Should the Bible be edited?
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Unfortunately my mind has gone into over drive, if you put it together properly, with the net you could make billions, it seems so easy its frightening.
If they dont send in the donations the Sun goes out and they have to make offerings to get it to shine again.
I think its been done before time to bring it out again... Its like mini skirts they going and out of fashion.
Alex
If they dont send in the donations the Sun goes out and they have to make offerings to get it to shine again.
I think its been done before time to bring it out again... Its like mini skirts they going and out of fashion.
Alex
Whether you like the bible or not, it is part of human history. If you change the bible to suit modern bias, you can't learn from history. Rather will be pretending today is the first day of history. Why is today the most important time?
Would it make any sense to rewrite Darwin's "Origin of Species", since new insight into genetics has appeared since the book was written? Or is it better for the student of biology to see the original, in its pure form, as well as the modern text books, so they can draw a line between the two and then extrapolate the line to the future? It takes two points to draw a line. If we have one modern point, the extrapolated line can go in any direction, thereby repeating the past.
The invention of written language in about 3200 BC, corresponds with the writing of the first books of the old Testaments. The Bible is the only original publication still in print and used world wide. The modern printing press was invented in about 1440, with the bible being the first book to be printed by the new technology. It is a unique first in terms of two zero point,s so we can extrapolate the present and the future.
Would it make any sense to rewrite Darwin's "Origin of Species", since new insight into genetics has appeared since the book was written? Or is it better for the student of biology to see the original, in its pure form, as well as the modern text books, so they can draw a line between the two and then extrapolate the line to the future? It takes two points to draw a line. If we have one modern point, the extrapolated line can go in any direction, thereby repeating the past.
The invention of written language in about 3200 BC, corresponds with the writing of the first books of the old Testaments. The Bible is the only original publication still in print and used world wide. The modern printing press was invented in about 1440, with the bible being the first book to be printed by the new technology. It is a unique first in terms of two zero point,s so we can extrapolate the present and the future.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
We will call it the third testament and you can't have the first two without the third one.
Folk will still just read and cherry pick but they will only be able to cherry pick good stuff.
You can still have your history this is just an important point in time and adjustment.
Close your eyes and contemplate the spot.
Alex
Writing was developed about 3,200BC as you suggest, but Moses - the author of the earliest parts of the Bible - wasn't around until c.1,500 or 1,400 BC.
So a mere 1,700 or so years later.
"Original publication"?
You do realise that "The Bible" is a collection of writings and not a single piece of work? And that the various books were written, originally, from the time of Moses all the way up to past the death of Jesus - so a span of some 1,5oo years or so?
Furthermore, you seem to think that the individual books are word for word as per originally published, and haven't gone through various revisions, editing and so forth during the times until the earliest authoratitive versions upon which we base today's Bible?
For example, the Hebrew Bible is based upon The Masoretic Text, the oldest manuscripts of which are from the 9th century. Subsequent older sources, such as the Dead Sea scrolls, agree almost word for word with some of the texts of the Masoretic Text, but differ elsewhere, suggesting a history of revision.
So what do you consider an "original publication"?
Eh? So something happens to be, according to you, the oldest book still in print and used worldwide (although I am sure the Vedas is still in print, and used worldwide, and as a collection is older, given the relative youth of the New Testament of the Bible), AND was the first book to be printed on the modern printing press, this somehow enables us to extrapolate....
How, exactly?
What do you think it tells us?
Furthermore, you seem to think that the individual books are word for word as per originally published, and haven't gone through various revisions, editing and so forth during the times until the earliest authoratitive versions upon which we base today's Bible?
Didn't the monks copy the text of the bible?
And didn't the head monk make a peno?
He put celibate sex instead of celebrate sex???
Unfortunately this peno was not picked up until to late.
It already has been. There are several versions of the Bible out there. The Mormons have their version of the Bible; Catholics have their version; Protestants have theirs, and they have many versions of their bible. You might like the Living Bible. It addresses some of the issues you raised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Bible
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I do not remember the source, and ain't sure i will quote it accurately:
That being said, this is in reference to the demise of the old gods:
The scene is a feast table of the gods:
"Then feasted they all day
till the setting of the sun
when along came a ragged jew
dragging a huge wooden cross.
As he approached the table of the gods,
the gods grew silent
then, he flung down the cross on the table of the gods
and the gods just faded away"
..............................
It would seem that the "feast" of the gods is worship or belief
It sustains them much as food does us
without which, the gods just fade away
....................................
from my perspective
having a dead guy hanging on a cross as the symbol of a religion
is pretty damned kinky
but, then again, it's parent religion was founded on a guy who was going to sacrifice his only son
human sacrifice is kinky enough, but sacrificing your own son goes well beyond sanity
and
hanging a guy on a cross just might also be seen as human sacrifice?
....................
Do we have a religion not founded on a nutjob?
That being said, this is in reference to the demise of the old gods:
The scene is a feast table of the gods:
"Then feasted they all day
till the setting of the sun
when along came a ragged jew
dragging a huge wooden cross.
As he approached the table of the gods,
the gods grew silent
then, he flung down the cross on the table of the gods
and the gods just faded away"
..............................
It would seem that the "feast" of the gods is worship or belief
It sustains them much as food does us
without which, the gods just fade away
....................................
from my perspective
having a dead guy hanging on a cross as the symbol of a religion
is pretty damned kinky
but, then again, it's parent religion was founded on a guy who was going to sacrifice his only son
human sacrifice is kinky enough, but sacrificing your own son goes well beyond sanity
and
hanging a guy on a cross just might also be seen as human sacrifice?
....................
Do we have a religion not founded on a nutjob?
Can you give an example of an edit that would be consistent with the modern era?
jan.
I understand Abraham had slaves, and that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his bond-servants, bought with his money.
It's not right to have gods going round commanding people to circumcise their slaves, not in the ''modern era'' at lease.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It's a work of literature and culture, not a manual of nature.
Leave it be, and let those interested continue to interpret it in various ways, just as they have been doing since at least the time of Augustine of Hippo (~400AD).
Yes... its New Age Christan Atheist an its founded on me.!!!
PS:::
All are welcome.!!!
Being forced to marry your rapist.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
From my above:
One way we can find out if you are a real god, is if you stop eating and survive on worship alone.
If you survive, bingo, we have a real god and a new religion.
(kinda like tossing a pearl in vinegar to see if it's real---if it dissolves, it was real)
That being said:
Going on a hunger strike to prove that you are a god, is pretty nutty too.
Im not God i just know the most about God an speek the truth for others to hear... but most of my followers are skeptical so you woud fit right in.!!!
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
"Dude created the heavens and the earth and said 'For reals, this is wicked cool'" The Xelasnave 1947 version of the Bible
I Phrased that wrong. Obviously we would edit the part out that says you should force women to marry their rapist (or anyone else).
Just a thought.
"And god created the heavens and earth".
God lives in heaven right?
So before he created heaven, where did he live?