If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[The_Patriot21]

4 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Enoch was absolutely, clearly and explicitly quoted in scripture:

Jude 14

"And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,"

Enoch was i agree. The book of enoch? Not so much. The book is heretical in nature and it is unlikely someone such as Jude would be quoting it. The above quote does not prove that the Bible quoted enoch-that is clear or explecit. It could be Jude was quoting another ancient text that we don't have, and that the book of enoch quoted the same source. Seeing the nature of the book and the character of the Bible authors I find that theory far more feasible.

[gdemoss]

4 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Since

1. the book of Revelation is a book,
2. and since the bible is more like a mini library, a collection of books,
3. and since John used the singular for "book"
4. and since the bible did not exist when he penned those words
5. and since the bible is not a single book

it is logically obvious

1. he only had in mind one book,
2. and the only book that could be would be the book he was then penning, the book called The Apocalypse of John - or what we know today as Revelation.

Thank you for explaining what you perceive to logically be Johns intentions when writing revelation.

Abraham was a man with intentions too.  He simply lived his life but Gods intentions were greater than Abrahams.  God chose to make Abrahams life allegory for two covenants that are witnessed in Galations but how can Galations have anything to do with the OT as they are all just separate books or are they?

We call it The Holy Bible which means definitive complete book yet you do not accept that which is witnessed by you argument here as it being separate/divided individual books.  I am not disagreeing with the fact that they are books so to speak but I don't accept them as individual any longer.

I agree that something such as this topic of discussion is quite meaty and difficult to navigate.  We should expect that we might not see eye to eye on all things.  But one has to determine for themselves what they truly believe Gods purpose in having this written was then live accordingly.

If God meant it for the whole bible then we may expect judgement on all who do it to any part but if only revelation then I suppose we are free to add too and take away from the rest of the bible without fear of consequence.  That is how your logic sounds to me.  I will fear changing any part of any book of The Written Word of God for God is God who judges those who pervert his word.

[Zemke]

Re-writing the bible, just here a little, there a little. 

Isn't that the first lesson in understanding the wiles of the devil?

Having difficulty with areas of the Word is part of growth. Genesis was an area I avoided because of liberal teaching in college. The fear of reading the foolish account of Adam and having doubt to crush my new faith was a private battle. I prayed about it pretty much every day. Months into discipleship I was invited to a Friday night home bible study that was just starting and they were beginning with a video study with David Hocking in Genesis. I took a deep breath and with much prayer I was blown away with the depth and breath of Gods power and truth of His Word.

And when it comes to Abraham and Issac, human and child sacrifice was a norm in cultures, even today. We just burn them or cut them in the womb before they even take a breath. Even more virgin, wouldn't you say?

It was a pellemic against human sacrifice.

[OldSchool2]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 6:57 PM, Tanner Brody said:

I had a dream last night in which an angel appeared and told me "They are confused. Use your prose to unite them." When I awoke I thought deeply about this and realized what he's saying. There exists so much confusion today on the meaning of the bible (Catholic, Mormon, Jehavohs Witness...."

The founder of the WTS, Charles Taze Russell, was known as the "great paraphraser" for his "reinterpretations" of the Bible while Mormon founder Joe Smith gave us another Jesus and a different gospel.

Rewriting scripture is a provably bad idea.

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, gdemoss said:

Thank you for explaining what you perceive to logically be Johns intentions when writing revelation.

Abraham was a man with intentions too.  He simply lived his life but Gods intentions were greater than Abrahams.  God chose to make Abrahams life allegory for two covenants that are witnessed in Galations but how can Galations have anything to do with the OT as they are all just separate books or are they?

We call it The Holy Bible which means definitive complete book yet you do not accept that which is witnessed by you argument here as it being separate/divided individual books.  I am not disagreeing with the fact that they are books so to speak but I don't accept them as individual any longer.

I agree that something such as this topic of discussion is quite meaty and difficult to navigate.  We should expect that we might not see eye to eye on all things.  But one has to determine for themselves what they truly believe Gods purpose in having this written was then live accordingly.

If God meant it for the whole bible then we may expect judgement on all who do it to any part but if only revelation then I suppose we are free to add too and take away from the rest of the bible without fear of consequence.  That is how your logic sounds to me.  I will fear changing any part of any book of The Written Word of God for God is God who judges those who pervert his word.

I am simply not willing to extend the words of one book, which are about a single book, to other books and claim this was what was intended by the author.  I think we step onto tenuous ground when we take such words further than they were originally intended.    We might like the result, but we would be engaging in error to get at that result, and we would be misusing scripture, and that opens the door for satan to deceive.    That's what happened to Eve.

 

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, the_patriot2015 said:

Enoch was i agree. The book of enoch? Not so much. The book is heretical in nature and it is unlikely someone such as Jude would be quoting it. The above quote does not prove that the Bible quoted enoch-that is clear or explecit. It could be Jude was quoting another ancient text that we don't have, and that the book of enoch quoted the same source. Seeing the nature of the book and the character of the Bible authors I find that theory far more feasible.

I disagree on the nature of the book of Enoch, but we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[JohnD]

If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

Uh, only the way people misinterpret it.

[Ezra]

12 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

1. he only had in mind one book,
2. and the only book that could be would be the book he was then penning, the book called The Apocalypse of John - or what we know today as Revelation.

It is also logically obvious that since Revelation is the last book of the Bible, and was placed there chronologically at the end, what applies to Revelation applies by extension to the whole Bible.  

There are other Scripture which confirm that no man has the right or authority to add a single word to Scripture, or to remove a single letter from Scripture. Every jot and tittle is there by the authority of God.

That is also why a word-for-word translation is necessary.  The KJV translators were very scrupulous about showing the added words of the translators in italics, to distinguish the words of God from the words of men.

[thereselittleflower]

46 minutes ago, Ezra said:

It is also logically obvious that since Revelation is the last book of the Bible, and was placed there chronologically at the end, what applies to Revelation applies by extension to the whole Bible.  

There are other Scripture which confirm that no man has the right or authority to add a single word to Scripture, or to remove a single letter from Scripture. Every jot and tittle is there by the authority of God.

That is also why a word-for-word translation is necessary.  The KJV translators were very scrupulous about showing the added words of the translators in italics, to distinguish the words of God from the words of men.

No I don't think that is logical to assume that because it was placed in the bible as the last book that this means these words were intended to be applied to all the rest of scripture.    

It was the last book to be written.   That is why it's placed last.

My point is the importance of not changing God's word in scripture can be made without misusing scripture to do it. The misuse of God's word is what opened Eve to deception.  We should not be following in her footsteps.

 

Regarding "added words" being in italics.   They are not  "added words" except only in the sense that the way the Greek language is constructed, they don't use words that the English needs to carry the idea being communicated,  yet grammatically, without those words, the sentence structure would be incomplete and not make any sense at all.

The "added words" are driven by grammatical need and are communicated by other words in the original language.    But when we translate those other words, we don't see it because the grammatical construction is not there.

This is why no English translation is perfect.  No single English translation can fully carry the meaning of the original scriptures.

 

 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings

   Back on Topic,,,,,,I would not change one JOT or TITTLE!!!!!!!              To God be the ,Glory!!                           With love-in Christ,Kwik