In the Bible, it says clearly that no one should make a dare to edit or correct the Bible by any words. But many chapters and contents are extremely censored from the original Bible. How is this acceptable, and how do we know the truth and full story about the entire life?
(Finally, some of the replies and trolls I received made me more confused. But thanks a lot for the reference replies.)
You must log in or register to comment.
Lemmy is, like, all atheists. You’re going to get a lot of “we can’t” answers.
I have to consider both aethist and believers opinion in order to get a clear picture. So it doesn’t really matter.
The orthodox would agree.
Yeah, Biblical inerrancy is specific to a subset of Protestants. They’re just loud about it. The Catholic church has also flirted with it, but their stance has always been that the church itself is the final authority on all matters, and in Vatican II they soften their endorsement of it with something like “inerrant for the purposes of salvation”.
It’s possible lay believers of other denominations sometimes take the same stance out of confusion, though. I’ve never personally heard someone say “I’m a Christian that doesn’t believe the Bible is all authentic”.
So basically Predator handshake meme of religious extremists and atheists?
The Bible is lies Atheists -o- Christian revisionistsI don’t know if that’s what OP meant, though.
There is no “original Bible.” Different sects of Christianity have different canons that they consider “scripture.”
Most Protestants adhere to 66 books divided into the “old” & “new” testaments. Roman catholics include several more books commonly called the “apocrypha” or “deuterocanonical” books.
Various traditions in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox sects such as the Syriac Orthodox church or the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church include even more books and depending on the specific tradition, don’t even have a closed canon of official scripture. They don’t really think of scripture in terms of being officially canonized, it’s more of a spectrum from “more authoritative” to “less authoritative.”
There was no defined canon for any of the early Christians for several centuries. Early Christians circulated many different epistles, religious poems, stories, legends, sermons, and parables, often just by oral tradition.
Some, like the gospel of Mark, are considered fairly historical by many scholars, others are more fantastical or don’t have as solid historical attestation.
There is active debate amongst scholars about authorship of the now canonized Biblical corpus and the level of historicity.
Take the Bible for what it is; an impressive and important historical work, really a small library of ancient literature. It’s not a magical text though, it was written by people in very specific sociological and historical contexts and should be studied and examined with those in mind.
If you find it enlightening and inspiring to your life and it helps you be a better person to others, that’s great. And if you attach special spiritual or religious meaning to it, that’s your call. But that doesn’t change the nature of what the Bible is and where it came from.
And on top of that, different translations can effectively make different stories as well. Just look at the story of Dinah. Most translations day that she was assaulted but some would suggest that she just had consensual sex. That’s a distinction that effectively makes it a different story depending on who did the translating.
As religious people most often just pick and choose from scripture to make their point, it doesn’t matter to them that their version of scripture is edited/corrected/censored.
But can’t it negatively affect us all, expecially if we born in a religious family who take all these things seriously without sense. They used to believe everything said by pastors and priests without using common sense. Anyway they will repeat all the sins, then say my god will forgive me. But how much time ?
You don’t.
Better yet, how do you know any modern religion is anything like what it should be like, generations later?
Religions seem very sure about their own teachings, even as they change. Within your own lifetime you’ve probably noticed that a priest or simply a believer you know has ended up changing their mind on something. Just a generation or two of believers and the current ones won’t be thinking and saying the kind of stuff the first ones were, and vice versa.
One pope says nay, next one says yay. If god is speaking through them, did god change his mind? If he is, why didn’t he just get it right from the start?
Religion isn’t like logic, which states 2+2 will always be 4. The simple passage of time and the broken telephone that is human word of mouth, means religion is incapable of staying consistent for more than about a decade, if that.
What’s more, the religions that exist today are the ones that were the best at spreading. If a religion isn’t appealing, people don’t stick with it. So religions tend to morph and splinter, evolving into whatever is just nice enough that a bunch of people will sign up.
They are the original meme, in the scientific sense. An infectious idea that gets recounted over an over, each person changing it slightly to be more appealing during a re-telling, empowering its spread.
OP is on step two of a really short journey.
The Bible doesn’t say that you shouldn’t edit or correct the Bible because the authors of the Bible didn’t have the rest of the Bible.
Moses gives some explicit commands to the Israelites to not modify the commands he gives in Deuteronomy, but that doesn’t really apply to the other books.
Likewise, some guy named “John” warns against anyone adding or removing from the account of his acid trip in Revelations, but that doesn’t really apply to other books.
The “Bible” was constructed over a long process and while what many think of as the “Bible” was finalized by 400AD there are still disagreements today (See Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Mormonism, and many other smaller sects).
The original authors wrote disparate works for distinct purposes at distinct points in time. They were not writing with the goal of manufacturing a multi-thousand year story bound as a single volume.
How do we know the full story?
We don’t. We use archeology, biology, anthropology, and other scientific disciplines to determine a likely path of the story of humanity as a whole. Some disciplines use the books of the Bible and other contemporary accounts to guide areas of future study, but if you want a single source for the history of the earth, humanity, or even the Israelites the Bible isn’t going to offer an honest perspective.
Revelation 22:18-19, which says:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
This is what mean by nobody should edit/correct the bible.
Which applies only to the Revelation of John.
"This book’s, doesn’t refer to the Bible. There was no Bible when this sentence was written. It refers to the text where you found this passage.
Clarification: what original bible? The Bible today isn’t even a single version of a thing. Historically, it was a bunch of manuscripts (many of which, conversely, were more different to each other the further back in time you go showing that a number of competing stories got combined into one) written by different people at different times in different places and eventually people more or less agreed on some things. Certain things have been found to be added hundreds or even thousands of years ago and some modern bibles will actually remove them (apparently something in I think John where it seems to skip a verse or two where something was added to make it make more sense with the other synoptic gospels).
TL;DR – there never was one single bible, it’s a bunch of stories that got edited before it got into a bible, and we continue to find texts that show older versions closer to any events differ from what modern texts have.
There is no original Bible.
The Bible is an assortment of works from a variety of authors arbitrarily selected by the Church, then made into a whole bunch of translations that aren’t super consistent with each other and aren’t all that faithful to the original works.
How can we believe and trust
censoredbibles?FTFY.
And you can’t. The Bible is a bestselling work of fiction.
For the record, I was raised catholic, though am not one anymore.
Ah you’re starting to see the cracks that finally gave me the distrust to leave the church. The church has thrown out entire books of the Bible because they didn’t agree with the messaging. How can I go to a church to where they literally threw out gospels just because they didn’t like it?
Same. This is where am standing right now.
Welcome to the path my friend. I was extremely Christian, but I was shocked that the church would do that. I mean how dare man edit the word of God at all?! I’m not sure what I believe, but I know the church was corrupted
How can you believe the bible?
In the Bible, it says clearly that no one should make a dare to edit or correct the Bible by any words.
Not trolling here, but where does it say that?
It would have to be from a time when people were already conscious of this collection of writings being considered “The Bible”, so I’m assuming New Testament somewhere? And would any writings added after that not be considered to have flaunted that rule?
I’m not religious at all, but I’m very interested in how the Bible came to be The Bible.
It’s at the very end of Revelation. It’s a warning not to add or remove any words from the prophecy in the book.
Oh ok, that makes sense, thanks. Will check that out. I kind of like the idea of someone writing Revelation and adding that so that they got the final chapter! :-)
The Lord of the Rings is more believable.
And far better written.
I remember reading the Bible for the first time as a teenager, after years of hearing about how great it was from Christians, and both being severely disappointed by its immature writing style and losing a lot of respect for the literary standards of many Christians.
Well, it was made by a single person and is mostly consistent throughout. So it’s at least not self-contradictory, which is something.
How can you believe an uncensored one?
Because the life itself doesn’t have a meaning itself. I belive in god and without god its hard to live the life. Otherwise we can easily get into sins. There are more beyond some myths.
And the unavoidable truth is death.
Sins like what though? Do you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person or keep from killing someone?
You shouldn’t trust any Bible. They are myth books that should not be considered other than as very peculiar literature.
You said so because of the censorship, or just because you are an aethist?
You seem to consistently spell atheist wrong. It’s not with an e.
A-T-H-E-I-S-T.
Write it repeatedly until you learn it.
I’m an atheist because there’s no good reason to believe in gods. The Bible is a book full of nonsense, myths and stories. That is obvious to anyone reading it without the prejudice of indoctrination.
