>>>>>And, it seems to me, the great visionaries of science had similar revelations worthy of documenting in the same place.
>>>>
>>>>Documenting, yes. In the Bible? No.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>A revelation is a revelation.
>>
>>But "the Bible" isn't a revelation, its a cultural history, a story of the founding event of a religion and a political document.
>
>Right. That's what I meant earlier. The prophets didn't write the Bible. The Bible is, among many other things, a document of their experiences and the knowledge they've given us.

Yes, but that particular set of documents is not taking new members <s>


>
>
>>It is first and formost not a book but a collection of documents voted in or out by a committee - the Council of Nicea - whose purpose was to define heresy, close the door to future revelation, and start empire building. That ship sailed almost 1700 years ago.
>
>I'm sure it filled some pragmatic social and political need, and filled it very well.
>
>Today we have a few political and social needs of our own, wouldn't you say?
>
>
>>The Next Big Thing came along in a little less than 300 years - and promptly declared itself the Final Revelation as given to The Prophet Mohammed and as codified in the Koran.
>
>When abouts in history did the notion of "The Final Revelation" show up?
>
>There were more than a dozen Imams succeeding Muhammad, the last Hidden Imam is assumed to be returning sometime in a messiah like fashion.
>
>That combined with the fact that Muhammad developed the Koran slowly over time, having new revelations every time his people had a difficult question to answer, considering the Koran to be a final revelation doesn't seem very authentic.
>

Well, those who accept the Koran as the revelation given to The Prophet are reasonably convinced this is the final word on the subject. Subsequent Imams we no claiming new revelation, but only deeper understanding of the revelation given to the Prophet.


>
>>Of course that doesn't stop the revelation - Joseph Smith certainly developed a following believing he'd received the Latter Day version. But that didn't make it into the Bible - just became an addendum and expansion for those who accepted the vision.
>>
>>And there's nothing to stop one from starting from scratch - put "Science" in the title - come up with a religion that is the study of 'science' - hey- you could call it Scientology !
>>
>>( but of course it still isn't part of the Bible ... )
>
>All the more reason to see it as a challenge.

As LRH ( also known as Source ) said, "A man would be a fool to try to get rich writing science fiction at a penny a word. If you want some real money, start your own religion."