Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist is dead tome]

Ironicly both the jewish holy books and the christian ones have had things that where 'inappropriate' removed completely, like they never existed. Yet the newest of the trifecta faiths, Islam, has most if not all of the scriptures as intact as possible.

Also, thank you for clearing that up for my Urist.

Do you have any examples of the "inappropriate" content being removed?

[Uristisdying]

Do you have any examples of the "inappropriate" content being removed?

Code: [Select]

The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).[17]

During the Protestant Reformation, certain reformers proposed different canonical lists to those currently in use. Though not without debate, see Antilegomena, the list of New Testament books would come to remain the same; however, the Old Testament texts present in the Septuagint, but not included in the Jewish canon, fell out of favor. In time they would come to be removed from most Protestant canons. Hence, in a Catholic context these texts are referred to as deuterocanonical books, whereas in a Protestant context they are referred to as Apocrypha, the label applied to all texts excluded from the biblical canon which were in the Septuagint. It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the Acts of Peter, as apocryphal.

Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The Orthodox Churches, in addition to the Catholic canon, recognise 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151. Some include 2 Esdras. The Anglican Church also recognises a longer canon. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is often used as being synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, since the surviving scriptures in Hebrew include only those books, while Catholics and Orthodox include additional texts that have not survived in Hebrew. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.

The New Testament writers assumed the inspiration of the Old Testament, probably earliest stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, "all Scripture is inspired of God."[8]
This is from Wikipedia. While certainly not the best source, the paragraph above explains why because of the many different christian sects with different priorities, the bible was changed, enlarged, made smaller, and altered to fit the sect it was intended for. Modern examples are the Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses, whose version of the bible is sometimes radically different than say - a catholic bible.

It does not take much to conclude that many of the changes that were made removed things that weren' appropriate or disadvantegous (sp?) for the clergy.

If asked for, I'll provide specific examples.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

whose sock puppet are you? your name certainly looks like a play on our friend "urist is dead to me"'s name

EDIT: well, you've been here since september, and have posted fairly frequently, so you're probably legit. a troll obvious enough to make such a play with the dead urist's name wouldn't put that much effort into hiding it's trollish nature... funny coincidence, eh?

[Uristisdying]

No sock puppet. I noticed the similarity while quoting him as well. Go on, whois me if you like. 

€dit in order not to make a new post for this: I'm happy you acknowledge I'm indeed not a troll. Since it is quite difficult to prove otherwise, once accused.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

yeah, i figured, you ninjaed me while i was editin my previous message

[Urist is dead tome]

whose sock puppet are you? your name certainly looks like a play on our friend "urist is dead to me"'s name

EDIT: well, you've been here since september, and have posted fairly frequently, so you're probably legit. a troll obvious enough to make such a play with the dead urist's name wouldn't put that much effort into hiding it's trollish nature... funny coincidence, eh?

Finally someone got my intended name! I misspelled it and have been reminded of this at every turn.

Do you have any examples of the "inappropriate" content being removed?

Code: [Select]

The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).[17]

During the Protestant Reformation, certain reformers proposed different canonical lists to those currently in use. Though not without debate, see Antilegomena, the list of New Testament books would come to remain the same; however, the Old Testament texts present in the Septuagint, but not included in the Jewish canon, fell out of favor. In time they would come to be removed from most Protestant canons. Hence, in a Catholic context these texts are referred to as deuterocanonical books, whereas in a Protestant context they are referred to as Apocrypha, the label applied to all texts excluded from the biblical canon which were in the Septuagint. It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the Acts of Peter, as apocryphal.

Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The Orthodox Churches, in addition to the Catholic canon, recognise 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151. Some include 2 Esdras. The Anglican Church also recognises a longer canon. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is often used as being synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, since the surviving scriptures in Hebrew include only those books, while Catholics and Orthodox include additional texts that have not survived in Hebrew. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.

The New Testament writers assumed the inspiration of the Old Testament, probably earliest stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, "all Scripture is inspired of God."[8]
This is from Wikipedia. While certainly not the best source, the paragraph above explains why because of the many different christian sects with different priorities, the bible was changed, enlarged, made smaller, and altered to fit the sect it was intended for. Modern examples are the Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses, whose version of the bible is sometimes radically different than say - a catholic bible.

It does not take much to conclude that many of the changes that were made removed things that weren' appropriate or disadvantegous (sp?) for the clergy.

If asked for, I'll provide specific examples.

There's no denying how far the Mormons and Jehovas witnesses have strayed from the original intent. Even Evangelical Christians would be called hypocrites these days. Most forms have strayed quite far in one way or another.

[Il Palazzo]

If anybody sticks to the letter of the Bible, then it's Jehova's witnesses. Besides, what does even "the original intent" mean?

[Urist is dead tome]

If anybody sticks to the letter of the Bible, then it's Jehova's witnesses. Besides, what does even "the original intent" mean?

Not really. They aren't exactly private with their religion.

Edit: Not only that but they completely reject the Holy Trinity. Not very Christian.

[Il Palazzo]

Yeah, they're not much into that polytheistic stuff of Christianity. I guess they're closer to the "original intent" than the Christians are.

Not really. They aren't exactly private with their religion.

What do you mean? Does the Bible not tell you to go and spread the word of God?

[Urist is dead tome]

Well if it's original intent than it would probably be the Hebrew Christians.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, the whole apostles thing quite clearly tells you to spread the word.

I mean, a religion that tells you to keep it to yourself would never last very long.

[Urist is dead tome]

Yeah, the whole apostles thing quite clearly tells you to spread the word.

I mean, a religion that tells you to keep it to yourself would never last very long.

J-sus told them to "Find the lost sheep of Israel."

[Leafsnail]

So... spread the word?

[Urist is dead tome]

What I meant was that the Jehova's witnesses are not private with their practice.

And yes. Spread the word .

[Il Palazzo]

I don't understand.