W
Walk-worthy
Guest
Is the Holy Bible a living breathing document permitting changes as people change, or is the Bible unchangeable throughout the ages until the end of time?
- Status
F
Fauken
Guest
Truth is truth. Truth does not change.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
These are two pretty extreme positions, effectively creating a false dilemma.
Saying that it changes along with people sort of implies that it is less a source of truth and more an expression of people’s truth. That’s certainly not what we believe.
Saying that it is unchanging throughout the ages does recognize that it is a source of truth, but it isn’t open to the possibility that a book may be added, which the Church hasn’t made a definitive declaration on. That’s also important because, while we tend to focus on how Protestants removed certain books, other Apostolic Churches have extra books, and we don’t necessarily say that they’re wrong for doing so. So in theory, we may add one of those books. However, as the Council of Trent declared, none of the currently-existing books can be removed.
So while we would probably lean closer to “unchanging”, it’s actually a bit more nuanced than either option you’ve given.
Saying that it changes along with people sort of implies that it is less a source of truth and more an expression of people’s truth. That’s certainly not what we believe.
Saying that it is unchanging throughout the ages does recognize that it is a source of truth, but it isn’t open to the possibility that a book may be added, which the Church hasn’t made a definitive declaration on. That’s also important because, while we tend to focus on how Protestants removed certain books, other Apostolic Churches have extra books, and we don’t necessarily say that they’re wrong for doing so. So in theory, we may add one of those books. However, as the Council of Trent declared, none of the currently-existing books can be removed.
So while we would probably lean closer to “unchanging”, it’s actually a bit more nuanced than either option you’ve given.
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
Sacred Scripture is the living word of God.
Not one word can be added to or removed from the Bible. The meaning of passages can change over time though.
Not one word can be added to or removed from the Bible. The meaning of passages can change over time though.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
We know for a fact that, historically speaking, words, and sometimes entire verses, were added or removed.
Do you have any examples?
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
https://biblehub.com/revelation/22-19.htm
To reply to the first @ZMystiCat
To the second, across the centuries we , through the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit , can find meaning hidden in layers in Sacred Scripture. We also place our own cultural meaning down through the centuries. Part of this is education too. An example is the layers f meaning of Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman at the well.
To reply to the first @ZMystiCat
To the second, across the centuries we , through the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit , can find meaning hidden in layers in Sacred Scripture. We also place our own cultural meaning down through the centuries. Part of this is education too. An example is the layers f meaning of Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman at the well.
C
c1949
Guest
The original manuscripts are the ones considered inspired. The Bible doesn’t change, in itself, but the translations may change as languages change and modernization is required.
Shakespeare’s works haven’t changed, but the language sounds almost foreign to modern American English speakers (well, me anyway).
Translations become really contorted because they have to avoid violating copyright laws, not because some new insight into Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek has been found.
It may seem strange, but the meaning can change or expand as time goes by. One way this can change is by new insights into the range of original meaning of the text. At the other end, for example, if St Paul says “wives respect your husbands” the meaning of respect may take on new dimensions.
Traditionally the commandment says “thou shall not kill” but the meaning is “thou shall not murder” because the Bible itself imposes the death penalty in some cases which is killing but not murder – in the Old Testament.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes four possible “senses” of scripture, one literal sense but three spiritual senses. At one time in the past St Bonaventure defined 8 senses of scripture (as I recall).
The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, asserted that scripture is an inexhaustible source of inspiration. That is essentially a definitive answer to the question of whether the Bible is a living breathing document, but defines the manner in which it is.
Shakespeare’s works haven’t changed, but the language sounds almost foreign to modern American English speakers (well, me anyway).
Translations become really contorted because they have to avoid violating copyright laws, not because some new insight into Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek has been found.
It may seem strange, but the meaning can change or expand as time goes by. One way this can change is by new insights into the range of original meaning of the text. At the other end, for example, if St Paul says “wives respect your husbands” the meaning of respect may take on new dimensions.
Traditionally the commandment says “thou shall not kill” but the meaning is “thou shall not murder” because the Bible itself imposes the death penalty in some cases which is killing but not murder – in the Old Testament.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes four possible “senses” of scripture, one literal sense but three spiritual senses. At one time in the past St Bonaventure defined 8 senses of scripture (as I recall).
The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, asserted that scripture is an inexhaustible source of inspiration. That is essentially a definitive answer to the question of whether the Bible is a living breathing document, but defines the manner in which it is.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
- That isn’t referencing the Bible, which didn’t exist at the time, at least not as we know it. It is referencing the book of Revelation specifically.
- Citing the verse doesn’t change historical fact. While obviously the manuscripts don’t change, we don’t have them, and we know from the transcripts that words, phrases, verses, and sometimes passages got added/removed when transcribing the verse.
- It’s entirely possible John is being hyperbolic in line with the apocalyptic nature of Revelation. We know from chapters 2 and 3 that a good chunk of its audience were of dubious character, and it was also very politically charged. The concern was probably less with an individual word and more considerable changes to make a church or person appear less evil or be less politically provocative.
That’s not an example. That’s a rewording of what you already said.
And I’m not asking for examples because I don’t think we can’t draw “new” meaning from passages. I’m asking because saying that “meaning” changes isn’t really descriptive. It can mean anything from applying a passage to a new cultural context, which doesn’t change the meaning so much as the application, to saying that it somehow changes the “truth” being professed in some relativistic fashion. I’m just curious where you are across that spectrum.
Again, that’s not really an example unless you trace how its “meaning” has “changed” throughout history.
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, we learn. It’s not like the Bible changes, though.
Again, this is an example of change in us, not in the Bible.
Still, though, the meaning of the text – what we might call the ‘literal sense’ of that passage – doesn’t change.
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
Yes, I agree, the truth of the Bible does not change. Divine revelation does not change. It is human meaning and understanding that changes. Meaning is also revealed by Wisdom and the Holy Spirit. Biblical Books have many layers. Each generation applies their own cultural wisdom to readings. One role of Hermeneutics attempts to discard cultural bias and prejudice.
I know a very holy Religious Priest who would read a passage of Sacred Scripture and stay with it , sometimes for months or years, until he had understood these layers.
Gospel parables have meaning readily understood in 1AD. A mustard seed was a weed that infested crops. How can the Kingdom of God be like a weed, thought first century farmers. Why shouldn’t the Kingdom of God be like a tree of value, instead. There are many layers in comparing a mustard seed to the Kingdom of God.
Jesus asked a Samaritan woman for water from her water vessels. This in itself has about three layers readily understood in 1AD, but not so much today. Jewish men did not speak to non relatives that were female. Jewish men did not ask Samaritans for drinks from their water vessels, that was unclean, nor to draw water for them.
@ZMysticCat
The Gospels, letters, Revelation, and the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostles certainly existed by the end of 1AD. The Old Testament having been around for centuries earlier.
The manuscripts of the New Testament, written in the first century resulted from both oral telling of the events of Jesus coming into the world, and the actions of His Apostles and Disciples, letters to young Christian communities, and also by divine revelation. Individual Gospels, Acts and letters were copied and transported, with their owners, all through the Mediterranean. There is a tome of archaeological evidence to support this.
Sacred Scripture was very much a living document shared throughout the early Christian world, both orally and written.
The Apostle John, who walked with Jesus, wrote Revelation while the remnant Jewish Christians were in exile, after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Yes the climate was politically charged, however, we look to the Old Testament, much of it was written in such climates also, and remains divine revelation. The revelation of God to our salvation.
I fail to understand what you mean by
Truth does not change, the truth of Sacred Scripture is static. The Gospels have been given to us, their truth is ever unchanging. As we see in the example of Jesus where He discusses Old Testament revelation, and does give new teaching and understanding to it.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-43.htm
I know a very holy Religious Priest who would read a passage of Sacred Scripture and stay with it , sometimes for months or years, until he had understood these layers.
Gospel parables have meaning readily understood in 1AD. A mustard seed was a weed that infested crops. How can the Kingdom of God be like a weed, thought first century farmers. Why shouldn’t the Kingdom of God be like a tree of value, instead. There are many layers in comparing a mustard seed to the Kingdom of God.
Jesus asked a Samaritan woman for water from her water vessels. This in itself has about three layers readily understood in 1AD, but not so much today. Jewish men did not speak to non relatives that were female. Jewish men did not ask Samaritans for drinks from their water vessels, that was unclean, nor to draw water for them.
@ZMysticCat
The Gospels, letters, Revelation, and the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostles certainly existed by the end of 1AD. The Old Testament having been around for centuries earlier.
The manuscripts of the New Testament, written in the first century resulted from both oral telling of the events of Jesus coming into the world, and the actions of His Apostles and Disciples, letters to young Christian communities, and also by divine revelation. Individual Gospels, Acts and letters were copied and transported, with their owners, all through the Mediterranean. There is a tome of archaeological evidence to support this.
Sacred Scripture was very much a living document shared throughout the early Christian world, both orally and written.
The Apostle John, who walked with Jesus, wrote Revelation while the remnant Jewish Christians were in exile, after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Yes the climate was politically charged, however, we look to the Old Testament, much of it was written in such climates also, and remains divine revelation. The revelation of God to our salvation.
I fail to understand what you mean by
As far as meaning is concerned, It is not a rewording of what I already said.
Truth does not change, the truth of Sacred Scripture is static. The Gospels have been given to us, their truth is ever unchanging. As we see in the example of Jesus where He discusses Old Testament revelation, and does give new teaching and understanding to it.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-43.htm
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
I exceeded the word limit. Take the mustard seed, if we think of it like a spice, we give it value. It is a highly prized spice used in cooking. Then we read that passage a little differently. Instead of arguing about how big the mustard seed is, or is not, we attribute some value to it. I know Americans are fond of hotdogs with mustard, for example.
If we look at the mustard seed as a thistle or deadly nightshade weed or some other weed that ruins crops, the meaning changes for us.
If we look at the mustard seed as a thistle or deadly nightshade weed or some other weed that ruins crops, the meaning changes for us.
D
Dovekin
Guest
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
Do you have a question for me?
D
Dovekin
Guest
I am having a hard time formulating it. I thought you might understand the difficulty.
Can’t the way we understand the scripture reflect a change in the meaning? The unchanging Truth is alive and living…
Can’t the way we understand the scripture reflect a change in the meaning? The unchanging Truth is alive and living…
S
straykat
Guest
The only way to interpret scripture is through Christ (Christology… a naughty word to modern hermeneutics). Just as Jesus did himself and expounded directly to the two disciples on the road after his Resurrection. Anyone else’s perspective is worthless. And I truly mean that in every sense. Our peculiar perspectives, lives, cultures, ego = nothing. Only Christ matters. The sooner we can remind ourselves of that, the better it will be for all of us.
Without this, we get nonsense like 5 Volumes on “Gender Studies in the Old Testament” "(seriously… stuff like this exists).
Without this, we get nonsense like 5 Volumes on “Gender Studies in the Old Testament” "(seriously… stuff like this exists).
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Or nonsense like calling 5 volumes of someone’s effort to understand “nonsense.”
S
straykat
Guest
It has nothing to do with an effort to understand. If they did, they’d simply follow Christ’s example and realize all scripture is about him. They’d rather talk about themselves… and at ridiculous length, at that.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
Yes, the Scriptures existed by the end of the first century, but there was no Bible. The Bible is the collection of various texts based on a canon. The Catholic canon wasn’t really established until the fourth century, and the Protestant canon wasn’t established until the sixteenth century. In other words, the “Bible” didn’t come into play until at least a couple centuries after Revelation’s writing, and, with that in mind, the idea that a comment in Revelation would use “this book” to refer to the Bible is ludicrous.
Like I said, it’s a hyperbolic way of warning the audience to not change the content of what we now know as Revelation.
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
Unravelling the layers of meaning 
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
The Bible is a collection of Books, those books written by the end of 1AD.
These books are the revelation of God to us, for our salvation. I will repeat that these books are the revelation of God , to us.
Unless you are St John, companion of Jesus, guardian of His mother, writing the book of Revelation in a cave in exile, it’s quite a stretch to dismiss it as exaggerated text, not intended to be taken literally.
These books are the revelation of God to us, for our salvation. I will repeat that these books are the revelation of God , to us.
Unless you are St John, companion of Jesus, guardian of His mother, writing the book of Revelation in a cave in exile, it’s quite a stretch to dismiss it as exaggerated text, not intended to be taken literally.
- Status