How much editing does it take to transform holy scripture into mundane scripture?

[DetlefK]

Let's say, there is a holy book or a holy story passed down by an oral tradition.

What if I happen to miss a comma?
What if I slightly alter the metaphor to better make a point?
What if I switch out a name or a place or a time?
What if I translate it to another language and slightly alter the meaning of words?



Is there any official guidance on this how believers are supposed to handle such situations?
If I translate the Bible from Aramaic to Ancient Greek to Latin to Medieval English to a modern language, accumulating minor mistakes, is it still the Bible?

If it doesn't make a difference, does that mean that a summary of the Bible would be just as holy as the full Bible?

[rug]

1. Good question. If you want to kill an hour, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

[DetlefK]

5. I don't mean the textual validity of the text. I mean the immaterial "holiness" of the text.

[rug]

6. They are related. Thee are at least as many scriptures outside the Canon as there are included.

The measure is the reliability of the text.

Even though you framed the question as text missing commas or mistranslated, what you are in fact asking is what criteria are used to determine if a given text is "inspired" text, as opposed to "accurate" text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration

[trotsky]

2. There are three different answers to the question, all of them simple.

1. If you don't believe it's the word of a god, or inspired by a god, then it was mundane from the start.

2. If you believe it's the literal word of a god, or perfectly inspired by a god, then ANY alteration whatsoever invalidates it.

3. If you take only parts of it literally and/or inspired, then you come up with all sorts of rationalizations to make sure the parts YOU like are still good but all the parts you don't, aren't.

[rug]

3. Those are three wrong answers to the question, all of them intentional.

[guillaumeb]

11. Not necessarily.

Referring strictly to intent. But the answers themselves are still incorrect.

[Lordquinton]

8. On the nose

There is grand theology that goes into all this, but they still can't even answer the simple question of whether their god exists to inspire it in the first place.

[Bradical79]

10. The third point is as valid as any I suppose

Though I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone other than Thomas Jefferson who goes all in on the idea. The Bible is a codex of multiple books originaly compiled by the most powerful Christian group of the time rather than some group that was wholey representative of the Christian faith. I see no reason beyond tradition one can't hold one book as more or less valid than another. Any of these groups could discard Leviticus, Deuteronomy (or whatever they want) at any time. It wouldn't be any different than the 2nd point when you think about it if you consider any of it holy. You're just doing the leg work again yourself.

[msongs]

4. determine which myths, fairy tales, and made up stuff you believe then

print it. voila, Harry Potter is the new bible nt

[Iggo]

7. How dare you?!?!?! The writing is inspired and so must be the editing.

It is the unerring editing of the unerring writing.

Wait a second...

[NeoGreen]

9. Newsflash...

...it is all mundane...