Should the Bible be revised?
you have to admit it’s downright out dated in several ways.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
73 Answers
Well of course it’s outdated. But Christianity is rooted in tradition. There are plenty of Bibles out there with commentary and explanations and whatever, and different translations. I doubt that there will ever be an officially revised Bible, though.
Ideally, a lot of crap would be cut out of it. I.e. anything discriminatory.
I think that pretty much defeats the purpose of it. Besides, the Bible itself says the text is not to be added to and not to be taken away from either.
@five99one Ideally, a lot of crap would be cut out of it. I.e. anything discriminatory.
Sure – let’s revise all the history books while we are at it – they are just as out-dated. We can “cut out” all the bits we don’t like.
Whether you like it or not, believe it or not – it IS a historical text. You don’t alter history for convenience.
well conservapedia is rewriting the bible to remove the “liberal bias” from it.
I think it’s time for a total remake – Bible Redux. Or maybe a sequel – the Brand New Testament.
Maybe not staring Mel Gibson
@ragingloli well conservapedia is rewriting the bible to remove the “liberal bias” from it.
When they finish it won’t be “the” Bible. It will just be another biased tract with no credibility.
@DarkScribe
“It will just be another biased tract with no credibility.” unlike the current version…?
@Cartman unlike the current version…?
Whether you believe it or not (I don’t) it does have provenance.
The way I see it, the bible gt a major addition once. Why not put in a whole other section?
I believe with @DarkScribe if we are to revise the Bible then we should revise all historical texts. After all, we wouldn’t change ancient Egyptian writings and texts just because some of their beliefs are outdated.
Feel free to come up with your own holy book that is more up to date than The Bible, maybe you’ll get some followers who believe everything you write and then, maybe, in a few thousand years, people will still be following it AND it will also be a historical text.
When I say “you” I don’t mean you personally, I mean the collective “you”!
The bible itself has been “revised” in terms of the Christian editions, which has taken the traditional bible an reinterpreted the stories from a Christian evangelical perspective.
The Bible itself is a political document, originally written to gather the various sects of Christianity under a common banner to give them political credence. Look at the Nicene Creed; it is essentially an oath of allegiance, beginning with “We believe…“There are thousands of gospels out there that were left out of the New Testament, and the Catholic bible has included several books from the Greek that were removed from the Protestant bible.
A fascinating read is the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. She is a biblical scholar at the Yale School of Divinity, and one of a handful of people with access to Vatican records, as a recognized scholar. Her perspective on the Bible is historically based.
Even if you did revise the Bible (which I think is a dumb idea), you wouldn’t be able to get people to read it. Some people wont even read newer translations of the Bible even though the message is essentially the same.
How do you revise something so wholly wrong? The Bible is, at best, a history book. A revised edition would have to do without the silly idea of a deity – and then there is nothing left to make it unique. It would be like revising the Iliad to cut out the acts of the gods – it would destroy a classic work of fiction.
@FireMadeFlesh How do you revise something so wholly wrong?
Wholly wrong or holy wrong?
The old testament, which is where the discrimination takes place is written as history, the new testament, which contains the lessens has several references to the old as a way of teaching. (you have heard “eye for an eye”, but I say, “turn the other cheek…”)
@mattbrowne said: We also need to realize that the Bible isn’t the only source of knowledge and wisdom.
That is true, but it is a source of knowledge, wisdom, and history. It is a guide to life.
People who presume they can edit things out may find themselves with some ‘splainen to do.
@filmfann – Yes, I see the Bible as a great source of knowledge, wisdom, and history among others. And my answer was, no, the Bible should not be revised (not be edited).
Revising the Bible would be ridiculous.
Yes. When you open it, it should play the MC Hammer song.
“Can’t touch this”
Should the Egyptian Book of the Dead be revised?
Yeah…lets remove that useless charater…which is it…the one that always…OH YEAH…God. Really, why is this a question?
Yea, put it back like it was in the beginning. It’ s been changed (translated) too many time to fit certain ideas.
Not only is the Bible a historical document it is the inspired word of God. The Bible is totally relevant today… It deals with the same core issues that we face today and that will be facing for generations to come. The Bible is timely because it’s timeless.
A Nobel Prize winner’s opinion on the Bible See
@DarkScribe – Another example of counterproductive antireligionism. An expert in literature might not be an expert in theology or Christian doctrine and ethics.
Yes it should. Christians are revising it all the time by interpreting differently.
interpreting is not revising…and most of the time people misinterpret scripture by taking a verse or two out of context and making it fit what they already believe.
People are updating the translation all the time. There is even an Ebonics Translation . (Irreverent Version)
Or this Unauthorized Version
People are revising the Bible all the time. In a free society, people can choose the King James, NIV, New International, or some crazy translation. They can even study Greek and Hebrew and study text that closely resembles the original.
If you think it’s “downright outdated” I am sure you can find a translation that is PC enough for you somewhere. Personally I find it timeless.
@jbradc What I mean is that if people keep interpreting differently that’s a sign it needs to be revised
@Judi – They are revising translations. The question was about revising the Hebrew and Greek original. At least that’s how I understood the question.
@jazzjeppe no, the fact that people keep interpreting it differently is a sign that people are ignorant as to what the Bible truly says and means. I don’t say that to put anyone down…most people just don’t take the time to study the Bible.
@jbradc – Well, it’s not that simple. Even when studying the original you are faced with a fundamental linguistic and neurobiological problem: how does the reader convert the symbols (characters) and words (strings of symbols) and sentences (strings of symbols with delimiters) into something the reader’s brain can understand? I tell you every brain will come to a (slightly) different conclusion. Even identical twins. Every brain has to process the input of two “sensory” organs: your eyes and your memory. There is no such thing as something “truly says” or “truly means”.
To give you an example: What does the phrase “fill the earth and subdue it” (let’s pretend it’s Hebrew and ignore the translation issue) mean to someone living 500 BC, 1000 AD, 1800 AD, 2009 AD? I’m convinced, everyone will come up with a slightly different understanding. Even when explaining the understanding, how can you make sure someone else understands your understanding? Fundamental problem of communication.
What hermeneutics can do is ask about the social context at the time of writing and the social context today. The original Hebrew characters remain the same. No revision. But still a lot of different meanings. No way around it.
RE: The Bible as a historical text. SOME of the Bible is historical. The parts where it tells you to stone people for doing certain things, and how you should live your life, has nothing to do with history, besides the fact that people back then were fucking crazy. If you’re going to leave in the parts where it says certain things are wrong or okay, we should add footnotes. Like “Hey, it’s okay to be gay.” Or “Hey, it’s not okay to have multiple wives.” Or “Hey, contraception is a-okay.”
All the religious people need to colonize on the moon and leave the rest of us in peace, and then when they blow up each other on the moon we’ll see a nice little fireworks display and know that maybe there is a god and he just did the right thing
@Barcybarce
The religious people had earth first, why do they have to leave?
It’s like asking “Should the Iliad be revised” or “Should the Code of Hammurabi be revised.” Or the works of Shakespeare.
No, it shouldn’t.
I agree that it’s flawed and barbaric by our standards. The correct response would be for religious people to stop basing their beliefs on its nonsense and treat the book the same way they treat the Iliad of the Code of Hammurabi.
@mattbrowne Well..actually it is that simple. By your logic everything is grey, there is no black and white. But the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament is very clear. Take your passage for example “fill the earth and subdue it”. The Hebrew word that is translated into “subdue” in our language is ￗﾛￖﾼￖﾸￗﾑￖﾷￗﾩￗﾁ [kabash /kawￂﾷbash/] which means “bring into subjection”.
I agree that different version of the Bible can bring slightly different wording to the text but the message stays the same. It’s like a hay stack or a stack of hay…same thing, just put a different way.
@Qingu I like your answer. I guess I just put less faith in religious fanatics than you do.
I think the Old Testament should be udpated. The Holocaust and establishment of Israel are of comparable importance to the rest of Jewish history. Unfortunately, there are no modern day prophets to associate with these events.
@Barcybarce I agree, it was the religious leaders of the day that crucified Jesus. Jesus didn’t come to start a religion….He came to die for our sins so that we could have a relationship with God through him.
” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’” – Matthew 15:8–9
understand, I’m not talking about removing historical events, but when you have a book with so much weight to it when it comes to telling someone what they should believe, having obvious sexism, racism and prejudice in it is downright dangerous.
let’s review.
racism is wrong
sexism is wrong.
why in the hell should we as a society placate that???? I just don’t understand where those that say bullcrap like that should be left in there.
@Qingu comparing the Illiad to the bible is absurd. Millions of people across the globe don’t zealously practice and follow to the T what the Illiad is about. that’s ludicrous, they are two completely different situations.
@ABoyNamedBoobs03, I don’t understand what you mean by “left in there.” Unless you destroy all existent copies of the Bible, and the early manuscripts it’s based on… and probably kill many of the scholars who have studied it in depth… they’re always going to “be in there.” What you’re suggesting is that we just ignore that they are there by redacting them from certain texts, like Thomas Jefferson’s Bible. That version worked out rather well.
And regardless of what people believe about the Bible, it is extremely similar to the Iliad. Both books are lengthly tomes of legendary or outright mythological events. And, like the Bible, many people (in ancient Greece) once zealously practiced the religion put forth in the Iliad.
Some even had the same debate we’re having now—look at Plato’s writings about how Homer’s stories should be redacted because real gods and heroes couldn’t possibly be as petty or antisocial as the ones in the Iliad.
Similarly, the Bible’s law code is extremely similar to the Code of Hammurabi, which also claims to have come down from gods on high and was venerated by many ancient Babylonians and followed to the T.
I’m not sure what differences you actually had in mind. Frankly, I think convincing religious people that the Bible is little different from these other texts is much more fruitful than dishonestly trying to redact the text to fit modern times. And less condescending.
The Bible already exists in many revisions. The basic message remains intact… in most of those revisions.
Our textbooks in school often tell half truths.. yet we set them as a standard without much question. What is the difference? Why isn’t the question about textbooks too?
@NaturalMineralWater, the Bible exists in several different “canon” versions. I’m unfamiliar with any versions that arbitrarily decide to cut, for example, the entire book of Joshua because it contradicts the modern moral of “genocide is bad.” I am familiar with a single version that omits every single miracle and non-Deist religious sentiment from the New Testament… written by Thomas Jefferson. Not a very popular version.
Also, textbooks are not historical documents. A better analogy would be something like Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica, or Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Do you think we should “revise” these books to bring them in line with general relativity and modern genetics?
@Qingu That’s why I said “most”. Perhaps the word “many” would have been better.
As far as revising old texts… I don’t think it’s nearly as important as revising old perspectives.
again, I’m not saying remove historical data, I’m saying things like this.
‘3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.” in corinthians 11:3
. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. another from corinthians.
how is that conducive to the message of Christianity today?
@ABoyNamedBoobs03, that is one of a huge number of passages in the Bible that we would both agree are immoral and have no place in society.
I don’t see how you go from there to, “therefore, we should revise the book.” I mean, for one thing, it’s not even feasible—Jefferson tried it, and his revised version is in use in exactly zero churches. What exactly are you going to say to a devout Christian who believes in the Bible as is? “My version is better?” On what authority? Are you a new prophet or something?
If Christians agree with you and believe the morals in the Bible have no place in modern society, the answer is to simply stop believing in the Bible. Chances are they don’t even familiar with the majority of the Bible’s content anyway.
Also, how exactly are you determining what should be gotten rid of? Just the stuff that strikes you as immoral?
What about all the mythology that contradicts known science, like pretty much all of Genesis 1–3? Should we “revise” that too?
What about the entirety of the book of Joshua and much of the books of Judges, Kings, and Samuel, all of which contain copious scenes celebrating the genocide of rival ethnic groups? Should we just cut all of it? That’s like a fifth of the Old Testament.
What about the virgin birth story, which is clearly a fable? What about Jesus’ rise from the dead, which obviously never happened? How are such myths and fables “conducive to the message of Christianity today”?
@ABoyNamedBoobs03 On what morality do you propose we judge the Bible to find it’s faults? and should we do the same to other books?
Thomas Jefferson fixed the New Testament. He cut out all of the magical stuff and left the rest. At the end Jesus just dies.
@jbradc – The original is very clear? Really? Well, define clear. I suggest you try to understand what semantics means. When we talk about natural language we don’t talk about axiomatic systems like Euclidean geometry. Maybe this article will enlighten you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
“Semantics is the study of meaning… It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries… In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts… The formal study of semantics is therefore complex.”
I know many people look for simplicity and it’s certainly a worthy goal. Einstein once said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Your black and white view of the Bible is a personal illusion. A translation of a original Hebrew text snippet is not “meaning”. It’s changing a representation of an abstract concept. Very often this new representation changes the abstract concept it’s referring to as well. But let’s ignore this for the moment. Suppose “bring into subjection” is an ideally equal representation. What does it mean? When you and I or a theologian answers this question we can come up with good approximations.
To me it for example means “build better ships that can withstand storms”. It’s about the Earth controlling us or we controlling the Earth. When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod he also contributed to “bring it into subjection”. Tell me what it means to you? Or as the atheist fundamentalists. Well, they will tell you it’s garbage. Or maybe they tell you it’s the barbaric destruction of the Earth. Bring it into subjection, i.e. blow it up. See, I told you the book is very dangerous. @Qingu used the word barbaric.
@ABoyNamedBoobs03 – Comparing the Illiad to the bible is not absurd. Your notion of millions of people across the globe zealously practicing harmful religion is absurd. And certain US-specific phenomena are not worldwide phenomena. The vast majority of Christians are good people and not zealots. The vast majority of Jews are good people and not zealots. The vast majority of Muslims are good people and not zealots. Any belief system or philosophy can be abused whether it’s religion, humanism or liberalism.
With all due respect, my friend, your view of genocidal Christians roaming 21st century Earth is absurd. A reality check might be in order. Practicing vocal antireligionism is counterproductive. It will intensify outdated social models based on in-group and out-group morality. Here are the good atheists and over there are the bad religious people. A lot of the behavior of modern day atheists resemble that of Old Testament Jews. We are the chosen people. Over there are the evil idol worshippers. Good atheists build bridges. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_morality#In-group_and_out-group
What might enlighten you as well is the so-called biblical hermeneutics, see for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics#Trajectory_hermeneutics
Trajectory hermeneutics or redemptive-movement hermeneutics is a liberal teaching in postmodern Christianity that parts of the Bible can have progressive, different meanings as a culture unfolds, advances, and matures.
One teaching under this view is that homosexuality was once a sin but has become acceptable due to cultural changes and advances in understanding of psychology and the social sciences. Proponents of trajectory hermeneutics may point to Romans 1:18–32 and explain that Paul has always been speaking to those who violate their sexual orientation, those that go against their natural desire. But a homosexual’s natural desire is for the same sex, which is now defended as natural by some.
The same applies to women who should become minsters and speak out in church.
It never will be, should be. It was written with self-interest and politics in mind, just like today. Qwell the sheeple with mindless gibberish to achieve the intended purpose-control..
Great Question!
@Garebo do you honestly believe that dozens of writers across centuries collaborated on a book just control future societies? That’s absolutely ridiculous! Especially considering there were already other systems of social control that worked fine considering the times.
Perhaps at least abridged and in a larger font. And show some photos or drawings..a nice picture/drawing of Goliath in full regalia would make it larger than life.
There is always someone with a new version of the Bible. See Genesis
Response moderated (Spam)
The Bible is not some hollywood movie script that some producer thinks needs to be changed.
“Let’s face it. This whole ending is a downer! I say, Jesus comes back from the dead, and has lasers shooting out of his eyes, frying everyone who crucified him! Yeah, and he raises like a hundred of the dead and makes a zombie army! That will sell tickets!”
@MayaLocke The Bible has been updated that is why there is a “new testament” and an “old testament”
No it isn’t.
@mayalocke is more or less correct. The understanding of the law from the old testmenent had become distorted in the Jews/Rabbis’ mind. They had put love of God and more so love of other as a lower priority to the law itself. Which maybe wasn’t to much their fault based on the text alone, love of neighbor was part of the law and thus in a sense subordinate to it.
Christ came and said “No, guys, love your God with all your heart, mind, soul etc. and love your neighbor as yourself is the foundation of all the law and profits”
This was not really a revision but revised the understanding at the time of the law. It made that priority more explicit.
Regarding the question. No it should not be revised. It is the inspired word of God. Not a human-made rulebook that is subject to second-guessing.
This question is simply a poke at Christianity, I don’t believe you are asking seriously.
I don’t want to start an argument, but I would like to interject a few words in favor of Judaism, which was my religion for the first 12 years of my life before I became an atheist. The attitude embedded in the Old Testament is that God laid down laws for how to live a good and rewarding life. There are no promises made other than the eventual return to the homeland.
The Christian perspective is different, which does not make it necessarily better or worse. Jesus said that following the letter of the Biblical law was not as important as one’s attitude. Before considering himself a messiah, if that is indeed the case, Jesus was a reformer. He was in the generation after Hillel, who is reputed to have said that the Golden Rule was the essence of the Bible and that all else is commentary.
So, to summarize, the New Testament is not a rewrite of the Old Testament. Even apart from the notion of salvation, It represents a major change in attitude.
The New Testament does not constitute a Bible update because prior to the New Testament it wasn’t the Bible. The Jews had the Tanakh.
The Christians appropriated it for their BIble, I believe the Muslims borrowed much of it as well.
@fundevogel Now you’re talking semantics. Tanakh is generally considered the Hebrew term for bible. Further the work bible means library, or collection of books, which the Tanakh was.
@LostInParadise is pretty much right. I will squabble though that God made many more promises than simply Canaan. He said he would be their God forever, that they would receive many blessings (covenant with Abraham), that if they obeyed his law they would be a holy nation and his treasured possession (Mosaic covenant) and many more promises though other profits that were less formal. I know Christians who have small books that are simply all the verses containing promises of God and many or maybe even most are from the O.T. / Hebrew bible.
@tramnineteen I don’t think this is semantics. When you say “Bible” it refers to the canon Christian text and that always included the New Testament. The name name “Bible” has a Greek root which is consistent with the appearance of the New Testment texts which were written in Greek. The Tanakh was of course written in Hebrew and had a Hebrew name.
If Jews have adopted the term, and I sincerely doubt many have, it came after the Christians gave the name to their text.
Edit: apparently academics started using the term “Hebrew Bible” to circumvent the cultural bias that name “the Old Testament” has. So referring to the Hebrew Tanakh as a Bible is a very recent development.
it doesn’t matter whether it’s ‘outdated’ or not. it’s supposed to be the word of god (though whether it is or not, or whether god is real or not, is clearly debatable), and unless god wants to come down and fix it himself, it shouldn’t be edited.
I agree with everyone else. It should only be re-edited by god himself. But to me the bible is just another book so it really doesnt matter to me as much. What does matter though is for people to quit being so gullable and realize that their is no god.
Revised? I think it should be made illegal to even publish such a book.
@HumourMe lol really? should we start an agency that chooses books to ban and a search and destroy squad to eliminate all copies in existence?
If nothing else I like the bible being around because many of it’s passages inspire my passions at their hypocrisy and blatant disregard for human rights, equality, family relations and so on. It can be informative and enjoyable to read the backwards and archaic views of past generations.
And it makes us feel better about ourselves that we are not so primitive as to curse women’s sexual organs to sicken and drop off. At least not as part of our judical system.
Answer this question 
