Should Christianity remove sections of the bible?

Post Reply New Topic

Even if it is to be argued on each point whether this or that be morally acceptable according to today's current standards, it would be unwise to alter any historical documents whatsoever. We already have it so that history textbooks teach in line with current politics, but if you alter historical documents themselves in order to suit the needs of the current desires of a regime or of a populace, then it serves merely to further severe our connection with history, and more so, with integrity also.

Ok, what I am reading suggests that the KJV has had the Apocrypha removed from it because it was written in Greek and not Hebrew. It contains 14 books. As of today there are 72 books in the OT(45) and NT(27) of the Catholic bible. Protestants have 66 books, 39 and 27 respectively.

What is omitted(the Apocrypha) seems to be accepted by Protestants as worthy of reading, but not divine or something. I get the impression that what was removed were not horrible things, but moral stories. I'll have to read the Apocrypha I guess.

I'm a little perplexed. Why is it that these upstanding morality stories are removed but the really horrible crap is retained?

also you said:




So it seems it wasnt tossed out at all. It is to remain.

But I knew these things before.

What I cannot understand is why those awful things need to be retained. Will you begin following them again some day? Why is that archaic information persisting?

Because the laws regarding such things as adultery, murder, theft, bearing false witness, etc still demark what is considered sin.

You mention slavery, but you didn't mention that it was actually limitations upon slavery that were provided rather than a license to do so. Slavery was not even needing a license to practice it back then, it was fully accepted then. But the laws of Moses put limitations as to the length of time which a person could be a slave, as well as the constant repetition of "remember that you also were slaves in Egypt" in respect to regarding the people they had serving them as people and not property.

You mentioned infanticide, but that's only one step away from abortion which in this era is considered socially acceptable, so using the word "infanticide" would be virtually vacuous in comparison to the practices of modern society (the primary difference being merely the location of the child, in the womb or outside of the womb, as well as enough medical terminology to help mothers who don't want to be mother to feel better about their choice to eliminate their motherhood.)

I'm not really sure why it was removed, but I know it was.

As for the OT rules... I was talking about interpretation. Some do say they were to be thrown out. At least, the rules in Leviticus, which is where Homosexuality is supposedly condemned.

That would be in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1st Corinthians 6:9; 1st Timothy 1:10, etcetera. Among Liberal churchians, the general bill of fare is to both reject the Old Testament (at least the parts they don't like) and the writing of Paul (or at least, also, the parts they don't like of him as well). It turns into a great big game of selective listening.

Who are the "somes" that override what Christ said? This is the first that I have heard that such a thing is permissible.

Ah, well... I'm not Christian anymore. I haven't been since I was 18. Even when I was, I was Mormon. The rules and interpretations were a bit different then other denominations.

Mostly Christians I have talked to. Some former Christians. I've also talked to plenty that didn't believe this.

Personally, I'm still against taking any parts out. Like I said, it would change the meanings and what you're "supposed to" learn from the parables. Each denomination is entitled to take what they wish from what's written.

As long as nobody decides to stone their non-virgin bride or sell their daughter into slavery (among other atrocious acts mentioned but not necessarily condoned) religious freedom should be retained.

I was hoping you'd pipe in. While I dont always agree with you, you do your best to lay it straight.

Those answers are good ones. I chose to bring them up because they are generic and not so tied in with particular individuals.

For instance King David impregnates Bathsheba, then arranges that her husband be send to the front lines to be killed. David is not punished for this. Instead, God's anger is taken out on the unborn baby. I understand that Uriah, the unfortunate husband, was sent to the front lines and the other soldiers were to retreat so that he would die with no uncertainty.

So thats adultery, murder-by-proxy(or something) and some sort of divine abortion. Its two deaths of convenience. If I were taking my morality from the bible, I'd see that as long as the bloods not on my hands, arranging someone to die isnt wrong. Adultery is fine too, if I have enough temporal power. And lastly, that unborn infants are less important than adult leaders(which sounds suspiciously like the attitude of modern day abortion advocates).

Maybe that actually explains a lot about whats wrong in the world.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... s_heretics

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanis ... nty_Python)

Some non-profit religions approve of putting astronomer Galileo under house arrest and threatening him with torture unless he recants his understanding that the earth revolves around the sun star:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/

Translate the Bible into Engish and be burned at the stake (true story):

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previou ... index.html

There's no single "Christianity". There are as many Christianities as there are Christians, with each picking and choosing which parts he thinks are right and discarding or reinterpreting the rest, sometimes inserting other works as well.

If you don't like a section, tear it out and claim that all the other Christians are heretics who are doing it wrong.

Interpretations of the Bible are different within different denominations, usually liberal christians believe that the Bible has to be taken into historical context rather than taking it that literal, this "selective listening" is more of a fundie perspective.

And the issue with homosexuality within conservative christians, I could say to be ironic somehow, or to say it in another way, unequal treatment, even inside the belief with the assumption that that is true.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

Perhaps the bashful Christians should remove all references to the love that David felt toward Saul's son Jonathan. It sounds like David and Jonathan had the "warms" for each other.

ruveyn

wasnt david a womanizer and basically a manwhore? thats what some christian told me, what i dont understand is why the god of the bible would put up with such a sinful person and seem to kill innocent people for like no reason

Personally, I think the Bible is fine the way it is as long as it doesn't include Apocrypha. What little I've read of and about the Apocrypha is that it included passages that would support certain agendas. I forget the book and passage, but I do know that one such writing was included solely for the fact that a single verse supported prayers for the dead. And even to use that passage to support prayers for the dead is to take it out of context!! !

I think the Bible probably ought to be cleaned up a LITTLE to account for what was actually in the earliest manuscripts. I've recently finished reading the OT and have not found anything that is really problematic about it. VERY little of the OT or NT is, in fact. But since I've just started reading the book of Matthew, I'll share this one: Matthew 6:13. Many manuscripts simply read: "And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." The tradition, however, is this added text: "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen." My opinion is it is best to leave the traditional text in. The reason I think that way is that there were probably good reasons for including it, perhaps it was a prevalent oral tradition omitted by the written tradition and inserted for the sake of completeness. On the other hand, if that wasn't what was originally written, then it shouldn't be there. I think it's best to include the texts, indicate PRECISELY what those texts are, and allow the believer to make up his or her own mind about it (which is what many Bible translations do, anyway). There are other examples of these harmless insertions, and they in no way diminish the truth of the Bible.