Should the bible be updated/amended on a yearly basis?
Options
Based GAWD
Members Posts: 1,168 ✭
As to prevent it from becoming horribly incompatible with the current body of scientific knowledge? Think about it. The Torah(Old Testament) was added to when people felt it was outdated and archaic. Why don't we do this today? That way people wouldn't have to compartmentalize and separate science and religion in their own heads just to maintain their religious faith
Comments
-
They do change it still, it's just subtle and small portions, sometimes only a word, so that people don't notice.
And yes it should be updated. -
One book of this updated bible is called the DSM-IV.
-
The Bible is a collection of ancient literature, it never claims to be a scientific textbook. It reflects the knowledge and culture of its authors and of the times and places it was written. It is anachronistic to expect scientific accuracy from it.
-
its over: 2012! wrote: »well, you got at least one thing correct, today.
I try . . . -
ether-i-am wrote: »The conservatives are on the job.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Possible Approaches
Here are possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation:
identify faulty pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes
identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as "gambling", and identify where they should be used
identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation
identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as "word" in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as "truth"
An existing translation might license its version for improvement by the above approaches, much as several modern translations today are built on prior translations. Alternatively, a more ambitious approach would be to start anew from the best available ancient transcripts.
In stage one, the translation could focus on word improvement and thereby be described as a "conservative word-for-word" translation. If greater freedom in interpretation is then desired, then a "conservative thought-for-thought" version could be generated as a second stage.
The first time I came across the conservapedia, I thought it had to be a joke. It's really reather Orwellian.
