Two New Bibles Preach A Hip, Eco-Friendly Gospel

[jessi_chan]

Please discuss your opinions.... it is basically a new version of the Bible for Goths and for the whole green movement... I don't really know if care one way or the other about this, but hey this guy is just jumping on the bandwagon about the whole environmental friendly stuff with everyone else I bet these versions will probably sell. They even have pretty pictures in these books.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=97537385

[Z-06]

What, they did not include a DVD with it showing their ideas? NO SALE.

[Drew Dowdell]

There is also a new version for gays and a version for lesbians.

Finally... there really was Adam and Steve.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm not very religious, but I think its a good idea. I MUCH prefer this version of Christianity to the far right Neoconservative view that seems kind of prevelent today.

Chris

[CARBIZ]

.... as long as it is recyclable, I don't care. :AH-HA_wink:

[§carlet §wordfish]

There's also the lolcat bible.

I'm not sure about those other two though. The Green Bible makes sense, but I think trying to make the Word more "accessable" by secularizing kinda brings it down.

[Intrepidation]

There is also a new version for gays and a version for lesbians.

Finally... there really was Adam and Steve.

There's also the lolcat bible.

I'm not sure about those other two though. The Green Bible makes sense, but I think trying to make the Word more "accessable" by secularizing kinda brings it down.

The Lolcat one is awesome.

[Camino LS6]

.... as long as it is recyclable, I don't care. :AH-HA_wink:

+1

I don't have a dog in this hunt.

[Satty]

lolcat Bible FTW

[loki]

I think too many people don't know that christian churches have a history of something called stewardship...these (green) bibles are ridiculous.

[Satty]

No more ridiculous than religion itself.

[Satty]

I view religion the same way I view everything else, that is, in relation to everything else. I see no way any single religion, as interpreted by man, can be "right" because many of them have similar structures but are wildly different in detail. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Nick]

I could use some extra toilet paper.

[cletus8269]

Glad to see religious tolerance is alive and well on the site. I'd hate to see the reaction if it was discovered there were Blacks and Mexicans that visited this place too. Sieg heil!

hehe for some reason when i read that i thought about the dane cook skit about the public restrooms

[PONTIAC06]

I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and say I happen to like the Bible the way it is...then again I'm a fairly conservative Catholic and as far as I'm concerned the Bible isn't broke so don't fix it!

[Croc]

No more ridiculous than religion itself.

+1

I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and say I happen to like the Bible the way it is...then again I'm a fairly conservative Catholic and as far as I'm concerned the Bible isn't broke so don't fix it!

I used to think that, but when I learned about the whole process of how the Bible came to be, I realized that there was so much at play that I couldn't find it credible anymore. Most of the New Testament was written well after Jesus' death. There were also several other gospels and books written that were "removed" or "discarded" from the current compilation. Who's to say the right decisions were made? Knowing how rife the early church was with corrupting political influences, and knowing what I know about human nature and contemporary examples of churches becoming corrupted through politics, I can't call the Bible anything more than a compilation of allegories that may or may not have a loose relation to any reality that may have occurred.

Not trying to be argumentative, but the Bible has changed a lot over the years, especially during its earliest years, and then again during the Protestant Reformation when a couple minor books were discarded from that Bible.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Croc

[Intrepidation]

+1

I used to think that, but when I learned about the whole process of how the Bible came to be, I realized that there was so much at play that I couldn't find it credible anymore. Most of the New Testament was written well after Jesus' death. There were also several other gospels and books written that were "removed" or "discarded" from the current compilation. Who's to say the right decisions were made? Knowing how rife the early church was with corrupting political influences, and knowing what I know about human nature and contemporary examples of churches becoming corrupted through politics, I can't call the Bible anything more than a compilation of allegories that may or may not have a loose relation to any reality that may have occurred.

Not trying to be argumentative, but the Bible has changed a lot over the years, especially during its earliest years, and then again during the Protestant Reformation when a couple minor books were discarded from that Bible.

Yeah, it's be translated so many times, and into so many languages that, due to translations errors and other factors, it's much different than it was in it's earliest incarnation.

[z28luvr01]

Well, the original Greek and Hebrew texts are avaialble for your reading pleasure. There's no denying that there's a human element involved in the Bibles that we have today. Most of the translations out there today aim for one of two targets: 1) To be a literal, word for word translation of the original texts, or 2) to make the points that the original text was trying to make. Those two targets should be one and the same but aren't because language has evolved over time. But at least the majority of the popular translations are one step removed from the original scrolls. I suspect that is not the case of these Bibles. They might be more of a translation of a translation - in other words a paraphrase. Most are very readable so they can be OK in some circumstances, but many of them are less concerned with conveying the original text than they are proving a point the human author is trying to make.

[Sixty8panther]

Yeah, it's be translated so many times, and into so many languages that, due to translations errors and other factors, it's much different than it was in it's earliest incarnation.

but ye somehow It's

[Sixty8panther]

Yeah, it's be translated so many times, and into so many languages that, due to translations errors and other factors, it's much different than it was in it's earliest incarnation.

but yet somehow It's relevant to my life today,

word-by-word in literal translation.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[loki]

Glad to see religious tolerance is alive and well on the site. I'd hate to see the reaction if it was discovered there were Blacks and Mexicans that visited this place too. Sieg heil!

i've been kinda curious what a poll on here would show how this board's members are spread out religiously.

[cletus8269]

It's not the wording that's what's important, it's the point it's trying to make. "Thou shalt not kill" is still "Thou shalt not kill" regardless of how you spin it.

no simpler way to put it, exactly

[Camino LS6]

Meh, for me it's a case of "whatever blows your dress up" .

I really don't care what sort of religion anyone chooses as long as they don't try to foist it on me.

I personally have no use for any religion, but freedom of religion is of major importance to me.

[Croc]

Yeah, it's be translated so many times, and into so many languages that, due to translations errors and other factors, it's much different than it was in it's earliest incarnation.

No, not changes through translation, but intentional changes in content.

Also, there's a book out called Misquoting Jesus, that delves into many of the changes to the Bible over the years. Here's a link to a writeup on it:

http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2006/feature_05.php

Edited December 6, 2008 by Croc

[Satty]

[deftonesfan867]

I'm a Christian but I still luled

Honestly, the good book is meant to be teachings, and sadly for some the only way for most people to TRY and be good to one another is to scare them w/ eternal damnation. To each there own IMO, and if some of my fellow Christian's don't like it, then oh well. I don't give a rats ass what they think of me or the things I do.

Edited December 24, 2008 by deftonesfan867

[Intrepidation]

It's not the wording that's what's important, it's the point it's trying to make. "Thou shalt not kill" is still "Thou shalt not kill" regardless of how you spin it.

How do you know that's what the original said? I can't remember which version was mistranslated in this example, but it was changed from "In the Beginning" to "In a Beginning" (or the other way around, I forget exactly). Kind of a big difference.

[Intrepidation]

No, not changes through translation, but intentional changes in content.

Also, there's a book out called Misquoting Jesus, that delves into many of the changes to the Bible over the years. Here's a link to a writeup on it:

http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2006/feature_05.php

A little of column A, a little of Column B I'd. And plenty left out intentionally too.

[Intrepidation]

Anyway, I really don't have a problem with religion, as Camino said: it has no use to me, but certainly we should all tolerate each other and their religion, just don't try to shove it down each others throats, and keep it out of our political system.

[Drew Dowdell]

It's not the wording that's what's important, it's the point it's trying to make. "Thou shalt not kill" is still "Thou shalt not kill" regardless of how you spin it.

I suggest "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" by Thomas Jefferson.

[loki]

Anyway, I really don't have a problem with religion, as Camino said: it has no use to me, but certainly we should all tolerate each other and their religion, just don't try to shove it down each others throats, and keep it out of our political system.

but because of the IRS, it is the reverse too... keeping politics out of religion.... which becomes a no freedom of speech problem.

[daves87rs]

[FAPTurbo]

I'll bet that'd be one hell of a sweet timeshare.