There Is No Such Thing as The Bible

The Bible is literally the proper name for it. The rest is just semantics.

Nami wrote: The Bible is literally the proper name for it. The rest is just semantics.

The point I think the article is trying to get at is that using THE versus A makes it appear that the Christian Bible is the only Bible or that the Bible we know today is the original work. Neither of which are true. As the word, Bible can refer to any holy/religious text and not just Christianity So what I believe they are arguing is that the Bible we know is A bible but it's not the end all be all THE bible. While the distinction might seem minor it's like saying my definition of the Force is THE definition vs A definition. Or at least that is how I viewed the argument. Which I think its an interesting item to debate. How we use language shapes how we view things. So which is a more accurate term?

"The" makes sense in the context of the First Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".

Whilst interpretations of this commandment, and indeed all the commandments, vary wildly, why would any religion proclaiming their god to be the one true and only god relegate their religious text to merely "A" Bible/Torah/Koran?

Let us not forget the modern day overlay of marketing and publicity which may have an agenda of pushing a particular version (namely the one they produce) as being the definitive version for the sake of increasing circulation and sales. Come to think of it, I can't unequivocally say that this is entirely a modern phenomenon.

As has been said though, the semantics of "A" or "The" aside, the text contains many pearls of wisdom worth contemplation.

What about "The" Jedi bible?

I think the bible just assumes "the" "christian" bible.

Perhaps whatever holy book the Jedi community eventually pumps out (or if they have already made one and I'm just not aware of it) should go by another name than bible? If we automatically assume bible as the Christian Bible, perhaps another word could be applied to the Jedi version taht would make it stand out?

I dunno, just seems logical.

MadHatter wrote:

Nami wrote: The Bible is literally the proper name for it. The rest is just semantics.

The point I think the article is trying to get at is that using THE versus A makes it appear that the Christian Bible is the only Bible or that the Bible we know today is the original work. Neither of which are true. As the word, Bible can refer to any holy/religious text and not just Christianity So what I believe they are arguing is that the Bible we know is A bible but it's not the end all be all THE bible. While the distinction might seem minor it's like saying my definition of the Force is THE definition vs A definition. Or at least that is how I viewed the argument. Which I think its an interesting item to debate. How we use language shapes how we view things. So which is a more accurate term?

Would the spacific be needed as far as Abrahamic bible .. 1611 version niv
The Gutenberg Bible.. what was decided at the First Council of Nicaea? Specifics can be spacific if that's what you mean. this is also one of the many ways science and discovery, some type of discovery and some type of science I should say , can separate. It seems that toe of search to me ... mymowm opinikn *warning !!! Is hair splitting and quibbeling at its best. Is the goal to validate ? Separate ?! Invalidate ? Prove some ones point of view or hate ?
This type of search can lead to stagnation aka arguing about who's right n wrong or even if it's real or not. A very dangerous slope to some. rayjer than join in on most discussion I leave with this, is the goal for some to ... build or tear down ? Hmmm

The working title is The Way of Jediism but that can change. Triskar is working on an exhaustive history of Jediism / Jedi Realism that we plan to publish soon. It will also have a current directory.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: What about "The" Jedi bible?

I think the bible just assumes "the" "christian" bible.

While that is the point I think that the article is trying to get across. That Bible means not just the Christian one but refers to the holy text of other groups as well. Further, they would appear to be getting at the idea that when you say THE Christian bible what version/translation do you mean.

Arisaig wrote: Perhaps whatever holy book the Jedi community eventually pumps out (or if they have already made one and I'm just not aware of it) should go by another name than bible? If we automatically assume bible as the Christian Bible, perhaps another word could be applied to the Jedi version taht would make it stand out?

I dunno, just seems logical.

I wonder... we have a bunch of different terms we could use. Holocron. The Jedi Compass could be used as a type of bible, There is the Jedi Prism, and we see John is working on another item that could be seen as a bible of sorts. Will the Jedi community ever have a definitive holy text LOL that is something debatable but I would love to see.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Nami wrote: The Bible is literally the proper name for it. The rest is just semantics.

The point I think the article is trying to get at is that using THE versus A makes it appear that the Christian Bible is the only Bible or that the Bible we know today is the original work. Neither of which are true. As the word, Bible can refer to any holy/religious text and not just Christianity So what I believe they are arguing is that the Bible we know is A bible but it's not the end all be all THE bible. While the distinction might seem minor it's like saying my definition of the Force is THE definition vs A definition. Or at least that is how I viewed the argument. Which I think its an interesting item to debate. How we use language shapes how we view things. So which is a more accurate term?

Would the spacific be needed as far as Abrahamic bible .. 1611 version niv
The Gutenberg Bible.. what was decided at the First Council of Nicaea? Specifics can be spacific if that's what you mean. this is also one of the many ways science and discovery, some type of discovery and some type of science I should say , can separate. It seems that toe of search to me ... mymowm opinikn *warning !!! Is hair splitting and quibbeling at its best. Is the goal to validate ? Separate ?! Invalidate ? Prove some ones point of view or hate ?
This type of search can lead to stagnation aka arguing about who's right n wrong or even if it's real or not. A very dangerous slope to some. rayjer than join in on most discussion I leave with this, is the goal for some to ... build or tear down ? Hmmm

Those would be questions for the author of the article. All I did was point out what I believe the author of the article that was linked was saying. If you believe I got the meaning of the author wrong please let me know how you read the article and its tone. The only personal opinion I put forward was that I think it's an interesting conversation to have. We know the power of language so how does it the impact our view of the books that we describe as holy texts.

@ hatter
I like holy texts. I wasn't pointing any fingers , trust me . That Kinna shows how definition vary and in the vary light of difrent identifications and definitions we can so easily get a mind full of quibble hu!? The Bible IS often assumed to be the Abrahamic scriptures regardless of version. Then again.. there are many difrent Abrahamic divisions and difrent books all togeather ... lots out there right ?

The power of our words ... the color of our sabers ... the forms and the difrent discipline and styles often collide . That don't have to if we try ... thank you for trying ! If we ever actually duel in real life ... or fight hand to hand : two masters will sit and have tea before the match , then - at tea the match was won, by both ! * bows

As far as the Christian Bible is concerned, there is a lot of information out there about New Testament scholarship. Many of the lines in the New Testament have been added in or removed by various Christian factions over time, especially between ~50AD-325AD with the First Council of Nicaea. The King James Version of the Bible was based primarily on the Textus Receptus , a Greek manuscript with highly questionable origins. Some central tenets of modern Christianity, such as the concept of the trinity, have also undergone massive changes throughout history with explanations varying from Jesus being illusory to Jesus being made of the same kind of matter as God and many other positions, each of which had its own church, its own gospels, its own apocrypha, and so on.
The idea of The Bible being an unchanged document is not founded in historical fact, and for all of the differences between Lutherans and Catholics there have been much more distinct Judaeo-Christian divides throughout the histories of their respective churches. I do not mean to slight those who take Abrahamic faith seriously, but it would be unwise to ignore the very real changes that these texts have gone through over time -- not only in translation and transliteration, but in the manuscripts that those are based on as well.