Changing the Bible

[Jainarayan]

If your hearts weren't full of lust, murder, hatred, adultery, robbery, and incest

That reminds me to start working on my to-do list:

1. Must go to several adult bookstores and perv the other customers.
2. I'm not much into murder. Even by watching Law & Order, you just can't cover your tracks and not get caught. I don't look good in orange.
3. So many people to hate, so little time.
4. Cheat on my husband with the guy coming to repair the furnace. Though, according to some people I don't have a valid marriage, so I wonder what sin I'd be committing.
5. I don't have a gun, and I'd probably get shot knocking over that 7-11 down the road.
6. And last but not least, get it on with my male cousin. Hey, that's two sins for the price of one!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd keep Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and the gospels in the form Thomas Jefferson reworked them in the Jefferson Bible. He took out all references to divinity and miracles, leaving only what Jesus said and taught. All the rest of the Old Testament is to be removed and kept separately as a history of a by-gone era, with no application for today's Christians. The epistles and Revelation would be right out.

Hm. I heard of the Jefferson Bible but never actually read it. I love Proverbs and Ecclesiastes too. Very poetical. Many Proverbs I'd overlook but in general they are good. Yeah, I can see why revelations would be out.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

As an excatholic/Christian who still remains active in religious thinking, I'll add this little spin on the question. My first problem with the Bible is that it is probably incomplete. Anyone studying the early Roman church knows that what we call the 'bible' is no more than a collection of material chosen from a much greater scriptural record, to impose, by force if necessary, the doctrinal orthodoxy necessary to institutionalize the name of Jesus. We know that because some much has been rediscovered, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library and even the Jordainian Codices yet to be unraveled and deciphered, even after the early RCC tried to destroy scriptural material that didn't fit their theological conception. And that begs the question what still might be out there waiting to be uncovered.

Self evidently nothing has been directly revealed! I have no doubt that the 'church' has been running on 'half a deck' for the whole of its history. Thus we have almost two thousand years of theological dispute, schism, blood and gore claiming to speak for Christ!

The other question I have is what makes scholastic theological exegiesis, the very foundation of Christian tradition, a valid human intellectual project? Obviously the Apostles didn't need any theological college, just that Jesus revealed to them. And yet all that history has handed down to us as tradition is what may be no more than a theological counterfeit! That would certainly set the stage for a 'judgement'.

I guess this is geared to anyone who isn't Christian or sees the full bible as inspired in one way or another. That said.

What would you take out of the bible and put in the bible to make it a better example for people (not just Christians) to follow as a religious text?​

1. Many religious texts have killings in it. A lot of stories around killings by "god(s)" etc are supposed to teach morals of some sort. Since we also die in life, taking out killing in the Bible wouldn't change people anymore than taking out murder is against the law. It goes beyond killings.

2. Slavery in America, at least, is not present as it was years ago in another country. With that, in the past slaves were not people torn and whipped. They are usually convicted persons as you see those cleaning trash off the street doing their "time" or employees doing work for their bosses. It was regular place back them. We can't put today's morals on yesterdays standards.

3. Many religious texts have a concept of hell whether it be called a type of consequence for ones actions, a punishment, or an actual place. Nichiren Shonin says The Buddha taught hell is in our hearts and minds. Not all Christianity teaches hell as a place. Hell is just a consequence of the worse sin: rejecting god. If you reject your mother's love, why would you expect to receive it at the same time. And if the mother's love was actually good, wouldn't not having it mean you lost something you could have had to your benefit? (Outside of choice), if there is no light, there is darkness. No details just simple logic.

4. Most religions have some sort of bias and discrimination. Christianity is no exclusion.

People don't define the Bible. So instead of going off of what Christians define the bible as, from what you know of the Bible and to some of you have studied, what things would you take out of the bible and what would you put in to make people (not just Christians) better?

​

 

[savagewind]

I guess this is geared to anyone who isn't Christian or sees the full bible as inspired in one way or another. why would you expect to receive it at the same time.

I don't understand these exceptions.

It is as though you are defining a Christian as one who believes in the Bible. I think the right definition of Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ (not his real name).

Christ
Christian

Please realize that the first "Christians" did not have a Bible.
Also, know that God is jealous so that to believe in a book is not wise, according to the book they believe in. I am sure that God's will is that a believer believe in GOD. There is no one imo who thinks that the Bible is actually God. Is there?

I identify myself as a Christian because I believe in Christ, the savior of the World. I do not believe in books. I shall say that only fools believe in books.

On the other hand, I think that some years ago (I do not know when) some scripture was changed. If I could, I would campaign for it to be changed back to what was written. I do believe that what was written (perhaps not all of it) was written beside The Holy Spirit (GOD). I do not say "by" it because I don't believe any of it was written by God.

I believe there might be a place* present from the beginning where no sin can be committed.
I think that is how righteous scripture came to be.

*A spiritual place, not physical

 

[fallingblood]

I think to take anything, or add anything to the Bible really doesn't help, and only causes additional problems. The Bible isn't perfect, and it never will be. You could take out all of the problematic verses, and there would still be issues. But the bigger issue is that you gutted a historic work.

I think one of the major problems is that people can't see the Bible for what it truly is. It is a collection of works. A collection of historical works that span a wide array of genres. Each book should be treated separately, and critically, and by doing so, we can get a view into the past. By removing books or removing passages, that view is narrowed.

And it was compiled for a specific reason. As a whole, if nothing else, it gives us insight to two different faiths.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't understand these exceptions.

It is as though you are defining a Christian as one who believes in the Bible. I think the right definition of Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ (not his real name).

Christ
Christian

Please realize that the first "Christians" did not have a Bible.
Also, know that God is jealous so that to believe in a book is not wise, according to the book they believe in. I am sure that God's will is that a believer believe in GOD. There is no one imo who thinks that the Bible is actually God. Is there?

I identify myself as a Christian because I believe in Christ, the savior of the World. I do not believe in books. I shall say that only fools believe in books.

On the other hand, I think that some years ago (I do not know when) some scripture was changed. If I could, I would campaign for it to be changed back to what was written. I do believe that what was written (perhaps not all of it) was written beside The Holy Spirit (GOD). I do not say "by" it because I don't believe any of it was written by God.

I believe there might be a place* present from the beginning where no sin can be committed.
I think that is how righteous scripture came to be.

*A spiritual place, not physical

I understand that. I guess another way to put it is those who already believe the Bible is inspired would of course disagree with changing it. Those who don't, I wonder what they would or would not change, add, or take away. I guess whether they are Christian or not is besides the point. I understand where you're getting at.

 

[savagewind]

I understand that. I guess another way to put it is those who already believe the Bible is inspired would of course disagree with changing it. Those who don't, I wonder what they would or would not change, add, or take away. I guess whether they are Christian or not is besides the point. I understand where you're getting at.

I believe much of the Bible was "inspired of God". I am sure inspired does not mean written by God.

I agree with those on the thread who say that to mess with History is something that should not be done.
Keep the books as they are, but it wouldn't hurt to write a restored version.

In the restored version I would take out the word "own" at Proverbs 3:5 and "make" at Matthew 28:19.
I might even change Proverbs 6:16 which reads, "Jehovah hates" to "hates Jehovah."
The reason is that it is true that anyone who sins that way (Proverbs 6:15-19) is hating Jehovah, but on the other hand, it is written that God's ways are unsearchable (Romans 11:33), but there it is written that "God hates".

 

[buddhist]

What would you take out of the bible ... to make it a better example for people (not just Christians) to follow as a religious text?

All of it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

All of it?

Even Ecclesiastes 3 !

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Something to add to Bible study:
HUMANIANITY HOME

 

[buddhist]

Even Ecclesiastes 3 !

Especially Ecc 3.

E.g.:

• When is it "a time to kill" or "war"? (never, according to the Dhamma; defense yes - offensive war, never).
• The fruits of man's "labour ... is the gift of God"? (Kamma makes far more sense, and is far more responsible and empowering to teach my child.)
• "God doeth it, that men should fear before him"? (All that fearing in the Abrahamic scriptures gives people complexes, IMO.)
• "God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts" (I'd rather lift people's minds up with their upward potential in the Dhamma, than putting them down as beasts.)

 

[MonkeyFire]

If your passive, dis-belief and hell suffer on their own then go to naught. With hatred as the seven headed dragon who gave his power to the leopard. Hate, and no-love are relative where they're both good, who is the fallen angel of Light.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Especially Ecc 3.

E.g.:

• When is it "a time to kill" or "war"? (never, according to the Dhamma; defense yes - offensive war, never).
• The fruits of man's "labour ... is the gift of God"? (Kamma makes far more sense, and is far more responsible and empowering to teach my child.)
• "God doeth it, that men should fear before him"? (All that fearing in the Abrahamic scriptures gives people complexes, IMO.)
• "God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts" (I'd rather lift people's minds up with their upward potential in the Dhamma, than putting them down as beasts.)

Okay. Okay. So there are some awful things in Ecc. What about "a time to weep and a time to laugh" that's healthy, right?

But, yeah, that's why I like the Dharma. Metaphorical (by meaning) or literal (concrete teachings like meditation) it's not violent or anything like that.

 

[buddhist]

Okay. Okay. So there are some awful things in Ecc. What about "a time to weep and a time to laugh" that's healthy, right?

But, yeah, that's why I like the Dharma. Metaphorical (by meaning) or literal (concrete teachings like meditation) it's not violent or anything like that.

Sure, there are times where we weep and laugh, but that's really just an observation of fact and not a teaching which improves our lot in life, is it?

 

[savagewind]

Sure, there are times where we weep and laugh, but that's really just an observation of fact and not a teaching which improves our lot in life, is it?

There are people who if they cry are ashamed, but crying is sometimes the best thing to do for certain circumstances, I think and Ecc agrees with me.

 

[buddhist]

There are people who if they cry are ashamed, but crying is sometimes the best thing to do for certain circumstances, I think and Ecc agrees with me.

It's a swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, and the cycle repeats all over again in most peoples' lives ... for the temporary release of suffering.

 

[savagewind]

It's a swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, and the cycle repeats all over again in most peoples' lives ... for the temporary release of suffering.

I'll take temporary over none.

 

[buddhist]

I'll take temporary over none.

I suppose my point is it's endless ... unless one quiets craving itself.

 

[savagewind]

I suppose my point is it's endless ... unless one quiets craving itself.

You can not know that suffering is endless. It can't be endless as it ends when a person dies.
Not all suffering is bad. The Bible seems to help some people suffer better.
For instance, I must suffer being misunderstood, but I know God understands me. Also, sometimes being misunderstood is funny. Funny is good!

 

[buddhist]

You can not know that suffering is endless. It can't be endless as it ends when a person dies.
Not all suffering is bad. The Bible seems to help some people suffer better.
For instance, I must suffer being misunderstood, but I know God understands me. Also, sometimes being misunderstood is funny. Funny is good!

How do you know that suffering ends when a person dies?