Is it time for a New Bible, not just a new translation?

[Nachtjager]

I’m having an increasingly difficult struggle as I continue to study scripture, probe the old texts, and stagger through this wonderful field known as theology. Here’s my problem/dilemma, someone please help!

The more I study the scriptures, more correctly the origins of what we now have as our accepted Bible, the more troubled I become with how seemingly messed with virtually everything we now have has become. The translations often seem bungled, meanings are changed around, and then we’re left with the problem of what was canonized and what wasn’t.

Here’s my question I suppose. The Bible we have today was agreed upon by a group of men who were quite inspired and intellectual for their time, that is certain. However, these were men who believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, among a host of other extremely primitive views which we now know are not reality. Is it not time, perhaps, for Christians to have a massive reevaluation of the ancient texts to see what truly is inspired of God and what is free from contemporary political and social motivations?

I realize this is a touchy subject, but I have a real problem embracing a number of scriptures which contradict other scriptures, then upon asking church elders about them, I’m basically told I have to accept it all "just because." That’s not a very good reason for me.

God gave us functional brains and the ability to discover. If He didn’t want us to discover the truth I don’t think we would have this common interest or debate this stuff. What do you guys think? Is it time, not for a new translation of the same old Bible, but perhaps another reformation where we take a harder look at the Bible and perhaps make additions and omissions based on what we now know to be true?

Please, don’t pick up any stones, I’m still a believer, I just worry what we have done to God’s Word as it was originally intended to be.

Take care and God bless!

 

[ContentInHim]

No stones here!

I agree with you somewhat so far as the NT is concerned. About the OT, I don't worry a bit - it was decided long before any councils! And I was saved reading the OT!

I would love a new and definitive NT translation from the oldest texts we have extant. I don't even know which current translation is the most literal.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am anxiously awaiting this new Hebrew translation even though I am working on my own.

This Hebrew interlinear is one of the best I have seen so far and has helped me out even with the GNT.

http://www.scripture4all.org/


The Hebrew is definately a heck of a language!!!!

http://www.originalbible.com/articles/1/1/Why-another-Translation

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html


When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.

 

[Macarius]

God gave us functional brains and the ability to discover. If He didn’t want us to discover the truth I don’t think we would have this common interest or debate this stuff.

Not to throw stones, but I must respectfully disagree with you.

Our brains are full of fallen pride. I don't think the truth needs to be "discovered;" I actually think such a notion is foreign to Christianity an an invention of renaissance humanists in response to Catholic domatics. In my view, the truth has been revealed and needs to be adhered to in humble obedience. I am, of course, speaking of theological truth.

I'm not sure how flat-earth theory is relevant to a discussion of which texts are canonnical. Wouldn't quality of prayer life, or proximity to the original revelation of the gospel, or theological authority (by apostolic succession), or something along those lines be a better criteria, as it actually has a bearing on the matter at hand? The fathers who put together the final NT canon (in Carthage in the late 4th century) and the ones who confirmed it at the second Ecumenical Council, in Constantinople, in the late 4th century, had all those criteria and then some - excepting perhaps quality of prayer life, which is difficult and dangerous to judge. At the very least, based on the biographies of a number of those fathers, I can say they were much wiser in theology (that is, in spirituality) than me. I cannot say the same for you, as I do not know you, but for me, I cannot see anything except pride as motivating me to deviate from their understanding of apostolic teaching.

I would also ask, again without stone throwing, what criteria you had in mind for what constitutes scripture? The fathers of those two councils looked at two primary things: did the text present an orthodox, passion-centric view of Christ? And was it used in the churches for prayer and liturgy? The third criteria was likelihood of apostolic authorship, but they knew (as we do) that Hebrews and II Peter probably were not written by Paul and Peter respectively, and they had their doubts about Revelations. They weren't ignorant of these things, but it didn't stop them from including those texts.

So, as an honest curiosity, what would you use as criteria, and how would that differ your list from the traditional one?

 

[GodsChild07]

I’m having an increasingly difficult struggle as I continue to study scripture, probe the old texts, and stagger through this wonderful field known as theology. Here’s my problem/dilemma, someone please help!

The more I study the scriptures, more correctly the origins of what we now have as our accepted Bible, the more troubled I become with how seemingly messed with virtually everything we now have has become. The translations often seem bungled, meanings are changed around, and then we’re left with the problem of what was canonized and what wasn’t.

Here’s my question I suppose. The Bible we have today was agreed upon by a group of men who were quite inspired and intellectual for their time, that is certain. However, these were men who believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, among a host of other extremely primitive views which we now know are not reality. Is it not time, perhaps, for Christians to have a massive reevaluation of the ancient texts to see what truly is inspired of God and what is free from contemporary political and social motivations?

I realize this is a touchy subject, but I have a real problem embracing a number of scriptures which contradict other scriptures, then upon asking church elders about them, I’m basically told I have to accept it all "just because." That’s not a very good reason for me.

God gave us functional brains and the ability to discover. If He didn’t want us to discover the truth I don’t think we would have this common interest or debate this stuff. What do you guys think? Is it time, not for a new translation of the same old Bible, but perhaps another reformation where we take a harder look at the Bible and perhaps make additions and omissions based on what we now know to be true?

Please, don’t pick up any stones, I’m still a believer, I just worry what we have done to God’s Word as it was originally intended to be.

Take care and God bless!

There is a new Bible. It is called the Heavenly Bible. We don't have it yet, but we will soon.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Hmm.. an interesting idea. It seems to me to be quite impractical above anything else. Either we would all have to get together and work on it (the Catholics would be tough to bring in, the Orthodox and the Fundamentalists would never come to the table) and agree on it, or we would have to reunite the church, which may not happen for a few thousand years. Besides, I for myself would rather have the truth "through a glass darkly" then with a piece missing. I prefer to beleive that the Bible was written by humans, and they were genuinely wrong about some stuff. For instance, the song of solomon- that was all about him trying to take another wife, which is disgusting.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Hmm.. an interesting idea. It seems to me to be quite impractical above anything else. Either we would all have to get together and work on it (the Catholics would be tough to bring in, the Orthodox and the Fundamentalists would never come to the table)

You're right that we'd never come to the table. The canon was settled over 1500 years ago. Were the folks who assembled it inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, there is no need to redefine it, because God surely isn't going to lead anyone to any different conclusion now than He did before. If if those folks weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit, Christianity has been mislead for over 1500 years by a false book.

It definitely it is not the latter, so it's the former... end of discussion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It definitely it is not the latter, so it's the former... end of discussion.

Really? Then we can shut down the Nicene Theology board?

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Really? Then we can shut down the Nicene Theology board?

If people here can't even trust the Bible, then there really isn't a whole lot of basis for discussion, is there?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If people here can't even trust the Bible, then there really isn't a whole lot of basis for discussion, is there?

Sure there is, bad translations for one thing. That can lead to bad interpretations which in turn can lead to doctrines/traditions being made up which in turn confuse Christianity. Look what happened between Orthodoxs and catholics, and would that be called a "failure to communicate"?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 23:14 those having come near to the chief Priests and to the elders said, `With an anathema/anaqemati <331>we did anathematize/aneqematisamen <332>ourselves--to taste nothing till We have killed Paul;

Revelation 22:3 and any anathema/kat-anaqema<2652> there shall Not Be any more, and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him

 

[SeraphimSarov]

Sure there is, bad translations for one thing. That can lead to bad interpretations which in turn can lead to doctrines/traditions being made up which in turn confuse Christianity. Look what happened between Orthodoxs and catholics, and would that be called a "failure to communicate"?

This thread wasn't about bad translations; it was about creating a new canon of Scripture. Impossible unless you are willing to say that 1) God contradicts Himself or 2) God did not inspire our current canon.

What happened between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics was not just "failure to communicate." I don't think there was any misunderstanding about the pope or the filioque... but that's a topic for another time.

 

[Jerrell]

The KJV published in 1611, was the used bible that lead to the salvation of most of the known world, it's words, it's Gospel was good enough that billions came to Christ by it's reading. So at what point in time did it cease to be good enough that we needed a new bible? No new Translation has lead to what the KJV caused, and all the New ones claim to be "better" than the previous, while completing totally different versions which at many points are HARDER TO UNDERSTAND than some say the KJV is.
We don't need a new Bible, we need a revival- the Church will be just as dead with a new bible as they are right now with their new versions.​

 

[Jerrell]

The Jews themselves have not had new scripture for the past 2,400 years. Malachi was the last OT Prophet before Jesus. The NT is just recorded history and doctrines, and yet- people still want to add more...

Learn from the Jews, If they have not added why should we?

 

[buzuxi02]

I&#8217;m having an increasingly difficult struggle as I continue to study scripture, probe the old texts, and stagger through this wonderful field known as theology. Here&#8217;s my problem/dilemma, someone please help!

The more I study the scriptures, more correctly the origins of what we now have as our accepted Bible, the more troubled I become with how seemingly messed with virtually everything we now have has become. The translations often seem bungled, meanings are changed around, and then we&#8217;re left with the problem of what was canonized and what wasn&#8217;t.

Here&#8217;s my question I suppose. The Bible we have today was agreed upon by a group of men who were quite inspired and intellectual for their time, that is certain. However, these were men who believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, among a host of other extremely primitive views which we now know are not reality. Is it not time, perhaps, for Christians to have a massive reevaluation of the ancient texts to see what truly is inspired of God and what is free from contemporary political and social motivations?

I realize this is a touchy subject, but I have a real problem embracing a number of scriptures which contradict other scriptures, then upon asking church elders about them, I&#8217;m basically told I have to accept it all "just because." That&#8217;s not a very good reason for me.

God gave us functional brains and the ability to discover. If He didn&#8217;t want us to discover the truth I don&#8217;t think we would have this common interest or debate this stuff. What do you guys think? Is it time, not for a new translation of the same old Bible, but perhaps another reformation where we take a harder look at the Bible and perhaps make additions and omissions based on what we now know to be true?

Please, don&#8217;t pick up any stones, I&#8217;m still a believer, I just worry what we have done to God&#8217;s Word as it was originally intended to be.

Take care and God bless!

Ihave to disagree with a few points. First off the men that "agreed upon" the NT books should not be considered intellectuals of their time, some were some were not. But regardless this was not the criteria used.

The bishops simply canonized those books that they always taught. Their criteria was simply based on their faith which they were entrusted to pass down without additions or deletions. If a book preached something unfamiliar or was only familiar to a particular geographic reason it was omitted. This is an ancient rule; that which was always taught in all places and at all times.
Secondly even though you call them intellectual and inspire, you go on and stereotype them that they believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. To this i suggest you read Athenagoras of Athens ,bishop of the Athenian church who wrote in 177 a.d. and knew full well the earth was round. You can read Dionyssius of Alexandria in 260 a.d. who argues that the atomic theory was not by "chance" and sponataneous coming together of atoms but by divine design.

As far as the bible, its always been the teaching of the Greek Orthodox Church that only in the original greek is the bible inspired not the translations.

 

[Jerrell]

God is not the author of confusion. God setlled it a long time ago, the NT was finshed before 100 A.D., and the Church agreed upon it as well as the latin/greek/aramaic/hebrew/syriac version of the scripturres. The Main Church was in Aontioch from which we get our KJV- The Corrupt Church was near Alexandria, from which we get our New Modern bibles.

 

[cyberlizard]

the chart would be good were it not for the fact that the KJV is almost 400 years old (almost half a millenium) - the chart does not take into account all the more recent finds including the dead see scrolls.

either way, even if the manuscript evidence for the KJV is sound, the KJV was out of date when it was published, uses language no-one uses anymore and has some serious problems. Now I am allowed to comment on this being as it was produced for a monarch of my country.

the whole KJV only argument sucks - the truth is the differences between versions is not sufficient to throw them out. I for one would like to see a KJV only person highlight all the text differences (not just words) but grammar changes and PROVE once and for all that so called massive theological changes abound from them. I just cannot see it

 

[Nachtjager]

God is not the author of confusion. God setlled it a long time ago, the NT was finshed before 100 A.D., and the Church agreed upon it as well as the latin/greek/aramaic/hebrew/syriac version of the scripturres. The Main Church was in Aontioch from which we get our KJV- The Corrupt Church was near Alexandria, from which we get our New Modern bibles.

Jerrell, I'm afraid your chart is nonsense, so whomever handed it to you had a serious agenda issue. The New Testament was FAR from settled by 100 AD, so whomever put that in your head is either deliberately misleading you or is ignorant. Show me a codex or scroll or anything that exists from prior to 100 AD recording our current New Testament. I'd love to see it.

As far as the Catholic Church coming on board for a "new" Bible, I wouldn't expect them to "sign on" to such a project - they have far too much at stake and have far too much power to lose. They didn't exactly "sign on" when they burned Hus at the stake or tried to have Martin Luther killed either, did they?

I'm certainly not comparing myself to such magnificent leaders of the Reformation, but, Luther does inspire me that, being unsatisfied with "religion" as it is being presented and seeking the true word of Christ can lead to change and make the world a better place.

God is not the author of confusion, that is not the debate - but God is not the author, MAN was the author of the Bible, and man has authored nothing but confusion since he was able to pick up a quill. Does God want contradictory and confusing statements in His book? I hardly think so. Yet, there are many.

Little Lamb, thanks for those wonderful links, I think we're on the same page in seeking out the ancient texts. All I'm after here is a correction of God's Word that can speak to modern man and not cause so many who could be saved to stumble and refuse to believe. Yes, our current Bible has saved many, but I've seen many turned into agnostics because they study it heavily and then things start unraveling for them. That's not what a Bible is supposed to do.

As for the King James being the only true Bible, I wonder how God dealt with all those Christians who lived before it existed?

Thanks to all, take care, and God bless!

 

[LibraryOwl]

Look what happened between Orthodoxs and catholics, and would that be called a "failure to communicate"?

No, it would be called "the Pope deciding he had the right to boss people around and tell them to give him money."

The KJV published in 1611, was the used bible that lead to the salvation of most of the known world, it's words, it's Gospel was good enough that billions came to Christ by it's reading. So at what point in time did it cease to be good enough that we needed a new bible? No new Translation has lead to what the KJV caused, and all the New ones claim to be "better" than the previous, while completing totally different versions which at many points are HARDER TO UNDERSTAND than some say the KJV is.
We don't need a new Bible, we need a revival- the Church will be just as dead with a new bible as they are right now with their new versions

Woah, I don't even know where to begin with this post. First of all, there were only about 800,000,000 people alive at the time the KJV was published. You say it "led to the salvation of the known world" but it was only read in England and it's colonies, which had another translation before it, the Geneva Bible for the Reformed, and the Catholic Douay-Rheams Bible, as well as the rare manuscripts of tyndale and wyclyff. You're claim that no translation led to what the KJV caused is pretty hard to understand. D you refer to it's wide availability? The Geneva Bible as already widely available, and was actually referred to "the People's Bible" whereas the KJV was "the King's Bible." Besides that fact, your statement is just balony. All the time we see Christian enlightenment when the Bible becomes available where it was previously not- for instance, after a new translation was produced for the people on the Isle of Man. No traslation could parallel the effect of the Kjv/Geneva since now everyone's already got a Bible. Still, it's good to have different perspectives.

And what about people who don't speak english? Are they damned because they read a bad Bible? Some of the missionary traslations, I hear, are absolutely horrendous, since the missionaries hardly understand the language, but people read them anyways.

By the way, your chart is balony! Get your facts straight and stop putting your trust in men who love to lie!

 

[divided sky]

If I may interject, I don't think it's a matter of putting together a new canon. I think it should be a matter of reinterpreting the canon that exists now. What I mean is, reinterpreting the writings in the Bible in light of our modern day knowledge. The problem is many Christians see this idea as straight from the Devil, and the ones who don't are called liberal (or moderate) Christians. And doing this type of reinterpretation doesn't mean giving up your Christian faith.

 

[E.C.]

God is not the author of confusion. God setlled it a long time ago, the NT was finshed before 100 A.D., and the Church agreed upon it as well as the latin/greek/aramaic/hebrew/syriac version of the scripturres. The Main Church was in Aontioch from which we get our KJV- The Corrupt Church was near Alexandria, from which we get our New Modern bibles.

Dude, that chart is so skewed, I can barely stand to look at it.

A few incorrect points
1) It does not mention the Orthodox, Eastern or Oriental.
2) It was because of the Gnostics that the NT canon had to be formulated in the first place
3) Constantine did not found any Church.
4) It reeks with hidden agenda.


As per the subject of this thread:

Why do we need a new canon? In the 4th century when, IIRC, the canon was formulated in the first place, they decided to use the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament. King James and others after him; did not. That's half the issue right there.
Also in most indexes of Bibles, whenever tradition is mentioned at all, they only show it in the contexts of "Thou shalt abandon tradition". There's another significant issue in itself because had it not been for Tradition (note the big T) the NT canon among many other things (defeat of Arianism, Nestorianism and others) would not have happened.

We do not need a completely new canon. We are not the Gnostics. What the English speaking world needs is a new accurate translation of the OT Greek Septuagint and a new accurate translation of the four Gospels as well as the Epistles. The key to this solution is: no hidden agenda.