Off topic completely but on printing mistakes in the bible this one was always my favourite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

But theres others:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/08/vinegar-bible.html?ref=rss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
http://www.biblecollectors.org/bible_misprints.htm

I love it! I find it amazing that even with the knowledge that these mistakes have happened (and been caught) that people still maintain that every single hand-written copy made before them was completely correct and identical to the one before it.

Now this really is standing there with your hands over your ears shouting "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

I read the book 'The Year of Living Biblically' about a guy who tries to take the bible literally for a year.

It highlights so many contradictions.

I think the bible is supposed to be a loose guide, what with it having been translated, rewritten and added to constantly over centuries.

Edited at 2008-07-17 09:00 am (UTC)

Exactly. It was written over centuries by many different people all with their own agenda, and then someone else decided whose gospels they would include and whose they would exclude. The idea that it's all some divine thing sent from God and unchanging and perfect is just bollocks.

OOOOOh yeah the bible..a collection of nice stories to try and teach people better ways...as long as those way fit with the time. The stories have been changed, mixed around, parts cut out etc since Christianity was started. good ol Paul and Peter did the first major change by turning Mary Magdelane from a major apostle to a prostitute cos peter hated women!

as an idea Christianity isnt bad...but once it becomes a belief its been corrupted

Ultimately when you read the bible in English you will be reading a translation of the original Greek. I don't think you would be reading a translation of an earlier version. The goal of translation is to put the original into words that people can understand. While there may not have been a word for homosexuality in King James time, there is now which is most likely why it is used.

However by focusing on only one element in the verse, Fowler has overlooked the fact that there is a list of sins here including adultery and general abuse. Surely the point is that many people will not inherit the kingdom of God.

That said I think Biblical history is interesting because of the changes of focus and debate throughout society on the text. The bible has been used to justify many unjust behaviours such as slavery and semitisim. The position of women within the church changed radically from the early years to the victorian years and in some cases that texts were adapted to fit the social milieu. However scholars have returned to the original greek translations to revise such variations and reinforce what was originally written.

Indeed there are some texts that are hardly ever spoken of in churches because it would sit uncomfortably with the congregation. Who wants to hear stories of rape, murder and dismemberment on a Sunday morning.

However I think it is still worth reading the bible as it is possible to draw a lot out of it.

(This is not a criticism of your position by the way, but rather my own position. I like the fact that you are passionate about such topics and will stir up debate on it)

Your point above that the text (and what parts we ignore and what we pay attention to) has changed over time is what I'm getting at though. The idea that Christians get their morality strictly from the bible and that it is an unchanging, god-given morality is untrue. It is rather that the moral zeitgeist changes and we rewrite and reinterpret the bible to suit that. The bible states very clearly that slavery is okay and that you should beat your child for disobeying you. It also says that drunkeness is not okay, adultery is not and neither is homosexuality.

As we have moved on as a civilisation we have decided that it is *not* okay to beat our children or keep slaves (well, most of us have) so we ignore those parts. We still think it's bad to be a drunkard or cheat on our spouse though, so we keep that in there.

Homosexuality is a different issue though as it is on the cusp of being normalised into society now, so there are large groups of Christians who will happily group the homophobic verses in with the ones about slavery and child beating and say they are allegorical or are just not relevant anymore. However there are also large groups of Christians who still maintain that the bible opposes homosexuality and says it is a sin.

Who is right? Well, really the homophobic Christians are the ones with the correct literal translation, but of course if we took the whole bible literally then there would be a lot of stoning to death of a lot of people for relatively insignificant crimes. We'd also still have slavery and a lot more oppression of women.

So my point is that of course the bible isn't the same as it was when originally written. The words and our interpretation of them changes over time depending on the current moral zeitgeist. The bible we read in 100 years time will be different again from what we read today, and will be a reflection of the current morals of the time.