The Original bible was a book of history and laws to somehow explain things with the limited knowledge man had at the time. It's been translated and revised so many times, that's its hard to believe what the final versions are. It's still changing to keep the followers from jumping ship. Religion today is a business, a pretty profitable one too. I'm not knocking religion, as I've said before, I think it's a good basic guide for some morals to teach children. Churches can serve a purpose in most communities, they do help people or should anyway.
That's not a problem for me because I don't ascribe to man-made creeds. Not to say that I necessarily disagree with the conclusions, but creeds are largely attempts by man to dictate a specific interpretation of the Scriptures in cases where the Scriptures are not otherwise clear. While I believe in the Trinity, the precise nature of God is not clearly defined by Scripture so I don't necessarily believe in attempts that men have made to define that which is undefined by Scripture. The Trinity is not clearly mentioned in the Bible, although several of the Scriptures point to such an understanding. The Scripture that most clearly points to the common understanding of the Trinity, 1 John 5:7-8, did not appear in earlier manuscripts and may have been added at some point by someone wanted to codify their understanding of the Trinity. 7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8) And there are there that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Of course, there are plenty of other verses that suggest a Trinity, so this does not lead me to deny the doctrine of the Trinity but, unlike common Mennonite thinking, I don't believe that the issue is salvational. Augustine said that if you deny the Trinity, you lose your soul. I disagree, largely because those things that are salvational are more clearly defined in Scripture. I will suggest that, as mortals, we are incapable of understanding the nature of God, and that this is why the authors of Scripture left the question open-ended. This runs up against something that is in the nature of mankind, which is to have an answer to every question. We don't like to admit that we are incapable of understanding everything. Thus, we have creeds that attempt to answer these unanswerable questions. Are the creeds right? Maybe, and maybe not. The important thing is to recognize that these creeds are not the equivalent of Scripture. Changes to a creed do not indicate that God has changed his mind, but only that men have changed their minds about what God has said. Men made the creeds, so I suppose men can change them, but creeds are not the equivalent of Scripture.
I just used the Nicene Creed as an example of changes. Everything in the bible that you read today is not original and has been translated and to me that's the first sign of errors. Translations even today are ridiculous as to how wrong they are and I'm talking modern day. Some things are just impossible to translate and if just one word is wrong, the whole meaning can change. If you know more than one language you would see how sometimes it's just impossible to correctly translate one sentence. There are words that can't be translated at all...you just try to come close. I believe scripture has been changed and interpreted also. Religion as been argued and discussed since the beginning and still there isn't one universal truth about it, so I'm going to quit now and wish you a good Sunday....I should have gone to the store a few hours ago.
True. There are translations that have been published for the sole purpose of trying to make the Scriptures say something that they didn't say. Some of these, such as the TNIV, should simply be ignored by real Christians. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that any new translation that changes essential Christian doctrine is no more reliable than a man-made creed. The vast majority of translations, however, are remarkably similar in meaning. Other than a verse or two that appears on one manuscript but not another, and some translations that are laughable at best, I haven't seen radical differences in the English language translations, and I have several.
Read what he says in Mark 7:14-19, "Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen," he said, "and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do!" Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made. "Don't you understand either?" he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again." (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)" And yes I eat pork and shell fish, Jesus took away all the old law with his sacrifice and forgiveness.
Wow, this old post was a fun read. LOL I'm glad I missed it. As an atheist, I would've been virtually drawn and quartered if I had joined in this conversation.