatory, confession to priests/man etc... I could give many many more examples. Not only does the bible not mention these it expressly forbids it in the original scripture.

I'm not promoting any other sect over Catholicism or anything like that I would actually encourage all people to not fellow denominations, follow Jesus. Claim Christianity.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

God bless.

Benny_Cake

jemlad wrote: »

Hi Imaopml, Unfortunately the catholic version of the bible has been heavily edited and is one of the worst versions to refer to as a translation from the original scripture.

A few errors would be rosary beads, the pope, praying to mary and saints, purgatory, confession to priests/man etc... I could give many many more examples. Not only does the bible not mention these it expressly forbids it in the original scripture.

There is no one Catholic "version" of the Bible, there are numerous translations - to which translation are you referring? Many Catholics use the RSV / NRSV just as many Protestants do, other popular translations used by Catholics are the New American Bible, Jerusalem / New Jerusalem Bible, and the 16th century Douay-Rheims bible.