If you could rewrite the Bible what would you change?

[Retrobyter]

6 minutes ago, coheir said:

if the book is so terrible it can not be read; with the knowledge its not cannon; why was he taken up before death. seems someone that wrote something that bad would not make it to heaven let alone be spared death on earth so just like your take on that.

Shalom, coheir.

Be careful. There's no guarantee that the "book of Enoch" was written by an "Enoch" at all, certainly not "the seventh from Adam!" And, the Hebrew name is actually Chanokh, pronounced more like "Hah-NOKE," except that the first consonant is pronounced more like the soft Scottish "ch" in "Loch Ness," and the last consonant is pronounced more like the hard gutteral "kh" of German, as in "the Third Reich!"

The book is literature. It has its place in history as a work written a few centuries before the Messiah, but it should NOT be taken with the same authority as Scripture! It's an interesting read, and it reveals what somebody believed to be true back then, but it is NOT inspired by God. It has some intrinsic value, but take it with a grain of salt!

[other one]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, oldzimm.

Not very many are qualified to rewrite the Bible, but there are several who THINK they are. They are called Bible Translators, and they do it all the time! Many of the modern versions use a thought-for-thought technique these days, but in truth we don't have that many people who are so atuned to Scripture that they even KNOW what the thoughts are behind the words! Oh, they may THINK they do, but they really do not. So, instead of producing a good translation, they produce an "adequate" translation slanted to their way of thinking, which they base upon what they THINK they know about the thoughts behind the words.

A word-for-word technique is better, but the best such translation we have is over 400 years old, the KJV! The main problem people have with a word-for-word translation is that, sometimes, it doesn't seem to make sense. The trick in such a translation is to generalize the words chosen as much as humanly possible. That way, the words can apply to the context more generically and the CONTEXT itself can sort out the meaning of the words.

is a word for word better when there are so many words in both Greek and Hebrew that really don't have corresponding English words.  I would think the best would be to use both ways and not rely on a single translation.

[other one]

36 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, coheir.

Be careful. There's no guarantee that the "book of Enoch" was written by an "Enoch" at all, certainly not "the seventh from Adam!" And, the Hebrew name is actually Chanokh, pronounced more like "Hah-NOKE," except that the first consonant is pronounced more like the soft Scottish "ch" in "Loch Ness," and the last consonant is pronounced more like the hard gutteral "kh" of German, as in "the Third Reich!"

The book is literature. It has its place in history as a work written a few centuries before the Messiah, but it should NOT be taken with the same authority as Scripture! It's an interesting read, and it reveals what somebody believed to be true back then, but it is NOT inspired by God. It has some intrinsic value, but take it with a grain of salt!

I would agree in it's present condition it should not be cannon, although several of our early church fathers did.    But even if we don't consider it inspired, since it is quoted in the Bible we should not discard it either.    And I do think the Bible refers to it being the teaching of Enoch.

Considering that Mathusala lived 300 years at the same time as Enoch, and Noah lived about 300 years when Mathusala was alive, and Abraham was about 58 when Noah died, there would have not been many generations for the knowledge of Enoch to have been passed down.      Does whoever put it to pen make that much difference?  By the number of different manuscripts that was found in the dead sea scrolls, it appears that the book was well known during the time of Christ here on earth...

Just because we may not consider it canon, doesn't mean we should discard it either. Especially since things are supposed to get as they were in the days of Noah......    which is what Enoch is partially about.    Actually the book seems to be written for this time period.

[FresnoJoe]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 5:57 PM, Tanner Brody said:

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?

Beloved, Perhaps This One

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2 (New American Standard Bible)

Or

“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6 (New International Version)

This One

And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book. Revelation 22:19-19 (New Living Translation)

I Mean Brother, Just

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8 (King James Version)

Who Does The LORD Jesus Christ Think he Is 

See, I am the only God. There are no others. I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal, and no one can rescue you from my power.

I raise my hand toward heaven and solemnly swear: As surely as I live forever,

I will sharpen my flashing sword and take justice into my own hands. Then I will take revenge on my enemies and pay back those who hate me.

My arrows will drip with blood from those who were killed and taken captive. My sword will cut off the heads of the enemy who vowed to fight.

Joyfully sing with the LORD's people, you nations, because he will take revenge for the death of his servants. He will get even with his enemies and make peace for his people's land. and his people." Deuteronomy 32:39-43 (GOD'S WORD® Translation)

Love, Your Brother Joe

[The_Patriot21]

12 minutes ago, other one said:

I would agree in it's present condition it should not be cannon, although several of our early church fathers did.    But even if we don't consider it inspired, since it is quoted in the Bible we should not discard it either.    And I do think the Bible refers to it being the teaching of Enoch.

Considering that Mathusala lived 300 years at the same time as Enoch, and Noah lived about 300 years when Mathusala was alive, and Abraham was about 58 when Noah died, there would have not been many generations for the knowledge of Enoch to have been passed down.      Does whoever put it to pen make that much difference?  By the number of different manuscripts that was found in the dead sea scrolls, it appears that the book was well known during the time of Christ here on earth...

Just because we may not consider it canon, doesn't mean we should discard it either. Especially since things are supposed to get as they were in the days of Noah......    which is what Enoch is partially about.    Actually the book seems to be written for this time period.

i highly doubt it was quoted in the Bible, I suspect more likely it quoted the same source the Bible writers used.

[thereselittleflower]

On 12/27/2015 at 5:34 AM, gdemoss said:

Do tell, teach us exactly how you know what book the writer had in mind when writing that, please.

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.

[thereselittleflower]

3 hours ago, coheir said:

if the book is so terrible it can not be read; with the knowledge its not cannon; why was he taken up before death. seems someone that wrote something that bad would not make it to heaven let alone be spared death on earth so just like your take on that.

The word "canon" only means "it is decided" "sanctioned" "accepted"

What was sanctioned, accepted when the "canon" of scriptures was decided?

It was decided that only those books that were included in the canon could be  READ as scripture IN THE MASS.

That's all it meant.

It did not mean that books that were accepted as important or that almost made it into the canon so could be read IN THE MASS as scripture were not considered good and important for people to continue to use privately.

Enoch was one of those books considered of importance for private devotion and study, as well as The Shepherd of Hermes.

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

i highly doubt it was quoted in the Bible, I suspect more likely it quoted the same source the Bible writers used.

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,"

[Tanner Brody]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, oldzimm.

Not very many are qualified to rewrite the Bible, but there are several who THINK they are. They are called Bible Translators, and they do it all the time! Many of the modern versions use a thought-for-thought technique these days, but in truth we don't have that many people who are so atuned to Scripture that they even KNOW what the thoughts are behind the words! Oh, they may THINK they do, but they really do not. So, instead of producing a good translation, they produce an "adequate" translation slanted to their way of thinking, which they base upon what they THINK they know about the thoughts behind the words.

A word-for-word technique is better, but the best such translation we have is over 400 years old, the KJV! The main problem people have with a word-for-word translation is that, sometimes, it doesn't seem to make sense. The trick in such a translation is to generalize the words chosen as much as humanly possible. That way, the words can apply to the context more generically and the CONTEXT itself can sort out the meaning of the words.

Thank you. I've compared the NKJV to the NIV, NCV, and a few others and I believe NKJV translation to be the most authentic. Also, I don't believe that the bible should not be changed as other have stated, it is the word of God. I was exploring my thoughts as they pertained to my dream and I feel asking questions about scripture can help heal your faith.

[other one]

5 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

i highly doubt it was quoted in the Bible, I suspect more likely it quoted the same source the Bible writers used.

My My My, you really do have a thing against that Book....      Makes me sit back and go  hummmmmm.