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?


.

[pleinmont]

First of all I would add a statement to that book stating there is no evidence the Bible is anymore than an imaginative human creation. I would remove the ghastly book of Revelation, which is bad JOKE!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by Miles]

None of the passages you mentioned encourage violence, indeed the are either State laws that punish violence or gross misconduct, rules governing legitimate military conflict or private sentiment neither endorsed encouraged but simply reported.




RELATED POSTS


Should references to sex or violence be removed from the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23#1013223

Is there a difference between VIOLENCE and FORCE?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 440#978440

[Elijah John]

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.

I agree that believers cherry-pick. But it's not just theologically liberal Christians who do this. Fundamentalists do this as well though they don't admit it, and insist that they don't.

How many sermons, for example, do you hear about the "virtues" of slave keeping, and slave beating? (Exodus 21.20-21) How many hymns extoling the hatred of one's family? (it's in Luke)

Sometimes we cherry pick by what we emphasize and what we don't.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Miles]

Jefferson gave us a good example of editing in his volume The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth also known as "The Jefferson Bible".

I wish he had done the same with the "Old" Testament.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, the Bible paints a "warts and all" picture of humanity, but what is disturbing is that it also projects a lot of human barbarity onto God, or attributes atrocities to the orders of God. Paine calls that a "calumny" against the Almighty.

[Difflugia]

Yes, the Bible paints a "warts and all" picture of humanity, but what is disturbing is that it also projects a lot of human barbarity onto God, or attributes atrocities to the orders of God. Paine calls that a "calumny" against the Almighty.

What leads you to believe that the atrocities attributed to God are due to projection? Without context, that assertion is hard to distinguish from a simple dismissal of God's true barbarity due to wishful thinking.

[Overcomer]

Either the Bible is the Word of God or it isn't. If it is, then take all of it seriously. If it isn't, then take none of it seriously. It's those people who pick and choose which parts of it they think are true and cherry pick verses or twist them to suit themselves -- those are the people I have a problem with. Accept it all or reject it all. But please don't treat it like it's just a book you can pick bits out of when it's convenient while ignoring other bits because they just don't line up with your particular view of things or you find the contents hard (John 6:60).

I think this verse applies:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth" Rev. 3:15-16).

When it comes to the Bible, be hot or cold, not lukewarm.

[Zzyzx]

.

Either the Bible is the Word of God or it isn't.

Is it possible that some parts of the Bible are the 'Word of God' and some are not?

How, by what means, can that possibility be eliminated?

If it is, then take all of it seriously.

How can that be determined? Is it anything more than opinion?

If it isn't, then take none of it seriously.

I agree

It's those people who pick and choose which parts of it they think are true and cherry pick verses or twist them to suit themselves -- those are the people I have a problem with.

Is this to say to stone those who collect firewood on the Sabbath? And disobedient children?

Accept it all or reject it all.

Typical 'Black-or-white' thinking – extreme fundamentalism.

Who appointed you to be spokesman for the Bible or Christianity? Most who consider themselves Christians likely disagree with you. What makes them wrong and you right?

But please don't treat it like it's just a book you can pick bits out of when it's convenient while ignoring other bits because they just don't line up with your particular view of things or you find the contents hard (John 6:60).

Is it 'God's word' that someone lived inside a fish for three days?

If a person does not believe that is a true story, are they disqualified from Christendom?

When it comes to the Bible, be hot or cold, not lukewarm.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

[DavidLeon]

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

Maybe take out some of the violence.

No.

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

No.

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

No. There are many things in the Bible, however, that could be clarified upon further examination. Some examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true would be the case where it appears that "Samuel's" spirit is summoned by the witch of En-dor, (1 Samuel 28:7-20) and also the case where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. (Numbers 13:31-33; 14:36-37) Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed at the time of the event. Likewise, at Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it as recorded at a much later date.

The Bible says the serpent spoke to Eve. It didn't. The same applies to Balaam's ass. (1 timothy 2:14; Numbers 22:22-28; 2 Peter 2:16)

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

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. 1 is a chronological account and 2 is a topical account of the same events in different order. It isn't a contradiction for me to tell one person I bought a coat at the mall and another person that I went to the mall and bought a coat. I need scriptural reference supporting the alleged contradiction regarding Ahaziah's age.

Or edit out the repetitive parts of the gospels.

Absolutely not.

How about making the resurrection stories agree with one another?

Make them agree? The details of the account given by the four writers of the gospel differ in a way that depends upon who is telling the account to them. There were people coming and going over an indeterminate amount of time, and where one person would see one thing another would see something different from their own perspective of where they fit in the stream of time. For example, the guards were there during the night, and some of the women were there. The women left first and then the soldiers left sometime not long before the women returned. The soldiers left when the angels arrived and moved the stone. Mary arrived but left to tell the others what had happened; the apostles arrived - John being younger and faster arrived first, before Peter. The arrival of the others isn't specifically mentioned but they were there. If the Bible skeptic, who seems to expect all four of these accounts to be identical thus defeating the purpose of giving a varied witness account, was set down at any given point within my brief description of a part of what happened it would differ from any other point. Was Mary there or not? Depends upon when you got there. The same applies to Peter and John, and the angels and the guards and Jesus. And their positions.

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

Again, for a serious discussion I would have to have scriptural references.

[VVilliam]

The bible is a book of stories about ancient people and their primitive ideas of The Creator. Some folk are troubled by the idea that if we exist within a creation, then The Creator cannot be altogether benevolent. Other folk are troubled by the idea of a Creator who has a darker side.

I see the bible as a human story of a Creator who is evolving and learning and thus changing his approach, which appears to be exactly how nature seems to be unwinding.

There is no need to edit the Bible. People do that in their minds all the time anyway...with everything...