-
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!
Changing the Bible
- Thread starter jeffrey
- Start date
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.jgallandt said:
jeffrey
â Ãig Dogâ
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
A fool
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.
.
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 unfortunatelyThe 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.
.
jeffrey
â Ãig Dogâ
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
Oldest Heretic
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
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
Thanks for the compliment Michael!michel said:
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.
Oh good, I didn't offend you! (I was worried)jonny said:
While I feel you are right,I think it a terrible shame.............wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if we could all believe the same ? but, of course, that is asking far too much. That is what happens with mortals such as us................
I bet there's no rushing around heaven saying "You see, I knew I was right and you were wrong!".....I am sure Heaven will be a blisful reunion with those whom we love, where there is no hurt, no pain..........Some days, I can hardly wait to get there!
It seems to me that the Gospel of Thomas brings out more of the mystical Jesus than do the traditional books of the Bible. And that mystical side of Jesus makes sense to me of why Jesus would be considered a revolutionary teacher by his followers.michel said:
I can't wait either. It'll be a big reunion. Hopefully I'll run into some of the faithful RF posters there!!!michel said:While I feel you are right,I think it a terrible shame.............wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if we could all believe the same ? but, of course, that is asking far too much. That is what happens with mortals such as us................
I bet there's no rushing around heaven saying "You see, I knew I was right and you were wrong!".....I am sure Heaven will be a blisful reunion with those whom we love, where there is no hurt, no pain..........Some days, I can hardly wait to get there!
jeffrey
â Ãig Dogâ
That is strange, I know there was questions as to his referral to 'Christ's brother' was really his blood brother or just a figure of speech, but never new anyone the Martin Luther questioned the book itself. Learn something new everyday, eh?jonny said:
And frubals for teaching me something new!
Fluffy
A fool
Compared with the OT, I believe the NT is far more accurate. My reasoning behind still having reservations about the NT is partly for secular reasons ie as I would treat any third party account and partly for spiritual reasons ie theories on knowledge, my belief in the many paths to the divine etc.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?
I'm not sure that changing the bible, persay, would be a bad thing if one could prove that it wasn't a True translation of the original. I may be wrong but where it states that you cannot add to or take away from is in the books themselves and not over the entire set of Scriptures. If it were true to be over the entire set then wouldn't what the so called church fathers been guilty of it? I believe that we do not add to nor take away from that which was stated in that Scripture where the True inspired Word of YAH stands. As far as the various works............ ? I have to say that I for one believe that what we have is as close as correct as we will ever been blessed with. I just wished that more ancient originals would have made it. Would have been nice to have seen more from the Disciples themselves. I am sure that most was lost to fire and war as well as what may have been hidden away by those that would need to keep certain things secret.