Bible 2.0

[James_Lai]

Hello.
“Biblia” means, Little things from the city of Biblos. We very well know the history of this anthology of ancient religious works. The Bible didn’t appear from the sky, it was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, selected by people. We know (depending on which canon you hold to) that many books have been rejected. We know that the Bible books were based on previous works. For example, we can understand the Leviathan myth in the Bible only from the Ugaritic religious texts or see that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively word for word. We see Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist authors with variable views of God in the Tora. We see some quotes from non extant manuscripts that must have existed at some point. Wee see more liberal Septuagint and more rigid Masoretic canon of the Tanakh. There were many Gospels, like the wonderful infancy gospel of Thomas that Islam incorporated into the Holy Qur’an.

I’m being told by Christians about progressive revelation, about evolution of God in the hearts and minds of believers over several millennia reflected in the Bible books. So in the past, it was free and open-ended expression of religious creative thought. People considered, analyzed, meditated, proposed, argued and rejected what was not acceptable to them at the time and accepted what seemed to work and make sense.

Why not do the same today? Why not continue this process? Why not write the Bible 2.0 now? I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

Why did the church have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

We didn’t enshrine Newton’s mechanics or Euclidean geometry, no, we allowed Einstein and Gauss to elaborate further as the new discoveries and innovative tasks lined up. Why do we act so reactionary towards our collective knowledge and experience of God??

 

[pescador]

Hello.
The “Biblia” means, Little things from the city of Biblos. We very well know the history of this anthology of ancient religious works. The Bible didn’t appear from the sky, it was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, selected by people. We know (depending on which canon you hold to) that many books have been rejected. We know that the Bible books were based on previous works. For example, we can understand the Leviathan myth in the Bible only from the Ugaritic religious texts or see that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively word for word. We see Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist authors with variable views of God in the Tora. We see some quotes from non extant manuscripts that must have existed at some point. Wee see more liberal Septuagint and more rigid Masoretic canon of the Tanakh. There were many Gospels, like the wonderful infqncy gospel of Thomas that Islam incorporated in the Holy Qur’an.

I’m being told by Christians about progressive revelation, about evolution of God in the hearts and minds of believers over several millennia reflected in the Bible books. So in the past, it was free and open-ended expression of religious creative thought. People considered, analyzed, meditated, proposed, argued and rejected what was not acceptable to them at the time and accepted what seemed to work and make sense.

Why not do the same today? Why not continue this process? Why not write the Bible 2.0 now? I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

Why did the church under pagan emperor Constantine have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

The Bible is being updated all the time as new early manuscripts are discovered and the English language (or whatever the destination language is) keeps changing over time. The last part is important, the reason that the KJV is no longer applicable to serious Bible interpretation.

My favorite translation is the NET Bible, v. 2.1 The reason that its 2.1 is it has been revised several times. There are over 60,000(!) translator's notes to explain variant readings, historical information, etc.

So IMHO there is no need of a rewrite (Bible 2.0), as it is being constantly revised.

 

[James_Lai]

The Bible is being updated all the time as new early manuscripts are discovered and the English language (or whatever the destination language is) keeps changing over time. The last part is important, the reason that the KJV is no longer applicable to serious Bible interpretation.

My favorite translation is the NET Bible, v. 2.1 The reason that its 2.1 is it has been revised several times. There are over 60,000(!) translator's notes to explain variant readings, historical information, etc.

So IMHO there is no need of a rewrite (Bible 2.0), as it is being constantly revised.

Yes, but this is very minor. I talk about new books written for the 21st century, a whole new Bible

Not touch ups or even massive reno, but a brand new modern house for the evolved humanity

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Why did the church under pagan emperor Constantine have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

Dear lord the story won't die. Constantine had NOTHING to do with selecting the canon. The canon wasnt even really firmly in place until after Constantine died. Quite simply, the canon was selected as books to be read publicly in the church service. Of course this makes things interesting because some churches do not have a defined canon. So if a lost letter of Paul is found, it could be placed in the canon.

As for "updating", RC, EO, and OO, all have church fathers, church councils and canon law that we refer to explain various texts or to expand upon issues and problems facing the church at that particular time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Whenever our school system "updates" learning material huge amounts of knowledge are lost. Jes' sayin'.

 

[PloverWing]

Why not do the same today? Why not continue this process? Why not write the Bible 2.0 now? I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature.

This is the role that Christian Tradition plays. Godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians have indeed been writing down their thoughts over the years, and we Christians study those writings and learn from them.

The New Testament has a unique role in Christian literature, because the Incarnation was a unique event, and the New Testament is a record of that event, written by the very early Christians who witnessed it and reflected upon it. Unless God sees fit to do something as monumental as the Incarnation again, I don't see a place for a New-New Testament. But the body of writings that have been created by Christians since the first century, and that continues to be created by Christians today, is indeed of great value to us.

 

[Albion]

Hello.
The “Biblia” means, Little things from the city of Biblos.

It means "Book," and the name is derived from the city you named which was famous for the production of writing paper.

Why not write the Bible 2.0 now? I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

It's because the Christian church decided which of the many writings you have in mind were inspired by God and which were not. Any "Bible 2.0" by your own description would be just the ideas of men.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

You could start with the Orange Catholic Bible from the Dune epic. It was supposed to be a fusion of all significant religious thought in human history, with a strong emphasis on religious beliefs originating on Earth. These included the Maometh Saari, Mahayana Christianity, Zensunni Catholicism, and Budislamic traditions.

 

[pescador]

Yes, but this is very minor. I talk about new books written for the 21st century, a whole new Bible

Not touch ups or even massive reno, but a brand new modern house for the evolved humanity

There are a gazillion books written about the Bible, way too many IMHO. Why do you think we need a whole new Bible? Do you find the current Bible insufficient? Has there been a change of God's plans?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why did the church under pagan emperor Constantine have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

Constantine didn't have any role in the Biblical Canon. The only contribution Constantine made was that he ordered 50 copies of the Scriptures to be made to be placed in the new 50 churches which he had built. He had nothing to do with what the contents of those Bibles contained. Also, looking at our oldest Biblical codices which date to this time, there's a very good chance that Codex Sinaiticus may be an example of what these Bibles looked like. Codex Sinaiticus shows us a New Testament Canon still in flux; as it does not contain books like the Revelation of John, but did contain the Epistle of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. So far from Constantine "freezing" anything, it may be thanks to intensified and more organized efforts to copy the Scriptures that we actually have a better snapshot of what the evolution of the Canon looked like in Late Antiquity.

Also, Constantine converted to Christianity; though his actual commitment to his new religion is up for debate. But saying he was "pagan emperor Constantine" makes an assumption about Constantine that is unjustified--perhaps Constantine did still cling to some of his pagan past, but he also seemed quite intent on showing favoritism to his new adopted religion. That's why he sponsored church building projects, it's why he personally oversaw the gathering of bishops at Nicea to address the Arian controversy.

Constantine is a complicated historical figure. And I have generally found that he is a very misunderstood figure. There are both those who want to demonize Constantine and those who want to beatify Constantine. The truth is more nuanced and arguably much less sensational: Constantine was a schrewd politician who wanted to secure and strengthen the Roman Empire. To that end his ambition led him to overthrow Maxentius in the West, and later Licinius in the East. He moved the seat of imperial power from Rome to Byzantium (renaming it Constantinople) in order to be closer to the long-time rivals of Rome, the Persian Empire (the Sassanians having filled in the vacuum of the older Parthians). Constantine legalized Christianity, and gave equal rights to Christian clergy. He also seemed to be concerned about the emerging tension in the eastern parts of the empire where the Arian controversy was erupting. Constantine was likely motivated more by desiring civil peace rather than actual theology--as he was very unlikely to have fully understood the the complicated theological issues being debated.

To speak to the latter, concerning Constnatine unlikely to have understood the theological debates of the time; not long after the Council of Nicea (which Constantine himself had personally asked the bishops to gather for), and even though the Council of Nicea declared Arius' position explicitly heretical, Constantine was convinced by several of his religious acquaintances (in particular Eusebius of Nicomedia, himself an Arian) that Arius actually didn't disagree with the Council or the Creed it produced. As a result Constantine had the rightful bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius, remembered as St. Athanasius the Great, Defender of the Faith) exiled and had Arius installed as bishop.

Indeed, when Constantine finally received Christian Baptism on his deathbed, it was from his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia (who was, as noted, an Arian, a heretic). After Constantine's death his two surviving sons were divided: Constantinius, the elder son was a devout Arian, while Constans, the younger son, was a devout confessor of the Nicene Creed. However Constantinius would eventually secure power. Most of Constantine's successors were Arians. It wouldn't be until after the death of Julian, the last of the Constantinian Dynasty, who though having been raised as an Arian came to reject the Christian religion in favor of a modified Paganism. After Julian's sudden and unexpected death, the Constantinian Dynasty ended.

Was Constantine himself a devout Christian? Again, it's unclear. Though it is telling that he chose Christian clergy to be the educators for his sons, and that even though he waited until his death bed, he did ultimately get baptized (and although he asked a heretic to perform it, it was nevertheless a valid Christian Baptism). So if nothing else, even if Constantine hadn't been a "true believer" earlier in his life, the moment he received Holy Baptism he absolutely was a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timf]

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

For truth to be truth it has to be absolute and unchangeable. There have been many attempting to change the word of God. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own bible 2.0.

To take the position that the word of God needs to be updated is like trying to make your own reality. It is a poor attempt to try to be God.

There are few things as alarming to a Christian as to suggest that one can improve on or fix the word of God.

 

[dqhall]

Hello.
The “Biblia” means, Little things from the city of Biblos. We very well know the history of this anthology of ancient religious works. The Bible didn’t appear from the sky, it was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, selected by people. We know (depending on which canon you hold to) that many books have been rejected. We know that the Bible books were based on previous works. For example, we can understand the Leviathan myth in the Bible only from the Ugaritic religious texts or see that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively word for word. We see Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist authors with variable views of God in the Tora. We see some quotes from non extant manuscripts that must have existed at some point. Wee see more liberal Septuagint and more rigid Masoretic canon of the Tanakh. There were many Gospels, like the wonderful infqncy gospel of Thomas that Islam incorporated in the Holy Qur’an.

I’m being told by Christians about progressive revelation, about evolution of God in the hearts and minds of believers over several millennia reflected in the Bible books. So in the past, it was free and open-ended expression of religious creative thought. People considered, analyzed, meditated, proposed, argued and rejected what was not acceptable to them at the time and accepted what seemed to work and make sense.

Why not do the same today? Why not continue this process? Why not write the Bible 2.0 now? I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

Why did the church have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

We didn’t enshrine Newton’s mechanics or Euclidean geometry, no, we allowed Einstein and Gauss to elaborate further as the new discoveries and innovative tasks lined up. Why do we act so reactionary towards our collective knowledge and experience of God??

You might like to read Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History. It is a summary of church history primarily from the first century until 325 AD when he wrote it. Bishop Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to prepare Bibles. Codex Sinaiticus is one of the fourth century Bibles prepared under the supervision of Eusebius. It was discovered in a Greek Orthodox monastery in the Sinai.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Clare73]

Hello.
The “Biblia” means, Little things from the city of Biblos. We very well know the history of this anthology of ancient religious works. The Bible didn’t appear from the sky, it was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, selected by people. We know (depending on which canon you hold to) that many books have been rejected. We know that the Bible books were based on previous works. For example, we can understand the Leviathan myth in the Bible only from the Ugaritic religious texts or see that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively word for word. We see Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist authors with variable views of God in the Tora. We see some quotes from non extant manuscripts that must have existed at some point. Wee see more liberal Septuagint and more rigid Masoretic canon of the Tanakh. There were many Gospels, like the wonderful infqncy gospel of Thomas that Islam incorporated in the Holy Qur’an.

I’m being told by Christians about progressive revelation, about evolution of God in the hearts and minds of believers over several millennia reflected in the Bible books. So in the past, it was free and open-ended expression of religious creative thought.

People considered, analyzed, meditated, proposed, argued and rejected what was not acceptable to them at the time and accepted what seemed to work and make sense.

Why not do the same today? Why not continue this process? Why not write the Bible 2.0 now?

Your summary excludes the most important fact about the Scriptures.
They are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). . .the penman of the Scriptures are not their authors, they are only their penmen, they speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13).

And when it came time to put together what would be the authoritative Christian writings, in addition to their having to agree with what had been received by the Church as authoritative, the Holy Spirit was at work in them bearing witness to what was from him and what was not.
You see, those who believe in God and in his provision for his people, realize that as God intended that his OT people have his word written, so he intends the same for his NT people, and
they realize that as God tended that work of writing for his OT people (Jesus bearing witness to the truth of every jot and tittle of the OT), so he likewise tended that work of writing for his NT people, and
they likewise realize that God, intending that his NT people have his word written, therefore, in his providence preserves his word written for them.

Which brings us to the preposterous notion of exchanging it for a newer model.
God doesn't change, and his truth doesn't change. . .praise him for that!

I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

Why did the church have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

We didn’t enshrine Newton’s mechanics or Euclidean geometry, no, we allowed Einstein and Gauss to elaborate further as the new discoveries and innovative tasks lined up. Why do we act so reactionary towards our collective knowledge and experience of God??

 

[ldonjohn]

It means "Book," and the name is derived from the city you named which was famous for the production of writing paper.



It's because the Christian church decided which of the many writings you have in mind were inspired by God and which were not. Any "Bible 2.0" by your own description would be just the ideas of men.

Until you are born again by believing the Gospel message you cannot understand spiritual things in the bible regardless of any "updates" to the bible or the translation you are reading.

1Cor. 2:4-5, "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
verse 14,: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can they know them, because they are spiritual discerned."(KJV)

Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever."(KJV)

Regards,

John

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hello.
“Biblia” means, Little things from the city of Biblos. We very well know the history of this anthology of ancient religious works. The Bible didn’t appear from the sky, it was written by people, compiled by people, edited by people, selected by people. We know (depending on which canon you hold to) that many books have been rejected. We know that the Bible books were based on previous works. For example, we can understand the Leviathan myth in the Bible only from the Ugaritic religious texts or see that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark extensively word for word. We see Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist authors with variable views of God in the Tora. We see some quotes from non extant manuscripts that must have existed at some point. Wee see more liberal Septuagint and more rigid Masoretic canon of the Tanakh. There were many Gospels, like the wonderful infancy gospel of Thomas that Islam incorporated into the Holy Qur’an.

I’m being told by Christians about progressive revelation, about evolution of God in the hearts and minds of believers over several millennia reflected in the Bible books. So in the past, it was free and open-ended expression of religious creative thought. People considered, analyzed, meditated, proposed, argued and rejected what was not acceptable to them at the time and accepted what seemed to work and make sense.

Why not do the same today? Why not continue this process? Why not write the Bible 2.0 now? I’m sure there are godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians with great knowledge and understanding of God’s nature. Jordan Peterson? I like him a lot, and he’s Canadian. There must be many others.

Why did the church have to freeze the Bible? How can you muzzle God? It’s an intellectual crime! If the society and the people evolve, why not let God update the Bible?

We didn’t enshrine Newton’s mechanics or Euclidean geometry, no, we allowed Einstein and Gauss to elaborate further as the new discoveries and innovative tasks lined up. Why do we act so reactionary towards our collective knowledge and experience of God??

The foundation is the Apostles and Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Chief Cornerstone.

Period.

After this, there is plenty to read by many flesh driven contributors. Just beware.
Blessings

 

[James_Lai]

Dear lord the story won't die. Constantine had NOTHING to do with selecting the canon. The canon wasnt even really firmly in place until after Constantine died. Quite simply, the canon was selected as books to be read publicly in the church service. Of course this makes things interesting because some churches do not have a defined canon. So if a lost letter of Paul is found, it could be placed in the canon.

As for "updating", RC, EO, and OO, all have church fathers, church councils and canon law that we refer to explain various texts or to expand upon issues and problems facing the church at that particular time.

Constantine is irrelevant to the OP, so I edited out mentioning him.

Explaining the existing canonical Scripture is a definite limitation. As life goes on and people and societies develop and collect more and more knowledge and experience, the old spiritual discoveries become inadequate. Don’t you feel interpretation of a fixed collection of ancient text isn’t enough? That you need the same kind of creative spiritual revelatory work as was enjoyed by our gifted ancestors centuries back? Are modern believers lesser than those of the past? Why was the Bible sealed? Wasn’t it frivolous anti-divine mistake shutting up the loving mouth of God? It’s unfair.

Don’t we need to return the power from corrupt clergy back to the people of God?

 

[James_Lai]

Whenever our school system "updates" learning material huge amounts of knowledge are lost. Jes' sayin'.

I happen to love and collect old books. Far from a huge obsession, but I do love browsing used book stores, library sales, garage sales and online marketplace ads. I have a couple of really old school textbooks. So much fun.

There’s been a trend in simplifying the school cirriculum here in Canada and it’s very sad. I absolutely love pedagogy and have read a bit of books on the subject and also didactical manuals from the Ministry of Education where I live. I think I understand where the simplification stems from. However, even the simplified curricula contain more advanced knowledge and new discoveries that old textbooks lacked

Nevertheless, overall the educational system is fast progressing. If we take schools and colleges and universities as a whole. Also new fields and subfields are being created.

It’s how educational steps are being structured due to the ability and need of society. In other words, how knowledge is being spread among different strata of society…

 

[James_Lai]

This is the role that Christian Tradition plays. Godly, spiritual, eloquent Christians have indeed been writing down their thoughts over the years, and we Christians study those writings and learn from them.

The New Testament has a unique role in Christian literature, because the Incarnation was a unique event, and the New Testament is a record of that event, written by the very early Christians who witnessed it and reflected upon it. Unless God sees fit to do something as monumental as the Incarnation again, I don't see a place for a New-New Testament. But the body of writings that have been created by Christians since the first century, and that continues to be created by Christians today, is indeed of great value to us.

Yes this point has already been made above by other posters about the Christian Tradition.

First of all, it’s for a small number of really serious believers. And even then the Scripture is the constitution, the foundational text. A tradition can’t wander off too far. It’s nothing but an extension.

I talk about new revelations, new information, new postulates from and about God

 

[James_Lai]

It means "Book," and the name is derived from the city you named which was famous for the production of writing paper.

It’s plural diminutive of Biblos, so it’s “Little Books”. “A collection of short books”.

I gave conplete etymological meaning of “that which is of Biblos”.

“

It's because the Christian church decided which of the many writings you have in mind were inspired by God and which were not. Any "Bible 2.0" by your own description would be just the ideas of men.

Why? On what grounds was revelation stopped? It was done for millennia and suddenly it’s forbidden? Previous generations did it and we accept it as the Word of God, or Holy Scripture but the consequent generations are robbed of the privilege? Why?

Can’t men fail? Why do we sanctify the action of men like you and I who closed the canon? Errare humanum est. Is it not?

Where’s spiritual freedom and equality?