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.

How can we believe and trust censored Bibles?

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.)

sanguinepar ,
@sanguinepar@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Mr_Fish ,

Don’t fully trust the translations. There are some that are pretty good, but none are exactly perfect. You can get the original language and wording (or the closest we have) with a quick Google, so use that if you ever think the translation is borderline.

mindbleach ,

OP is on step two of a really short journey.

tiredofsametab ,

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.

richieadler ,

You shouldn’t trust any Bible. They are myth books that should not be considered other than as very peculiar literature.

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

You said so because of the censorship, or just because you are an aethist?

Thavron ,
@Thavron@lemmy.ca avatar

You seem to consistently spell atheist wrong. It’s not with an e.

anarchoilluminati , (edited )
@anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net avatar

First of all, as others said, the Bible is a book composed of many books and letters written by many people over an incredibly vast span of time. Consistency is almost impossible. But, for what it’s worth, where does the Bible say “that no one should make a dare to edit or correct” it?

I believe you are referring to Revelations which is, arguably, one of the oldest youngest if not the oldest youngest book in the canon (I don’t remember for sure but I believe it is) and also not universally appreciated. Luther famously criticized Revelations, and I think rightly so. There was also some contention at the time of canonization in Nicea around Revelations. So, just because one book says it, doesn’t mean it’s the final word on the issue. There are Christians that don’t see much weight or value in Revelations. I certainly don’t, I don’t believe it’s an eschatological text revealed by God. I think the only way Revelations makes sense is to read it as an historical text and critique of Nero that was written post hoc to rationalize and comfort Christians for what they suffered by explaining that they will soon be rewarded for their faith because they are in “end times”. Of course, we now know, thousands of years later, that they weren’t.

Besides, I’m not entirely sure I know what you mean by “edited” or what “life” you’re referring to, although I’m assuming you’re talking about Jesus. Have you read the Scriptures in their original languages? I have at least read and translated the Christian Scriptures in and from Greek, and they need editing. It’s not possible to have a transliteration of it that reads well, it takes some finesse and art. Even the Scriptures in the Greek are compiled from different manuscripts and codices because there often are errors or damages in manuscripts so you can’t just find the one “Gospel of Marx” manuscript, for example, and use it to translate it perfectly. You need to find several to get the whole story of one gospel together and then translate them into a single text, so you’re using several sources to put the story together in Greek and then translate into a different language thousands of years later. Naturally, this creates issues and makes it so that the Bible isn’t an unaltered text in its final form. Unless you read it in its original language, this is unavoidable—and, as I said, even if you do read it in Greek, you will still have an “edited” text.

Does it matter? I think it creates issues and one should be able to critically examine these textual criticisms in order to form a better picture of the origins of their belief and better parse what and how to believe, but I don’t think editing or inconsistencies inherently invalidate Christianity nor Judaism.

anarchoilluminati ,
@anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net avatar

I meant Gospel of Mark, but I’m not going to change it and no one better dare edit or correct it or a spectre will haunt them.

SLfgb ,

Ok Marx

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

Thank you for replying…

By edit i mean this verse in 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.”

I believed that doing so can change the entire meaning on bible.

And by life, in my personal opinion i believe the bible is a guide to live life and only god have the quality to guide us among life and no human should never try to manipulate his true words.

Also i was very obsessed about thinking all of this censorship thing.

Actually i didn’t readed the originally written bible, probably nobody could.

Most of the things you said make sense and gives me a clear picture about the reality of my worry.

anarchoilluminati ,
@anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net avatar

Of course.

Well, if it helps, and I hope it will, the author of Revelations wrote Revelations before there was canonization into the Bible we know today. In other words, when Revelations was written it was a stand-alone “book”. The Bible didn’t exist at the time.

So, when the author of Revelations says ‘don’t change anything in this book’, they mean and are talking about the Book of Revelations—not the Bible as a whole which didn’t exist.

In terms of the ethical value of things like the Gospels, the value is still there. The teachings we have are the teachings we have, if they are valuable to you then that’s great and you should follow them! Jesus says a lot of things which are great to practice. But it’s ultimately up to you to decide whether to believe in the teachings, and then it is up to you to struggle to put them into practice. That doesn’t change.

If you found out there were some changes to the Bible, would you stop believing in “love your neighbor as yourself”? No, because it still has value as an ethical teaching. If you want it to be the direct word of God, then that might be more difficult to prove as fact. But I choose to believe that what Jesus says sounds like what I would expect from a God anyway so I don’t personally have an issue. I hope it helps you though, it is ultimately your decision to choose what, how, and why to believe in something.

Lettuceeatlettuce ,
@Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

PiecePractical ,

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.

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.

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

unmagical ,

Which applies only to the Revelation of John.

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?

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

Isn’t the bible itself a precious text ? I believe the issue is humans manipulating all those that said in it for their personal or religious benefit.

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?

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

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.

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

I mean the original bible that written by collection of texts written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) over a period of 200-300 BCE.

Vanth ,
@Vanth@reddthat.com avatar

So over the course of 100ish years and translation through multiple languages, what version is the original one? Like, where is this Bible physically located? Stored in a museum somewhere? Available for study so that translations into modern languages can be checked against it?

gramie ,

There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 400,000 significant deviations (i.e. not just spelling mistakes) in the New Testament manuscripts we now have. Scholars make educated guesses about what the correct wording is, but those are still guesses.

You know the story of the adulteress who is going to be stoned? That was added at least 100 years after the rest of the Gospel of John was written.

The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Book of Luke, which was the first gospel written, ends with the women running away from the empty tomb and not telling anyone. It is believed that the resurrection story was added later.

Bart Ehrman does a very good job of explaining these issues on his YouTube channel.

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.)

sorghum ,
@sorghum@sh.itjust.works avatar

From the translation notes on Job 6:23

The עָרִיצִים ('aritsim) are tyrants, the people who inspire fear (Job 15:20; 27:13); the root verb עָרַץ ('arats) means “to terrify” (Job 13:25).

The NET translation

Or ‘Deliver me from the enemy’s power, and from the hand of tyrants ransom me’?

It’s exactly why I really like the NET translation. Getting context for why or how the original text gets translated to English is incredibly valuable to me. Here in this context I’m sure aritsim doesn’t literally mean tyrant, but the people became synonymous with the definition like “Shaka, when the walls fell” means failure.

Bonifratz ,

Yes, I very much agree that such explanations are helpful.

Alb087 OP ,
@Alb087@lemmy.ml avatar

Dude, are you serious ? 🙄😐

Bonifratz ,

Yes, of course.

Both of these things need defining before anybody can answer your question.

“Censoring”, the way I understand the word, means that there’s some kind of institution charged with overseeing and removing parts of a text. So I wonder at which point in the development of the Bible you believe this has occurred.

I’ve argued in a different comment that it’s no secret that certain texts were picked and chosen by the early church as part of its canon, but that (in my opinion) is a very different thing than censoring. To give an analogy: If I was an editor and had to choose the “100 greatest novels of the 20th century” for a book, I would not be “censoring” those I didn’t choose. Therefore I’m asking you what exactly you mean by censoring, and if you can give examples of censorship happening in the development of the Biblical texts.

Secondly, “original Bible” is not at all easy to define. The (Christian) Bible is a collection of texts of diverse genres, by a multitude of authors, in three languages, spanning at least seven or eight centuries in their development. None of the original manuscripts have survived. Instead, for every part of the Bible, there exist different copies which sometimes differ slightly, sometimes starkly. This is the reason textual criticism of the Bible exists as a field of scholarship. Most notably, the (older) Septuagint version of the Book of Jeremiah is about one eighth shorter than the (later) version of the Masoretic text.

All of this means that if you’re going to talk about the “original Bible”, you have to tell us what you mean by that. Do you mean

  • the original manuscripts of each individual book or passage, all of which are lost?
  • the oldest surviving copies of each passage, respectively?
  • the Septuagint (and if yes, which version of it)?
  • the Masoretic text (and if yes, which version of it)?
  • the current scholarly consensus on the most faithful manuscripts, as collected e. g. in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Novum Testamentum Graece 28?
Iapar ,

This one comes to mind:

“*** ***** **** ******** *** ***** ****** *** ***** **** ***** ****** ** *** ***** ** ******** ** **** *** ***** ** ***** ******”

Always brings a tear to my eye.

Bonifratz ,

Hehe

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