How do they get around the verse in Revelation that 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." ?
Personally, I agree with BeyondAshes. I question whether it is, or has ever been, the original Scripture.
For example, historically, there were debates over which books to include, and which to take out. The book of Thomas does not appear in the standard bible, a book which accounts for Jesus' childhood, that tell's of a child who disappears.
Being raised Catholic, I knew little about Catholic beliefs. During a college course on Denominations and Sects, someone from the Catholic church came to speak to our class, which was a Lutheran college. One student, a fellow Catholic, asked the speaker, "Mary didn't die, did she?"
Several of us laughed. The speaker asked what was so funny. I said, "I'm guessing that by now, she's probably dead." He corrected me, and said, "no, the Apocrypha says that Mary ascended into heaven before her life ended."
I have never heard of the Apocrypha, a group of additional books used in Catholicism.
There is a story in the Gospel where Jesus asks Peter, "Do you love me?" Peter says, "Yes, I love you," and Christ replies, "Then feed my sheep." He repeats this in similar words 3 times. In English, I would read this when I was young, and thing, "Wow, Jesus. What's up? He said, "yes." What do you want?"
However, in the original Greek, Jesus was asking if Peter had agape love, if Peter loved Jesus with all his heart. Peter replied, "Yes, I have a brotherly love for you." There are 13 words for love, pertaining to different kinds and intensities of love, so in Greek, it is very clear. In English, it just sounds like Jesus is saying, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
touching yourself (abusing oneself) was once in the bible, and once considered a sin. Some denominations still see it as sinful, that "every sperm is sacred", as Monty Python's Life of Brian sings in parody.
However, it has changed.
"The efeminate" were in the list of those who did not inherit the Kingdom. Today, we have a different translation, some arguing that it refers to those of loose morals (soft), and others suggesting that it means homosexuality.
On homosexuality:
Not everyone agrees that the wealth of condemnations are fully characteristic of early Christianity. Historian John Boswell, for instance, contended that adelphopoiesis, a Christian rite for uniting two persons of the same sex as "spiritual brothers/sisters", amounted to an approved outlet for romantic and indeed sexual love between couples of the same sex. However, the rites for adelphopoiesis explicitly state that the union is not a "carnal" one. Boswell also drew attention to Saints Sergius and Bacchus, whose icon depicts the two standing together with Jesus between or behind them, a position he identifies with a pronubus or "best man". Critics of Boswell's views have argued that the union created was more like blood brotherhood; and that this icon is a typical example of an icon depicting two saints who were martyred together, with the usual image of Christ that appears on many religious icons, and therefore that there is no indication that it depicts a "wedding". But Saints Sergius and Bacchus were both referred to as erastai in ancient Greek manuscripts, the same word used to describe lovers (Boswell).
Source:
History of Christianity and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Limbo was once said to be a sure belief, a place where babies went went they died, but now, the Catholic church (if I am not mistaken) no longer claims this to be what they believe.
Witches were once burned at the stake, calling back to the OT. Unfortunately, the test of proving your innocence was the ability to drown/be killed in a variety of ways. Others were just burned at the stake for the silliest of signs or coincidences, the religion used to murder the innocent.
During the Children's Crusade, children were sent to convert the Muslims with the believe (I assume from Scripture) that God would protect them because they were children. As a result, they were all killed.
The Word of God is, in my opinion, a living part of God. I don't believe that it is the Bible that changes, but rather, our deeper understanding of God, who God is, and what he asks of us.
Looking to the OT, people often saw God as one who blessed, or cursed, people, depending on whether they obeyed or disobeyed. Every bad thing that happened made the person search for what they had done to anger God. Every blessing made them try to recall how they had pleased God, so that they could do it again, and receive from God again.
The God of the OT was often angry, stern, punishing, wiping out civilizations, or supporting a side in a war, and condoning the slaying of thousands of "enemies." David would rejoice in killing these enemies, thinking he was serving and pleasing God.
Jesus of the NT, however, comes in peace, not to wage physical war. He does not curse people, but rather, heals them. He does not demand that people bow before him, but rather, humbles himself before man, coming as a servant, even to the point of asking John the Baptist to baptize him, and asking to wash the feet of another. He offered love without demanding the person earn it. He offered salvation without strings, without a list of things the person had to do. They simply had to accept it. That's all.
He said that man had read, "An eye for an eye," but he tells them, "turn the other cheek." Indeed, the NT is full of returning curse with blessing, loving your enemies who hate you, and forgiving those who gleefully hurt you, knowing that they don't know what they are doing. He calls followers to not respond as the World does, to not seek revenge, but to forgive, to not exalt oneself as the world does, but to become a servant and humble oneself, as Christ did, even to the point of being born in a stable.
There have been periods of Charismaticism, where there is a rise of those who receive the gift of Speaking in Tongues, of true Healing, of Prophesy, of Visions, of Knowledge of things they couldn't possibly have known prior, truly supernatural events, which were once thought to "no longer happen", or even argued by other Christians as to whether they are real gifts of the Spirit.
While we once wrote our sins on a goat, and sent the "scapegoat" away in an effort to assuage our guilt, we know own our sin, own our faults, acknowledge them, and in so, can work to take them out of our lives.
I believe that we will continue to evolve in our understanding of God, in our revelation of God when he knows that we are ready and open to receive it.
For me personally, I have different views and understanding of the bible within my own years. For example, I always wondered about the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and hair. I thought her to be weeping in regret, to almost be begging for forgiveness, thinking herself not worthy, demonstrated by her cleaning the dirt with her hair. In meditation, what Christ revealed to me is that the woman was one of the people he had eaten with earlier. He had shown her love, shown her worthy of love, explained how much God cared for her. What she did or had done was irrelevant, because God's love is not earned. He loved her right then, his arms open. She simply had to accept that love, and admit it to herself. It changed her when she finally admitted to it, and full of emotion, or joy, of happiness, or relief, of healing, she cried tears of joy. And with the tears of joy, she cleansed his feet, much like the way one would cry tears of joy at the return of a child, kissing them about the face.
And I understood why she was so happy.
There are passages that I have problems with in the bible, but I don't take them out, but rather, pray about them, ask about them, and meditate on them, and know that if I ask, I shall be given the answer.
I believe that what this group is doing is not seeking to "return the bible to its original conservative form", but rather, conform it to support what they believe. Certain that they cannot possibly be wrong, and needing more text to support their words, they choose to take out or add to the text, or even change the translation, in an effort to "be right."
That is its own punishment.
). I highly reccomend that to all in my adult studies classes.
