Why wasn't the Bible updated throughout the last 500 years?

[Nexus]

I'd like to hear speculation as to why many of the fallacies and contradictions in the Bible weren't removed recently. The Protestant reformation would have been an ideal time as well as after the printing press.

Some may argue the contradictions are a feature rather than a bug and I can see the merit in that. However it seems Christianity could have a more solid framework if it had adopted some of the obscurities of eastern religions. I think religions' primary purposes are to control and pacify the masses. It just seems that goal would be easier to implement if the text didn't have obvious flaws like Pi=3. Or if there weren't exacts dates for creation all the contradictions from geology, astronomy, evolution etc wouldn't raise doubt for believers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But how could they justify a fix?

The Mormon President can at least get amplifying revelation for the books the Mormons use, because they set that up early.

If someone retranslated the Books to indicate that the moon only provides reflected light, not original light, people would ask him to prove that was the original intention of the author. Or prove that God done told him. Or ask why it took two thousand years for God to tell somebody!

 

[Underseer]

Who says it hasn't? Surely you've noticed the rapid proliferation of new translations in recent years.

 

[Nexus]

If someone retranslated the Books to indicate that the moon only provides reflected light, not original light, people would ask him to prove that was the original intention of the author. Or prove that God done told him. Or ask why it took two thousand years for God to tell somebody!

Centuries ago most people weren't literate. The few that could question could have been given a tour of the torture chamber like Gallieo and told to stop questioning the church with such blasphemy.

Who says it hasn't? Surely you've noticed the rapid proliferation of new translations in recent years.

Well they missed many huge flaws.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone retranslated the Books to indicate that the moon only provides reflected light, not original light, people would ask him to prove that was the original intention of the author. Or prove that God done told him. Or ask why it took two thousand years for God to tell somebody!

Centuries ago most people weren't literate. The few that could question could have been given a tour of the torture chamber like Gallieo and told to stop questioning the church with such blasphemy.

Who says it hasn't? Surely you've noticed the rapid proliferation of new translations in recent years.

Well they missed many huge flaws.

 

[Sarpedon]

Read the last bit of the Book of Revelations.

"Anyone who adds anything to this account will have all the curses described above added to him, anyone who takes anything away, will have the blessings of eternal life taken away." or something of that matter.

 

[Nexus]

I doubt powerful people in the Catholic church were worried about empty threats in the book of Revelations after all these are people that helped pedophiles.

I'm thinking now that maybe the timing of the reformation/printing press/Renaissance caused a standoff in changing scripture. The Renaissance brought about much of the science that discredits the Bible but that took centuries and by then literacy would have been too high to make drastic changes unnoticed. The reformation forced both sides to keep the scripture since drastic changes by either side could be used against them by their opponents.

Perhaps if the reformation had been delayed or not happened the Catholic church would have instituted changes to scripture before the widespread literacy the reformation brought about.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Read the last bit of the Book of Revelations.

"Anyone who adds anything to this account will have all the curses described above added to him, anyone who takes anything away, will have the blessings of eternal life taken away." or something of that matter.

But that only applies to the Book of Revelation.
The Books hadn't been compiled yet.
And though Revelation is the last book in The Books, i think it's not traditionally the last one written?

There are at least two other spots in The Books that say not to add to scripture in general. But taking that literally would mean the New Testament is illegal. And so is the Book of Mormon.
The general apology i get is that it's God's book, God can authorize additions, errata and amplification.

- - - Updated - - -

Centuries ago most people weren't literate. The few that could question could have been given a tour of the torture chamber like Gallieo and told to stop questioning the church with such blasphemy.

Okay, i guess i'm confused.
Are you asking within the fandom or without?
"IF God is real, why no updates?"
or
"If The Books is a scam, why no updates?"

 

[diana]

I'd like to hear speculation as to why many of the fallacies and contradictions in the Bible weren't removed recently. The Protestant reformation would have been an ideal time as well as after the printing press.

Some may argue the contradictions are a feature rather than a bug and I can see the merit in that. However it seems Christianity could have a more solid framework if it had adopted some of the obscurities of eastern religions.

How so? Curious.

I think religions' primary purposes are to control and pacify the masses. It just seems that goal would be easier to implement if the text didn't have obvious flaws like Pi=3. Or if there weren't exacts dates for creation all the contradictions from geology, astronomy, evolution etc wouldn't raise doubt for believers.

I think that, by the time those who had the ability to "update" scripture were willing to acknowledge its scientific inaccuracies, among other things, it was too late because the advent of the printing press was long past.

d

 

[Nexus]

"Since The Books is a scam, why no updates?"

This

 

[Underseer]

[...]

Well they missed many huge flaws.

That's because they don't consider those things flawed. The Bible is perfect as-written, which is why it has never changed in all these two thousand years, remember?

 

[Sarpedon]

But that only applies to the Book of Revelation.

I've never known christians to not misapply a bible verse when it suited them

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Why wasn't the Bible updated throughout the last 500 years?

Principally because 'the powers that be', the powerful church denominations and the politicians and judges in their pocket, would not tolerate much change in the 'traditional' texts which they quoted and upon on which their claims to authority rested, and where change of as much as a single word, or phrasing might undermine their authority.

With the proliferation of sects and cults holding diverse interpretations and beliefs, and the mega-cult denominations no longer able to arrange having 'heretics' executed for production of 'blasphemous' versions, it has been only in the last couple of centuries that the smaller sects, or better translators have attained the ability to produce and to promote their 'updated' versions unmolested.

My own quite extensive personal collection of Bibles, as well as Hebrew language abilities makes me well aware that some of these new versions in fact are more accurate, ...and that the great many more are less, becoming watered down and pandering, entire thoughts within the original texts being reworded so as to misrepresent or falsely 'recast' the original content.

The KJV and NKJV were bad enough, some of these newer 'versions' as 'translations' are simply atrocious in their ad libbing reinterpretations of the texts that they pretend to be "translations" of.

Now if by 'updating The Bible', you meant Why hasn't religion came up with a new Bible that doesn't contain all the stupid horse shit that is found in the versions they use?
That kind of change would require another new religion, one willing to stand up and admit that the texts their cult has evolved out of were false and fallible horse shit.
Don't hold your breath. Old lies are endearing to god liars.

 

[ksen]

My own quite extensive personal collection of Bibles, as well as Hebrew language abilities makes me well aware that some of these new versions in fact are more accurate

Which ones are the more accurate ones?

 

[Sheshbazzar]

For the 'Old Testament' I would suggest 'The Jerusalem Bible' as easily available and accepted by most Biblical scholars.
Having familiarized oneself with the renderings of those texts, apply that knowledge to ones readings of the New Testament.

There are several other 'more to the point' versions available, but are the productions of small and 'unconventional' sectarian groups, which you are unlikely to find on the shelves of any local religious bookstore, but are readily accessible online.

 

[James Brown]

Let's not forget the over-arching doctrine that teaches, "If something in the Bible doesn't make sense to you, then you're too spiritually immature to understand it yet. And if you don't want your peers to think that you're spiritually immature, then you'll keep your doubts to yourself."

Or more commonly known as, "Check out the Emperor's new clothes!"

 

[Sarpedon]

there is also the psychological issue: Bullshit ideas are useful to a cult. Cults are about mind control. If you can get someone to believe stupid bullshit, like evil existing because two people ate some fruit, getting him to give you his money is easy.

When you think about it, Scientology is the perfect cult. It sucks you in with real-seeming medical nonsense, and gradually builds up a tower of crap, which the initiate is made to commit to, before being introduced to the next level of even more ridiculous crap.

Earlier cults weren't so well designed, but the successful ones had similar things at work: the replacement of the real world with the world of ideas that the cult provides.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There's also the issue that the canon is considered closed. No doubt some stuff has been written since the closing of the canon that would fit in with the rest of the books.

There is a small debate going on in some deep Christian circles about whether the canon should be open or closed, most Christians do not even know this debate is going on. But if the "open canon" side does prevail it could make the Bible very interesting.

 

[Minimalist]

That's because they don't consider those things flawed. The Bible is perfect as-written, which is why it has never changed in all these two thousand years, remember?

Yep. They believe their own bullshit.

 

[Archimedes]

Well they missed many huge flaws.

There are no flaws. You only imagine that there are flaws because you don't understand it.

Any perceived flaws must be read in the context of the time it was written, take into account possibly mistranslated verses, acknowledge that we are mere mortals who might not be able to understand the perfect word of God without his guidance, or whatever other excuse you can dream up for why it's such a useless hodgepodge of mythology, barbarity, inanity and contradictions to anyone who reads it with an open mind.

 

[diana]

There are no flaws. You only imagine that there are flaws because you don't understand it.

Any perceived flaws must be read in the context of the time it was written, take into account possibly mistranslated verses, acknowledge that we are mere mortals who might not be able to understand the perfect word of God without his guidance, or whatever other excuse you can dream up for why it's such a useless hodgepodge of mythology, barbarity, inanity and contradictions to anyone who reads it with an open mind.

Excellent point.

To change anything would be to tacitly admit it does have flaws.

d