Also dude... you totally removed my '
' which implied a lighter tone... I feel that is important.... don't change my quote, please.One thing you should know about me is that I'm ONLY serious when I'm joking
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why edit or change the Bible?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Also dude... you totally removed my '
' which implied a lighter tone... I feel that is important.... don't change my quote, please.One thing you should know about me is that I'm ONLY serious when I'm joking
All instances of the Bible are to some degree or another reconstructions or based upon reconstructions and as such are interpretive to one degree or another. While wordplay and poetry is frequently lost or degraded in translation, I suspect those who make available to themselves the translations and commentary of folks like Sarna, Plaut, and Alter are in a superior position than was the Hebrew reading student in late 2nd Temple Period Israel.
Good point: my apology.Also dude... you totally removed my '
Some believe this. Others do not.
Orthodox Jews believe this, which is part of our firm tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation, all the way from the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. You're Jewish, right? How can you not believe in the tradition of your ancestors? When did tradition change? And more importantly, WHY do you not believe this?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Thanks my Friend. :namaste
I disagree strongly with this. There have been many changes to the Bible, some of them very significant in terms of their theological implications, such as the long ending of Mark (which puts the Resurrection into a book that didn't have it originally) or the Comma Johanneum (which is the only place in the New Testament that really refers to the Trinity in explicit terms).
Also, I'd say that when we look at the Gospels and recognize that, in general, the number and magnitude of Jesus' miracles increases over time from the older to the newer books - from only 2, IIRC, in the original version of Mark to miracles by the bushel in John - this is also evidence of change.
Yanni, those are very interesting, very complex, and very far-reaching questions, and I would be happy to discuss them in a different thread, but let's not derail this thread with that discussion.
Agreed.
outhouse
Atheistically
And that is the biggest problem with the book.
It was designed to evolve, for 1600 years it changed with the people using it. Its downfall is the day it quit updating to meet new cultures needs
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That never stopped.
Shermana
Heretic
What kinds of needs do modern cultures have that usurp the original text? Are women now allowed to preach since Susan B. Anthony helped get them equal rights? Can we ignore whatever Paul says or Jesus says if it conflicts with our modernist beliefs?
Likewise, was what Paul said always accurate? Was the government of every state to be obeyed and seen as the Institution of God's will as he states in Romans?
outhouse
Atheistically
the same needs when they kept adding to it.
at one time the first 5 books was all that was needed.
nothing to do with the bible evolving, thats the culture evolving around the book as it has always done.
Yes
what did they know, they were ancient and barbaric men. They set up theology for the current time they lived.
No
No
outhouse
Atheistically
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Actually, according to Paul, women had the right to preach. He recognized their right to be the leaders of various house churches as well, and their right to be missionaries.
Shermana
Heretic
Verse please.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This can be seen throughout the authentic Pauline Epistles, but I will give some examples.
Romans 16 has a list of people Paul held in somewhat high-esteem, as well as some who were leaders in churches and the like. The first person addressed Pheobe. In the list, we also see a number of other women. Romans 16 really shows that women were able to be missionaries, leaders, and the such. They had the right to preach.
In 1 Corinthians 1:11, we are told that Chloe is head of at least a household, and is seen as well-respected.
In Galatians 3:27-28 we are told that there is no longer Jew or Greek, man or woman, etc. That in itself suggests that there was at least some equality there. It certainly goes against the idea that women weren't able to preach.
Really though, Romans 16 is all that is really needed here. Paul addresses women as leaders and missionaries. There we see no distinction between a male leader and a female leader.
Finally, there is nothing in Paul's authentic work that would make one assume that women did not have the right to preach as well. He never states that they can't.
methinks 1 Timothy:2 would be the verses against the ladies:
But like you have pointed out, there are also verses that show it's A.O.K. with Paul vs "Paul".
Not to quote wiki like its the gospel (pun intended) but here is a little blur/link about scholastic opinions on the authorship of the Pauline Epistles, for anyone not familiar with it:
:namaste
SageTree
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
There is a verse in 1 Timothy, as well as 1 Corinthians that speak against women preaching in churches. However, like the link you provided, I don't think 1 Timothy was written by Paul. As for the verse in 1 Corinthians (14:34), most scholars also believe that was a later interpolation.
As you pointed out though, unless someone actually takes the time, and knows the scholarship, there do arise problems.