The bible as a "living document"

[spud_meister]

It is a living document, how many re-translations are there of it? But it's not a legally binding document, so it's an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It depends on who you ask in this forum..Historically it has been, but recently many apparently feel that it cannot be changed, re-interpretted, or re-assessed in any way, for any reason.

The constitution is a work of man. While these men were enlightened for their time and it represented a progression from monarchy to republic/democracy, it was still a work of man and therefore is not above other works of man and as such can be improved as western society tends to improve over time.

The bible, if you believe it (I am going to argue this from a religious perspective), is the work of a being that has a much greater amount of knowledge and perspective than man and unlike the constitution, it is not something that man can fully grasp, appreciate, or improve.

However in both cases, the understanding of it, could be considered living as emphasis will change depending on one's life experiences.

 

[ecofarm]

Sure it is living, as any influence on this world. It speaks to me as I see fit, and if someone disagrees, well, they're just wrong.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The constitution is a work of man. While these men were enlightened for their time and it represented a progression from monarchy to republic/democracy, it was still a work of man and therefore is not above other works of man and as such can be improved as western society tends to improve over time.

The bible, if you believe it (I am going to argue this from a religious perspective), is the work of a being that has a much greater amount of knowledge and perspective than man and unlike the constitution, it is not something that man can fully grasp, appreciate, or improve.

However in both cases, the understanding of it, could be considered living as emphasis will change depending on one's life experiences.

The Bible is the work of man, too, or of many men over many centuries. It is full of history, of tall tales, of philosophy, and of allegory. It is worth reading from that point of view, but certainly doesn't counter modern science.

Parts of it are, as stated above, "fundamentally antithetical to civilization" and so can not be taken literally.

 

[ElCid]

Can we use the same debate for the bible as we do the constitution?

Of course. This is a consequence of individual judgment in Christianity, the primary accomplishment of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Temporal]

If by "living document" we mean something that is always changing with the times, then I would say yes. The oldest manuscript available isn't even the original work, and the texts available today have been subject to many different kinds of filters: translation, the passage of time, politics, sectarian interpretations.

If it's the word of God, then the word of God is changing and evolving... and that makes perfect sense to me. God is not a static entity. At the same time, the essence of God is unchanging. It's just that, once you try to commit your experience of that to words, the essence is already lost. Another human cannot understand the essence of God through semantics alone.

Mind you, I think the Bible is wrong anyway in how it describes human nature and how to form a relationship with God -- but that's my understanding, and others will have different approaches.

 

[Dogger807]

How many sects of christianity are there? How many versions of the bible? The big book of multiple choice takes many forms.

If it's to be believed then pi is a round number, bats are birds and rabbits chew their cud. Funny how, even when proven demonstrably false people still believe it's a book of truth.

It is a product of human imagination and as such evolves and mutates as society matures and gains knowledge. Still, any truth it may contain is accidental and fleeting.

A cherry picking field of old stories, fables and superstitions , it's capacity to grow and be reinterpreted is limited only by the gullibility of it's believers. And since religious faith is nothing but gullibility in disguise...................