If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[thereselittleflower]

18 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

Well, for the purpose of discussion, ive rethought it, and answer me this-do you think your a mistake, or a bad thing? Do you think your a disgrace? furthermore, do you think that the Bible would say your a disgrace? because the book of Ecclesiasticus says that it is a disgrace to have a daughter. Chapter 22:3. IT also says, in 25:19 that a womans sin is worse then any other sin. Now, lets look at that-nowhere in the Bible does it say daughters are a disgrace, and the Bible does say that all sin is equal-it doesnt matter who commits it.

Theres magic, Tobit 6:5-7 lists a command to use magic, which is consistently listed as satanic throughout the Bible, and we are instructed not to do so.

Tobit 4:11 and 12:9 teaches forgiveness of sins by almsgiving, which while being a popular catholic doctrine, is in direct contradiction of the Bible which specifically states that grace is freely given to those who ask

2 Maccabees 12:43-45 teaches the offering of money for the sins of the dead, again, direct contradiction-if your forgiven when you die, then your going to heaven, if not your going to hell. At the point of death its to late, and theres nothing anyone can do about it.

 

These are just a few. I can go on, but these are pretty blatantly contrary, the contradictions are even more obvious then in the book of enoch.

Then what about the book of Job?

 

[The_Patriot21]

Just now, thereselittleflower said:

Then what about the book of Job?

 

what about it? thats not an answer.

[thereselittleflower]

2 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

what about it? thats not an answer.

If you're going to find things "wrong" with things that are said in these books, then what about all the wrong things said in the book of Job?

 

Luther essentially tried to use the same argument to take out Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation.

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

2 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

If you're going to find things "wrong" with things that are said in these books, then what about all the wrong things said in the book of Job?

 

well, first off, theres nothing wrong in the book of job, but thats another issue. this is side stepping the question. Those are direct contradictions, one of them is an attack on Gods grace. Blatant sign of a heresy. Even if there were "errors" in job, (which there arnt) that doesnt make the apocryphal books any less heretical. You cant excuse heresy.

[thereselittleflower]

6 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

well, first off, theres nothing wrong in the book of job, but thats another issue. this is side stepping the question. Those are direct contradictions, one of them is an attack on Gods grace. Blatant sign of a heresy. Even if there were "errors" in job, (which there arnt) that doesnt make the apocryphal books any less heretical. You cant excuse heresy.

Yet the book of Job says this:

• Job 42    7It came about after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has. 8“Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you. For I will accept him so that I may not do with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.” 9So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did as the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job.

 

Chapter after chapter has what is not spoken right of God by these three friends.    

I have often seen the words of his friends used to support teaching  - not against what they said, but in support of what they said.

 

It doesn't side step the question because the same standard needs to be applied here that you're applying to those books.  So I am questioning your method.

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

how is that not right? I see no issues there-no direct contradictions, no attacks on Gods grace, like in the apocraphyl books. Jobs friends said a lot of untrue things, God told them how to fix it-see nothing there to suggest anything that goes against the rest of the Bible or God Himself.

That still doesnt explain or excuse the contradictions between the apocrypha and the Bible. You cant make the apocrypha books right by attacking the inspiration of the Bible, if you do so you might as well throw both out the window.

[Retrobyter]

On December 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, Seven Day Adventists, etc.. all interpret the scriptures differently). I would probably make changes to a few verses so it would be more clear, my first choice...

The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

This reminds me of the final scene in the Omen (1976) where the father stabs his son on the alter. Even if God intervens at the last minute, don't you think that child is going to be scarred emotionally for the rest of his life? I know if my dad tried to kill me and then stopped at the last minute tellng me God changed his mind I'd run far away in case it ever happens again.

Second choice...

In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

This goes back to my early questions about why women and children had to die in Daniel 16:24.  Why kill all the innocents too? I would make it clear in the rewriting that slavery is wrong, killing gay people is wrong, and adjust other things so that they can't be taken out of context. Any book that has been transcribed over and over through 2000 years something may get lost (even the meanings of word has changed since then) so I believe the angel had a good point.  

If you could pick just one or two scriptures (old or new testement) in the bible and change it, which would you choose?

Shalom, Tanner Brody.

I wouldn't rewrite the Bible in the original languages; however, if I could change anything in the English translations, it would be that we (as Christians) could learn to leave the Hebrew word hashaamaayim and the Greek words ho ouranos alone; let them be translated into "the skies" or "the sky." We would have a clearer interpretation of the Bible. For instance, some versions read,

Why stand looking into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into Heaven will come in just the same way as you have seen Him going into Heaven. (Acts 1:11, WEYMOUTH)

HOWEVER, the SAME GREEK WORD, ouranos, is used for both "sky" and for "Heaven" in this verse! They are NOT different words; therefore why should they be treated differently? Because the TRANSLATOR says so?!

Now, listen to how the meaning changes (ever so slightly) by letting the instances where "Heaven" is used be "the sky" instead:

Why stand looking into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into the sky will come in just the same way as you have seen Him going into the sky. (Acts 1:11)

In fact, it is BETTER this way! It keeps a consistency in the dialogue and continuity in the physical relation of the account! They are the SAME GREEK WORD! Why introduce some "spiritual" dimension that isn't there to this account, ESPECIALLY if it was never intended? I'll say it one more time: the Greek word translated as "sky," ouranos, is the SAME GREEK WORD, ouranos, as that translated for "Heaven!" Why are they treated differently? And, don't give me that old tired out line about "context" dictating anything! THEY'RE IN THE SAME VERSE, for Pete's sake! Were they gazing up into "God's abode?" OR did Yeshua` (Jesus) ascend into the "sky?"

[thereselittleflower]

12 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

how is that not right? I see no issues there-no direct contradictions, no attacks on Gods grace, like in the apocraphyl books. Jobs friends said a lot of untrue things, God told them how to fix it-see nothing there to suggest anything that goes against the rest of the Bible or God Himself.

That still doesnt explain or excuse the contradictions between the apocrypha and the Bible. You cant make the apocrypha books right by attacking the inspiration of the Bible, if you do so you might as well throw both out the window.

I quoted God saying what they said was not right.

 

[The_Patriot21]

ya, exactly. That was God speaking to them. They said things that wernt right, God called them out on it. No problem.

 

And you still havent explained why that justifies the blatant contradictions in the apocryphal books. You cant excuse them, by inventing problems in a book of the Bible that arnt there. 

[Qnts2]

3 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

 

Then why did they use the Septuagint as scripture?  It included all these books in contention here.

The reason why the Early Church used the Septuagint as scripture is because the Jews had been using the Septuagint as scripture for a couple hundred years before Christ was even born.   

The Jews used the Septuagint because Greek was the Lingua Franca of the day and most Jews spoke, read and wrote Greek. 

Today the Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.

The New Testament, when it quotes the Old Testament, is over 80% of the time quoting the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version of the Old Testament.  In addition, there are many references to the books in question in the New Testament.

The Septuagint was the scripture of the first christians. This is simply a matter of history.  I don't understand why anyone questions this.   It's very puzzling.

 

 

 

The Septuagint was not considered canon scripture.  The reason the Septuagint was used at all was because the Gentile believers knew Greek, not Hebrew. In Judaism there were some Aramaic translations of some of the Hebrew scriptures which also was not considered canon scripture. Because it was not canon, commentary was interlaced. As I've said, canon scripture was only written in the original language, without any additions or any form of alteration. Any translations which would not be canon scripture allowed for commentary, or quotes or other interesting writings.

The original translation to Greek was done by Rabbi's and consisted of only the 5 books of Moses. Additional translation of books was not necessarily done be highly knowledgable Hebrew scholars. Because of the corruption, Judaism ended up banning the use of the Septuagint. The translation of scripture from Hebrew to Greek was done at the request of the Egyptians for the Alexandrian library and wasn't meant to be canon scripture as the Egyptians did not consider the Torah the words of God. For the Alexandrian library, they wanted a compilation of Jewish writings, not scripture, so much was included which was never considered canon scripture. To accept all that was ever contained in the 'Septuagint' would have been a grave error, as there were non-biblical writings included.

The first Gentile Christians did use the portion of the Septuagint which was accepted by Judaism. The non-scriptural portions were never considered scripture until much later, after the Gentile Christians no longer paid attention to the Jewish believers.