Rewriting the bible

[robvalue]

Thank you Minimalist for helping to back up my case. Ehrman was one of the first sources I would have gone to.

If that is the most damaging review of his work, it doesn't seem to actually deny anything. Saying something is exaggerated isn't the same as calling it false. It sounds to me like an apologetic trying to discredit him through wordplay. This review appears to be saying that "who cares if changes have been made?" That's hardly grounds to dismiss the changes. It even admits to one forgery in the review. Equating it to Homer or whatever is ridiculous, Homer isn't meant to be some innerrant word of god.

I wasn't claiming the whole bible has been rewritten or that a large percentage is forgeries or errors, just that a significant enough amount of such things exist as to put paid to the idea that this is identical, or even close enough, to the original texts. If this really was "gods word" then it would be perfect. If he has no interest in his words being preserved accurately, then he is either a dickhead who enjoys people argueing and even killing each other, or he's not there.

Most of the stories in the bible are fictional anyway, with only die-hard literalists ignoring all the scientific and historic evidence. None of the gospels were written by people who were even alive when Jesus died, and we don't know who wrote them either. And it's pretty unlikely Jesus even existed in the form described (a man). The Paul guy never once mentions him being a man, instead having visions of a celestial jesus, a mythology that had already been floating around. The two somehow get married as the son and holy ghost.

If anyone else wants to jump in on my side and provide some more evidence, I'd appreciate it. I'll keep looking for more sources. I'm sure (as I can be) this stuff is correct, I thought it was common knowledge, so I've not had cause to dig stuff up on it before. It's talked about as fact by all the shows I watch, and they don't mess around or allow any errors that a theistic caller could use against them. And Matt Dillahunty is a freaking bible expert, having studied the bible for 20+ years and almost became a minister. He has said how one version of the bible has notes in it, mentioning mistranslations, noting forgeries and etc. And he refers to the fact that the virgin birth was added to the jesus story well after it was originally written. There's many other instances of them going back and fluffing things up (adding December 25th and such) he has mentioned. He knows his shit, and I would challenge anyone to go argue the toss with him about these points. Call into the Atheist Experience or write them an email, or on their blog.

And oh yeah, there's several versions of the bible.

Anyhow, I see no good reason to keep in passages that are immoral, untrue or both. If christians want to cling onto the parts condoning slavery, they either really think slavery is OK or they have a gulf of cognitive dissidence that they aren't able to come to terms with.

Just keep the apple debacle from the old testament, then jesus can die in the new testament for the apple and everyone is happy again.

I've watched many more videos online by people such as Richard Carrier ripping the bible to pieces for accuracy, authorship and "cribbing".

Sorry if I'm making christians angry, I don't mean to. This change would help everyone, particularly christians. I've lost count of how many times people have tried to rationalize the old testament with utter nonsense arguments. Or just plain gone along and said, "good enough for god, good enough for me" while their moral compass clearly loses a fight to their brainwashing. If all this stuff was gone, it could no longer be condoned, and it would represent what the new "liberal christians" really want it to be. As long as that shit is in the book, and you worship the book (that is basically what is happening, the book is an idol) then you give validation to that horrible shit. I know you think the book has some sort of magical power to be correct, but to an atheist it's just a poorly written history book coupled with science fiction and stitching together mythologies of the time.

If you're not a liberal christian, and are considering all this as heresy and blasphemy and such, then I understand that there's no way you're going to agree with anything I say no matter how many sources or arguments I produce. So best just move on.

I've only attacked the bible so violently like this in this thread to back up the premise of my suggestion, as it has been noted that I'm totally wrong. That wasn't the intent of the thread, I just wanted to discuss how things could be made better going forward for everyone. I do attack it for fun at other times, though.

Last point; the bible was compiled from a larger number of books, people having decided over a period of time which to keep and which to exclude. That's about the biggest fuckery I could imagine.