What books should be removed from the Bible to make it suitable for modern era?

Answer 1

The modern era is characterized by no censorship. So leave them all in, and highlight the parts dealing with mass murder, rape, sodomy, incest, adultery (esp. the Bathsheba episode), and all of god's other comedic masterpieces.

Answer 2

None. It's timeless. The more I read it - the more I realize someone greater than I knew what they were doing.

When I was younger, I thought it was a bunch of garbly ****. That's because I never read it. I sat in boredom as preachers interpreted it for me. I only half listed.

Now, I know.

The bible is truly alive and designed to benefit the reader FAAAAR more than just listening. God wants to meet you right where you are.

Reading it gives Him a chance to have a One on one with you. I am always surprised at how blessed I am when I spend time reading the word of God.

Answer 3

None! The Bible is a part of History. Like your life is a part of history. You are an important person in this life, we wouldn't want to remove a chapter or book from your history. It would be loosing apart of you.

Answer 4

None, the Bible is always "suitable" for any era as His word never changes, it was the same in 1600 as it is now and will be in 2500.

Answer 5

Since the Bible is the God Yahweh's advanced science book written for mankind to follow and survive on Earth, We better not remove any of It's books.

Answer 6

That would be a sin. Just as Martin Luther committed a sin when he removed 7 books from the bible

Answer 7

I have three suggestions. I think the preface can be disposed with. In addition, remove the empty page between the OT and the NT as indeed the whole Bible is one. Oh, also forget the table of contents and instead conveniently tab the book on its edge.

Answer 8

None



The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 9

None!

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4:2

Answer 10

I don't think it's necessary that anything be removed, simply that it should be read in the context of its time. Women are no longer simply pieces of property. Slavery is no longer legal, but Christ's message "be excellent to each other" certainly still has merit.

Answer 11

I think instead of taking parts out, put all the bits in that the church has censored in the past. Things might make a bit more sense if the bible is complete, instead of the partial version we have now, thanks to censorship, and people/church with their own agendas removing "inconvenient" parts.