If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[thereselittleflower]

12 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

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. 

I've looked at your verses  - I can't see anything of what you claim.

Sirach 22  is about foolish, undisciplined daughters

Sirach  25 is a comparison of good and evil/wicked women -  your verse is about wicked women.

Tobit does not have any incantations or spells -  Magic requires incantations and spells.

Tobit 4 regarding almsgiving  talks about giving money to the poor so they don't die an untimely death and go to the grave  (into darkness)

Tobit 12:9 we can compare to Jesus' words:  

Matthew 19:

• 16And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18Thenhe said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; 

And in 2nd Maccabees 12 - they acting according to the Mosaic Law

• 43 After taking a collection from each man, he sent the sum of two thousand silver drachmen[g]to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. He was acting honorably and appropriately, thinking about the resurrection. 

This was sent to Jerusalem to PROVIDE FOR a sin offering - NOT as an offering for sin itself. 

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

• It is clear that the sin-offering was not primarily an offering for real sins, but for the unconscious violation of mere taboos.
• http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13764-sin-offering

They don't say what you claim they say.    Did you get these off of some website somewhere?

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, Qnts2 said:

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.

 

Where did the Septuagint come from?

 

 

 

 

[Ezra]

16 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Where did the Septuagint come from?

Read The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim. Here is the origin of the Septuagint as explained by him (which Edersheim also condemns as a corruption of the Hebrew Old Testament):

The Greek version, like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of the Pentateuch.105 But this, of course, could not suffice. On the other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural curiosity on the part of students, especially in Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish population, to know the sacred books on which the religion and history of Israel were founded. Even more than this, we must take into account the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors in Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour which the Jews for a time enjoyed. Ptolemy I. (Lagi) was a great patron of learning. He projected the Museum in Alexandria, which was a home for literature and study, and founded the great library. In these undertakings Demetrius Phalereus was his chief adviser. The tastes of the first Ptolemy were inherited by his son, Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), who had for two years been co-regent.106 In fact, ultimately that monarch became literally book-mad, and the sums spent on rare MSS., which too often proved spurious, almost pass belief. The same may be said of the third of these monarchs, Ptolemy III. (Euergetes). It would have been strange, indeed, if these monarchs had not sought to enrich their library with an authentic rendering of the Jewish sacred books, or not encouraged such a translation.

These circumstances will account for the different elements which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its composition. To begin with the latter. Josephus has preserved what, no doubt in its present form, is a spurious letter from one Aristeas to his brother Philocrates,107 in which we are told how, by the advice of his librarian (?), Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy II. had sent by him (Aristeas) and another officer, a letter, with rich presents, to Eleazar, the High-Priest at Jerusalem; who in turn had selected seventy-two translators (six out of each tribe), and furnished them with a most valuable manuscript of the Old Testament. The letter then gives further details of their splendid reception at the Egyptian court, and of their sojourn in the island of Pharos, where they accomplished their work in seventy-two days, when they returned to Jerusalem laden with rich presents, their translation having received the formal approval of the Jewish Sanhedrin at Alexandria. From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch - for to it only the testimony refers - was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage - if not by direction - of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus).108 With this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy - the Jerusalem Talmud109 in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian110 with additions apparently derived from the Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text.111

The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely by several persons,112 the other books of the Old Testament would naturally soon receive the same treatment. They were evidently rendered by a number of persons, who possessed very different qualifications for their work - the translation of the Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in its place another by Theodotion was afterwards substituted. The version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX. - as some have supposed from the number of its translators according to Aristeas’ account - only that in that case it should have been seventy-two; or from the approval of the Alexandrian Sannedrin113 - although in that case it should have been seventy-one; or perhaps because, in the popular idea, the number of the Gentile nations, of which the Greek (Japheth) was regarded as typical, was seventy. We have, however, one fixed date by which to compute the completion of this translation. From the prologue to the Apocryphal ‘Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach,’ we learn that in his days the Canon of Scripture was closed; and that on his arrival, in his thirty-eighth year.114 In Egypt, which was then under the rule of Euergetes, he found the so-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself to a similar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather. But in the 50th chapter of that work we have a description of the High-Priest Simon, which is evidently written by an eye-witness. We have therefore as one term the pontificate of Simon, during which the earlier Jesus lived; and as the other, the reign of Euergetes, in which the grandson was at Alexandria. Now, although there were two High-Priests who bore the name Simon, and two Egyptian kings with the surname Euergetes, yet on purely historical grounds, and apart from critical prejudices, we conclude that the Simon of Ecclus. L. was Simon I., the Just, one of the greatest names in Jewish traditional history; and similarly, that the Euergetes of the younger Jesus was the first of that name, Ptolemy III., who reigned from 247 to 221 b.c. 115 In his reign, therefore, we must regard the LXX. version as, at least substantially, completed.

 

[The_Patriot21]

² So their son departed, with the angel alongside him. Tobias’ dog also went with him and accompanied them on the journey. They both journeyed until the first night fell upon them, and they set up camp along the Tigris River.

³ Now the lad went down to the Tigris River to wash his feet. Suddenly,^[a] a massive fish leaped up out of the water and tried to swallow the lad’s foot, and he cried out. ⁴ The angel said to him, “Grab the fish and hang on to it.” So Tobias hung on to the fish and brought it up onto the dry ground. ⁵ The angel said to him, “Cut open the fish and remove its gallbladder, heart, and liver and keep them with you, and throw away the guts. Its gallbladder, heart, and liver are useful medicines.”

⁶ So Tobias cut open the fish and gathered up the gallbladder, heart, and liver. He cooked the fish and ate it; and the remaining part of it, which he salted, he put aside. Then they both journeyed together until they approached Media.⁷ Tobias asked the angel, “Brother Azariah, what medicine is there in the fish’s heart, liver, and gallbladder?”

⁸ Raphael replied, “If you burn the fish’s heart and liver in the presence of a man or woman under attack by a demon or evil spirit, the spirit will flee and never bother that person again. ⁹ As for the gallbladder, if you smear the gall on a person’s eyes in which white spots have appeared, and then blow on the white spots, the eyes will heal.”

 

If the above doesnt describe witchcraft to you, then you should really, really, do some actual research into witchcraft...and it was ecclesiasticus 25 I was refering to, tobit 25 doesnt even exist, seems to me someone who believes in the apocraphyl books should know that. Going through the entire chapter, its about how wise men are-and how wicked women are. The entire chapter. You cant argue with me about context, the context is, sin is womans fault, we are all doomed to death because of women, they are wicked, it is better to dwell with a lion and a dragon then a woman, I mean it goes on and on and on, I suspect most women, after reading this, should, burn the books based off this one chapter alone. Its disgraceful, at best. As far as ecclesiasticus 22:3 I dont get that feeling at all-the entire book seems aimed anti woman.

 

As far as Jesus words about keeping the commandments and giving to the poor, well first off those are entirely out of context. Completly. Jesus said to be saved all you had to do was believe, multiple times in the NT. In that passage, Jesus is talking about obeying the law-but that was before He died. They were still under the old covenant. And, giving to the poor, isnt giving alms for salvation. Not in the slightest. Its what Jesus wants-but its not what saves you. And, Jesus was taking it one step further, and explaining the intent of the law-hence the taking care of the poor. The giving alms to the church for your sins is even in contradiction to the old covenant, you didnt pay money for your sins either. To compare giving money for your sins, to giving money to the poor, is a wide stretch, and I think we both know it. And, giving money to the church, isn't necessarily giving to the poor. And the paying money for the deads sin, is completly bogus.

 

As far as the sin you presented, it does not make it not heresy. It does show some historic authenticity-and at the very least the author was knowledgeable about the jewish tradition and religion, but that doesnt make the book canonical. Even the serpent, way back in the garden, mixed truth in with a lie, in order to trick eve. Any false prophet who wants people to believe him, is going to mix truth with lie. 

[thereselittleflower]

Ezra, you are aware that a lot has changed since Alfred Edersheim wrote that book about a century and a half ago, and his work is now massively outdated by the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library?

[thereselittleflower]

21 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

² So their son departed, with the angel alongside him. Tobias’ dog also went with him and accompanied them on the journey. They both journeyed until the first night fell upon them, and they set up camp along the Tigris River.

³ Now the lad went down to the Tigris River to wash his feet. Suddenly,^[a] a massive fish leaped up out of the water and tried to swallow the lad’s foot, and he cried out. ⁴ The angel said to him, “Grab the fish and hang on to it.” So Tobias hung on to the fish and brought it up onto the dry ground. ⁵ The angel said to him, “Cut open the fish and remove its gallbladder, heart, and liver and keep them with you, and throw away the guts. Its gallbladder, heart, and liver are useful medicines.”

⁶ So Tobias cut open the fish and gathered up the gallbladder, heart, and liver. He cooked the fish and ate it; and the remaining part of it, which he salted, he put aside. Then they both journeyed together until they approached Media.⁷ Tobias asked the angel, “Brother Azariah, what medicine is there in the fish’s heart, liver, and gallbladder?”

⁸ Raphael replied, “If you burn the fish’s heart and liver in the presence of a man or woman under attack by a demon or evil spirit, the spirit will flee and never bother that person again. ⁹ As for the gallbladder, if you smear the gall on a person’s eyes in which white spots have appeared, and then blow on the white spots, the eyes will heal.”

 

If the above doesnt describe witchcraft to you, then you should really, really, do some actual research into witchcraft...and it was ecclesiasticus 25 I was refering to, tobit 25 doesnt even exist, seems to me someone who believes in the apocraphyl books should know that. Going through the entire chapter, its about how wise men are-and how wicked women are. The entire chapter. You cant argue with me about context, the context is, sin is womans fault, we are all doomed to death because of women, they are wicked, it is better to dwell with a lion and a dragon then a woman, I mean it goes on and on and on, I suspect most women, after reading this, should, burn the books based off this one chapter alone. Its disgraceful, at best. As far as ecclesiasticus 22:3 I dont get that feeling at all-the entire book seems aimed anti woman.

 

As far as Jesus words about keeping the commandments and giving to the poor, well first off those are entirely out of context. Completly. Jesus said to be saved all you had to do was believe, multiple times in the NT. In that passage, Jesus is talking about obeying the law-but that was before He died. They were still under the old covenant. And, giving to the poor, isnt giving alms for salvation. Not in the slightest. Its what Jesus wants-but its not what saves you. And, Jesus was taking it one step further, and explaining the intent of the law-hence the taking care of the poor. The giving alms to the church for your sins is even in contradiction to the old covenant, you didnt pay money for your sins either. To compare giving money for your sins, to giving money to the poor, is a wide stretch, and I think we both know it. And, giving money to the church, isn't necessarily giving to the poor. And the paying money for the deads sin, is completly bogus.

 

As far as the sin you presented, it does not make it not heresy. It does show some historic authenticity-and at the very least the author was knowledgeable about the jewish tradition and religion, but that doesnt make the book canonical. Even the serpent, way back in the garden, mixed truth in with a lie, in order to trick eve. Any false prophet who wants people to believe him, is going to mix truth with lie. 

 

So would you say that someone who takes a remedy made from a duck's liver to not get the flu is practicing witchcraft?

i would say i know better than you do what witchcraft is and is not.

(and you're taking me to task about a typo?  sigh ...)

I don't see the point of continuing this with you honestly - your replies are getting a bit insulting and demeaning,   I'm sorry this has happened, but I'm interested in a respectful dialogue, not insults or belittling comments.    

It seems you are set in your way of looking at things.   You've accused me of taking the words of Jesus out of context.   Yet this is what you've done with the texts you are denouncing, the same texts which were used by the Early Church as scripture from the time of Jesus and the Apostles forward.  I don't think repeating myself is going to change anything, so if I don't reply again, it's not personal, i just don't have the energy to keep going around in circles.

 

[The_Patriot21]

10 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Ezra, you are aware that a lot has changed since Alfred Edersheim wrote that book about a century and a half ago, and his work is now massively outdated by the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library?

Facts dont change....

[thereselittleflower]

 

Just now, the_patriot2015 said:

Facts dont change....

All I can do is facepalm . . .   sigh -   Have a good night patriot.  I wish you well.

 

[The_Patriot21]

and yes, if someone is taking a remedy that is classic witchcraft, that they are indeed practicing witchcraft....unless of course you have some science that shows duck liver actually having medicinal qualities. And im sorry if you think Im being insulting, its not my intent, but one does have to question your view of insulting if you think ecclesiasticus chapter 25 is ok and not insulting, and my calling it insulting to women as being insulting....

[The_Patriot21]

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

 

All I can do is facepalm . . .   sigh -   Have a good night patriot.  I wish you well.

 

you can facepalm all you want, the information ezra pointed out is just as true today as it was when that book was written. You cant change history.