Can we disregard parts of the bible if they are detrimental to society?

Question

I for one think that ALL killing is wrong, the death penalty, wars in other peoples countries etc...but we seem to disregard that and justify it under 'murder; bad...killing;fine' when no actual difference was mentioned in the bible, it is the semantics of a word that was translated many times before we even saw it in english...

we eat shelfish, wear clothes of differing fabrics...these seemed to have been big social issues at some point, but now we disregard them as they don't fit our society,
We don't keep slaves now, even though the bible says it's fine, we don't treat women as sex-slaves anymore...

isn't it time religion caught up with issues such as homosexuality, genetics and divorce?

Answer 1

It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available.


John Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible, that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

Answer 2

First, do you mean Torah and Talmud, the New Testament, or what? If you're not Jewish, the Mosaic law never applied to you in the first place. There are methods for interpreting the Bible correctly, in such a way that does not violate the historical and theological context of the Bible, yet shows its value as a guide for living on this earth and in relationship to God, but I've already found it doesn't do any good to try and explain them in this forum, 'cause nobody wants to hear it.

For what it's worth, I applaud your stance on not taking life.

Answer 3

i don't pick and choose parts of the bible like so many people do. i TRY to follow it all. i am only human. i don't know where people get the idea that Christians cant be human.

God doesn't need to catch up to us. He is so far ahead of us that by the time we think we have caught up with Him...eternity has come and gone. im going to follow God's word just like i follow the bill if rights (written over 200 years ago). just because it's old does not make it mute.

Answer 4

The diet and clothing requirements were standards only for the Israelites during particular dispensation period in the OT. These standards were to keep His Chosen People separate from other ethnicities, to maintain their "holiness", and were dictated and inspired by the Spirit of God that brooded over men (not indwelling in them until the NT). Gentiles were not bound by such standards of holiness until the NT, when Jesus came not just to save the Jews, but the Gentiles also (by adoption, but that's another topic of banter). He came to fulfill the Law (of standards) and died to redeem us of all of our sins so that He could indwell in us as the Holy Spirit to live a holy lifestyle. It is through conviction through the leading of the Holy Spirit, that holiness allows us to act on things that please God. If conviction leads us to view shellfish as pleasing to God, then it is okay to eat. Same with wearing clothes of blended fabrics.

However, God's Word doesn't compromise on sins for any time period for the both Jews and Gentiles; in fact, God maintains the three-prong requirements for the remission of sins - Faith, Obedience, & Shedding of Blood.

Answer 5

You should read some Nietzsche. He pointed out that you couldn't follow all of Jesus's teachings without killing yourself from starvation, let alone follow the entire Bible.

Answer 6

Your question is interesting. Can you tell me an example of a part of the Bible which contains something which is detrimental to the society? That is, I want to understand your question better.

Answer 7

The Word of God is the same past, present and future.

John 3:16 is the only thing we need to really belive for our salvation.

Answer 8

Yes many Christians pick and choose the parts of the bible they like which suits their purpose and constructs of life. That is why you see so many different answers to your question and that is why you see so much hypocrisy among Christians.

Answer 9

We can ignore all of the Bible that differs from the Qur'an, for the Qur'an is the perfect, unchanged and holy words of Allah, and the Bible is the remnants of that word, twisted and changed by evil men.

Answer 10

You can disregard anything YOU want but it doesn't make it not valid or the right in God's eyes