Bible 2.0

[James_Lai]

You prefer the newer usurpers of God's truth, I think was the idea.

No. I prefer God continuing to speak to us, not freezing His words forever. He’s too large for that

 

[James_Lai]

Suggestion:

Create a 21st century council of Christian churches. Open the doors widely, include EVERYONE, yes even the JWs and Mormons etc. All kinds of churches, big and small, powerful and lowly, rich and poor.

Create a Bible ver. 2.0 Project!

Let it be in the form of an online forum. Rach church is to propose new revisions and added books to the Bible.

Women preachers? Yes! Gay rights? Yes! Condemnation of slavery? Yes! Evolution? Yes! Ethnic god? No! Chosen people? No! Genocide? No-no. Literalism? No!

Or smth else. Maybe the opposite? Make it more strict. No private property as per Jesus. No riches. Women wear head coverings and silent at church and at home. I don’t care. Whatever God reveals to them.

Then cast a vote. This exactly how we got our Bible 1.0!

Let it happen for 50 years, it’s okay. Consider many submissions. Allow open and free and equal discourse.

Then print Bible 2.0 for ALL churches.

God wil be smiling at us.

We’ll be finally learning something from Him!!!

True Christians at last.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

No. I prefer God continuing to speak to us, not freezing His words forever. He’s too large for that

I've only skimmed this thread, but you're basically just objecting to what Christianity is. There are literally hundreds of thousands of specifically Christian but non-canonical books that any Christian is free to read and consider, not to mention an even greater number of books from other spiritual and secular traditions that may help inform a Christian's understanding. But the Bible is the anchor of Christianity.

The ecumenical councils determined what the canon of inspired scripture would be, based largely on what was already recognized as inspired. Christians accept that the ecumenical councils were inspired in their work. The result is the Word of God in a unique and timeless sense. A closed canon is what Christianity is. That canon continues to be analyzed and interpreted, but it's closed.

The understanding that God has communicated His message to mankind in His timeless Word is what Christianity is. To suggest we should now start working on a Bible 2.0 (Jordan Peterson????) simply misapprehends what Christianity is.

God isn't muzzled. He speaks directly to believers through His Spirit and His Word. He speaks through preachers and teachers. He speaks through modern Christian writings. But the Bible is the anchor, the Holy Word by which all else is measured.

I suspect what you really mean is "Let's reinvent Christianity to conform more closely to modern sensibilities" (Jordan Peterson????). That's precisely why the canon is fixed - to prevent alteration and perversion of God's timeless message. If this isn't what you mean, then what purpose would be served by a Bible 2.0?

I just came from a forum where anyone who claimed to be a Christian had to be regarded as such and could not be challenged. The forum attracted almost nothing but ostensible Christians who had disdain for the Bible and had reinvented Jesus and the Gospel message to suit their modern sensibilities. Many of their "Christianities" were just New Age blather and would have been unrecognizable to any traditional Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. I'm pretty confident that's where an effort to produce a Bible 2.0 would lead.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but those who wrote the New Testament were not and
could not have been the apostles, as proven by Bible scholars.

The ignorance of these "scholars" is embarrassing.
And these "scholars" know this, how?

Interesting. . .you can't believe the evidence for God, but you can believe assumptions and assertions made centuries later regarding the penman of the Scriptures.
Consistent, are we?
Nevertheless, standards of historicity support the penman as being whom the letters claim them to be.

Shaul/Pavlos, for one, never met Christ in person.

And you know this, how?
Except on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-7), and in revelation from Christ personally (Galatians 1:11-12), not to mention being caught up into the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-8).
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln. . .how did you enjoy the play?

Then later people who edited and compiled the New Testament lived centuries later, far away from Jesus and the 12 apostles.

And yet you, who lives even more centuries later, thinks he knows what went on back then.
"Edited" is a most general word, meaning everything from non-material to material.
Not to mention you know they were "edited," how?

They didn’t shy to grab the Scripture forming authority. So why are we any lesser than th?

Because it's already "been grabbed" once, God blessed it, and closed the issue.

Is our God smaller than theirs?

Well, it seems you think you are that God.

Nevertheless, God doesn't do re-do's.

 

[Clare73]

None of these verses imply there should be a fixed canon and no more revelation is allowed. These two epistles weren’t the final ones in the NT, so after these texts were well in circulation, believers continued to write their hearts out for the church in letters… And those later letters were not thrown out from the Bible! So it was still okay then? Why not now? Are we less for God than those blessed believers of the 1st and 2nd century AD? Why? Who said so?

Believers? . .you mean personal apostles of Jesus Christ, personally taught by Jesus Christ for over three years?
"Christians" writing their hearts out is not authoritative.
Does this really have to be explained?

The Christian faith is the apostolic faith, of those whom Jesus personally taught.
Any other writings to be authoritative must be in total agreement with what the apostles wrote.
That issue has been litigated and settled, and does not need to be done so again.
We have nothing authoritative from Jesus to add nor subtract nor with which to improve it.

Why do you need more than Jesus revealed about God, his nature, his purpose, his works, and his commands?
Was God's arm too short. . .does divine truth regarding God change. . .does sin and grace change. . .does God's plan for mankind change. . .what kind of change are you looking for regarding the immutable divine and the eternal?

Sorry God's way and management are not enough for you. . .whole lotta' hubris here.

 

[Clare73]

Whatever God reveals for people today. I’m no scripture writer myself…

He’s God, isn’t He? If you allow Him to speak, won’t He? Through literary work as well

We "allow" God to speak?

How rich. . .

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you!! Constantine is totally irrelevant to the OP, so I edited him out. Can you please respond to the main topic ?

Sure. The contents of the Bible are not affirmed by any single person, or group of people; but rather is the affirmation of the historic Christian Church, a consensus of the Faithful.

There are differences in the Canon between groups of Christians, but these differences lay almost exclusively on what are usually known as the Deuterocanonical books (or just Deuterocanonicals), they are sometimes called "The Apocrypha" among Protestants (going back to Luther's German Bible translation); but they should not be confused with the more broad term of "apocrypha". The Deuterocanonical books consist in those books found in the Septuagint, but which did not ultimately make it into the Jewish Tanakh. It also refers to the "additions" to the books of Daniel and Esther that are found in the Septuagint rather than the Tanakh. For example the Greek version of Esther found in the Septuagint makes mention of God and prayer, but Aramaic Esther (the version found in the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testaments) does not.

The only exception to this is the rather unique case of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches, who are the only historic Churches to accept books such as Enoch and Jubilees.

Outside of this more focused and nuanced debate concerning the Deuterocanonical books, there just isn't any discrepancies, the same books are found in all of our Bibles, because these are the books which definitely have been received and accepted across the Churches around the world. A consensus of the Faithful.

The Church has always maintained that certain books, as opposed to other books, are vital and should be read for the edification of the Faithful, that's what the Scriptures are. The collected writings which the Church affirms to be read in the context of worship; and the reason why these writings are suitable for this (and not others), is because the Church has historically agreed that these books (as opposed to other books) have the hand of God on them, they are divinely inspired. They are, as St. Paul says, "God-breathed", divinely inspired, the people who wrote these books were "carried" by the Holy Spirit. Their words are not their words only, they are by the Spirit the very word of God for us.

If someone came along and attempted to make a "Bible 2.0" it would have no meaning for the Christian Church. People are free to write, or gather whatever texts they like, but it can't be the Christian Bible because we already have one. The Bible 1.0 is just as good today as it's ever been. Because the divine word in Scripture is the unchanging, enduring, faithful word of God. And the Church confesses, "The word of the Lord endures forever".

Whitewashing the Bible won't improve it. The ugliness we sometimes see in the Bible should be taken seriously, not as something to flee away from, but instead to be engaged with. The Bible is blatant in its honesty concerning the weakness of human beings. It shows us at our worst, it shows us that even the saints and heroes that we revere ware broken, fallible, miserable little sinners just like the rest of us. There are stories in the Bible that are hard to read. And yet through all of that, there is this tiny little stream flowing down from the mountain, and as we continue to look through its pages, we see that river growing wider, stronger, other streams start trickling down into it. Where this river is heading we can't see yet in the Old Testament, but it's heading somewhere huge. The New Testament shows us where that river was heading all along, it's Jesus.

And that's really the most important part: The Bible is about Jesus. Jesus is proclaimed from the pages of Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New. From Genesis to the Revelation, it is all about Jesus.

Sure, the stream might begin trickling on some sharp rocks, there may be some jagged areas, but the trickle is flowing through them, into the massive stream that is Christ. Just because you see the sharp and scary rocks of the book of Joshua or in the books of the Kings doesn't mean that Christ is not there--He is. The trickle becomes a stream, and the stream a river, and that river opens up into the fathomless ocean of God's mercy and love.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Our canon is the one that won thanks to the support from the secular government. Anathemising arianists, exiling and even killing them, burning their books, persecuting anyone who professed this version, stripping defiant Arianist churches of funding etc - none of this would have been possible unless the secular power came on board….

The Arians had and used the same Scriptures that the Nicenes had and used.

The earliest Bible translated into a Germanic language was done by the Arian bishop, Ulfilas (Wulfila). Ulfilas' Gothic Bible was a major work in the history of the Gothic peoples, and through the work of Ulfilas' and others the various Gothic tribes converted to [Arian] Christianity. When the Visigoths settled into and established their kingdom in what is now Spain and southern France, the the official religion of their kingdom was Arianism. And they remained devoutly Arian until the conversion of King Reccared to Chalcedonian Christianity in the 6th century.

So I'm not sure where you're getting your information from here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ldonjohn]

Absolutely. I’m proposing for the new revelations to be written by born again spiritual Christian believers. Or whatever definition and qualification church could agree upon.

The church settled the Bible 1.0, same could be done today for Bible 2.0.

Nobody can and should usurp the authority of God

He speaks. Nobody is to place a gag on Him!

The bible, God's Word, is complete. There are no new revelations; never will be any new revelations.

The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of God's Word to believers as they study it, but we will never know or understand all of the truth found there until we are with God in eternity, and then I'm not sure if we will ever have complete understanding; we will just have to wait to find out.
The Holy Spirit also works in unbelievers to draw them to "believe" the Gospel.

John

 

[ldonjohn]

Whatever God reveals for people today. I’m no scripture writer myself…

He’s God, isn’t He? If you allow Him to speak, won’t He? Through literary work as well

God has spoken; we have a text message from Him; it is called God's Word; the bible.

John

 

[Sketcher]

I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

I like Dr. Peterson, I appreciate the literary value he derives from the Bible, but he has stated multiple times that he does not have the Christian faith. He is a very intelligent man who paid attention to whomever taught him various things from Scripture, but I can't put him up there with the Prophets and the Apostles.

BTW, on the Canadian front - when you do cross the threshold into the Christian faith, I have to recommend Experiencing God and Created To Be God's Friend by Dr. Henry Blackaby, also a Canadian. But they're meant for people who are Christians already to grow in their faith. I do not know how much utility they would be to you at this point in your journey.

Why did the church have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

At that point, who's updating the Bible? God, or society?

There were people who editorialized Scripture heavily in the 18th-19th centuries, whose views were among other things, very racist. Recognizing that we're not going to be a perfect generation, it would be a mistake to think that our ideas are as worthy of being in Scripture as Scripture - who knows what blind spots people will say about today's so-called "progressives" in 100-200 years.

 

[James_Lai]

I like Dr. Peterson, I appreciate the literary value he derives from the Bible, but he has stated multiple times that he does not have the Christian faith. He is a very intelligent man who paid attention to whomever taught him various things from Scripture, but I can't put him up there with the Prophets and the Apostles.

BTW, on the Canadian front - when you do cross the threshold into the Christian faith, I have to recommend Experiencing God and Created To Be God's Friend by Dr. Henry Blackaby, also a Canadian. But they're meant for people who are Christians already to grow in their faith. I do not know how much utility they would be to you at this point in your journey.


At that point, who's updating the Bible? God, or society?

There were people who editorialized Scripture heavily in the 18th-19th centuries, whose views were among other things, very racist. Recognizing that we're not going to be a perfect generation, it would be a mistake to think that our ideas are as worthy of being in Scripture as Scripture - who knows what blind spots people will say about today's so-called "progressives" in 100-200 years.

I thought JP is Christian! I’ll check out H. Blackaby. Last name sounds so familiar. Maybe I read or listened to him before.

Yes I understand. Mistakes are okay. We revise and edit the Bible anyway. By picking and choosing what to believe in, for example.

 

[James_Lai]

I've only skimmed this thread, but you're basically just objecting to what Christianity is. There are literally hundreds of thousands of specifically Christian but non-canonical books that any Christian is free to read and consider, not to mention an even greater number of books from other spiritual and secular traditions that may help inform a Christian's understanding. But the Bible is the anchor of Christianity.

The ecumenical councils determined what the canon of inspired scripture would be, based largely on what was already recognized as inspired. Christians accept that the ecumenical councils were inspired in their work. The result is the Word of God in a unique and timeless sense. A closed canon is what Christianity is. That canon continues to be analyzed and interpreted, but it's closed.

The understanding that God has communicated His message to mankind in His timeless Word is what Christianity is. To suggest we should now start working on a Bible 2.0 (Jordan Peterson????) simply misapprehends what Christianity is.

God isn't muzzled. He speaks directly to believers through His Spirit and His Word. He speaks through preachers and teachers. He speaks through modern Christian writings. But the Bible is the anchor, the Holy Word by which all else is measured.

I suspect what you really mean is "Let's reinvent Christianity to conform more closely to modern sensibilities" (Jordan Peterson????). That's precisely why the canon is fixed - to prevent alteration and perversion of God's timeless message. If this isn't what you mean, then what purpose would be served by a Bible 2.0?

I just came from a forum where anyone who claimed to be a Christian had to be regarded as such and could not be challenged. The forum attracted almost nothing but ostensible Christians who had disdain for the Bible and had reinvented Jesus and the Gospel message to suit their modern sensibilities. Many of their "Christianities" were just New Age blather and would have been unrecognizable to any traditional Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. I'm pretty confident that's where an effort to produce a Bible 2.0 would lead.

Life goes on. If in the past it was okay to reject and to revise Scripture, why not today? Is God put in a box? Isn’t it violence against Him?

Christianity can grow and develop, millions books and sermons aren’t Scripture as foundational authority.

Being scared of change is not trusting God, it’s lack of faith. Why only expect bad tgings to happen? If God is allowed to inspire and to lead, won’t it be wonderful and bring forth good fruit?

 

[James_Lai]

Sure. The contents of the Bible are not affirmed by any single person, or group of people; but rather is the affirmation of the historic Christian Church, a consensus of the Faithful.

There are differences in the Canon between groups of Christians, but these differences lay almost exclusively on what are usually known as the Deuterocanonical books (or just Deuterocanonicals), they are sometimes called "The Apocrypha" among Protestants (going back to Luther's German Bible translation); but they should not be confused with the more broad term of "apocrypha". The Deuterocanonical books consist in those books found in the Septuagint, but which did not ultimately make it into the Jewish Tanakh. It also refers to the "additions" to the books of Daniel and Esther that are found in the Septuagint rather than the Tanakh. For example the Greek version of Esther found in the Septuagint makes mention of God and prayer, but Aramaic Esther (the version found in the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testaments) does not.

The only exception to this is the rather unique case of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches, who are the only historic Churches to accept books such as Enoch and Jubilees.

Outside of this more focused and nuanced debate concerning the Deuterocanonical books, there just isn't any discrepancies, the same books are found in all of our Bibles, because these are the books which definitely have been received and accepted across the Churches around the world. A consensus of the Faithful.

The Church has always maintained that certain books, as opposed to other books, are vital and should be read for the edification of the Faithful, that's what the Scriptures are. The collected writings which the Church affirms to be read in the context of worship; and the reason why these writings are suitable for this (and not others), is because the Church has historically agreed that these books (as opposed to other books) have the hand of God on them, they are divinely inspired. They are, as St. Paul says, "God-breathed", divinely inspired, the people who wrote these books were "carried" by the Holy Spirit. Their words are not their words only, they are by the Spirit the very word of God for us.

If someone came along and attempted to make a "Bible 2.0" it would have no meaning for the Christian Church. People are free to write, or gather whatever texts they like, but it can't be the Christian Bible because we already have one. The Bible 1.0 is just as good today as it's ever been. Because the divine word in Scripture is the unchanging, enduring, faithful word of God. And the Church confesses, "The word of the Lord endures forever".

Whitewashing the Bible won't improve it. The ugliness we sometimes see in the Bible should be taken seriously, not as something to flee away from, but instead to be engaged with. The Bible is blatant in its honesty concerning the weakness of human beings. It shows us at our worst, it shows us that even the saints and heroes that we revere ware broken, fallible, miserable little sinners just like the rest of us. There are stories in the Bible that are hard to read. And yet through all of that, there is this tiny little stream flowing down from the mountain, and as we continue to look through its pages, we see that river growing wider, stronger, other streams start trickling down into it. Where this river is heading we can't see yet in the Old Testament, but it's heading somewhere huge. The New Testament shows us where that river was heading all along, it's Jesus.

And that's really the most important part: The Bible is about Jesus. Jesus is proclaimed from the pages of Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New. From Genesis to the Revelation, it is all about Jesus.

Sure, the stream might begin trickling on some sharp rocks, there may be some jagged areas, but the trickle is flowing through them, into the massive stream that is Christ. Just because you see the sharp and scary rocks of the book of Joshua or in the books of the Kings doesn't mean that Christ is not there--He is. The trickle becomes a stream, and the stream a river, and that river opens up into the fathomless ocean of God's mercy and love.

-CryptoLutheran

People change, societies develop. The religious thought in Israel progressed over centuries. People wrote books that were included into a “constitution” about God over many hundreds of years.

Whoever decided to cement this process were clearly wrong, it’s not what God wanted.

Stopping God’s revelation is a grave sin. Declaring Anathema, exiling, burning people for that is not good.

God must be once again allowed to speak to believers.

 

[James_Lai]

The bible, God's Word, is complete. There are no new revelations; never will be any new revelations.

The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of God's Word to believers as they study it, but we will never know or understand all of the truth found there until we are with God in eternity, and then I'm not sure if we will ever have complete understanding; we will just have to wait to find out.
The Holy Spirit also works in unbelievers to draw them to "believe" the Gospel.

John

It wasn’t so in the past. Why is our generation restricted? It’s not right.

 

[timf]

It wasn’t so in the past. Why is our generation restricted? It’s not right.

You may not have an accurate idea of how the bible came down to us today.

 

[James_Lai]

It wasn’t so in the past. Why is our generation restricted? It’s not right.

You may not have an accurate idea of how the bible came down to us today.

People wrote books. They revised the previous understandings. It was okay and I like it. Jesus said, eye for an eye no more, but turn the other cheek.

And suddenly a group of people decided to pull the plug on God’s free speech…

Why? Isn’t God the same at all times? Why a handful of people decided to limit Him and His expression of Himself to His children?

Such anti-divine censorship is unacceptable

 

[Clare73]

I thought JP is Christian! I’ll check out H. Blackaby. Last name sounds so familiar. Maybe I read or listened to him before.

Yes I understand. Mistakes are okay. We revise and edit the Bible anyway. By picking and choosing what to believe in, for example.

Speak for yourself. . .not all do that. . .some take it at its word. . .all of it.

 

[PloverWing]

And suddenly a group of people decided to pull the plug on God’s free speech…

I really don't see it this way. God continues to speak and work through people today. The late Archbishop Tutu is one good example, and there are many others. 21st-century people don't have the distinctive of being direct witnesses of Jesus of Nazareth, so their writings don't go into the canon, but that doesn't mean that God is silent.

 

[PloverWing]

Yes this point has already been made above by other posters about the Christian Tradition.

First of all, it’s for a small number of really serious believers. And even then the Scripture is the constitution, the foundational text. A tradition can’t wander off too far. It’s nothing but an extension.

I talk about new revelations, new information, new postulates from and about God

I want to talk a bit about what I mean by "tradition" here. I have in mind the entire body of thoughts and writings and ministries and acts of worship and artistic creations and ethical reflections that have happened in the Christian church in the last 2000+ years, especially those thoughts and actions that have stood the test of time. Tradition is a living thing. It's like a tree, maybe, rooted in Scripture but continuing to grow and branch out year by year.

Part of what's tricky about the newest parts of the tradition is discerning what's genuinely true and good and from God, versus what's mistaken or even sinful and should be left behind. In the 20th century, for example, we heard Christian voices saying a wide variety of things on race, gender, sexuality, evolutionary biology, medical ethics, wealth and poverty, and the nature of the Bible itself. In 200 years, or 500 years, we'll know which of these voices conveyed insights from God and which were mistaken. But right now, we're still discerning.

Tradition is always in tension between listening to new revelations and not wandering off too far.