The bible as a "living document"

[BentWingedAngel]

Can we use the same debate for the bible as we do the constitution?

 

[tessaesque]

It depends on who you ask in this forum..Historically it has been, but recently many apparently feel that it cannot be changed, re-interpretted, or re-assessed in any way, for any reason.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

It's only a living document if you believe it to be primarily or solely the product of human thought. However, if you believe it to be primarily or solely the product of divinity, then it cannot be a living document. Nonetheless, it's almost necessary to think of it as a living document since the Bible ignores everything that has between then and now.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Ask your god. If he wants you to know the answer, he'll tell you.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ask your god. If he wants you to know the answer, he'll tell you.

If that's the case, why do we need a Bible at all?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Long ago the original hebrew holy books were living documents, they crystallized a loooooong time later.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Which Bible?

 

[Goshin]

Can we use the same debate for the bible as we do the constitution?

This is a much more complex question than it might seem.

For instance, there are requirements and promises in the Bible which address only a specific group of people living in a specific time period. Neither the commands nor the promises applied to them necessarily apply to anyone else of any other time period... such as the Levites, and the Nazarite vows. Indeed, a lot of OT stuff falls under this category.

In Acts the dietary laws were repealed, and it was determined that Gentile converts were not required to keep kosher, or be circumcised, or most of the rest of the OT Law as held by the Judeans of the time.

The bible commands women to dress modestly. What is modesty? There have been times in history when it meant being covered from neck to feet, along with something to hide your hair. OTOH people living in hot, humid tropical regions commonly wear very little or next to nothing... but that isn't immodest for their culture because it does not excite prurient intrest in those who are accustomed to it. It is therefore reasonable to assume that 'modest dress' is a relative or subjective value that varies according to the culture and time. In modern terms, maybe the best way to put it would be "don't dress like a ho if you ain't a ho."

There's "Avoid all appearance of evil." Well, some things there are pretty obvious: take care of your reputation, don't allow yourself to be put in compromising situations where you might be accused of wrongdoing. I've known some extremely conservative sects to ban members from attending the movie theater on this basis, which I find baffling... I wonder they don't ban spending the night in a motel instead. :doh

OTOH there are Biblical things that are not subject to relativism or cultural norms, things which are clear enough that there's little room for variations in interpretation or application.

As I said, the question may seem simple but the answer is rather complex.

 

[BentWingedAngel]

Which Bible?

Good question! I meant Christian

 

[BentWingedAngel]

This is a much more complex question than it might seem.

For instance, there are requirements and promises in the Bible which address only a specific group of people living in a specific time period. Neither the commands nor the promises applied to them necessarily apply to anyone else of any other time period... such as the Levites, and the Nazarite vows. Indeed, a lot of OT stuff falls under this category.

In Acts the dietary laws were repealed, and it was determined that Gentile converts were not required to keep kosher, or be circumcised, or most of the rest of the OT Law as held by the Judeans of the time.

The bible commands women to dress modestly. What is modesty? There have been times in history when it meant being covered from neck to feet, along with something to hide your hair. OTOH people living in hot, humid tropical regions commonly wear very little or next to nothing... but that isn't immodest for their culture because it does not excite prurient intrest in those who are accustomed to it. It is therefore reasonable to assume that 'modest dress' is a relative or subjective value that varies according to the culture and time. In modern terms, maybe the best way to put it would be "don't dress like a ho if you ain't a ho."

There's "Avoid all appearance of evil." Well, some things there are pretty obvious: take care of your reputation, don't allow yourself to be put in compromising situations where you might be accused of wrongdoing. I've known some extremely conservative sects to ban members from attending the movie theater on this basis, which I find baffling... I wonder they don't ban spending the night in a motel instead. :doh

OTOH there are Biblical things that are not subject to relativism or cultural norms, things which are clear enough that there's little room for variations in interpretation or application.

As I said, the question may seem simple but the answer is rather complex.

Sounds like the Bible is obsolete?

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

Absolutely OP.

Given the complexity of the bible to not see it as a "living document" traps you into wrongness and eventually fanaticism.

Be like water... flow into the cracks.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Absolutely OP.

Given the complexity of the bible to not see it as a "living document" traps you into wrongness and eventually fanaticism.

Be like water... flow into the cracks.

Doesnt the document have to change for it to be living?
And if it is unchanging doesnt that invalidate previous interpretations as interpretations change?

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

Doesnt the document have to change for it to be living?
And if it is unchanging doesnt that invalidate previous interpretations as interpretations change?

The bible talks about the "spirit of God leading you to all truth"; the full truth is not contained in the bible, however you can be "led" there by the spirit.

How to get the spirit? Study the scriptures and meditate on them.

So the document itself may not be "living" in that it is editable, but the knowledge contained therein is. Most of the bible is a complex puzzle (except the obvious "proverbial" moral statements), so to uncover the puzzle paradigm shifts and furthering understanding are required.

To read the bible as a static and literal book goes against what it itself says it is.

 

[Carls]

Doesnt the document have to change for it to be living?
And if it is unchanging doesnt that invalidate previous interpretations as interpretations change?

no because freedom for people dont change and god dont change.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

..........meh

 

[Goshin]

Sounds like the Bible is obsolete?

Unless you're baiting me, I have no idea where you would get that notion based on my little essay.

The Bible has to rightfully interpreted. You have to begin by knowing who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, what the purpose of this communication is, and the context surrounding it, at a minimum, to be sure you understand it correctly.

There are certain peripheral issues that could be argued to fall under cultural relativism... however the core message remains unchanged. The Gospel is about God's love for humanity, and His desire that all His children repent and turn to Jesus, accept the forgiveness and Grace freely offered, and walk in fellowship with their Maker.

That message will never be obsolete.

 

[BentWingedAngel]

Unless you're baiting me, I have no idea where you would get that notion based on my little essay.

The Bible has to rightfully interpreted. You have to begin by knowing who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, what the purpose of this communication is, and the context surrounding it, at a minimum, to be sure you understand it correctly.

There are certain peripheral issues that could be argued to fall under cultural relativism... however the core message remains unchanged. The Gospel is about God's love for humanity, and His desire that all His children repent and turn to Jesus, accept the forgiveness and Grace freely offered, and walk in fellowship with their Maker.

That message will never be obsolete.

Sorry if you thought I was baiting you. I got that idea(for example) when I read about women should dress modestly? I agree that message will never be obsolete. Although I do not concider myself as a Christian now. I do believe that in my early yrs. sunday school gave me a good start.

 

[mbig]

The Bible has changed significantly over time.
ie, 1537: Matthew-Tyndale Bible
(see left side of page for others)
or:
http://www.google.com/search?source...gc.r_pw.&fp=3c571b42131dab45&biw=1532&bih=595

Call that "living" if you want, as it has Been adjusted to social norms and language/idea preferences. Certainly that's "living"; but the more it "lives" the further it gets from the "original".
Of course what's "original" is a subject for debate as well, both in included books and then of course Many translations from the originals (or copies of originals?), which weren't English.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

The Bible has changed significantly over time.
ie, 1537: Matthew-Tyndale Bible
(see left side of page for others)
or:
bible changes wiki - Google Search

Call that "living" if you want, as it has Been adjusted to social norms and language/idea preferences. Certainly that's "living"; but the more it "lives" the further it gets from the "original".
Of course what's "original" is a subject for debate as well, both in included books and then of course Many translations from the originals (or copies of originals?), which weren't English.

That isn't an entirely true framing of the situation.

We have only a few original OT manuscripts (dead sea scrolls confirming their veracity as well). There is the septuigint (greek OT), and the earliest NT translations are from 300 AD.

The *translation* might vary slightly depending on who translated it (everyone has preconceived notions, and that gets translated in).

99% of translations agree with each other. The ones that don't have extremely slight variation in how they frame who Jesus was (son of God, or God himself).

The "gnostic gospels" were all written after the apostles died off, and include dramatic variation from the OT/NT books so they were not included.

For example: the "Gospel of Thomas" purports that Jesus killed 3 people while he was young; so you can see why this book wasn't chosen as canon LOL. (that and it was written 100+ years after the NT books.

The oldest NT book, Revelations, was written in the late 80s AD I believe. The earliest gnostics were 150 AD'ish and deviate dramatically from the core story.

Google a scripture and you can compare 100+ translations on the same page; they are incredibly consistent, as you would expect since they are all translated from the same core documents.

 

[scourge99]

We have only a few original OT manuscripts (dead sea scrolls confirming their veracity as well).

We have exactly zero ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Anyone saying otherwise is a LIAR or is being DISHONEST.


The oldest FRAGMENT we have is known as P52 which is dated to 117-138AD. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the earliest NT translations are from 300 AD.

The oldest mostly complete books are from 330AD:
Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Codex Vaticanus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And 1 more but I forget its name.

The *translation* might vary slightly depending on who translated it (everyone has preconceived notions, and that gets translated in).

Indeed. Pick one of the following Bibles and compare your favorite verse to the others.

Not to mention the liberties translators often took in funneling toward a desired interpretation of a chapter, verse, or message.

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

99% of translations agree with each other.

Where exactly did you get this statistic from?

And even a 1% change can and DOES have dramatic effects.

The ones that don't have extremely slight variation in how they frame who Jesus was (son of God, or God himself).

I fervently disagree. Unless you believe the trinity, the story of adulteress, and the resurrection are "minor variations".

The "gnostic gospels" were all written after the apostles died off, and include dramatic variation from the OT/NT books so they were not included.

They weren't included because a group of men got together and voted that they shouldn't be included. Those who continued to use such gospels were systematically persecuted and killed by the early church:

Marcionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example: the "Gospel of Thomas" purports that Jesus killed 3 people while he was young; so you can see why this book wasn't chosen as canon LOL. (that and it was written 100+ years after the NT books.

Bingo. If the books considered didn't chime with what those in power wanted the church to be then it wasn't "canonized".

The oldest NT book, Revelations, was written in the late 80s AD I believe.

Have you ever looked into WHY they think it was in the late 80's? I think you will be sorely disappointed.

The earliest gnostics were 150 AD'ish and deviate dramatically from the core story.

Correction: It deviates from the story those in power WANTED to put forth.

Google a scripture and you can compare 100+ translations on the same page; they are incredibly consistent, as you would expect since they are all translated from the same core documents.

Most of the words are consistent across texts. I agree. But a single word changes or different spins on the same word can and DOES make for dramatically differing interpretations. And lets not forget entire parables and verses that were" added" to the text. I.E., that are considered by most Biblical scholars as FORGERIES:

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christ's agony at Gethsemane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Matthew 16:2b

 

[BentWingedAngel]

I have seen seem "fragments" of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Several yrs. ogo they were on exibition on loan from Library of Congress..

ABOUT THIS EXHIBIT: Scrolls from the Dead Sea (Library of Congress Exhibition)

Also I have seen where the Mormons interpretation of the Bible actually changed initial meanings in a few scriptures. Whether intentional or not it's like playing "telephone" meanings will change over time.

 

[Verthaine]

The Us Constitution is a Living document because the People who are granted the power to change it (Congress) can do so if they can actually manage to muster up enough votes to do so.
They can add to it,subtract to it,or totally change it,if the votes to do so are there.

You cannot do that with the Christian Bible.Thus, it is a static document.

We Discordians do not have that problem with changing our own Holy Book,The Principia Discordia:
Principia Discordia | the book of Chaos, Discord and Confusion | Fnord!
We are allowed to change it any way we please,with the caveat that those changes only apply to those who wish to follow it.
We are even allowed to write our own Holy Books
Here is mine for example.
http://www.angelfire.com/games2/benbrown/bookoferis.pdf

 

[Kal'Stang]

Can we use the same debate for the bible as we do the constitution?

No. The Constitution can be changed by the will of the people which is what makes it a living document. Acording to those that follow the bible the Bible cannot be changed.

 

[NGNM85]

As much as I despise them, the hardcore religious literalists have a point. The Bible is supposedly the word of the one true god, therefore, if one accepts this as true, then one would be obligated to follow this text to the letter, without exception. Of course, most Christians make significant compromises with, and departures from, scripture, because it is fundamentally antithetical to civilization. Although religious moderation is markedly less socially destructive than religious dogmatism, it is also tainted with hyprocrisy.

 

[molten_dragon]

The bible is absolutely a living document. It's been changed and rewritten several times over the centuries since it was originally put together. And people frequently make their own interpretations and readings of it.