Should the Bible be edited?

[wellwisher]

What many people, from both sides of aisle don't understand is the bible is written in symbols and it is not always to be taken literally. Jesus often taught in parables, where meaning has to be extracted from the symbols in the parable. This was a common style.

For example; Matthew 13:31 - 32 "The kingdom of heaven is compared to a tiny mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32. Which indeed is very small among all the seeds; but after it is grown, it is greater than all the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and roost in its branches."

If you take this literally, " Kingdom of God is a mustard seed", then one might logically conclude that God must be tiny; nanoscale. This reasonable conclusion, may not make any sense, and therefore one might then conclude the whole statement is nonsense. But symbolically, it is more symbolic of an idea, which can start out small and insignificant, but as it takes root and grows, until it becomes mainstream and used by all.

The brains of small children absorb information at a high rate, due to the growing brains. If you to give small children the option of hearing a new fairy tale; Little Red Riding Hood, or lecture them on safety issues, they will enjoy and remember the fairy tale. This comes easy to them. The fairy tale is like a small compressed file of symbols, that is easy to remember, which later in life, can be decompressed for deeper meaning.

The story of Adam and Eve is simple and appeals to the brain of a child; like a mustard seed. If you were to teach a three year old any modern interpretation, including atheism, the details and logic would be forgotten almost immediately. That is not natural to their brains. But if you teach them the compressed symbolic file version of the same lesson of life, that file format can last a lifetime and be decompressed later in life. Less ye be as children you cannot enter the kingdom. Children love symbolism; compressed files or mustard seeds, since their brains work in 3-D and not 2-D.

The position of the Catholic church for example, is to maintain the bible as it, while also writing a separate version that is more in line with contemporary teachings; Catechism. Maybe the atheists can write their own version of the bible, where God exists on the nanoscale; Matthew 13:31 - 32.

If you assume Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans, this will contradict evolution and science. On the other hand, if you assume this is a compressed file format, it could mean Adam and Eve represent two humans that had something different about them like a mutation; modern human consciousness. The timing coordinate with the rise of civilization, which required a new mental attitude to be successful; decompression.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What many people, from both sides of aisle don't understand is the bible is written in symbols and it is not always to be taken literally. Jesus often taught in parables, where meaning has to be extracted from the symbols in the parable. This was a common style.

I doubt if the aspect of symbolism is lost on very many.

Many folk say the bible is up for interpretation.

Now I cant give figures or cite authority of the numbers but I think those who have to pick out a meaning may well enjoy an approach where things are made very clear.
We have better literary styles more suitable than the ancient one you mention.

For example; Matthew 13:31 - 32 "The kingdom of heaven is compared to a tiny mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32. Which indeed is very small among all the seeds; but after it is grown, it is greater than all the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and roost in its branches."

Sure great example that could be changed. Even if we must retain the concept of heaven do you not think we can describe it without reference to a seed no one has seen or knows about.
I am sure in ancient times all understood the mustard seed reference. They dont now so change it.
Great example of but one thing that needs to be changed.

The brains of small children absorb information at a high rate, due to the growing brains. If you to give small children the option of hearing a new fairy tale; Little Red Riding Hood, or lecture them on safety issues, they will enjoy and remember the fairy tale. This comes easy to them. The fairy tale is like a small compressed file of symbols, that is easy to remember, which later in life, can be decompressed for deeper meaning.

Well it is just plain wrong to make it easy for children to grasp. So many people are brain washed from the moment they can listen and they are permantely prevented from accepting or rejecting religion.
Folk claim they have faith but it could be seen that their faith is nothing more than a brain that is unable to rationalise after years of indoctrination.

I am against making it resemble a fairy tale in any way at all and to make it so kids buy it is simply very wrong.

The story of Adam and Eve is simple and appeals to the brain of a child; like a mustard seed. If you were to teach a three year old any modern interpretation, including atheism, the details and logic would be forgotten almost immediately. That is not natural to their brains. But if you teach them the compressed symbolic file version of the same lesson of life, that file format can last a lifetime and be decompressed later in life. Less ye be as children you cannot enter the kingdom. Children love symbolism; compressed files or mustard seeds, since their brains work in 3-D and not 2-D.

I find it absolutely alarming that your concern is to make sure children have religion presented such that they readily accept it... And if we make up fairy tales you think that is acceptable I can only strongly disagree and say that approach isvery wrong.

I believe that is wrong.

I suppose you approve of alcopops... Hook the kids early and you have a customer for life, true this form of marketing is employed by many corporations but that does not make it right... To manipulate the mind of a child is wrong in fact I call such practice as disgusting.

The position of the Catholic church for example, is to maintain the bible as it, while also writing a separate version that is more in line with contemporary teachings; Catechism. Maybe the atheists can write their own version of the bible, where God exists on the nanoscale; Matthew 13:31 - 32.

The Catholic Church does good deeds but certainly is most concerned with their numbers.
Two versions is like betting for a win and a place... It makes sence for the numbers.
Sure for who ever... Cover all squares... But I say a new bible.

If you assume Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans, this will contradict evolution and science. On the other hand, if you assume this is a compressed file format, it could mean Adam and Eve represent two humans that had something different about them like a mutation; modern human consciousness. The timing coordinate with the rise of civilization, which required a new mental attitude to be successful; decompression.

Why the difficulty in trying to present the truth as oppossed to a wishy washy fairy tale that is clearly made up and in no way presents the reality of the appearance of humans.

Why this need to deal in nonsence.

We dont live in times where even adults were somewhat child like in their understanding of even the simplest of things.

I suggest that a five year old these days is capable of sound comprehension paricularly if you avoid baby talk and confusing them with fairy tales.

I reject the suggestion that even children need any of these matters dumbed down.

And moreover why not revise the thing.

Religion evolved from multiple gods, you would not even see an edit now as little different to settling upon one god.

I suggest the only reason anyone would have difficulty with a better version is because they have been indoctrinated from an early age and to suggest changing the bible via an edit would be like telling them to cut off their arm... Only it is nothing like that it would simply be making the thing credible and relevant.

But I am an athiest who hates childhood indoctrination which is no doubt the opposite to the desire of a good believer.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

What many people, from both sides of aisle don't understand is the bible is written in symbols and it is not always to be taken literally. Jesus often taught in parables, where meaning has to be extracted from the symbols in the parable. This was a common style.

For example; Matthew 13:31 - 32 "The kingdom of heaven is compared to a tiny mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32. Which indeed is very small among all the seeds; but after it is grown, it is greater than all the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and roost in its branches."

If you take this literally, " Kingdom of God is a mustard seed", then one might logically conclude that God must be tiny; nanoscale. This reasonable conclusion, may not make any sense, and therefore one might then conclude the whole statement is nonsense. But symbolically, it is more symbolic of an idea, which can start out small and insignificant, but as it takes root and grows, until it becomes mainstream and used by all.

The brains of small children absorb information at a high rate, due to the growing brains. If you to give small children the option of hearing a new fairy tale; Little Red Riding Hood, or lecture them on safety issues, they will enjoy and remember the fairy tale. This comes easy to them. The fairy tale is like a small compressed file of symbols, that is easy to remember, which later in life, can be decompressed for deeper meaning.

The story of Adam and Eve is simple and appeals to the brain of a child; like a mustard seed. If you were to teach a three year old any modern interpretation, including atheism, the details and logic would be forgotten almost immediately. That is not natural to their brains. But if you teach them the compressed symbolic file version of the same lesson of life, that file format can last a lifetime and be decompressed later in life. Less ye be as children you cannot enter the kingdom. Children love symbolism; compressed files or mustard seeds, since their brains work in 3-D and not 2-D.

The position of the Catholic church for example, is to maintain the bible as it, while also writing a separate version that is more in line with contemporary teachings; Catechism. Maybe the atheists can write their own version of the bible, where God exists on the nanoscale; Matthew 13:31 - 32.

If you assume Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans, this will contradict evolution and science. On the other hand, if you assume this is a compressed file format, it could mean Adam and Eve represent two humans that had something different about them like a mutation; modern human consciousness. The timing coordinate with the rise of civilization, which required a new mental attitude to be successful; decompression.

Not sure of what teaching style you are advocating so you have lost me.

Speaking purely from my own self-centred view I can always remember being curious but have no idea of anyone teaching me, or encouraging me to be so.

All these years, a lot, later I still am curious.

Sucker for the latest gadgets but frugal with $'s I steer clear of marketing hype.

Never owned a Apple computer, iPhone along with other such latest fashion items.

Also steer clear of restrictive goods which only allow their parts to fit their product.

There is a case to be made for quality control but it's shakey at best.

Looked into many such items.

Do I think the more expensive are superior to what I use? Yes.

Do I think the extra superior features are worth the extra $s. No.

Back to teachings

On the Adam and Eve front.

Problem here is many persons adults DO believe Adam and Eve were created without any concession to assumptions. They KNOW.

You might recall how doctors were trained in anatomy how man had one less rib then woman, despite during dissection this was shown to be false.

I seem to recall something about those who believe Adam and Eve literally being asked if they had belly buttons.

Can't recall the outcome.

My best advice (oh lord I am going to sound New Ageie).

Love your children.

Give age appropriate answers to their questions.

Had a friend who thought children should be taught the correct names of all the body parts. Not going back as far the Latin. Just good old Anglo-Saxon.

Guess how that worked out for the child at school?

Encourage curiosity.

Gets down off soap box, exits stage left.

 

[Michael 345]

I doubt if the aspect of symbolism is lost on very many.

Many folk say the bible is up for interpretation.

Now I cant give figures or cite authority of the numbers but I think those who have to pick out a meaning may well enjoy an approach where things are made very clear.
We have better literary styles more suitable than the ancient one you mention.



Sure great example that could be changed. Even if we must retain the concept of heaven do you not think we can describe it without reference to a seed no one has seen or knows about.
I am sure in ancient times all understood the mustard seed reference. They dont now so change it.
Great example of but one thing that needs to be changed.



Well it is just plain wrong to make it easy for children to grasp. So many people are brain washed from the moment they can listen and they are permantely prevented from accepting or rejecting religion.
Folk claim they have faith but it could be seen that their faith is nothing more than a brain that is unable to rationalise after years of indoctrination.

I am against making it resemble a fairy tale in any way at all and to make it so kids buy it is simply very wrong.



I find it absolutely alarming that your concern is to make sure children have religion presented such that they readily accept it... And if we make up fairy tales you think that is acceptable I can only strongly disagree and say that approach isvery wrong.

I believe that is wrong.

I suppose you approve of alcopops... Hook the kids early and you have a customer for life, true this form of marketing is employed by many corporations but that does not make it right... To manipulate the mind of a child is wrong in fact I call such practice as disgusting.



The Catholic Church does good deeds but certainly is most concerned with their numbers.
Two versions is like betting for a win and a place... It makes sence for the numbers.
Sure for who ever... Cover all squares... But I say a new bible.



Why the difficulty in trying to present the truth as oppossed to a wishy washy fairy tale that is clearly made up and in no way presents the reality of the appearance of humans.

Why this need to deal in nonsence.

We dont live in times where even adults were somewhat child like in their understanding of even the simplest of things.

I suggest that a five year old these days is capable of sound comprehension paricularly if you avoid baby talk and confusing them with fairy tales.

I reject the suggestion that even children need any of these matters dumbed down.

And moreover why not revise the thing.

Religion evolved from multiple gods, you would not even see an edit now as little different to settling upon one god.

I suggest the only reason anyone would have difficulty with a better version is because they have been indoctrinated from an early age and to suggest changing the bible via an edit would be like telling them to cut off their arm... Only it is nothing like that it would simply be making the thing credible and relevant.

But I am an athiest who hates childhood indoctrination which is no doubt the opposite to the desire of a good believer.

Alex

Religion evolved from stories made up to explain the world and the events happening to sooth those who were frightened.

Any explanation was preferably to none.

The stories were elaborated and tweaked.

Con artist stepped in and organised the set up.

And as I noted else where after a few years we have a pope.

 

[Michael 345]

I doubt if the aspect of symbolism is lost on very many.

Many folk say the bible is up for interpretation.

Now I cant give figures or cite authority of the numbers but I think those who have to pick out a meaning may well enjoy an approach where things are made very clear.
We have better literary styles more suitable than the ancient one you mention.



Sure great example that could be changed. Even if we must retain the concept of heaven do you not think we can describe it without reference to a seed no one has seen or knows about.
I am sure in ancient times all understood the mustard seed reference. They dont now so change it.
Great example of but one thing that needs to be changed.



Well it is just plain wrong to make it easy for children to grasp. So many people are brain washed from the moment they can listen and they are permantely prevented from accepting or rejecting religion.
Folk claim they have faith but it could be seen that their faith is nothing more than a brain that is unable to rationalise after years of indoctrination.

I am against making it resemble a fairy tale in any way at all and to make it so kids buy it is simply very wrong.



I find it absolutely alarming that your concern is to make sure children have religion presented such that they readily accept it... And if we make up fairy tales you think that is acceptable I can only strongly disagree and say that approach isvery wrong.

I believe that is wrong.

I suppose you approve of alcopops... Hook the kids early and you have a customer for life, true this form of marketing is employed by many corporations but that does not make it right... To manipulate the mind of a child is wrong in fact I call such practice as disgusting.



The Catholic Church does good deeds but certainly is most concerned with their numbers.
Two versions is like betting for a win and a place... It makes sence for the numbers.
Sure for who ever... Cover all squares... But I say a new bible.



Why the difficulty in trying to present the truth as oppossed to a wishy washy fairy tale that is clearly made up and in no way presents the reality of the appearance of humans.

Why this need to deal in nonsence.

We dont live in times where even adults were somewhat child like in their understanding of even the simplest of things.

I suggest that a five year old these days is capable of sound comprehension paricularly if you avoid baby talk and confusing them with fairy tales.

I reject the suggestion that even children need any of these matters dumbed down.

And moreover why not revise the thing.

Religion evolved from multiple gods, you would not even see an edit now as little different to settling upon one god.

I suggest the only reason anyone would have difficulty with a better version is because they have been indoctrinated from an early age and to suggest changing the bible via an edit would be like telling them to cut off their arm... Only it is nothing like that it would simply be making the thing credible and relevant.

But I am an athiest who hates childhood indoctrination which is no doubt the opposite to the desire of a good believer.

Alex

The Catholic church does good deeds?!?!?!?

Do you know how much money they rake in?

I can recall at about age 9 bring asked to contribute to a fund to provide a water pump to an African village.

They are still asking.

With the donated money every African village should have running water to every hut, an Olympic size pool and a live in Mr Fix It with a stocked branch of Bunnings.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The Catholic church does good deeds?!?!?!?

I belive so.

Do you know how much money they rake in?

No.

With the donated money every African village should have running water to every hut, an Olympic size pool and a live in Mr Fix It with a stocked branch of Bunnings.

How much money did you give them to expect they should have done all that with it.

The Catholic Church fills a roll and maybe they can do things better but I dont know.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

I belive so.

No.

How much money did you give them to expect they should have done all that with it.

The Catholic Church fills a roll and maybe they can do things better but I dont know.
Alex

Personal £ donated zilch.

Awareness of of other individuals donations. None

Awareness of collective donations. In the millions though I forget exactly how many.

Certainly they (or any other group) could do better. But would they? Unknown.

From newspapers I was reading at the time, about 1952, much of the money that even made it to Africa was corruptly stolen.

Occasionally flyers appeared showing happy villagers gathered around a gushing pump.

Occasionally over the years I wondered how much effort and £s was put into maintenance.

Even TV Black and White mini news items appeared showing hard working volunteers drilling the well and installing the pump. The voice over gushing as much as the pump about the new era.

Never ever did I see a one year follow up.

My current cynical observations involve Syria. Putin and Trump have wide spread unemployment on the horizon.

I suspect both will export jobs in the form of workers to the area in the form of aid in rebuilding this tragic devastation. And employment at home goes up providing the materials.

The population that fled return. The dictators and corruption remains. No follow up is undertaken.

Here we go round the mulberry tree and we all fall down.

 

[Yazata]

It appears to me the bible contains material that is wrong, contains material that is inconsistent with the modern era and material that is irrelevant.
Further it contains prophecies that are non specific and meaningless.

I looks to me like there are a lot of your own assumptions and value judgements implicit in those remarks.

Should the bible be edited and or rewritten to make it correct and relevant.

Correct according to whom and relevant regarding what?

The Bible already reflects the views of the ancient Hebrews who compiled the Hebrew canon and of the early Christians of the Pauline persuasion who compiled the New Testament. All of it is relevant to the views of those who compiled it and presumably correctly communicates what they wanted said (if at times cryptically).

If moderns want to communicate their own contemporary ideas, why call the product the Bible?

 

[Yazata]

I beg to differ... not that we don't appreciate the sun, but there are definitely people in the UK who sun-worship: they are usually from the working class, and their churches are the beaches of Benidorm! Each summer the cult congregates in their vastness to bask in the eternal glory of His magnificence, with the more devout being turned a tanned colour, the more eager but unworthy a lovely shade of pink, all hoping to avoid the mark of the Dark Lord Melanoma!

We have many worshippers of the same cult here in California. I'm told that it's the established national religion of Australia.

Better than Canadian ice-worship and its weird hockey rituals (like drinking beer and jeering as the ritual celebrants fight).

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I looks to me like there are a lot of your own assumptions and value judgements implicit in those remarks

Yes I am not presenting the ideas of another and indeed they are my assumptions and judgements.

Correct according to whom and relevant regarding what?

According to me.
I cant be specific without a line by line review which realistically I doubt I will do.

The Bible already reflects the views of the ancient Hebrews who compiled the Hebrew canon and of the early Christians of the Pauline persuasion who compiled the New Testament. All of it is relevant to the views of those who compiled it and presumably correctly communicates what they wanted said (if at times cryptically).

Yes I agree, however the bible has moved past being a text for those who wrote it.
Is it, in the modern era, at all appropriate to include laws relating to how the ancient Hebrews should treat their slaves.

It would seem to me the bible is now the text of many different people so trying to claim it for the original owners makes little sence.

I suppose however there is a case for those who now follow, in effect, the religion of the ancient Hebrews to demand an entirely new text where the narrative begins later to coincide with the time their "group" started to follow the concept of one God.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If moderns want to communicate their own contemporary ideas, why call the product the Bible?

For no other reason than the word now means something akin to "my religious authority".
I can't recall the term but I suggest we have a similar situation to that where a a pen made by the company "Biro" in time was no longer a pen but a Biro and all similar pens made by manufactures competing with Biro were no longer pens but also called Biros.
So I suggest bible has gone thru a similar transition.
Mind you I accept my suggestion would cause much arguement.
Alex

 

[river]

The bible should never have been edited .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The bible should never have been edited .

Which edit are you talking about River?
Do you know how many times the bible has been edited, in fact do you know when the bible first appeared? Why do you think it should never be edited.
Alex

 

[river]

river said: ↑
The bible should never have been edited .

Which edit are you talking about River?
Do you know how many times the bible has been edited, in fact do you know when the bible first appeared? Why do you think it should never be edited.
Alex

It should never have been edited because the full story of the bible will not be known , except for scholars.

The full story becomes esotric .

Which I don't think the bible is mean't to be .

 

[joepistole]

What many people, from both sides of aisle don't understand is the bible is written in symbols and it is not always to be taken literally.

You know that reminds me of what Trump's surrogates say about Trump. We aren't supposed to take him literally. Because he frequently contradicts himself. We are suppose to just know and believe regardless of the truth. Than reminds me of what Limbaugh said on his radio show while he was instructing his listeners: that they should just know the right answer, the conservative answer, even if they didn't know the question, answers or relevant facts.

Jesus often taught in parables, where meaning has to be extracted from the symbols in the parable. This was a common style.

For example; Matthew 13:31 - 32 "The kingdom of heaven is compared to a tiny mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32. Which indeed is very small among all the seeds; but after it is grown, it is greater than all the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and roost in its branches."

If you take this literally, " Kingdom of God is a mustard seed", then one might logically conclude that God must be tiny; nanoscale. This reasonable conclusion, may not make any sense, and therefore one might then conclude the whole statement is nonsense. But symbolically, it is more symbolic of an idea, which can start out small and insignificant, but as it takes root and grows, until it becomes mainstream and used by all.

The brains of small children absorb information at a high rate, due to the growing brains. If you to give small children the option of hearing a new fairy tale; Little Red Riding Hood, or lecture them on safety issues, they will enjoy and remember the fairy tale. This comes easy to them. The fairy tale is like a small compressed file of symbols, that is easy to remember, which later in life, can be decompressed for deeper meaning.

The story of Adam and Eve is simple and appeals to the brain of a child; like a mustard seed. If you were to teach a three year old any modern interpretation, including atheism, the details and logic would be forgotten almost immediately. That is not natural to their brains. But if you teach them the compressed symbolic file version of the same lesson of life, that file format can last a lifetime and be decompressed later in life. Less ye be as children you cannot enter the kingdom. Children love symbolism; compressed files or mustard seeds, since their brains work in 3-D and not 2-D.

The position of the Catholic church for example, is to maintain the bible as it, while also writing a separate version that is more in line with contemporary teachings; Catechism. Maybe the atheists can write their own version of the bible, where God exists on the nanoscale; Matthew 13:31 - 32.

If you assume Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans, this will contradict evolution and science. On the other hand, if you assume this is a compressed file format, it could mean Adam and Eve represent two humans that had something different about them like a mutation; modern human consciousness. The timing coordinate with the rise of civilization, which required a new mental attitude to be successful; decompression.

We aren't talking about parables here, so your reasoning is off.

 

[kx000]

I find it conflicted, paradoxical almost, the Love of the bible and what to do about non-violence vs pacifism, as good and evil is forbidden. But I easily rationalize reality like that, so go figure. Pardon the pun. Eventually Jesus will return to finish perfecting us, as prophecied in the biblel, and in buddhism, and there will be more wisdom from the apparently passive character. In all reality the MR even is only second hand accounts of Jesus' life.

 

[Michael 345]

I find it conflicted, paradoxical almost, the Love of the bible and what to do about non-violence. But I easily rationalize reality like that, so go figure. Pardon the pun. Eventually Jesus will return as prophecied to finish perfecting us, like in buddhism, and there will be more wisdom from the apparently passive character. In all reality the MR even is only second hand accounts of Jesus' life.

You would think an all powerful all knowing loving god would know better than to go off leaving a job part done

Or is it part of the moving in mysterious ways?

 

[kx000]

You would think an all powerful all knowing loving god would know better than to go off leaving a job part done

Or is it part of the moving in mysterious ways?

Imagine believing life, Jesus is passive before that in decagen.

 

[Michael 345]

Imagine believing life, Jesus is passive before that in decagen.

No idea what that means

 

[kx000]

No idea what that means

Its my word for heavenly order.