On the seventh day God rested, as the 3D printer was out of toner says Bible 2.0
(13 posts) (8 voices)
Just "Bible 2.0" alone deserves stars, quite apart from the rest of this fine post. A deeply subversive idea, with a more legitimate academic authority than the author may have realised. (I read for an AKC at King's College - me a deeply sad person.)
You will have to educate me.
What's an AKC?
"Assocoiate of King's College" - a theology degree. I failed.
However, as an atheist, I gained a better understanding of what it was that I didn't believe in.
But go Google - the history of the Bible as we know it at present is long and complicated. Various committees and all sorts councils of wise men, over very long periods of history, have amended / debated / disputed / re-written / changed/added/deleted/re-arranged large sections of it.
One can understand why religious devotees, particularly those who reject the authority of Church of Rome, attempt to seek authority directly from the Bible as the definitive "Word of God".
Unfortunately for them, it is no such thing. God did not write the Bible; God does not have a pencil. The Bible (or rather, the many versions we currently have) was written (and re-written / edited / amended / revised / added to / subtracted from) by Man - or rather, men, many men, over a very long period of time.
So the analogy with a software package, by referring to "Bible 2.0" is more appropriate than many people might realise.
(Good grief, I'm writing all this crap at 9:45am on a Monday morning. I really am a sad individual.)
Coincidentally, I visited the Manchester Rylands Library on Saturday. They've got what is widely understood to be an original fragment of the Gospel of John, written ~125 AD. This is the earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament. Whatever your beliefs, it's an astounding piece of human history. Hairs on back-of-neck stuff, even for an absolute atheist like me.
@Sinnick: Indeed. And that's just the New Testament.
There was a pile of old stones outside, with some lettering on - you don't suppose ...
Regardless of anything the failed experts tell you here, it needs to be Bible 3.0.
Bible 1.0 is Torah. Bible 2.0 was the New Testament.
Even this does not take into account the Quran or the Book or Mormon, not to mention the various editions of the New Testament that had to be shredded because they offended the church or the crown. And then there's Star Trek.
I think you'd be well advised to use Bible 6.3.5a (beta). If not, you risk all our religiously observant contributors quitting NewsBiscuit in droves, leaving it wide open for the Scientologists.
"you risk all our religiously observant contributors quitting NewsBiscuit in droves, leaving it wide open for the Scientologists."
Aagh - Scientologists! Heck, that's probably worse than being bombed by nutters who think that killing people is a good way of spreading the Word of God.
You're all dead.
Now do you believe Me?
No I'm not, and no.
Can you provide credible confirmation, Al? If so, I think we may have a story here.
You must log in to post.