Leaner Meaner Bible without the Poetry

[Papewaio]

Slim Bible dumps the begats

The 100-minute Bible, aimed at the "hurried and harried" generation, was launched at Canterbury Cathedral on Wednesday by its author, the Reverend Michael Hinton.

...

The Bishop of Jarrow, the Reverend John Pritchard, who acted as a consultant and wrote the introduction, added: "This is an attempt to say, 'Look, there's a great story here - let's get into it and let's not get put off by the things that are going to be the sub-plot. Let's give you the big plot'

No sub plot... well it should be easier to sell to modern day Hollywood.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

For the lazy christian...

This should sell well...

[Tribesman]

The 100-minute Bible,
Cut it down even shorter than that .
"A bloke named Jesus said be nice to each other so they killed him , but he came back from the dead and said ""honestly I mean it"" , so be nice to each other " .
Sorted

[AntiochusIII]

"A bloke named Jesus said be nice to each other so they killed him , but he came back from the dead and said ""honestly I mean it"" , so be nice to each other "

Wow, that's worth a sig. Let it be my sig, then.

[Strike For The South]

I am going to vomit

[Goofball]

"A bloke named Jesus said be nice to each other so they killed him , but he came back from the dead and said ""honestly I mean it"" , so be nice to each other "

All joking aside, that is pure genius.

If being a Christian meant subscribing only to the above belief, I would sign up in a nano-second.

[ah_dut]

Gah! I don't know about this bible apart from reading about it in the metro. It seems to have jumped the shark a little though, I mean if you're going that far why not do Tribesman's version? It seems to work better

As for the accuracy argument, any text that old and still in use is no doubt constantly revised and changed. However, taking the bible as it is now and then shortening it seems to miss the important stuff in the use of a bible in some situations...minuitiae

[Don Corleone]

Well, ah_dut conventional wisdom says that the bible has been tinkered with for millenia, to make it say what the Pope wanted it to say. There's two problems with this theory...

Even though the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have differed significantly in theology and dogma for 1000 years, their bibles are essentially congruous.

And, in the 1950s, an archeologic dig found a number of scrolls preserved in a cave, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. While there was only a fragment of Mark's Gospel to reprsent the New Testament, the Old Testament was surprisingly similar to modern translations. What's more, the differences could most easily be attributed to stylistic differences (in other words, modern people didn't get the subtleties of ancient Aramaic. Imagine that!?)

I agree with Tribesman and others though. If the Bible itself is too difficult a text to get through, the 100 minute version isn't going to be any better. It needs to be the 2 minute version... just long enough to be read during a commerical break on American televsion. Give me a freakin break.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The fact that Canterbury feels free to condense the bible shows that they at least do not hold that the bible is divinely inspired. Very sad. While I may not agree that all of the lineages need to be included, who am I to delete a single word?

Also, if you're too busy to read the word of God, why bother at all? I know the argument, better a little than none at all, but in fact, if you cannot make that little commitment with your time (such as reading 1/2 hour a day) what kind of relationship with Christ can you possibly hope to achieve?

Very, very sad.

[Papewaio]

That was one of the titles to the thread I toyed with...

[Tribesman]

The fact that Canterbury feels free to condense the bible shows that they at least do not hold that the bible is divinely inspired.
I would be a little more upset if it wasn't for the fact that it has already been condensed , edited and mistranslated so many times .
Which version do you use ?
So many divinely inspired versions to choose from .

[Don Corleone]

I read the New International Version. It was translated by 100 scholars of English, ancient Greek and Aramaic, as well as philosophy, theology and dogma. The intent was to balance the transliteration of words with the intended context, to attempt to provide the best contextual and at the same time literal translation.

In affect, they attempted to skip the whole timeline of Greek to Latin to vernacular, through modernization of vernacular to today's language. Instead, they took the time to attempt to fathom the intent of the authors in their original language and bring it to life in today's language.

There have been many reasons for translating the bible over the years, some I can agree with (allowing the populus to read and decide for themselves) and some I do not (attempting to beautify the language). As far as I know, this is the first translation performed simply because people are too lazy to read the whole thing.

This is why I don't put much credence into your words, Tribesman. Sure, there have been bad translations. And in time, they have been laid aside. Scoff if you wish, but it seems that book has a way of taking care of itself. I'm sure it will here, with the "Bible for those of you too lazy to wipe your own ass" version.

[Don Corleone]

It does seem a little silly to judge this. Why do you think there are so many versions of christianity out there? Every priest is given the authority to judge the bible's message, and given the authority to tell you, the ever-devout christian, what it means. If this branch of the religion has decided that it means exactly what is in this condensed version, then there is no problem. Just like catholics saying that contraception is wrong is "no problem".

You're not a Christian, are you GC? It shows, because you're mixing dogma. Either you believe in a heirarchacal church structure (RC, Orthodox) and you take your orders from the pope/arch-patriarch of Constantinople, who take their orders from history and tradition. Or you don't, and you assume the mantle of 'priesthood of all believers' Martin Luther discussed. Either way, nobody just makes up the rules as they go. Not by design anyway. Sure, there are people that do that, just as there are the fools that allow them to and follow them. But they are not doing as Christ commanded them to.

[Papewaio]

Think of it as Cliff Notes, Bible for Dummies, Primer for The Prime, Idiots Guide to Religion etc

[Xiahou]

At least they didn't call it the "eXtreme!" edition.

Now you too can read the bible... to the MAX!

[Zharakov]

The Bible is a sacred and holy text...

I feel that this is more of a mochery then help...


Our world slowly loses its Morals...

[Don Corleone]

You're right GC. They do. But that's not what you said in your first post. More importantly, that's not what believers of Christ should be doing (blithely and blindly following the commands of another). These were the false Christs they warned of!

Personally, I'm in line with Soren Kierkagaard... God speaks to all of us, and wants a personal relationship with each of us. As I am not you, he is not saying the same things to me as he is to you. There you have it, the end of dogma.