The Bible was rewritten from A to Z alphabetically to rethink the ancient text

The international team of writers, programmers and thinkers Sideline Collective has completed the "Bible The" project. Using the developed software, they completely rewrote the King James Bible from 1611, sorting all the words written in it alphabetically. The resulting text consists of arrays of identical words, according to the number of their occurrences in the original scripture.

The Sideline Collective believes that our life is too susceptible to systemic influence, covert control and manipulation, implemented through different algorithms. Recognizing them and hacking them is a worthy goal to get out of the imposed guardianship, and begin to independently control your being. But this requires not revolutions, but knowledge, which is largely hidden in old texts, because all modern wisdom has grown from the lessons of the past.

Any writer biasedly discloses information, and the reader adds his subjective assessment to what he reads. As a result, the original meaning of the message can be greatly distorted. The same Bible can be called “the book of prohibitions”, because, as it turned out, the word “no” occurs 1394 times against only 4 cases for “yes”. On the other hand, “love” is mentioned 308 times versus 87 for “hate”. As many as 96 "saints" are more than 48 "sinners", but out of 269 "enemies" there are only 49 "friends". Finally, the word “bad” is mentioned 18 times against 720 “good”.

And this is not dry statistics, analyzing the proportion of words in the text, you can draw conclusions about what the Bible authors wanted to talk about, what problems they decided to touch on, what they considered important. Or, on the contrary, why so little attention was paid to other topics, why did they avoid certain words and questions? By the way, the Sideline Collective project can be supported by personally buying the 1394-page volume "Bible The" for $ 2627 or ordering a digital copy for $ 13 to think about the questions and draw your own conclusions.