Is the Bible Still Relevant in the 21st Century? What If Anything Needs to be Changed?

a reply to: Ghost147

Noooooooo, if it passes it's not a theory is it??? That's why you have tests to see what's a theory and what's not, if a can prove it in two separate tests I confirmed the theory, and it's not a theory anymore is it? Don't place your thoughts to fit your imagination to reality

originally posted by: olaru12
If the Bible was relevant...perhaps Christians would act like this verse mattered...

1 Corinthians 13:4-

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

That is so true!

I hope we can all find this type of love in ourselves. Then we could be truly followers of Jesus Christ.

a reply to: gosseyn

Let me rephrase my statement. The fact that millions of people choose to make the Bible as their standard of life and pursuit of happiness, proves that it is still relevant today. We all fail many times in our pursuit, but that doesn't make it less relevant.

You're suggesting that an entire culture that is still around today is irrelevant. I disagree with many cultures, but I would never say they are irrelevant. Whatever has influence is relevant.

a reply to: THAnomalous1

You wrote QUOTE "All scripture is inspired by God and is beneficial for teaching, for reproving and for setting things straight" UNQUOTE

A better translation would be 'all scripture [which] is god-breathed [is] beneficial for teaching, for reproving," etc.

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἐλεγμόν etc. [NB there are multiple grammatical variants/attestations of this verse in the Greek MSS available for 2 Timothy)

since it is patently obvious even in antiquity that 'scripture' (meaning any things written down) are not all equally god-breathed (think of the salacious love poetry of Catullus) - just which 'scriptures' the writer of 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to is unknown and unknowable since the even the canon of the Old Testament (much less the New) was not even established until well after Javneh in 90 CE - the Rebbes were still arguing whether or not Esther or Hezekiel or Daniel or Job 'defiled the hands' (was holy writ) or not.

originally posted by: kumiho
a reply to: Ghost147

Noooooooo, if it passes it's not a theory is it??? That's why you have tests to see what's a theory and what's not, if a can prove it in two separate tests I confirmed the theory, and it's not a theory anymore is it? Don't place your thoughts to fit your imagination to reality

Again, you're using the term 'theory' incorrectly. A Scientific theory has a different definition than the conventional use of the term 'theory'.

In science, everything starts out as a hypothesis because it hasn't been proven yet. The tests and experiments and peer review are implemented upon this hypothesis, and if they all confirm that the hypothesis is valid, it then becomes a theory in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. A scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change.

You can learn more here if you'd like

a reply to: chr0naut

How would YOU translate this

הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יוֹרִישְׁךָ, כְּמוֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶיךָ--אוֹתוֹ
תִירָשׁ; וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, מִפָּנֵינוּ
אוֹתוֹ נִירָשׁ

if not by making reference to different clan-gods with different nations attached?

a reply to: Sigismundus And now to finish since the last post posted when I left the page ...

First I think it is necessary to separate faith from religion. As other posters have noted here, religion is in and of itself a philosophy insofar as it is a search for the truth. Faith on the other hand, is the belief in something that can neither be proven or disproven and covers far more than just the pretext of God. Thus, I would have to personally claim to be a person of spiritual faith, though my only "religion" is as a student of the Word of God. The Churches tend to believe selective instruction of the bible and thinking only the way they think is the road to salvation when in reality, it is putting the woman (the bride or the congregation) at the head of the man (the Christ) which we know is not the natural order through Biblical teaching. How can I put my faith in the Church when the Bible clearly states that only through Christ can I find salvation? When the Christ returns, he returns to judge and not as a savior ... and even then to judge in accordance with the Will of God, not in accordance with his own will ... thus, in my mind at least, settling the issue of the triune God as it was set forth during the councils of Nicea and Constantine ... but that is a different subject perhaps.

The Passover is both real and symbolic ... the original being the release of the Israelis from the binds of slavery to Egypt (or the Material World) to become slaves to God (the spiritual ... not necessarily ethereal realm) Likewise, it was representative of the Passover from the Mosaic Law to the Grace of God ... again, moving from the laws of this world as established by the rule of men (and man has ruled man to his own detriment ... or injury depending on which translation you use) in the days of Judges and Kings. Somehow or another, when the Christ does return, I cannot envision myself getting up in front of him and stating "But the preacher said" ... "But the church said" or any other such similar excuse.

Like any book so powerful and complete, the Bible can be used to justify just about anything in the minds of men ... for an over-simplified example ... it says if I man is married, it is better for him to act as if he is single ... this does not mean carousing around and cheating on your spouse but rather insuring that no form of idolatry come before your love and faith in God. Likewise, we have to learn the Word of God from our own hearts and relate to it as God opens our hearts ... No man come to the Father except sent by the son and no man comes to the son save those sent by the Father ... We study the Word of God ... Christ ... to learn about the Father ... who opens ... or perhaps even hardens our hearts ... allowing us to come to know the Bible more fully.

Even Jefferson, who, despite popular belief, believed in God, even if not in organized religion, set about to prove that even without the religious context, the Bible was then and would always remain a valuable tool for the purposes of morality and the ability of mankind to rise about trifle matters and work together for the good of the whole. The Bible if anything, is needed now more than ever. Some of the religions? Meh!

a reply to: Ghost147

Scientific paradigm it's philosophy and Kuhn, yet you explain how everything works in practice, then you start philosophy 1-0-1

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: gosseyn

Let me rephrase my statement. The fact that millions of people choose to make the Bible as their standard of life and pursuit of happiness, proves that it is still relevant today. We all fail many times in our pursuit, but that doesn't make it less relevant.

You're suggesting that an entire culture that is still around today is irrelevant. I disagree with many cultures, but I would never say they are irrelevant. Whatever has influence is relevant.

No, I wasn't suggesting that. But just like what Aristotle said can still be relevant in some situations, that did not prevent people from writing their own philosophy. Aristotle said some very stupid things on slavery, justifying it, etc.. And it would be incredibly crazy if I said something like "only what Aristotle said is relevant in philosophy". But that is the problem with religion, the emotional investment into it is too strong and no matter how wrong it is proven to be, people still cling to it. I have no emotional attachment to this or that philosophy, philosophy is much closer to science than it is to art or poetry. Thus we should do in philosophy as we do in science : refine the ideas, produce new concepts, new architecture, new points of view, etc..

a reply to: gosseyn

Well, it would be foolish to invest emotion into anything at all. Emotion is a response mechanism designed to alert the consciousness to any variety of stimuli. It should never dominate thinking or reasoning.

So, the Bible may be irrelevant to you, and say, to the OP. But to say it is so irrelevant that it should be altered and edited to suit some individual's perception of modern mainstream culture is bordering on totalitarian mentality. That is exactly why we have the textual variances found in the Constantine Majority manuscripts which have carried through into Textus Receptus.

a reply to: gosseyn

You mean change names, destroy and burn it, change it to another name and say, yaaaay, it's science in progress?

originally posted by: kumiho
a reply to: gosseyn

You mean change names, destroy and burn it, change it to another name and say, yaaaay, it's science in progress?

Did we do that with Aristotle works ? No, we didn't.

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm gonna simplify it so you understand; I have a theory about God, can I verify my claim? no, but if I break down the theory of God into theories that leads to the main goal of proving gods existence, I can verify the theories, and in the end I verify that God exist through the theories even though they are proved solely on their own paradigm, it's like making chapters in a book, in the end you have a story.. And your imagination to fill the blanks

a reply to: gosseyn

We sure did, ever heard of the New Testament? When did we start over lecturing about the three wise men in school? I'm sure it's in the bible, or Chinese history? Or in any culture?

And I probably pissed of my master .....

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: gosseyn

Well, it would be foolish to invest emotion into anything at all. Emotion is a response mechanism designed to alert the consciousness to any variety of stimuli. It should never dominate thinking or reasoning.

So, the Bible may be irrelevant to you, and say, to the OP. But to say it is so irrelevant that it should be altered and edited to suit some individual's perception of modern mainstream culture is bordering on totalitarian mentality. That is exactly why we have the textual variances found in the Constantine Majority manuscripts which have carried through into Textus Receptus.

We invest emotions into things everyday, material things or abstract things such as concepts. Do you believe god had something to do with the bible ? If yes then you're emotionally invested into it.

I didn't say it should be altered, I said we should write another book with updated concepts. The same thing we've done with Aristotle's works.

And I don't think the OP is totalitarian in nature, he merely asked "would it be beneficial if we did".

originally posted by: kumiho
a reply to: gosseyn

We sure did, ever heard of the New Testament? When did we start over lecturing about the three wise men in school? I'm sure it's in the bible, or Chinese history? Or in any culture?

You asked if I think we should burn and destroy the bible, I said no : why should we if we haven"t done that with Aristotle's works of philosophy.

a reply to: gosseyn

i think we had a missunderstanding, the bible is an important if not the most important litterature work stretching back to the Old testament, since it was an Oral tradition before the phoencians used scripture and wrote down the philosophical teachings of the Brahman, India. And all the other weird s*** they had, Old testament, rules, New testament, freedom of will and the choice to make a right decision.. you call it aristotle, i dont believe aristotle ever existed though, since Plato wrote down all of his work..

a reply to: THAnomalous1

You wrote QUOTE "Even Jefferson, who, despite popular belief, believed in God, even if not in organized religion, set about to prove that even without the religious context, the Bible was then and would always remain a valuable tool for the purposes of morality and the ability of mankind to rise about trifle matters and work together for the good of the whole. The Bible if anything, is needed now more than ever.": UNQUOTE

Yet Jefferson was the first to admit that the Bible needs changing - he even cut and pasted the words of Jesus from the Gospels (picking and choosing between them) so as to produce the Jefferson Bible - which is the NT minus Revelation, the letters of Peter, John, James and the letters of Paul - he was seeking a philosophy of Jesus to live by - and that Founding Father had no qualms about cutting out 75% of the NT in the process and throwing it into the fire.

a reply to: kumiho
You wrote QUOTE "i dont believe aristotle ever existed though, since Plato wrote down all of his work.." UNQUOTE

Actually Plato was the teacher of Aristotle not his pupil, and Socrates was the teacher of Plato...FYI