Oldest known Bible doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today

full article

Quote:

---

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.

Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

---

Well, that's a rather slanted and agenda-driven treatment of the Codex Sinaiticus. The article goes remarkably far out of its way to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Codex somehow proves how the Bible is unreliable. Now somebody might well regard the Bible as unreliable, but they're certainly not going to get that from the evidence of Sinaiticus. To a person (me) who is familiar with lower criticism (the discipline of using the textual evidence to reconstruct the original), the distortions in the article are rather blatant and border on mendacious. But why should I be surprised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.

---

The texts you will find in churches today are based on one of two textual traditions. Most English Bibles are based upon the Nestle-Aland 23rd edition/United Bible Societies 4th edition eclectic text, or something close to it, which represents the work of a whole bunch of people over a long period looking at a bunch of ancient manuscripts and fragments, and using them to try to reconstruct the originals. A few, like the King James and New King James versions, are based upon the Textus Receptus, which was an early attempt to reconstruct the original Greek text, based upon a handful of late Byzantine manuscripts available in the 16th century.

There is no evidence of any kind of supernatural intervention by God to ensure documentary precision up to modern standards in the preservation of the Bible in early Christianity. Manuscripts differ in many details. Some of these details are so minor as not to impact translation. Some do. Some are spelling errors. The ancients knew about this. It wasn't a big deal to them. Documents were of merely secondary authority to them anyway. Oral transmission was the big thing to them. Communication of meaning mattered more than repeating the exact same words. The Jewish Masoretic Text tradition, in which such fastidious copying is paramount, is medieval in origin. This elevation of the Bible these days in certain circles, past even the esteem to which the Reformers held it, to The Sole Guide for Anything and Everything Pertaining to Every Part of Life, Which is Fastidiously Perfectly Dictated by God Down to Every Last Word, is a residue of modernity and the esteem we place on the written above the oral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.

---

The article might lead you to believe that the canon is unreliable and Sinaiticus somehow proves it. The Sinaiticus New Testament includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, two orthodox works which were very popular among early Christians, but which ultimately were excluded from the canon because they could not be attributed to the Apostles. They are now included in a secondary collection of early orthodox Christian writings called the Apostolic Fathers.

The seven "extra" books of the Old Testament are not included in Protestant Bibles. They would be familiar to Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Their deletion from Protestant Bibles has to do with decisions the Reformers made in the 16th and 17th centuries about squaring up the Christian Old Testamant canon with the Jewish, and has nothing to do with the consistency of early texts.

The corrections are of several kinds. The first set involve scribes correcting their own work. The second set involve scribes correcting each other's work. The third set involve scribes in later centuries who disagreed with the validity of this or that letter or word, or inclusion or deletion of a sentence found or not found in another manuscript. And the fourth set involves a deliberate effort in medieval times to reconcile the text with the Byzantine textform, which is more like the King James/New King James version.

The text of most of the modern Bible translations (RSV/NRSV/NIV/TNIV/ESV/NASB/NLT) relying on NA23/UBS4 reflects the Alexandrian textform, which would be more like Sinaiticus without the corrections and revisions. Somehow modern conservative Christians manage to tolerate having these versions, with their different NT textforms, sold next to the KJV/NKJV in their bookstores without blowing a gasket. Well, most of them anyway. There is the KJV-only crowd, and they can recite every single difference to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

---

Ah! So Codex Sinaiticus calls into doubt the resurrection of Jesus and whether early Christians even believed in it! Well, no. This is referring to the omission of the "long ending" of Mark 16:9-20, which wasn't original. Either the original ending was lost, or Mark simply ended his narrative at the cave with the women at the empty tomb. Again, these newer Bible translations either leave out the text or bracket it as dubious, yet those silly evangelicals go on believing in the Resurrection, since there are whole other huge chunks of text about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Well, that's a rather slanted and agenda-driven treatment of the Codex Sinaiticus. The article goes remarkably far out of its way to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Codex somehow proves how the Bible is unreliable. Now somebody might well regard the Bible as unreliable, but they're certainly not going to get that from the evidence of Sinaiticus. To a person (me) who is familiar with lower criticism (the discipline of using the textual evidence to reconstruct the original), the distortions in the article are rather blatant and border on mendacious. But why should I be surprised?


The texts you will find in churches today are based on one of two textual traditions. Most English Bibles are based upon the Nestle-Aland 23rd edition/United Bible Societies 4th edition eclectic text, or something close to it, which represents the work of a whole bunch of people over a long period looking at a bunch of ancient manuscripts and fragments, and using them to try to reconstruct the originals. A few, like the King James and New King James versions, are based upon the Textus Receptus, which was an early attempt to reconstruct the original Greek text, based upon a handful of late Byzantine manuscripts available in the 16th century.

There is no evidence of any kind of supernatural intervention by God to ensure documentary precision up to modern standards in the preservation of the Bible in early Christianity. Manuscripts differ in many details. Some of these details are so minor as not to impact translation. Some do. Some are spelling errors. The ancients knew about this. It wasn't a big deal to them. Documents were of merely secondary authority to them anyway. Oral transmission was the big thing to them. Communication of meaning mattered more than repeating the exact same words. The Jewish Masoretic Text tradition, in which such fastidious copying is paramount, is medieval in origin. This elevation of the Bible these days in certain circles, past even the esteem to which the Reformers held it, to The Sole Guide for Anything and Everything Pertaining to Every Part of Life, Which is Fastidiously Perfectly Dictated by God Down to Every Last Word, is a residue of modernity and the esteem we place on the written above the oral.

The article might lead you to believe that the canon is unreliable and Sinaiticus somehow proves it. The Sinaiticus New Testament includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, two orthodox works which were very popular among early Christians, but which ultimately were excluded from the canon because they could not be attributed to the Apostles. They are now included in a secondary collection of early orthodox Christian writings called the Apostolic Fathers.

The seven "extra" books of the Old Testament are not included in Protestant Bibles. They would be familiar to Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Their deletion from Protestant Bibles has to do with decisions the Reformers made in the 16th and 17th centuries about squaring up the Christian Old Testamant canon with the Jewish, and has nothing to do with the consistency of early texts.

The corrections are of several kinds. The first set involve scribes correcting their own work. The second set involve scribes correcting each other's work. The third set involve scribes in later centuries who disagreed with the validity of this or that letter or word, or inclusion or deletion of a sentence found or not found in another manuscript. And the fourth set involves a deliberate effort in medieval times to reconcile the text with the Byzantine textform, which is more like the King James/New King James version.

The text of most of the modern Bible translations (RSV/NRSV/NIV/TNIV/ESV/NASB/NLT) relying on NA23/UBS4 reflects the Alexandrian textform, which would be more like Sinaiticus without the corrections and revisions. Somehow modern conservative Christians manage to tolerate having these versions, with their different NT textforms, sold next to the KJV/NKJV in their bookstores without blowing a gasket. Well, most of them anyway. There is the KJV-only crowd, and they can recite every single difference to you.

Ah! So Codex Sinaiticus calls into doubt the resurrection of Jesus and whether early Christians even believed in it! Well, no. This is referring to the omission of the "long ending" of Mark 16:9-20, which wasn't original. Either the original ending was lost, or Mark simply ended his narrative at the cave with the women at the empty tomb. Again, these newer Bible translations either leave out the text or bracket it as dubious, yet those silly evangelicals go on believing in the Resurrection, since there are whole other huge chunks of text about it.

---

I'm impressed in your knowledge of the history of this fairy tale. Bravo!

This is news how? Common knowledge that the christian bible as it is now known was canonized a couple hundred years after the events of said bible were said to have taken place.
People were expelled from the Holy Christian Roman Empire when they didn't accept the 'Trinity' doctrine. It is part of how Islam came to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm impressed in your knowledge of the history of this fairy tale. Bravo!

---

That's interesting. So because ES knows more than you about this subject, you can rip him because it doesn't jive with your particular view of the universe?

The Bible, faith in Jesus or not, is one of the most important historical texts in the history of the planet. Now, I know it's really cool to put it down, Mr. Internet Tough Guy, but you basically are laughing at someone for having superior knowledge of an extremely important historical document.

To be so candid about your own ignorance is pretty impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

That's interesting. So because ES knows more than you about this subject, you can rip him because it doesn't jive with your particular view of the universe?

The Bible, faith in Jesus or not, is one of the most important historical texts in the history of the planet. Now, I know it's really cool to put it down, Mr. Internet Tough Guy, but you basically are laughing at someone for having superior knowledge of an extremely important historical document.

To be so candid about your own ignorance is pretty impressive.

---

lol good post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacobdrj

This is news how? Common knowledge that the christian bible as it is now known was canonized a couple hundred years after the events of said bible were said to have taken place.
People were expelled from the Holy Christian Roman Empire when they didn't accept the 'Trinity' doctrine. It is part of how Islam came to be.

---

Well, not exactly. It wasn't that they didn't accept the Trinity doctrine. It was that they didn't accept, in trying to describe how Jesus could be fully man and fully God at the same time, that he had two natures, one human and one divine, combined within a single essence. They preferred to say that he had a single nature, which was both fully human and fully divine, within a single essence. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the two-natured definition was declared to be binding, and the combined-nature "miaphysites" were excommunicated, or schismed, depending on which side you listen to.

Now you may be asking yourself, "How could people end up being persecuted over such a tiny and arcane point of theology?" Well, it had much to do with struggles for power and for the relative influence of various patriarchs, and of the emperor, and very little to do with what they believed about Jesus. The council served as a pretext for these power plays; the Patriarch of Constantinople won, and the See of Alexandria lost.

The Eastern emperors attempted to get the excommunicated/schismed miaphysites to submit to the council by force, and persecuted them for more than a century. When the Muslims arrived, submitting to them as dhimmis was a far better option for the non-Chalcedonian Christians than continuing to live under the iron fist of the Empire.

The descendants of those who accepted Chalcedon are the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. The descendants of those rejected Chalcedon include the Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, and the Syrian Orthodox, collectively known as the Oriental Orthodox.

In recent times, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have agreed that their differences in Christology were very slight and not worth schism, and are discussing reestablishment of communion.

The Christians who didn't accept the "Trinity" doctrine were called Arians. Most of the early Gothic kings of western Europe were Arians. The Empire itself went back and forth in the fourth century between being Nicene and Arian until Theodosius declared for the Nicene camp once and for all in 381, and crushed those whose disagreed.

However, Arianism held on in the West for a few more centuries. To defend against it, Western Catholics added a word, "filioque," to the Nicene Creed to buttress the claim of Jesus' divinity. Catholics and Orthodox spar over this word to this day.

Eventually Arianism fell out of favor. The basic idea behind Arianism re-emerged in modern times in the Jehovah's Witnesses movement.

arianism is also a loose basis for islam.

http://arian-catholic.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

That's interesting. So because ES knows more than you about this subject, you can rip him because it doesn't jive with your particular view of the universe?

---

Before you came out from the left field with your grandiose finger pointing, I was sincerely congratulating Extra Stout for his history recap. It takes devotion and genuine interest in your beliefs to go into that amount of detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

The Bible, faith in Jesus or not, is one of the most important historical texts in the history of the planet. Now, I know it's really cool to put it down, Mr. Internet Tough Guy, but you basically are laughing at someone for having superior knowledge of an extremely important historical document.

---

I doubly congratulate Extra Stout in being able to convey his knowledge without a hint of attempting to forcefully impose his devotion onto somebody else with his prose. Luckily for me, if a God truly exists, he has a complete monopoly on the judgement business, basically rendering your faux superiority complex entirely moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

To be so candid about your own ignorance is pretty impressive.

---

I decidedly respect everyone's choice of beliefs. I also expect others to respect mine, you intolerant douchebag.

Does ES believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible?

Quote:

---

I know it's really cool to put it down, Mr. Internet Tough Guy, but you basically are laughing at someone for having superior knowledge of an extremely important historical document.

---

In my experience, it's very easy to misjudge the tone of brief posts.

"Fairy tale" at best seems a mischievous stand-in for "the Bible"; so construed it sets off "Bravo!" as a frankly sarcastic salute. But it is possible, even likely, that El Nono intended "fairy tale" as a stand in for the *OP just demolished by ES*. In this case, the tone shifts to open admiration.

Given the brevity of the post and the indefinite reference of the term "fairy tale", the tone could be honestly glossed either way, but only one way will be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In my experience, it's very easy to misjudge the tone of very brief posts, but I can see exactly how it happened.

"Fairy tale" at best seems a mischievous stand-in for "the Bible"; so construed it sets off Bravo! as a frankly sarcastic salute. But it is possible, even likely, that El Nono intended "fairy tale" as a stand in for the *OP just demolished by ES*. In this case, the tone shifts to open admiration.

Given the brevity of the post and the indefinite reference of the term "fairy tale", it could easily cut either way.

---

I don't intend to offend anybody by stating that my belief is that the Bible is a fairy tale. I actually do respect those that believe otherwise, and quite frankly I felt like congratulating Extra Stout on his post (even if I don't believe in God, I do find the whole historical perspective interesting). I did read his entire post. And the Bravo was genuine and not sarcastic at all.

Quote:

---

And the Bravo was genuine and not sarcastic at all

---

That's what I thought, too. I don't think CH saw what you meant, ElNono.

OIC.

"Fairy tale" did refer to the bible, but CH got carried away with it, and misconstrued (understandably IMO) your genuinely intended Bravo!

Well, I guess you could reduce this to wether I should be politically correct and don't hurt somebody's feelings while having to hide what I really think of the story, or simply speak my mind. As I said, I have no problem with people thinking different than me, but I also select the path of expressing myself freely.
Obviously they're within their right to do so too. I just wanted to make clear that my congratulations were genuine and not a mockery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm impressed in your knowledge of the history of this fairy tale. Bravo!

---

Fairy tale?

Wow... There are too many accounts of Jesus as a live person during the period. There are too many historical digs that prove the early Bible. When you learn some key words of Chadean, Hebrew, and Greek, you see the english Bible is incorrectly translated.

There is nothing in the Torah that can be reliable said as false. The creation was done over six periods of time. Not six days. Mankind was on the earth for several centuries before the single man named Adam has a story written about him. You see, another old word that sound similar to the proper name Adam, means mankind. The word God is most commonly a plural for of diety, and also means (lost for the right word) a more advanced person. God could have simply been an extraterrestrial. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point it out to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Does ES believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible?

---

I seriously doubt it. I'll bet he believes in the literal interpretation of the Torah, and verifiable old writings however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Does ES believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible?

---

Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

There is no evidence of any kind of supernatural intervention by God to ensure documentary precision up to modern standards in the preservation of the Bible in early Christianity.

---

So so far boutons, El Nono and the absolute stupidest segment of fundamendalist christians believe every aspect of the bible was intended to be taken literally?

Am I right on the scoreboard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Fairy tale?

Wow... There are too many accounts of Jesus as a live person during the period. There are too many historical digs that prove the early Bible. When you learn some key words of Chadean, Hebrew, and Greek, you see the english Bible is incorrectly translated.

There is nothing in the Torah that can be reliable said as false. The creation was done over six periods of time. Not six days. Mankind was on the earth for several centuries before the single man named Adam has a story written about him. You see, another old word that sound similar to the proper name Adam, means mankind. The word God is most commonly a plural for of diety, and also means (lost for the right word) a more advanced person. God could have simply been an extraterrestrial. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to point it out to me.

---

Yes, a fairy tale. I'm surprised Mr Skeptic 'I need all the facts' himself is here to tell me otherwise. And I certainly don't dispute that there was a dude named Jesus of Nazareth back in the day. There might have been. However, to go from there to claim he's the son of a god, and all the supernatural bs surrounding it is, frankly, a stretch I'm not willing to accept.
If you do, good for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

So so far boutons, El Nono and the absolute stupidest segment of fundamendalist christians believe every aspect of the bible was intended to be taken literally?

Am I right on the scoreboard?

---

Talk about coming out of the left field and being completely wrong.
You need to stick to defending your girlfriend...

I'm hardly a bible scholar, and have extremely limited knowledge about the history of the bible.

But I always thought that there are many other "books" that were not included in the current version of the bible (due to decisions by the catholic church back when the bible was being "assembled"). I thought the catholic church decided to leave out some books that portrayed jesus in a more "human" light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Talk about coming out of the left field and being completely wrong.
You need to stick to defending your girlfriend...

---

Well...if it's simply a fairytale then I challenge you to go start breaking every commandment and see how it turns out for you.

I mean hey, it's just a fairytale.

By the way, congrats on being one of the elite to realize the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, my 10 year old nephew just figured that out too...maybe you guys can get together and talk about the experience?

Probably find a kindred spirit on the definition of continent too.

Nevermind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101a

nevermind

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Well...if it's simply a fairytale then I challenge you to go start breaking every commandment and see how it turns out for you.

I mean hey, it's just a fairytale.

---

Is this the best you can do? I expected better from somebody that claims to have read the Qur'an.
I do break a bunch of commandments every day. Namely 1 to 4 (using Jewish numbering). I'm doing just fine, thank you.
The reason I might not be breaking any more has nothing to do with the tables of the Covenant that supposedly Moses received from God. I simply do what I personally think is proper and lawful, and that's the end of that.

Furthermore, you can't claim WHEN I made my mind with regards to anything related to the Bible, because you simply don't know me. So you're basically talking out of your ass. Again. Like you always do.

Last, but not least, it bears no logic whatsoever that the authenticity of the story told in the Bible, even if historically inaccurate, can be determined by breaking or not breaking the ten commandments, as you imply on your retarded post.

Now, please go ahead and attack me personally, like you always do. Your act is so old and washed up, it's just not as comical anymore. In the meantime I'll consider if you're worth any more of my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm impressed in your knowledge of the history of this fairy tale. Bravo!

---

That got a hell of a chuckle out of me.

no shit!!!? Really???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Well...if it's simply a fairytale then I challenge you to go start breaking every commandment and see how it turns out for you.

I mean hey, it's just a fairytale.

By the way, congrats on being one of the elite to realize the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, my 10 year old nephew just figured that out too...maybe you guys can get together and talk about the experience?

Probably find a kindred spirit on the definition of continent too.

---

Should I worry about all the commandments, or the ones that Jesus said were the most important? Those are the ones I tend to stick to, as those are basic building blocks for societies to function.

I do take a name in vain, and draw graven images. And of course, I don't believe in the first place, so that's a biggie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Should I worry about all the commandments, or the ones that Jesus said were the most important? Those are the ones I tend to stick to, as those are basic building blocks for societies to function.

I do take a name in vain, and draw graven images. And of course, I don't believe in the first place, so that's a biggie.

---

You should only worry about the ones that were copied correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Nevermind

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Is this the best you can do?

---

What I said was plenty good enough to shit on your blanket statement.

Quote:

---

I expected better from somebody that claims to have read the Qur'an.
I do break a bunch of commandments every day. Namely 1 to 4 (using Jewish numbering). I'm doing just fine, thank you.

---

Do you know what the word "every" means? Or do you just need glasses?

I can assure you if you go break every commandment, you will find very real negative results from doing so, no matter where you live.

"Every"...I can point you to a dictionary if you, need a link.

Go kill someone, lie, cheat on your wife, live that as your creed, then tell me the bible is simply a fairytale, as you claimed.

Quote:

---

The reason I might not be breaking any more has nothing to do with the tables of the Covenant that supposedly Moses received from God. I simply do what I personally think is proper and lawful, and that's the end of that.

Furthermore, you can't claim WHEN I made my mind with regards to anything related to the Bible, because you simply don't know me. So you're basically talking out of your ass. Again. Like you always do.

---

I didn't say WHEN you made your mind...I just congratulated you on that realization and suggested you share the experience with my 10 year old nephew who just arrived at a similar one. I was sincere.

Quote:

---

Last, but not least, it bears no logic whatsoever that the authenticity of the story told in the Bible, even if historically inaccurate, can be determined by breaking or not breaking the ten commandments, as you imply on your retarded post.

---

You made a sweeping statement on the bible, it got stuck up your ass...admit it, rephrase or get it stuck up your ass further...


I can assure you many of the incidents in the bible actually happened...since your blanket statement that it is a "fairytale" means it is a work of complete fiction, perhaps you should have chosen your words more wisely to avoid backpedaling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Should I worry about all the commandments, or the ones that Jesus said were the most important? Those are the ones I tend to stick to, as those are basic building blocks for societies to function.

I do take a name in vain, and draw graven images. And of course, I don't believe in the first place, so that's a biggie.

---

Is the word "every" kicking your ass too?


I realize you guys think you are clever because you break some of them and aren't immediately struck down by lightning...I say "every" because I feel perfectly sure that if you break every, you will get something very akin to the lightning you seek, no matter where you live.

Don't be a pussy about it...break them all. Show us how meaningless and fictional they really are.

And how you won't get struck by lightning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Is the word "every" kicking your ass too?


I realize you guys think you are clever because you break some of them and aren't immediately struck down by lightning...I say "every" because I feel perfectly sure that if you break every, you will get something very akin to the lightning you seek, no matter where you live.

Don't be a pussy about it...break them all. Show us how meaningless and fictional they really are.

And how you won't get struck by lightning.

---

I don't break every commandment because I would prefer not to be a lying, theiving serial killer. There's nothing being "pussy" about it.

I follow these words of Jesus moreso than the Commandments.

Quote:

---

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,


19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Is the word "every" kicking your ass too?


I realize you guys think you are clever because you break some of them and aren't immediately struck down by lightning...I say "every" because I feel perfectly sure that if you break every, you will get something very akin to the lightning you seek, no matter where you live.

Don't be a pussy about it...break them all. Show us how meaningless and fictional they really are.

And how you won't get struck by lightning.

---

Jail time = lightning? I only ask because you guys have a knack for turning random things into miracles. I've broken every commandment except killing someone and humping animals. My house was struck by lightning once but that's about it.

Interesting. I'll have to check it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

What I said was plenty good enough to shit on your blanket statement.

---

We're very familiar with your posts being full of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Do you know what the word "every" means? Or do you just need glasses?

I can assure you if you go break every commandment, you will find very real negative results from doing so, no matter where you live.

"Every"...I can point you to a dictionary if you, need a link.

Go kill someone, lie, cheat on your wife, live that as your creed, then tell me the bible is simply a fairytale, as you claimed.

---

Under certain circumstances, you can do all those things you list above (kill, lie, cheat) without consequences in the society we live in. Or are you THAT disconnected from reality?
That I choose to do or not to do one or more of those things has absolutely no bearing on the authenticity of the story in the bible.
Get it through your thick skull:

I honestly believe that the story told on the bible is a fairy tale.

Now, why don't you go ahead and be the intolerant we know you can be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

I didn't say WHEN you made your mind...I just congratulated you on that realization and suggested you share the experience with my 10 year old nephew who just arrived at a similar one. I was sincere.

---

I misread. I took the 'too' to mean I just realized it too.
Congratulations about your 10 year old nephew. I'm sure your 8 years old mentality and him have a lot to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

You made a sweeping statement on the bible, it got stuck up your ass...admit it, rephrase or get it stuck up your ass further...

I can assure you many of the incidents in the bible actually happened...since your blanket statement that it is a "fairytale" means it is a work of complete fiction, perhaps you should have chosen your words more wisely to avoid backpedaling.

---

fairy tale
Function: noun
Date: 1749
1 a: a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) —called also fairy story b: a story in which improbable events lead to a happy ending
2: a made-up story usually designed to mislead

From the Dictionary

Let's try another dictionary:

fairy tale
n.
1. A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.
2. A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation.

From another Dictionary

Now, I want you on the record stating that fictional works are never based of or partially contain actual events. Because that's what you stated up there, and I think you might want to retract that. I don't know, maybe you weren't thinking when you wrote that, or you simply didn't know what a 'fairy tale' is.

Furthermore, your point is even more disingenuous, because I did claim parts of it might actually be actual events before even you made your first post on this subject. Which clearly means you're a certified retard.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of how breaking all commandments gives the bible any more or less authenticity. I know you like to get your ass kicked repeatedly, but this would be a lot shorter if you just answered that claim.

I think I made my position fairly clear here. I don't expect anybody to agree or not with me. I only wanted to congratulate Extra Stout on a great write up, and I frankly have little time to keep toying with whottt.

I'll be glad to continue discussing this topic in this thread with other posters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't break every commandment because I would prefer not to be a lying, theiving serial killer. There's nothing being "pussy" about it.

I follow these words of Jesus moreso than the Commandments.

---

You mean you don't need to fear a higher being to be a good person? Irrational I say!

[/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You mean you don't need to fear a higher being to be a good person? Irrational I say!

[/sarcasm]

---

I also obviously enjoy misspelling the word "Thieving" :)

That's the one thing I don't get, is when Christians say things like, "If there were no God, I'd do whatever I want"... and then they have the nerve to say they're more moral than I am.

Morality is not about being rewarded for eternal life by following rules. Morality is about doing what is right, because it is right.

People can have differing opinions on what is moral and what isn't, and that's perfectly fine and acceptable to me. Basing your morality only on a punishment/reward system isn't.

See sig for my bias.

But it really is pretty idiotic and naive to think that the fairy tale anthology aka christian bible hasn't been relentlessly altered throughout the hundreds of years its been around. That alone renders it meaningless (when we talk about metaphysics) to me especially since its been used to control people and changed to fit the controller's bidding imo.

The christian bible is like an unlocked wiki page that only the corrupt elite were able to change since it was only the rich and those in power who possessed the ability to read, write, and interpret the fiction.

Oh and just so I don't get crucified here as much, I consider the bible to be somewhat of a historical fiction work like 'Forrest Gump' meaning that there's some truth behind it with historical people and what not --- its just been retold as a seemingly fantastic and amazing story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't break every commandment because I would prefer not to be a lying, theiving serial killer.

---

Why? It doesn't really matter...you can do whatever you want. What are you afraid of?

Prove to me it's just a fairytale, go lie, kill, steal, become an alcoholic, and show me it's all just fiction?

And if you bring up laws, I am just going to point out these commandments existed before modern concepts of law, and were in fact the law for many cultures.

And the basic laws of Western Civilization are built upon these fictional commandments.


In fact I look around the world and I the civilizations built upon the foundations of these commandments, are the most successful civilizations in history.

What is so fictional about it?

Quote:

---

There's nothing being "pussy" about it.

---

Sure there is, you're saying it's all fiction, fairytales told children...

Go prove it.

Anyone can anything, proving it is another entirely.

Quote:

---

I follow these words of Jesus moreso than the Commandments.

---

What words are those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BacktoBasics

Jail time = lightning?

---

Maybe, maybe something else. Divorce. Isolation, Addiction.

Quote:

---

I only ask because you guys have a knack for turning random things into miracles.

---

I hate to break it to you, but the bible is largely from Pre-Scientific civlilization...I don't why you guys expect it to use the terminology we use now.

A flashlight would real like a miracle based on their ability to describe it


Furthermore, thes stories are meant be told to children as well adults, so of course they are going to be simplified.

Add in the fact that languages don't directly translate to one another, that these tales have been transferred from one culture to another...

And of course this book is not going to read like a scince or history book...


Yet I want you explain to me how a culture that had no sciences like archaeology, biology or anthropology knew that plant life came before animal life, sea life came before land life...

That the Sun came before the Earth.

Then tell me it's just a fairy tale.

Quote:

---

I've broken every commandment except killing someone and humping animals. My house was struck by lightning once but that's about it.

---

You've cheated on your wife?

Tell her?

Then go do it again. Then when she finds about it, continue doing it, lie about it.

Start lying to everybody you know.

Try stealing from your friends and neighbors...



Or hey just try this...

Hop on over to the Pakistan Afghanistan Border region and starts saying things like Jesus and god suck dicks...

Then you get back to me and tell me if I am just talking about jail time or not.



The bible is the leading text of pre-science, pre-written history and from the dawn of Western culture, by and large, it has been the essential foundation of biolcultural evolution for a millenia. Western civilization is built upon it's mythology and codes...

It most definitely is much more than simply a fairy tale...


And as for the stories...depends on which ones you are talking about, there are tons of stories about a a flood in the area where Mesopotamia was...this story has transferred cultures and civlizations...

Pretty sure it's more than just a fairy tale, and if it is, it's one of the most important ones since it's been around as long as we have been able to talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Why? It doesn't really matter...you can do whatever you want. What are you afraid of?

---

I'm not moral because I'm 'afraid' of something. I'm moral because it is the 'right' thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Prove to me it's just a fairytale, go lie, kill, steal, become an alcoholic, and show me it's all just fiction?

---

Doing so wouldn't prove or disprove such. You know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

And if you bring up laws, I am just going to point out these commandments existed before modern concepts of law, and were in fact the law for many cultures.

---

And these laws were in existence before the Commandments as well, I'm sure. Anywhere where there is a society of people living together, certain laws are nigh-universal. Laws against killing, stealing, thieving and lying are also essential to basic societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

And the basic laws of Western Civilization are built upon these fictional commandments.

---

Yes, they were. It is a very historical and important document, as well as a basis for further evolution of morals. However, I think you'll find that the ones I bolded tend to be the basis of Western Civilization's laws moreso than the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

In fact I look around the world and I the civilizations built upon the foundations of these commandments, are the most successful civilizations in history. What is so fictional about it?

---

What is so fictional about what? The Bible? Or the stories contained therein? Or the overlying explanation of these stories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Sure there is, you're saying it's all fiction, fairytales told children...

---

I'm not saying it's all fiction. More like "based on a true story" movies. The truth is stretched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Go prove it.

Anyone can anything, proving it is another entirely.

---

I don't have to prove or disprove I am a 'pussy' to you, nor anyone else. You may believe what you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

What words are those?

---

The text I posted below that very comment, in large and bold letters.

I'll give you guys 10 bucks a piece if you go kill a pig and eat it without cooking it.

Nothing immoral about it.

I mean, it's just a fairytale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That's the one thing I don't get, is when Christians say things like, "If there were no God, I'd do whatever I want"... and then they have the nerve to say they're more moral than I am.

---

Well, that's double retarded coming from a dogmatic person considering that if God is the one that gives you free will in the first place, then you certainly cannot do whatever you want if there was no God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Yet I want you explain to me how a culture that had no sciences like archaeology, biology or anthropology knew that plant life came before animal life, sea life came before land life...

That the Sun came before the Earth.

---

Actually, the Sun came after Earth was created.

Quote:

---

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

---

The most amazing thing that the Bible did in regards to technology, I've found, was its support of washing and good hygiene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'm not saying it's all fiction. More like "based on a true story" movies. The truth is stretched.

---

Or changed over time.


Hell it takes two seconds to take something someone says in the media and change into someting else that half the people will believe untrue or not.

It also had multiple authors and has been used to legitimize rulers...

It is interpreted differently by every pastor...


That doesn't mean it's a fairytale.


I mean what is it that you guys want? Historical proof of every miracle?


Because many of the people in the bible did exist...many of the places, many of the events.

I mean Babylon is right there in fucking Iraq.


Mircales?

How can you prove a miracle? Once we can do it it won't be a miracle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

I'll give you guys 10 bucks a piece if you go kill a pig and eat it without cooking it.

Nothing immoral about it.

I mean, it's just a fairytale.

---

Whottt, you're really losing it.

I've never said that the Bible wasn't ahead of its time in many areas. It is! I think that's why it originally was so useful. And I think of all religious people, the Jewish have the most honest religion, a covenant/contract between a supreme being and his chosen people, regulated by rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Or changed over time.


Hell it take two seconds to take something someone says in the media and change into someting else that half the people will believe...

It also had multiple authors and has been used to legitimize rulers...

It is interpreted differently by every pastor...


That doesn't mean it's a fairytale.

---

Whottt, I never stated it was a fairytale; ElNono did. Although even he stated he believed it more to be a fantastical story designed to mislead, rather than a true 'fairy tale'.

If I had a dollar for every fucking atheist intellectual that told me, I don't believe in some old man sitting up there in the clouds.

Nowhere in the bible does it say god is an oldman sitting in the clouds...in fact it pretty much makes it clear that most humans could not bear to be in the actual presence of God.

There are several ways you can take that...none of them have anything to do with him being some old man sitting in the clouds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Actually, the Sun came after Earth was created.



The most amazing thing that the Bible did in regards to technology, I've found, was its support of washing and good hygiene.

---

No, you're wrong, read it again:

Quote:

---

When God[3] began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said, 'Let there be light.' and there was light"(Genesis chapter 1:3) [4]; the "firmament" separating "the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;" dry land and seas and plants and trees which grew fruit with seed; the sun, moon and stars in the firmament; air-breathing sea creatures, fishes and birds; and on the sixth day, "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ...

---

If you know anything about the physics of planetary creation the prelight earth is basically what we would call a planetary accretion disk, at least the way it reads to me being "waste" the earth as we know it came after the light.


And no, the most amazing thing to me is that it basically nails the sequence of life originating on Earth to an alarmingly accurate degree...without the benefit of any science whatso ever...well that, and the pre-science description of planetary formation.


I wonder how they knew that?

Maybe someone that knew told them?

Maybe they would call him a space alien.

I wonder how they would describe that person?

I wonder how he would explain it to them?

I wonder how they would explain it to anyone else.



Nah...


I doubt they'd call a flashlight a flashlight either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

Oh and just so I don't get crucified here as much, I consider the bible to be somewhat of a historical fiction work like 'Forrest Gump' meaning that there's some truth behind it with historical people and what not --- its just been retold as a seemingly fantastic and amazing story.

---

There's no arguing that the message it intends to pass along is what we all would consider a good, positive message.
Frankly, I think if you were to take out the supernatural from it, it would still make for a fairly decent 'feel good' story. The thing is, I doubt it would have had the historical impact it had in the current form.

We also have learned what beliefs had other civilizations that predate the manuscripts that form the base of the bible. They also believed in multiple gods and one of the few constants is the use of those 'higher beings' in order to manipulate the general population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

If I had a dollar for every fucking atheist intellectual that told me, I don't believe in some old man sitting up there in the clouds.

Nowhere in the bible does it say god is an oldman sitting in the clouds...in fact it pretty much makes it clear that most humans could not bear to be in the actual presence of God.

There are several ways you can take that...none of them have anything to do with him being some old man sitting in the clouds.

---

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I currently have no belief in any supernatural being or force (there's the atheist part) but I can't say for certain that one isn't out there (<--- agnostic part.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

No, you're wrong, read it again

If you know anything about the physics of planetary creation the prelight earth is basically what we would call a planetary accretion disk, at least the way it reads to me being "waste" the earth as we know it came after the light.

---

I don't see how you can reconcile that with this passage.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

If not the sun and the moon, then what possibly could those two great lights be?

Edit: Note, the stars also appear later than the Earth.

I can say with all certainty that religion pre-dated science and has served us far better for much longer.

I can say with all certainty that the oldest man made artifacts are almost univerally spiritual in nature...

I can look back in history and see no great atheistic civilization built upon the claim that this is all there is.


I can look at pretty much every culture, in evey region of the globe and see they all had some form of spiritual belief.


I can also look and see even science says we likely descended from 1 man.

The bible doesn't say how Adam was created, it just says he was created.

And we are on the verge of being able to make people from other people.

I can look and see every culture has some concept of other planes of existence, even science says dimensions exist now..

They didn't have the word dimension back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't see how you can reconcile that with this passage.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

If not the sun and the moon, then what possibly could those two great lights be?

Edit: Note, the stars also appear later than the Earth.

---

I reconcile that as the rotation of the earth, which is what causes night and day and the moon being captured by the gravity of earth.

The accretion disk probably was rotating, but that wouldn't mean much considering it would basically be a formless mass.

The latest archeological finds surrounding the Red Sea crossing (across the Gulf of Aqaba) and the preservation of several key elements that can attest to the narrative of the 'Exodus flight' out of Egypt are pretty remarkable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

The latest archeological finds surrounding the Red Sea crossing (across the Gulf of Aqaba) and the preservation of several key elements that can attest to the narrative of the 'Exodus flight' out of Egypt are pretty remarkable...

---

I couldn't agree more.

To me being atheistic means we are the highest form of life, this is the highest plane of existence, I can look at the pattern of life, nature, the structure of the Universe and see clearly...there's always something bigger, and if there isn't, there will be. I mjean it's fact lesser dimensions exist...why can't higher ones?

If these people encountered a higher life form, they wouldn't call it a higher life form, they'd call it god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

To me being atheistic means we are the highest form of life, this is the highest plane of existence, I can look at the pattern of life, nature, the structure of the Universe and see clearly...there's always something bigger, and if there isn't, there will be. I mjean it's fact lesser dimensions exist...why can't higher ones?

If these people encountered a higher life form, they wouldn't call it a higher life form, they'd call it god.

---

To me, atheistic just means what it means. Not believing in any deity or supernatural being or groups of deities.

I am still somewhat 'spiritual', as in, I am moved by the amazing complexity of life and the universe.

Suppose we find out one day that this is a an experiment in creating a lesser dimension and we were in fact created by an extradimensional being...

What would you call that guy? What would you call what they did?


I know what they'd call it...and it'd sound Supernatural.


Anything we can't explain is supernatural, and there's a great deal we can't explain, it only becomes natural after we can.


What created us and how it was done, will probably the last question we answer. Until then, all aspects of the topic are Supernatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Suppose we find out one day that this is a an experiment in creating a lesser dimension and we were in fact created by an extradimensional being...

What would you call that guy? What would you call what they did?


I know what they'd call it...and it'd sound Supernatural.


Anything we can't explain is supernatural, and there's a great deal we can't explain, it only becomes natural after we can.


What created us and how it was done, will probably the last question we answer. Until then, all aspects of the topic are Supernatural.

---

Agreed.

Any translations from the oldest Bible?

How about Genisis 1:1:

Quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

---

Any idea how many different ways it can be translated?

A breakdown:

In the beginning
re'shiyth (ray-sheeth')
the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit) -- beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.

God
'elohiym (el-o-heem')
angels, exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), (very) great, judges, mighty.

created
bara' (baw-raw')
(absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) -- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
'eth (ayth)
self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely) -- (as such unrepresented in English).

the heaven
shamayim (shaw-mah'-yim)
air, astrologer, heaven(-s).

and
'eth (ayth)
self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely) -- (as such unrepresented in English).

the earth
'erets (eh'-rets)
the earth (at large, or partitively a land) -- common, country, earth, field, ground, land, natins, way, + wilderness, world.