Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

While watching the TV there was a subject on "modernizing the church"

people say that the church is to in the past and that its out of touch with modern society.But because the church is based on a hundereds of years old book its obvious that as time changes the book will lose its touch BUT you cant change the bible (even though its been done) because your not alowed IT says so and if it was the word of god it wouldnt need changed.Anywhoo people say the bible should accept gay priests, the vatican says no because the bible forbids it so if the bible says NO how can people argue that because times changed the church should change the bible was not made up so it could change every couple of years to stay populer.So how then can people read the bible and think this is the word of God when its being changed ever so slightly now and no doubt was throught the dark ages ?

Moving to Religion forum...

thanks

I've done some research on the changes of the bible and there have been some already.

like it is now called the fairy tale of the middle east part I and II?

Your points are valid Grand Moff Gav.

Basically, if one genuinely believes that this is the word of God,
then he wouldn't want or approve of any chanegs to it. In fact,
he'd sooner change society to match the words.

By contrast, anyone who wants the words changes to that they
match the current culture or society, obviously doesn't believe
that they are the words of God, in which case we must ask, why
would he care? Why is he still calling himself a "christian" (or
whatever other religion)?


One more point: Alot of these people calling for change in the
church are obviously arrogant, ego-centric, selfish a**holes, since
they want a whole religion to change in order to suit their own
world-view, or that of their society, completely ignoring the fact
that this same church is also the church of countless other peoples
and nations, who may like the church as it is.

For example, maybe many Americans want the Catholic church to
change and allow gays in the ministry, but how about the Catholics
in Africa or South America (who are much more numerous than
American Catholics, and more devout too), would they approve?

In my opinion ALL holy books have been changed at some point and to certain degrees, because for most part, the holy books have been written AFTER the ''prophets'' have died.

I have to agree with King Burger. It is inconsiderate to change the Bible. If you no long agree with it then don't follow it. People are going to what they want anyway. I think the "Holy Books" should be left alone, unless you are making them more readable by putting it in a modern language. I think we have too many versions as it is, though most of the changes have been small. In some cases though, the changes have really changed some meanings.

I agree.

People wanted power and they wanted to manipulate religion to suit them. Sad but true...I think we can see that in the many contradictions.

...and Jesus walked on water, Peter said "Awesome".

But seriously, I like the idea of this thread.

I've seen and heard to many "religious" followers basically using the "I think what God MEANT to say was..." route out of being wrong.

Like I (and Milla also) said in another thread, also in this one. If you look at all religions ideals and prophets etc, they all really hit upon the same idea. When profit (not necessarily material) came into it, people realised that if people followed a book or beliefs, they'd follow a person. Thus the manipulation began.

-AC

i agree with changes.
think of some of the shit in the bible.
In one part (i'll look it up for all doubters so you know where)
it says if a man is to rape a woman,she is to marry him.
now it might have been in the old testiment but the bottom line is,is that something you belive?

If you don't believe it, then don't follow it.

But don't change the religion to follow your beliefs.

Many people in traditional societies believe that if
an man has sex with a woman, he should marry
her. Now, maybe you don't agree, but many people
believe that as well.

That point is, whether you follow a religion or not,
whether you follow specific aspects of the religion or
not, is not the eligion's problem. It shouldn't change
to suite your needs (I use "you" generically).

i dont follow it im just fed up up with it

It must be changable, as it has been changed ever since its inception. It's fiction anyway...who cares?

it the best fiction book ever in term of sales but i think God Jesus and the Saints are just symbols. Symbols for people who feal there is a need to justify the excistance (sp)

the bible was in a state of constant change for a very long time.
but all the sudden the masses take everything for being factual.
with all the text we have now from nag hamadi and everything people still want to be closed minded

They have changed it but kept in text it is suppose to be in .And it says if you take any words from this book you canot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
i agree with changes.
think of some of the shit in the bible.
In one part (i'll look it up for all doubters so you know where)
it says if a man is to rape a woman,she is to marry him.
now it might have been in the old testiment but the bottom line is,is that something you belive?

I think that was in concordance with Jewish law that if a woman were found in adultery she would be stoned;it was meant to prevent her from being harmed-- but, I don't believe that. Jesus(if you believe in him of course) came down to earth to change many things, some of which were in the Old Testimment; i.e. sacrificing a lamb to cover ones sin, and also forgiveness.
That can pertain quite well to the woman in adultary whom he forgave.

I think it says in the book of Revelations, that if you change one word you will suffer the same plagues...But that is for the book of Rev.

I think what they basically mean is you can't change the meaning of the scriptures to false teaching or for your own benefit.

Sometimes when people would translate the bible to a different language they would make mistakes. That is completely understandable and they would usually be able to find the mistake and correct it.

If you look at the mormons or seventh day adventists, they have made some odd changes to the bible, for their own religious gain and what not.

there u go you have just interpretated it in a way that others WILL disagree with

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
While watching the TV there was a subject on "modernizing the church"

people say that the church is to in the past and that its out of touch with modern society.But because the church is based on a hundereds of years old book its obvious that as time changes the book will lose its touch BUT you cant change the bible (even though its been done) because your not alowed IT says so and if it was the word of god it wouldnt need changed.Anywhoo people say the bible should accept gay priests, the vatican says no because the bible forbids it so if the bible says NO how can people argue that because times changed the church should change the bible was not made up so it could change every couple of years to stay populer.So how then can people read the bible and think this is the word of God when its being changed ever so slightly now and no doubt was throught the dark ages ?

People might try to change it but since it has been written a long time ago(so they say)it should not be changed.If no one argees then fine but leave the bible alone.JM

the thing is sometimes we hold onto things just based on age alone.
some things in the bible still work today but other things don't.

Right and so somethings must be changed. But when they change the value of the thing change, or moral importance, never changes. Like complete abstinance of food during lent. Was changed because of all the hunger, unbalanced nutrition among teens, and and basically anything else that affected it was changed to only two meals. The age was changed as well. So the fact that we still fast is there, it just changes the appearence.

Think of it (dare I say it), like a science. You are only change the physical part of the matter, not the chemical part.

The bible has been tampered with ever since it was concieved. Who knows what the original stated.

precisly the bible might have said somthing complety different than what it says now

Yeah, which is why it changes. In the odinary times, after Christ acended into heaven, during the practices of lent, would undergo the same tournment Christ did. Imagine whipping yourself, out of pure love for Christ, with the same whips they whipped Christ with? Can you imagine the pain let alone sacrfise?

if you were a true faithful thats exactly what you should do

Yes but think of the people with disease, or who are truley faithful (John Paul the Second), and imagine what would happen to their health. They could end up dying. God said "do no do ill treatment to your body". But small sacrifises are what we want to focus on. These are a little extreme.

why should u make these sacrifiices if god loves u he couldnt no would'nt let us go through such pain

IS THE BIBLE CHANGEABLE...

Here's an interesting page.

www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm


If you like Josephus....www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/j_myth.htm#h2_2

yes interesting reading

thanks for that

The U.S. Constitution seems to have the same problem. It's got more holes than my screen door.

ha

The literal Bible can be changed to suit what is itching to man's ears... but not the proclamations and words of God. And this was revealed to His messengers through Holy Spirit.

Did you read the articles??

Obviously not. Sorry.

THE HOLY BIBLE

Most people are unware of the proof contained in the Bible. Popular media tends to present general opinion, incorporating uninformed viewpoints. Realizing the incredible evidence of the Holy Bible requires more depth than popular opinion.

No work as survived and spread as the Gospel has. SOMETHING MAJOR HAPPENDED. There were no printing presses, no photocopiers, no quick ways to copy manuscripts. Nevertheless, the Gospel quickly expanded throughout the Roman Empire. Comprehending the scale of this vast explosion of hand-copied documents is only possible by comparing the number of extant New Testament manuscripts with those of other abundant documents.

Of historical works, PLINY THE YOUNGER has 7 original manuscripts, THUCYDIDES 8, HERODOTUS 8, GALLIC WARS 10, LLIAD 643 and the NEW TESTAMENT 24,970.

Having more surviving early manuscripts means having more cross-checks to verify accuracy. Today's Holy Bible is verified to a textual accuracy of 99.5 percent. Some biblical copies are old enough to show eyewitnesses' confirmation (made within 25 years of events). That's flash news in ancient times.

Earliest copies of other manuscripts don't even beign to compare. PLINY THE YOUNGER 750 years, THUCYDIDES 1,300 years, HERODOTUS 1,300 years, GALLIC WARS 1,000 years, and LLIAD 500 years. Why do some doubt biblical acccuracy, yet readily accept other, less reliable history?

Until this century, the earliest Old Testament copies were from about A.D. 1,000 (simular to typical historical works). Skeptics argued textual corruption was possible. Others argued miracles of prophecy, especially concering Jesus; were recorded centuries after Christ and were changed to fit the outcome of history.

Modern Archaeological discoveries soundly refute such claims. Thousands of much earlier documents now verify biblical accuracy.

Perhaps the most important Archaeological find in history is the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947-48. Discovered accidently by a Bedouin shepard searching a cave in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea, the scrolls have been hidden by the Essenes (a Jewish sect similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees) just prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It took almost 20 years to uncover all the scrolls and bring them together in one location.

The discorvery includes thousands of fragments and some complete scolls found in 11 caves. In total, about 800 scrolls have been identified, which include copies of every book of the Old Testament (except Esther), along with a number of other scrolls relevant to history and to the Essene community. Several scrolls exist in multiple copies. Many of the oldest scrolls (including the remarkably intact scroll of Isaiah) were written more than 200 years before Christ (long before the fulfillment of prophecies they contain about the coming Messiah).

In addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of the most important biblical writings, of the thousands available, are the following:

Rylans Papyrus (A.D. 115 - A.D. 125), Bodmer Papyri (A.D. 150 - A.D. 200), Chester Beatty Papyri (A.D. 100 - A.D. 300), Codex Vaticanus (Early 300s) Codex Sinaiticus (Early 300s), and The Vulgate (A.D. 400)

There is more to the Holy Bible then you think. It's imperative to search for the truth, and to divorce yourselves from popular opinion. A person's opinion has no relevance in the light of facts.

The scrolls found were longer versons of the edited ones we have in the Bible like Isiah...The Essenes were very possibly the real Christians of history.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I have to agree with King Burger. It is inconsiderate to change the Bible. If you no long agree with it then don't follow it. People are going to what they want anyway. I think the "Holy Books" should be left alone, unless you are making them more readable by putting it in a modern language. I think we have too many versions as it is, though most of the changes have been small. In some cases though, the changes have really changed some meanings. They don't have to change it to make it say what they want it to say. They just interpret it how they want to and say their interpretation is right

and that is one of the reason why all these different denomination exists

Originally posted by finti
and that is one of the reason why all these different denomination exists

that's the thing. 10 different people can look at one story and come away with 10 different interpretations...God would know that, so why would god make harsh judgements on who's interpretation is correct?

I look at it as a weakness

if u read some of the last words of the bible it talks about how no man should ever change the text in the holy bible. so it can be changed, but the person who does it is gonna be screwed

That verse in the book of Revelations.....And the book of Revelations wasn't always included in the cannon of scripture...It had been taken out 3 times at least...

Complete scare tatics.

sounds like " do not push this button" tactics

Originally posted by finti
sounds like " do not push this button" tactics

it does and the notical metaphor is appropriate

You know why it's called the Cannon/canon of scripture.......It because they're shooting death bombs at us......They want to destroy our lively hood. Make us drones.

erm ok thanks for that

OK....then they call it the canon of scripture cause it's the bomb....

Originally posted by debbiejo
OK....then they call it the canon of scripture cause it's the bomb.... http://www.strangecult.com/mrt/t_vs_cybermen.html

canon as in the real and only Star Wars

Yes, canon.....it destroys lives.

did they have cannons in the biblical times............nope

Originally posted by Grand Mage Gav
did they have cannons in the biblical times............nope

Don't get what I'm saying do you?

Scripture is called the cannon.....

cannon = canon....like the kind that destroys.....

i see