• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edit the King James Bible?

Should the King James Bible be edited by anyone within or without of the church?

  • Total voters
    12
Thought this was appropriate to the copyright/publishing comment:
 
For nonreligious folk out there, why should you care about the Bible being edited? Do you really care what the flyig spaghetti monster says and his followers believe?
 
roguenuke said:
If someone wants to change the Bible, let them. Why not? If it sells well (and they don't get successfully sued for it), then maybe people prefer that version to the other versions.

Does anyone have a copyright on the Bible? I really am just wondering. Can someone be sued for changing the Bible and selling copies of it that are almost identical to one version of the Bible or the other, with maybe just a few things changed to make it fit with a particular religion's beliefs? How much would need to be changed, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Any translation that was first produced before 1923 would be in the public domain. Given the fact that there are nearly endless public domain translations of the Bible into the primary languages of over 99% of the people on the planet, any copyright suit would have to jump through a considerable number of hoops to be able to establish infringement. I'm not even sure publishing a word-for-word copy of another translation could be proven to be an infringement unless the Bible in question contained numerous unique features.

Soon as you start changing things around to suit your own doctrine, there's no way they can prove you didn't just translate it yourself from the same source materials.
 
Wake said:
Too bad God can't vote on it..
Click to expand...

Well obviously if you guys get together then God will work through you and your votes. Isn't that why the Bible is infallible?
 
Wake said:
For nonreligious folk out there, why should you care about the Bible being edited? Do you really care what the flyig spaghetti monster says and his followers believe?
Click to expand...

It's an important historical document. Any new translation with an agenda other than improved scholastic or artistic fidelity is distasteful at best. I may not have any use for your god, but my faith takes books very seriously.
 
Wake said:
For nonreligious folk out there, why should you care about the Bible being edited? Do you really care what the flyig spaghetti monster says and his followers believe?
Click to expand...

Given that you use the book to dictate your public policy, we have to stay in the know. I mean heck, you guys might decide that gay sex isn't all that bad and let us have a shot at marriage.
 
Wake said:
For nonreligious folk out there, why should you care about the Bible being edited? Do you really care what the flyig spaghetti monster says and his followers believe?
Click to expand...

Who said they cared, other than to keep the government out of it?
 
Wake said:
For nonreligious folk out there, why should you care about the Bible being edited? Do you really care what the flyig spaghetti monster says and his followers believe?
Click to expand...

But the point for some is that many accept edits already in place. And would see going back to before the edits as wrong.
 
CriticalThought said:
Given that you use the book to dictate your public policy, we have to stay in the know. I mean heck, you guys might decide that gay sex isn't all that bad and let us have a shot at marriage.
Click to expand...

You're late to the party. You want a list of churches that already decided that?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Wake's proposal could arguably be interpreted as an effort to return to the purity of Christ's message. I don't hold with it, but it isn't my god so it's none of my business. The Conservapedia project is explicitly a politicized project.
Click to expand...

First of all I completely agree with you about the Conservapedia project and I think it is truly distasteful. My point was is that if you are not purposefully taking out parts of the Bible to agree with things we feel here in the States is it not the same thing? And I honestly do not know that answer. I think that if the Bible were to change it should not be because we want it to fit in with society, but rather the religion has changed.

And I am against the change for the purpose of better fitting it into our society for another reason, even though it is more of a personal. I am not a person of faith and I do not believe in God, however, having gone to Catholic school for eleven years I have read the Bible multiple times. I read the book in more of a literary sense and knowing parts of the Bible has helped me understand some of histories truly great literature through my understanding of the Bible. I fear that if we were to change the Bible for the purpose of it better suiting out societal goals that we would lose that allegorical importance.
 
I'm curious, Wake. Any particular reason you are creating devils advocate threads, lately? Trying to hone your debating skills by presenting arguments that are the opposite of what you actually believe? Just curious for disclosure purposes.
 
Outside of translation corrections, no. The Bible is what it is and no amount of changing it will change anything other than making those that follow it even more against changing it, lol.
 
This is nothing but another anti-Christian bait thread...

No, the Bible shouldn't be revised because some people have a problem with the morals of the Bible.
 
digsbe said:
This is nothing but another anti-Christian bait thread...

No, the Bible shouldn't be revised because some people have a problem with the morals of the Bible.
Click to expand...

WHile I agree with you 1,000,000% on the OP and him baiting/trolling I do have a question. I started another thread see here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...mons-and-all-religions-please-educate-me.html

my question to you and please answer in the other thread not to give this OP any credit for any objective, rational, civil talk is.

In many ways isnt this already done? NOT by government but in general? "IF" you feel like answering I look for it in the other thread, thanks
 
Wake said:
Do you think portions of the King James Bible (and earlier versions) should be erased?

There's multiple verses in the New and Old Testament that speak against homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. There's also many other verses that are unpopular with our society, so shouldn't we change them? Since the Bible is full of bigotry and hatred, why not mold the Bible to our liking? Shouldn't we have new Christian churches that can help progress Christianity?

*Computer working again; poll added.
Click to expand...

We? You change it to whatever you like. I like it the way it is.
 
I don't see the problem. It's not like the bible hasn't been edited, cut, re-written, modified by committee, translated through several different languages and cultures, and had major portions deleted before. Modifying the text to fit a political agenda is actually exactly what those "old-school" christians would do.
 
jamesrage said:
Not only no but hell no. You do not **** with other people's religion. You can create the whiny liberal eurotrash politically correct for ******s edition of the bible that would be merely a pamphlet after heavy editing but it should not in any shape or form be used to replace the King James or any other version of the bible, it would merely be the eurotrash politically correct for ******s edition bible that doesn't offend anybody except for actual Christians. I am surprised that no one has made a pc edition of the bible. Instead of the story of creation it would be a summed up version of evolution, Thou shalt not pollute and thou shalt use energy efficient stuff would be commandments, any commandments regarding sinful sexual behavior would be removed, and it would advocate that the government tax the living hell out of anyone making over a 100 grand a year.
Click to expand...

Why eurotrash dammit?
 
Wake said:
Do you think portions of the King James Bible (and earlier versions) should be erased?

There's multiple verses in the New and Old Testament that speak against homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. There's also many other verses that are unpopular with our society, so shouldn't we change them?
Click to expand...

I've often thought about writing my own version of the Bible, like Jefferson did. I could take the stupid stuff out, and add in some stuff that's more relevant to the modern world.

Wake said:
Since the Bible is full of bigotry and hatred, why not mold the Bible to our liking?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not. The authorities who determined which texts made it into The Bible, and which got cut out, molded it to THEIR liking.

Wake said:
Shouldn't we have new Christian churches that can help progress Christianity?
Click to expand...

I'm not Christian, but yes, there definitely should be. Although some Christian churches already do a pretty good job.
 
Last edited:
There are actually some apocrypha I find fascinating. Always wondered why the Niceans didn't include them.

On the other hand, there are some where it's pretty clear why they didn't.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't see the problem. It's not like the bible hasn't been edited, cut, re-written, modified by committee, translated through several different languages and cultures, and had major portions deleted before. Modifying the text to fit a political agenda is actually exactly what those "old-school" christians would do.
Click to expand...

Would and have done. :coffeepap
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm curious, Wake. Any particular reason you are creating devils advocate threads, lately? Trying to hone your debating skills by presenting arguments that are the opposite of what you actually believe? Just curious for disclosure purposes.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I'm not sure what I believe anymore, so probing for understanding can't hurt.

Also I'm checking the menu of ideas here in an attempt to try and roughly predict the future. Based on my results, there are some people here who would deal with the church somewhat in one way or another.. Interesting.

AEB(as evidenced by): post #45

digsbe said:
This is nothing but another anti-Christian bait thread...

No, the Bible shouldn't be revised because some people have a problem with the morals of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Centrist77 said:
WHile I agree with you 1,000,000% on the OP and him baiting/trolling I do have a question. I started another thread see here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...mons-and-all-religions-please-educate-me.html
Click to expand...

I'm neither trolling nor baiting, digsbe & Centrist77. It's your perception, so I will respectfully say you're mistaken, and I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Yes and no. I'm not sure what I believe anymore, so probing for understanding can't hurt.

Also I'm checking the menu of ideas here in an attempt to try and roughly predict the future. Based on my results, there are some people here who would deal with the church somewhat in one way or another.. Interesting.





I'm neither trolling nor baiting, digsbe & Centrist77. It's your perception, so I will respectfully say you're mistaken, and I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...

and per your repetitive post history I respectfully dont believe you at all and ill leave it at that. :)
 
Wake said:
Yes and no. I'm not sure what I believe anymore, so probing for understanding can't hurt.
Click to expand...

Have you read the bible? Start there. Then read some secondary sources especially from a historical perspective. That is, the bible, in and of itself and regardless of the version, shows considerable movement in the Judeo/Christian philosophy. For instance, the story of Job upsets and amends previous thoughts on sin and catastrophe. Christ was a reformer, which is why the Jews rejected him.

But be warned, you will not be able to study it in this way and come way with any faith in the Bible as the literal word of God or divinely inspired and unerringly reported. It's just not possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom