a wonder that I need for my mod is no longer needed. It is the *drum roll* bible. Included is the wonder splash, civilopedia pics, and buildings large and small. Also is a tutorial on how to add it, which has the civilopedia and pediaicons text in it. The attached picture is the civilopedia large for you to view.

Enjoy!!!! (www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Bible_Wonder.zip)

Thanks for making this. If I ever make a real mod, I will use this somehow.

thanks! Anybody else?

when will your mod be done?

We could probably use this in RFRE. I'll mention it to Pinktilapia.

I just came across this thread. Great Idea ! I'm replacing the Theory of evolution with it !

It's a great idea... but the wonder should be gutemberg's (was that the name?) press instead... I mean, the Bible became worldwide when the press was invented. I think.

Forgive my english, it's not my native tongue.

Yes make it Gutenbergs bible, And can you make the wonder under printing press?

Great work - No other book has had as big of an impact on the world.
But what in-game effect would you give it? (free temples? = home churches?)

Also, it should probably be "Gutenberg Bible" (avalible with PrintingPress)
Or maybe "The New Testament" (avalible with Monotheism?)

@EDA Green, General W, Emp. Killyou all
I made it available at monotheism, as the bible began to written in the wilderness outside the Isrealite's promised land by Moses. While it was made popular after the printing press was used to make it widely available, it was available readily before Christ- Jews showed the book of daniel to Alexander the Great when he visited Jerusalem, showing that they knew he was going to come.

@General W.
I wouldn't name it "tHe new testament, because the two parts clearly interconnect. Even Christ refferenced scriptures from the "Old Testament" To me, it is a bible, not two bibles.

@mazzz
I am doing the tech tree next, and adding wonders as I go. Next will come the civilopedia, and then it'll be released. I'll put a thread in the C&C forum after I finish the tech tree, with snapshots of the tech tree.

@all
Thanks. I hads 1 person see it before the weekly civ downloads was posted, not I have like, 6.

Ahh yes, the bible.....
it's about time a "wonder" this importatant is released to the public.

yea, that's how I felt, too, but I decided to make this. It's really a cut and paste job..I hope the palletes were right.

Oh, and to answer General W.'s second question, I made it:
Put a temple in every city
A Cathedral in every city on the same continent
Reduce Corruption
for 600 shields...

An important item in history. It will be challenging to implement, but add richness to the games of those that figure it out.
The graphic is done just right.

That's right, it is. I'm wordering if my current affects are over-doing it. Temple in every city, cathedral in every city on the same continent, and reduces corrution(liek the courthouse does, not like the fp does)?

Since it seems you're asking for opinions...

I think this gives a wonder too much from a game point of view.

If you're looking historically, this doesn't scrape the surface of what the bible as done.

yea, historically, It's helped more people live their lives than Oprah, Dr. Phil, and all those other quacks combined. It's also caused quite a few problems.

But I'm asking as a gameplay point of view. I'm keeping the reduces corruction.

Maybe you could use it to replace the Temple of Artemis.

I don't have c3c so... what does Temple of Artemis do?

Popup a mounted unit every X turns, I think.

I don't have c3c so... what does Temple of Artemis do?

Places a Temple in every town, is Obsoleted by Education (you may want to change that).

Education...? That's short... Maybe, I give it a free temple in every town, but doesn't expire.

Mh, I'd rather do :
Give a free Church in every city on the same continent.
Church being a +1 culture building.

A free temple without end effect is just too powerful.

well, a church ( guess you mean cathedral) would be even more powerful.

Nope, I meant a Church. A new improvment.

I too have churches replace temples in mid-game.

ah. I get it. But, how would I do that? Therre's the 'replaces all improvements with this flag' flag, but that would screw up power plants? I was wondering about this with sacrificial alters, I was gonna have it where they do that (if you build a temple you loose the sacrificial alter) but it would screw with power plants.

Maybe people abandon God once they have Power Plants? You could probably make up something to explain this.

Nah, I don't think that would fly. Cause then someone would say oh, my temple and cathedral went away, now I have to re-build them! And it would cycle.
Becides, it's not true. Good idea, just...not true.

I have the temples go obsolete with monotheism, since this certainly did in paganism as a major belief system. The tech monotheism requires the tech (new) Dark Ages. Dark ages allows the building of churches. Cathederals now require churches, not temples.
This more or less matches history and we don't have the silliness of a pagen temple being needed to build a cathederal.
For flavors, I added a bunch of different churches and cathederals. I've made them available here (just click on the links in my sig). This way the muslims don't have to build churches and cathederals, but Masghids and Mosques. I use other buildings for the other culture groups (asian, etc).

Hm...that's a good idea. You make them obsolite by doing this, right:
Switch to wonder.
Select tech for obsolete
Switch back to improvement

right?

EDIT: But that still doesn't answer the sacrificial alter vs. temple thing.

Hm...that's a good idea. You make them obsolite by doing this, right:
Switch to wonder.
Select tech for obsolete
Switch back to improvement

right?

EDIT: But that still doesn't answer the sacrificial alter vs. temple thing.


I don't bother with the replaces other items with this flag. I leave that for powerplants.
besides it is possible to have competeing religious factions. Having some precentage of your population find Jesus, wouldn't stop others from still following the old belief system. For this reason I have very brief periods of over lap, and then the older one is still there, but now just as a memento of days gone by. No one is going to build a new pagen movement with any force. So having the city lose the ability to build these old structures is better then having them build one type and then another and so on and on...
In the case of the sacrificial alter (Or monolith in my game) I have the abiltity to have both the temple and the monolith. But a temple requires incense, and a monolith requires nothing. The monolith and temple both go obsolete at the same time. But, I could have the alter/monolith behave the same way as the temple/church. A brief period of overlap and then the old one is just a decoration.

hmm...Ok. I think I'll add the church..but what tech should it be available at? monotheism woldn't make sense, and I don't like the idea of dark ages.

This is great! I replaced it with Temple of Artemis on my custom map and loved it.

Lets make this wonder historically accurate! Firstly, it should be a small wonder, so that every civilization can build it. Second, it should ADD corruption to all cities in the civilization, and place the civilization at permanent war with all civilizations who haven't built it. Also, there should be another small wonder, the Koran(?), and the two should be mutually exclusive. The Bible also
places you at permanent war with any civ who has built the Koran, with no possibility of a cease fire. Furthermore, the Bible and the Koran should LOWER the scientific output of the entire civilization, and both should create the unit "Religious Zealot" once every five turns. Each one of these units, should have a high attack, low defence, and each unit lowers scientific output by three beakers.
Finally, the building of the Koran or the Bible should disable the Space Race victory, because everybody knows that there's nothing out there anyway. The universe WAS created just for us, after all.

Urm... That would ruin the game plus I'm pretty sure most of it is impossible.

nothing worth quoting
Why bother with the hate-speech post? If you don't like the wonder or god or what ever it was the inspired your unconstructive feedback, feelfree to keep it to yourself and just not use the wonder.

Lets make this wonder historically accurate! Firstly, it should be a small wonder, so that every civilization can build it. Second, it should ADD corruption to all cities in the civilization, and place the civilization at permanent war with all civilizations who haven't built it. Also, there should be another small wonder, the Koran(?), and the two should be mutually exclusive. The Bible also
places you at permanent war with any civ who has built the Koran, with no possibility of a cease fire. Furthermore, the Bible and the Koran should LOWER the scientific output of the entire civilization, and both should create the unit "Religious Zealot" once every five turns. Each one of these units, should have a high attack, low defence, and each unit lowers scientific output by three beakers.
Finally, the building of the Koran or the Bible should disable the Space Race victory, because everybody knows that there's nothing out there anyway. The universe WAS created just for us, after all.Obviously, much of this is tongue-in-cheek, but you've got a couple of good ideas.

A Small Wonder can't lower scientific output, but a Tech Advance can, in a roundabout way. For example, one could make the Bible require a new Tech Advance (e.g., The Dark Ages), and then one could modify Libraries or Universities to make them become obsolete with the discovery of The Dark Ages. Thus, in order to receive the benefits of the Bible, one would also suffer a bit from its dark side.

I also like your idea of the Bible generating special units (Crusaders? Inquisitors?)

I don't bother with the replaces other items with this flag. I leave that for powerplants.
besides it is possible to have competeing religious factions. Having some precentage of your population find Jesus, wouldn't stop others from still following the old belief system. For this reason I have very brief periods of over lap, and then the older one is still there, but now just as a memento of days gone by. No one is going to build a new pagen movement with any force. So having the city lose the ability to build these old structures is better then having them build one type and then another and so on and on...
In the case of the sacrificial alter (Or monolith in my game) I have the abiltity to have both the temple and the monolith. But a temple requires incense, and a monolith requires nothing. The monolith and temple both go obsolete at the same time. But, I could have the alter/monolith behave the same way as the temple/church. A brief period of overlap and then the old one is just a decoration.

I'd appreciate it if you went into further detail with this on my mod's thread Bjorn....

Just for fun..I'm going to analiyze what he said...

Second, it should ADD corruption to all cities in the civilization, and place the civilization at permanent war with all civilizations who haven't built it.
If you follow the bible, you wil lobserve what it says, and will "Learn war no more" (Isaiah 2:2)

Also, there should be another small wonder, the Koran(?), and the two should be mutually exclusive. The Bible also
places you at permanent war with any civ who has built the Koran, with no possibility of a cease fire.
Please explain this? I couild say the same thing about not learnngi war, but I don't een understand this part...
Furthermore, the Bible and the Koran should LOWER the scientific output of the entire civilization, and both should create the unit "Religious Zealot" once every five turns. Each one of these units, should have a high attack, low defence, and each unit lowers scientific output by three beakers.
hmm...so your saying following the bible makes people stupid?
"The fear of Jehovah is the begining of knowledge. Wisdom and discipline are what mere fools have despised." (Proverbs 1:7)
Because God is the creator of this universe, he knows all. If we follor god and study him, we will learn more than we will ever learn. We can always learn more from god.

Finally, the building of the Koran or the Bible should disable the Space Race victory, because everybody knows that there's nothing out there anyway. The universe WAS created just for us, after all.
Please, tell me your reasoning. The universe was created JUST for us? Show me proof.
If you didn't notice, God created the angels FIRST. THen the universe. Then the Earth, then the plants and animal.
WE CAME LAST.
The universe was not built just for us.

Now, I can go into a couter-flame mode and list every reason why your wrong, but I won't. This isn't a bashing thread, so it won't be. As Bjornlo said, I made this for people who want it. This isn't the off-topic forum. It's at the bottom. If you didn't notice, this is at the top. They are WAY far apart. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's as simple as that.

For everyone who actually was constructive, thank you.
Civilized one: Grow up

Ok. Firstly. Most of it WAS a joke. No offence was intended, even if I was in a foul mood at the time. Most of the post is based on what I have observed people doing, rather than what the bible TELLS them to do. After all, doesn't need to follow instructions when they're given.
I have no beef with you wonderful Christian people who actually practice what the Bible preaches. It's just that historically, so few of you have, whilst using the Bible to further the agenda of your own nation. So, to all of you offended, I apologise whole-heartedly for what I definately not one of my finer posts. No need for us to turn this into a flame-war.
On another note, if this wonder was to be made accurate to THE INTENTION of the bible, rather than to history, perhaps a small diplomatic boost, plus increased happiness to the empire?

Once more, apologise all round.

oh. ok.
I saw it and was like...whoah.
You didn't like, offend me, but still. It threw me back.
Sorry if I sounded harsh...but still. Alot of that was rude.
I'm not sure wherther it should be to the intention or to the actual doing. Cause the acutal doing isn't the best. Alot of people have been killed for no reason over it.

And a lot of good has been done too. Who's to say which outweighs the other?

There is no "intention" behind the Bible. It is a collection of different books written at different times for different purposes. If you mean the "intention" behind the compilation of the Bible, that too isn't very helpful, since those who decided which books were in and which were out thought they were simply making clear the decisions of God, rather making a decision of their own. Plus, of course, different groups disagree over which books are actually in the Bible (Catholics have more than Protestants, and Ethiopians have more than Catholics, for example).

Still, people ought to know better than to post such stuff in a forum like this. If you want pointless and ill-informed rants about religion, that's what the Off Topic forum seems to be mostly for!

Well, I'd say the intention of the Bible is to tell people how to live their life, how to save their soul, and to tell the true history of the world. Ultimately God decides which books go in, and which stay out. Maybe one people need a book to be in the Bible, and some do not, who knows? As long as the books agree/do not contredict each other, they are Biblical.

The Ethiopians were probably the first non-middle eastern people to become Christians, which I find interesting.

Lets just relax and enjoy ourselves guys. Belief as you will, that is your right as a human being.

The Ethiopians were probably the first non-middle eastern people to become Christians, which I find interesting.



Actually, I believe it was the Armenians. Or maybe they were just the first official Christian nation?

If I were feeling sneaky I'd ask SOG whether it's the Catholics, the Protestants, or the Ethiopians who have got it right about which books God wants in the Bible (or indeed if they're all wrong), but I'm not, so I wouldn't do that! But while we're OT I'll put a few facts in order...

The first official Christian nation was actually Osroene, a small and generally unregarded state between the Roman and Persian empires. Its capital was Edessa. Assyrian in origin, it broke away from the Seleucids in the second century BC and enjoyed independence under a long line of kings all called Agbar. Or was it Abgar? I can never remember. According to legend, one of these Agbars (or Abgars) heard about Jesus and wrote to him asking him to visit and heal him. Jesus wrote a reply, saying that unfortunately he had business in Jerusalem, but he would send his disciple Thaddeus to teach the king. And it was so, and Agbar was converted. If the story is true, Jesus' letter would be the only known writing actually by him. Of course, the story is a legend (I think dating from the fourth century or thereabouts) and it is most likely that it was a later Abgar who converted, in the second century. Osroene was absorbed into the Roman empire later on in the second century, and Edessa remained a major Christian centre. The dialect of Persian that was spoken here - Syriac - remained the language of the church throughout the region, and of course later spread to other churches founded by Persian Christians, including those in China, India and Indonesia (presumably, although virtually nothing is known of the medieval Indonesian church).

Armenia became officially Christian in the early fourth century, making it the oldest extant Christian nation (although it's disputable whether it exactly counts, given that modern Armenia is actually in a different place from ancient Armenia). Note that Armenian Christianity first had Nestorian leanings, and it later went Monophysite, making it heretical in the eyes of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.

Ethiopia was converted later in the fourth century by Frumentius. It came under Monophysite influence over the next century or two, and indeed the modern name of the church, the Tewahedo Orthodox Church, reflects this doctrinal position ("Tewahedo" means "union", referring to their belief that Christ possessed a single, unified nature). So they also are heretics by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant standards. Not that that bothers them much - after all, they've got the Ark of the Covenant!

Of course, Christianity was, during this time, also seeping eastwards in ways that are little known even now. Apart from the Armenians (who I would think count as Middle Eastern anyway), I suspect that the first non-Middle-Eastern peoples to become Christian may have been central Asians along the Silk Road. But this is a very obscure chapter of history. The Ethiopians are probably the first that we really know much about, and certainly the first who are still there.

Is it true that the current Catholic Bible was assembled by Constantine (Roman Emperor), he choose the books that are currently in the Catholic bible.

He edited several books and choose not to included many others.

The King James version and many others are just translations and further edited from the books Constantine choose.

Would there be any historians here that could confirm any of this?

[Pounder] No, that's completely untrue. Constantine had nothing to do with the canon of the Bible. In fact, the canon evolved over the first four centuries, with different people in different places having different "lists" of which books counted. The first list of the New Testament which exactly corresponds to ours is found in the paschal letter that Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, sent to his diocese in 367. This list was approved by Damasus of Rome in 382, and his decision was ratified at two North African councils - at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. These councils also set out the list of books in the Old Testament. So the definitive establishment of the canon of Scripture is normally dated to these two African councils in the 390s. Obviously this has nothing at all to do with Constantine or with the Council of Nicaea, which I have sometimes seen inexplicably mentioned in connection with this. So (getting vaguely back on topic) I suppose that the Bible Great Wonder should be available with a tech from this period, if we count the establishment of the canon as the point at which "the Bible" came into being.

That's the Catholic canon of Scripture. At the Reformation, the Protestants decided that some of the books in the canon shouldn't really be in it. The reason for this is that the Old Testament canon decided in the 390s did not exactly correspond to the scriptures used by the Jews (and the reason for *that* is that the Jewish canon was established at a council at Jamnia in the late first century AD which consulted Hebrew originals, while the Christian canon was based upon the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew, which had included a number of books not included by the Jews). The Protestants believed that the Christian Scriptures should correspond to those used by the Jews (even though the Jewish canon had not been established in Jesus' day), so they rejected the "extra" ones as "deutero-canonical". There had been some controversy over these books in the Middle Ages, but only the Protestants actually removed them from the Old Testament altogether. Many Protestant Bibles do print them in a section called the Apocrypha, after the Old Testament.

As for the Ethiopian church, I don't actually know why they have extra books not considered canonical by the Catholic Church. It's probably something to do with the fact that Judaism was so important there, but it was a kind of Judaism that was cut off from the rest of the Jewish world and which never went through the reforms of the first century and later (the council of Jamnia was not known there). Ethiopian Jews were still sacrificing animals until only a century ago.

Interesting Plotinus. From a practical, naked look at the Bible, it is extremely difficult to know what God intended to be included in it. But the fact that the early church's canon as of the first century matches my own Bible, is encouraging to me.

[Pounder] Constantine had nothing to do with the canon of the Bible.

Well he did provide Christians the safety allowing them to get together in major councils. Also by making it the official religion gave the Church both more need and more means to prevent heresy. So its not entirely surprising that the Bible is basically officially put together in the period after Constantine.

It was actually assembled quite some time before then, in Byblos, hense the name. Read Plotinus post above as he knows what he's talking about. ;)

[Krikkitone] Constantine didn't make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire - he simply made it legal, by officially tolerating all religions. Of course he also endorsed Christianity and converted to it himself, and bishops could now use the imperial post and so on, but for most of the fourth century, most citizens of the empire were still not Christians. It was Theodosius the Great who (in effect) made Christianity the empire's official religion, by (in effect) banning other religions through a series of legislation in the 380s. Only after this time was Christianity a majority interest in the empire. But you are right that it is probably significant that the canon was established at the time that Christianity was as well.

But still, SOG, the Bible you have on your shelf is not exactly that which was used by Christians before the late fourth century AD. If you're a Protestant then of course no-one had the same list of books as you until the sixteenth century, but still even a Catholic can't be quite assured that their Bible matches that of anyone earlier than Athanasius. It is, at least, *mostly* the same. For example, most people agreed from a fairly early stage (say mid-second century) that the epistles attributed to Paul were important. They also agreed that the Gospels later attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were "the" correct ones, and that the many other works purporting to describe Jesus' ministry were of little value (a conclusion which was almost certainly correct). However, in the Syriac-speaking world, few people used these Gospels - they used something called the Diatesseron, a book written in the second century by the controversial theologian Tatian the Syrian. It was a kind of compilation of the four Gospels into a single narrative. Only after the fourth century were people forced to stop reading this and start reading the newly canonised Gospels instead. Again, most people, at least in the western empire, did not accept the epistle to the Hebrews as canonical, partly because its authorship was uncertain. Only after it was canonised by the African councils was it generally read. The book of Revelation was also controversial, again, partly because many people doubted who had written it. Dionysius the Great, patriarch of Alexandria in the third century, argued at length that Revelation was not written by the author of John's Gospel or the Johannine epistles, showing that it was written with a different vocabulary and in a different style (modern scholars agree, for much the same reasons). So he did not believe that Revelation should be considered canonical, because like most people he thought that apostolic authorship should be a major criterion. Again, only after the African councils did Revelation become generally accepted by everyone.

At the same time, there were books that were commonly used that didn't make it into the canon. These include the first epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the epistle of Barnabas. The first of these is the earliest non-New Testament Christian writing known (from the mid-90s of the first century), and it is probably earlier than some books that *did* make it into the canon. In fact some of the later books of the New Testament, such as Jude or 2 Peter, may well have been written in the early second century. But for some reason, Athanasius and the African councils did not include 1 Clement, although they did state that it was useful and recommended that it be read.

The important thing to appreciate, perhaps, is that the first Christians did not really have a sense of "canon" as we understand it. That notion developed in the second century, and it applied not to a set of Scriptures but to a received faith. Christians believed that they could be assured of the truth of their religion because it was the religion taught by the apostles, who had learned it from Christ. Therefore, the churches that had been founded by the apostles themselves, or by their followers, were to be respected as those which taught that faith most reliably. They were the "canon", literally the "measuring stick", against which the faith of other churches or individuals could be measured. The written records of the apostles' faith played a role in this as well, deriving their authority from the apostles; this is why Christians tried to work out which books were really written by apostles and which were not. So you see how the notion of "canon" only later came to be applied to the writings in their own right, as it were.

None of this has anything to do with the city of Byblos. This city was a major exporter of papyrus, so its name came to be applied to books; the Christian Scriptures therefore came to be called "Byblos", simply meaning "book". As I said, it was in Africa and in Rome that the canon of Scripture was really determined.

Revelation, if I remember reading correctly on it, was found to have been written around AD 90 by John when he was imprisoned on the island of Patmos. The early church problably had to except the book on faith alone.

Revelation, if I remember reading correctly on it, was found to have been written around AD 90 by John when he was imprisoned on the island of Patmos. The early church problably had to except the book on faith alone.

Imagine that, a man is inspired to write a book while in prison, it is added to the bible turning Christianity into the world's largest dooms days cult.

Imagine that, a man is inspired to write a book while in prison, it is added to the bible turning Christianity into the world's largest dooms days cult.

You got it backwards. Christianity is not focused on the end of the world, but on eternal salvation. Forgiveness and redemption, not condemnation or destruction.
The ultimate message of Christianity is of love and hope. This simply could not be further from a doomsday cult.

But is all of this theological debate in any way related to the topic of this thread? A great wonder for use in a game.

I agree with Bjornlo on this, I find that calling Chrisianity "Dooms Day Cult" is a little insulting.

Revelation itself claims to have been written by someone called John whilst he was imprisoned on Patmos, and it probably was written in the 90s, that is, during the Domitian persecution. But there is no reason to suppose that this John is to be identified with any of the other Johns in the New Testament (such as John the son of Zebedee, John Mark, etc), and certainly no reason to identify him with the author of the Fourth Gospel (which is anonymous) or with the author of the "Johannine" epistles (which are also anonymous). He's just John of Patmos, and that's all we know.

Christianity *was* very focused on the end of the world, at least in the early years - see 1 Thessalonians, the earliest known Christian writing, where we find that the first generation assumed that Christ would return in their own lifetimes, and they were very disturbed when some people died before he returned. But of course, that emphasis was dropped before long, for obvious reasons. Even so, it's still pretty daft to call it a doomsday cult even then. It was about engaging with the world, not retreating from it.

Revelations is about the current world coming to an end, that is dooms day by definition.

There will be a new world and all who believe will be a part of the new world.

Sorry, not meant to be insulting, just making an observation of what is written in revelations. Maybe prison was the ideal place for him to receive the knowledge he wrote.

BTW, I am raised Christian, father is Catholoic & mother is Protestant.

Here this will help everyone to stop arguing, think what you want to think. If you think someones wrong, instead of arguing just let them think that.