Before we start.. This is my stance on God and an afterlife. There isn't one. Or, there is one. Either way, it doesn't change my actions. I will do the best I can regardless and since it can never be proven, there is no point really spending too much time thinking about it. People can believe or not believe as they choose but, anyone who thinks they know what a supposedly all-knowing god wants or thinks, is likely mistaken.
But, some people claim from various traditions to have the words of God trapped in a book and all of his desires within. This is something I have never really understood when it comes to people who put their faith in the words of the Bible as I have to ask, which Bible is correct? Which of Gods words are immutable and consistent through time because a God's words must be consistent and applicable across all time for it is all knowing. Right?
So, I have a question, which words are immutable in the bible when there are so many versions, so many translations, so many interpretations? A God's words shouldn't be open to interpretation, they should be laws of such clarity that one can choose to follow or, not. Following the word of God or burning for eternity in a sea of fire shouldn't be down to a guessing game, should it?
So, here are the word counts of some popular Bibles:
Which is correct? What has been changed?
Any contract lawyer can tell you cases where a comma out of place or a preposition error has opened up loopholes and large lawsuits but, there is 8% difference between the lowest and highest counts. That is significant. Would you notice an 8% increase in your income, what about an 8% decrease? What about if 8% more laws were added you must follow or go to prison? The amount of meaning that can be changed by adding or removing a few words is incredible, what about with 45,000 words?
This isn't about whether or not anyone believes in God or not, this is about immutability and trust. I wonder what the difference would be in the world if for example, Jesus wrote his words onto the blockchain himself. I think that would clear up a lot of the issues as there would be certainty on what was said. Yes, there is still the open to interpretation problem but, there would likely be a lot less of that if the words came stright from the horse's mouth so to speak as in all likelihood, he would have spoken quite plainly and in ways that even the uneducated could understand. He wouldn't have spoken in the words of scholars and poets.
Immutability has its benefits and as we go forward into an increasingly strange world, it is going to come in handy for a few things. Of course, there is the fake news issues where stories are slightly manipulated to alter their meanings. It will be possible to trace the original and compare changes to what else is out there. Perhaps a filter could automatically show the changes highlighted.
But, there are other things to come that are already causing issues where people are editing text, voice and video to make it appear someone with a reputation has said something they haven't. Combine that with the ability to fake people on camera visually saying what they never said as well as the ability to for content to go viral and, the damage can be devastating.
I think that quite soon, public figures with something to lose are going to start investigating ways to make sure that they have evidence that what is portrayed as them is actually them. It could get to a point where all social medias are running blockchains and are forced to filter out or identify the content that isn't original. I don't think they will be too happy about that since it is the polarization and arguments that really engages the users.
And just to finish up, just think about all of that polarization and argument, death, destruction and mayhem over the last 2000 odd years as people argue about what was said, what wasn't said and what it all meant. It happens with all religions doesn't it? People pick and choose what they want to adhere to by picking and choosing what was said, editing it, mutating it into what they are willing to live by.
I think the mutation of information is nearly always a power play, a way to manipulate the audience into taking an agenda'd view, even if unknowingly. Misquotes, uncharitable evaluation, imperfect recounting to support an argument for or against and convince the audience of correctness. These are the tools of FUD, the tools used to separate and turn people against each other.
As long as my group wins the argument, nothing is sacred.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
