Editing The Bible

[Miles]

Is there anything about the Bible you'd like to see changed?



Maybe take out some of the violence.

Reduce the amount of times it talks about "sex" stuff.

How about doing away with some of the more fantastical things like the Balaam's talking ass and the talking olive trees.

Maybe reconcile the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or Ahaziah age when he began to reign. Is it 22 or 42?

Or edit out the repetitive parts of the gospels.

How about making the resurrection stories agree with one another?

Or do away with those parts where god admits he made a mistake.



It's up to you. What would you change?


.

[SallyF]

In my observation ...

Losta folks do that already …!

They just don't SAY that's what they're doing.

Apparently one can cherry-pick the bits of biblical propaganda one likes …

And call oneself "liberal" or "progressive" …

And not actually admit that one obviously doesn't actually BELIVE one is dealing with the "Word of God" in the first place …

Because if one WAS dealing with the "Word of God" …

One wouldn't dare to edit out the bits that one recognises as downright false and downright nasty.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]

No, I believe the bible is perfect just as it is. It's a realistic reflection on mankinds history and sadly we tend to violence and mistreatment of each other more than not. History is what it is, why censor and sanitize reality? As for sex, sex is part of life, maybe the mention of it sends a few 21st century "snowflakes" rushing to their safe spaces but I'm unconcerned such infantile approach to literature . The bible neither encourages violence nor titilates its readers when dealing frankly on sexual matters; it's a grown up book for grown ups, if you want fairy stories there's always Disney.

If nothing else the bible is one of the world's oldest books, the according to some the King James version has been described as "the single most important publication in whole of history"*. The bible is history's best selling book, other auhors could only dream of such popularity. All good reason to leave it as it is: the phrase "If it aint broke dont fix it" comes to mind.

• *Celebrate 400 years of King James Bible - by Jenny Minard, BBC reporter
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/h ... 244012.stm

Millions use the bible as is as a guide to their spiritual lives, it is without a doubt one of the most influential books ever written; and there is nothing in it that needs changing. Future generations have the right to read it without interference, alteration or censorship.


JW


RELATED POSTS

Is the bible appropriate reading for children?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 49#p798649

Should the bible be banned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p997181

Is the bible book "Song of Solomon "pornographic"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 37#p358037

Does the bible contain vulgarities?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9#p1013119

Why does the bible include accounts of military exploits and divine executions?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p990309

[marco]

No, I believe the bible is perfect just as it is. It's a realistic reflection on mankinds history and sadly we tend to violence and mistreatment of each other more than not. Why censor and sanitize history ? What good would that serve.

Well it's not perfect but why change it? As it stands it provides us with a picture of a brutal god; altering might give him a pleasant personality and thereby mislead people.
So I agree - it would do no good to change it: leave the angels and the walking corpses, God forgetting and throwing tantrums and Jesus blundering into execution. A future generation will see what many of us accepted. We are as much judged as the evangelists. So be it.

[JehovahsWitness]

..I agree - it would do no good to change it....

Excellent!

I was sure someone as evidently intelligent and educated as you would feel that way. We know no good can come from censorship. We're not Victorian nannies.


Remove the sex indeed!


JW

[SallyF]

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism?

No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... sm-belief/

First of all, there is no such thing as THE Bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, DO edit their collection of biblical writings.

With regard to the two contradictory Jewish creation mythologies, they edit out the bits that contradict the position they have taken.

Standard Christian editing practice, in my experience.

[Miles]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]

No, I believe the bible is perfect just as it is.

Warts and all, eh. Okay, but my impression has always been that "God's Word" shouldn't have any warts. My mistake

It's a realistic reflection on mankinds history and sadly we tend to violence and mistreatment of each other more than not.

Well, an extreeemly small chunk of mankind's history. And I disagree that violence is more common than nonviolence.

History is what it is, why censor and sanitize reality?

Change does not necessarily = censorship or sanitation.

The bible neither encourages violence nor titilates its readers when dealing frankly on sexual matters;

Excuse me!!!

First of all, I never said a thing about the Bible titillating anyone. That's your rather telling reading.

Secondly: There's plenty of encouragement of violence in the Bible.

Leviticus 20:13,
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


Exodus 22:18
"A sorceress shall be put to death." (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.")


1 Samuel 15:1-3
"One day Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now listen to his message. 2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’�


Psalms 137:9
"Bless the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock."

it's a grown up book for grown ups, if you want fairy stories there's always Disney.

At least Disney doesn't market its tales as truth.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by Miles]

You invited opinion and I have offered mine, namely that that in my opinion (I am entitled to an opinion am I not?) nothing in the bible contents merits removal. If the bible stories are fictional then where's the harm? And if they are historic, they are part of mankind's collective history which shouldn't be "whitewashed". Regardless of how utterly shocking one may find its content, great literature shouldn't be hacked up and revised to suit petty sensibilities.

My advice to anyone that finds the bible distasteful is ... don't read it!


JW

[Tcg]

My advice to anyone that finds the bible distasteful is ... don't read it!

JW

Which would be fine if people read the Bible simply for entertainment purposes. The problem is that some make the mistake of basing their morality on its questionable stories and claims.

When folks use a book to determine who deserves to live or to die it is wise to keep a close eye on its claims and those who use them justify their prejudice against certain groups and individuals.


Tcg

[Miles]

[Replying to post 7 by Miles]

You invited opinion and I have offered mine, namely that that in my opinion (I am entitled to an opinion am I not?) nothing in the bible contents merits removal.

Fine. That's all I asked. That you wanted to add to it was your own doing.

If the bible stories are fictional then where's the harm?

It would be in misleading people to place their trust in a fiction they otherwise would not.

And if they are historic, they are part of mankind's collective history which shouldn't be "whitewashed".

Boy, you certainly have a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. But I agree, if they're true they should be kept as is.

Regardless of how utterly shocking one may find its content, great literature shouldn't be hacked up and revised to suit petty sensibilities.

Don't confuse popular with greatness. And I never said a thing about "should" or "shouldn't."


.