There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

unmagical , (edited )

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.

gravitas_deficiency ,

How can we believe and trust censored bibles?

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.

midnight_puker ,
@midnight_puker@sh.itjust.works avatar

How can you believe and trust the bible at all?

conciselyverbose ,

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.

JimmyBigSausage ,

How can you believe an uncensored one?

CaptainBasculin ,

An answer for this in Muslim’s book Quran is that all the previous books god itself sent were edited by humans as time went on.

Though its defence on whether Quran would be edited by humans is that god will not let it happen, there’s the argument that which in that case why did God let the previous books get edited in the first place?

Vanth ,
@Vanth@reddthat.com avatar

By “original Bible” do you mean the Masoretic text, which is in the Hebrew language and finalized in about the year 1100 A.D.? Or the Septuagint text, the Greek translation of the Torah dating around 300 B.C.? Or some other “Bible” from some point across that 1,400 year stretch?

You don’t know. Or you say “faith” and put the contradictions out of your mind.

Bonifratz ,

What do you mean by censored? Do you have examples of censored “chapters and contents”? And what do you mean by the original Bible?

sorghum ,
@sorghum@sh.itjust.works avatar

King James notoriously removed mentions of the word tyrant in his English translations.

It’s why I like the NET translation as it includes translation notes from the original languages

Bonifratz ,

King James notoriously removed mentions of the word tyrant in his English translations.

AFAIK this is an urban myth. But even if true, it’s hardly a case of “censoring”, but more a (questionable) translation choice. (Because “tyrant” is not a word that appears in the original Hebrew or Greek, so it can’t have been censored in that sense.)

jbrains ,

I’m curious about what you think. How do you react to this?

johnefrancis ,

which version of which bible?

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

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?

MentalEdge ,
@MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz avatar

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.

sndmn ,

The Lord of the Rings is more believable.

jsomae ,

Which bible is censored?

sndmn ,

Everybody Poops

scrubbles ,
@scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

Pretty much any version we know now has taken very liberal translations to change the meanings. Most scholars agree that the translations were not accurate. Then on top of that entire books of the Bible were debated and thrown out, the gospel of Mary magdeline is the most famous. They picked and chose what message they wanted.

skullgiver ,
@skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl avatar

There are different translations for this very reason. Very few people can read the original Hebrew and Greek originals, let alone understand the classical poetic customs.

It’s not exactly written to be read easily, either, large parts of it were written using text complicated even for the native speakers back in the time.

There are plenty of mistakes in the translation, the funniest one being the translation mentioning unicorns, and some of them try to hide the sea monsters from the old testament and use flowery language to talk around the vile things described on the old stories.

Bonifratz ,

Pretty much any version we know now has taken very liberal translations to change the meanings.

That’s not true. Bible translations differ wildly on the approach they take, but there exist many (at least for English) that are focused on offering a rendition as close to the original meaning as possible. Also, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Koine Greek have been deeply studied over centuries and are well understood, so accurate translations are possible with the exception of a small percentage of rare vocabulary. Obviously, perfect translations aren’t a thing, but that’s a moot point and not exclusive to Bible translations.

Most scholars agree that the translations were not accurate.

Which scholars? Which translations? These blanket statements make no sense. Again, many translations have been made or reviewed/proofread by scholars of the Bible’s languages, making your claim dubious at best.

Then on top of that entire books of the Bible were debated and thrown out, the gospel of Mary magdeline is the most famous. They picked and chose what message they wanted.

It’s no secret that settling on a canon was a process that took centuries both in Judaism (for the Tanakh) and in early Christianity (for its New Testament), and was never really finished in the latter case, considering the different canons in use in the major Christian churches even today.

That said, I think this process was a necessity. In early Christianity, there were hundreds if not thousands of Jesus-inspired texts floating around, so if the new church was to have any sort of guiding document(s), they had no choice but to pick and choose. Of course, if you think a text (like the Gospel of Mary you mention) is an important witness of the early church, or a more accurate reflection of early Christian thought than are the New Testament writings, you have every right to make that argument. But I don’t think it’s fair to hold it against early Christians that they “picked and chose what message they wanted”, because that’s kind of the whole point of founding a new religious movement.

LaGG_3 ,
@LaGG_3@hexbear.net avatar

IDK, convert to Islam if you’re that worried about reading your holy texts in their original language?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •