Changing the Bible (Jesus, gospel, choice, churches, LDS)

[jeffrey]

If you or your Church believe that the original author/s of the Bible where wrong, do you believe that you can/should change it?

[michel]

Originally Posted by jgallandt

If you or your Church believe that the original author/s of the Bible where wrong, do you believe that you can/should change it?

I can't imagine the situation arising, but I suppose the answer to that would have to be yes. I don't know if I am speaking out of turn (so please may an LDS put me right if I am), but I suppose they have added to the Bible with the BOM; I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I find LDS set a wonderful Christian example, which, if anything, is harder to follow than conventional Christianity.

[jeffrey]

I have mixed views on this. I believe that some of the OT has been mis-translated from it's original meaning, so trying to find the correct meaning and wording is almost impossible. The NT I believe to be alot more accurate. and would be very hard pressed to change a thing about that. But that's just my opinion.

[Fluffy]

I don't know about changing. I don't see a point to physically changing it, afterall it is a historical text. I would just ignore the bits I don't agree with (hopefull with justifications as to why lol) and replace it with bits from Wicca where necessary.

The NT I believe to be alot more accurate. and would be very hard pressed to change a thing about that. But that's just my opinion.

Just out of interest, when you say that, are you referring to largely the gospels or basically the whole of the NT? I ask because that is basically my view regarding the former but not the latter unfortunately .

[jeffrey]

All the NT. Fluffy, I believe to be fairly accurate. What Jesus taught. I believe it to be a great guide for living. The book of James I love. Keep in mind that the letters where written to specific people or churches to address a certain problem, and of course from their own point of view. But still, overall, I believe them to be pretty accurate. I'm curious of why do you not think so?

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you look to see how Clergy use bible texts in their sermons and readings you find...

One they are very selective and never even attempt to cover the whole Bible.
They also spend a great deal of time interpreting and editing passages in their Sermons.

I don't think it would be a good Idea to do a wholesale revision of what is in the bible,
but it could perhaps treat different types of writing in different ways, even moving some books of the old testament to the apocrypha.
( though I would not like to be the one making the choice.)

As to adding Books, that is a different problem. Writings that come to light and show synergy with the teachings of Christ,
could be added to a second bible book, along with newer writing that are considered to add to our knowledge and understanding.

Work that Just restates the existing books in more readable fashion,
or with a new but not well accepted explanation,should be left out to be tried by the test of time.

Terry_______________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

[Sunstone]

If it were up to me, I'd add the Gospel of Thomas to the Bible.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

If it were up to me, I'd add the Gospel of Thomas to the Bible.

What is important to you about the Gospel of Thomas, Sunstone ?

[jonny]

Originally Posted by michel

I can't imagine the situation arising, but I suppose the answer to that would have to be yes. I don't know if I am speaking out of turn (so please may an LDS put me right if I am), but I suppose they have added to the Bible with the BOM; I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I find LDS set a wonderful Christian example, which, if anything, is harder to follow than conventional Christianity.

Thanks for the compliment Michael!

The Book of Mormon could be considered an "addition" to the Bible, but most members would consider it a companion to the Bible. In LDS classes, the Book of Mormon is often described as necessary to testify of the validity of the Bible, which receives its fair share of criticism. Two witnesses is always better than one...

I personally believe that Christianity has done itself a great disservice by putting limitations on God. I understand why people felt it needed to be done because constantly questioning the validity of books of scripture isn't a great direction to go and could possibly lead to personal apostasy, but I personally find it very hard to believe that every inspiried word ever written was captured into one book. Plenty of prophets were left out of the process for whatever reason.

My theory is that the Biblical cannon was called complete because of all the fractions in Christianity. I'd have to do some research to find out what is the truth. Could you imagine the confusion if every little sect was out adding and removing books from the Bible? Some leaders, such as Martin Luther, have questioned whether certain books (the Book of James in this case) should have been cannonized. I'm sure there are other examples (Songs of Solomon in the LDS church) of books of the Bible that religious leaders don't feel were inspired, but instead of being removed, they just get ignored.

Getting all the different Christian churches together to discuss documents and whether or not they should be included would be a fiasco. Since Christianity is so fractioned, it's just easier to leave things the way they are.