World's Oldest Bible Going Online 1183
99luftballon writes "The British Museum is putting online the remaining fragments of the world's oldest Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus dates to the fourth century BCE and was discovered in the 19th century. Very few people have seen it due to its fragile state — that and the fact that parts of it are in collections scattered across the globe. It'll give scholars and those interested their first chance to take a look. However, I've got a feeling that some people won't be happy to see it online, since it makes no mention of the resurrection, which is a central part of Christian belief."On Thursday the Book of Psalms and the Gospel According to Mark will go live at the Codex Sinaiticus site. The plan is to have all the material up, with translations and commentaries, a year from now.
As a literary.... (Score:2, Interesting)
study it's an interesting thing to put on line. The one thing that sends chills down my spine is the reactions from all religious whackos out there.
Protestant fundamentalists will start debating if it's complete, valid, canonical and whatnot. The Muslims will surely try to use it to debase Christianity further. The Catholic Church will probably not allow its followers to read it. The Mormons will.... then again, never mind the Mormons. :-D
On the bright side, at least the Jews will just shrug and say it's not Torah.
I really wish people would get a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
but there were never any books I wasn't allowed to read while going to a Catholic school. The earth wasn't flat, gays weren't out to get me, and doing a book report on Darwin didn't get me excommunicated. If anything religion was the framework for how one behaved in school and did not control what I learned there.
If anything going to a public school was more of a shocker, stepping back the equivalent of two grades and being bombarded with more ignorance than one can shake a stick at.
Re:Fourth century BCE you say (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I guess that's a joke, but the "Bible" can refer to either the Jewish Bible (the Torah) (what Christians tend to call the "Old Testament"), or to the Christian Bible (which is both the Jewish Bible and the "New Testament").
Of course, "the" bible is a bit of a silly thing to say of course, because there are a heck of a lot more then just one of them. There are multiple versions of the Christian "New Testament" (incidentally a some Jews get upset with the old/new distinction, I don't know why...), ranging from versions in the "original" Greek, through to translations into Latin, and then various translations into English, all of which introduce changes into "the word of God". (One reason Muslims say that Arabic is the only language of Koran is prevent this problem of translations.) It isn't just translations that introduce changes either, a number of gospels were thrown out of the original Christian bible, and have only in the last hundred years or so started to be rediscovered. And then there are multiple versions of the Torah as well (translations, etc.).
So in reality, when you talk of "the bible" or even the "New Testament", you aren't talking about one thing. (And it sorta makes a mockery of the whole word of god thing. Why should I follow your bible version, when mine very distinctly doesn't include the commandment one about working six days, but actually says three days and then taking the other 4 days off? And even if it is included in your bible, why should I follow it if you don't? Does "give away all your possessions" sound familiar? Or it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then a rich man to enter heaven?)
Back onto the original topic of this old scrap paper being put online. Yup, it's a good thing when this old stuff is digitalised, because coping bits is a fuck load easier then coping hard copy. Opening this up to scholars around the world (most of whom would never have had a chance to see it otherwise), means that differences and contradictions between this and the modern versions can be picked up and pointed out.
(And now for a random troll, fuck religion and the horse it rode in on!)
Re:As a literary.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Muslims will surely try to use it to debase Christianity further.
Hmm? Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God, and the Jews and Christians are the other "people of the book", and are held at a higher level than other infidels. I don't see the Muslims disparaging other religions (atleast, other monotheistic ones); if anything, after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection" against blasphemizing Jewish and Christian beliefs, so that their beliefs can be "protected" against blasphemy as well.
Re:As a literary.... (Score:5, Interesting)
higher level than other infidels
Oh, so there's a caste system for infidels? Goody! Put me at the bottom, k?
I don't see the Muslims disparaging other religions
Really? I've heard Muslims call Jews rats, dogs, bastards, pigs....
As a side issue: wtf is up with Islam and dogs? Jesus friggin' Christ. Any religion that doesn't "allow" a boy to have a dog as a pet is... sick.
after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection"
You mean censorship?
"protected" against blasphemy
Fail.
Re:Best part missing from later versions! (Score:2, Interesting)
You would be amazed how many people would be put to death if society decided to follow the bible as it is interpreted today. I can promise you, the homosexuals would be a miniscule portion of the people who would get their throats cut and stoned to death. Does "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death," sound familiar? hehe. That's just one little line that plays a role against today's society, especially in the USA. The bible is fun to read and quote. You bring up quotes that say I'm going to hell, then I bring up quotes that say you are going to hell. Fun! God, what an atheist I am.
re-written (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of us cope by not believing in inerrancy in the first place.
And, for some of us, the idea that the copying and translation has introduced both unintentional errors and intentional variation is not particularly news.
Original (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the closer we can get to the original, the closer we can get to the Original.
But the King James version is itself considered to have been the work of inspired men, so there would be some point in putting more stock by the King James version than by random early texts whose authors may or may not be known to have been inspired.
(And then, there are some of us who believe that, even if you had the originals and were fluent in the original language, you'd still have to read under inspiration from God to get a full and perfect understanding of the text.)
Same as always? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well,
1. It was perverted from the start.
E.g., right after Christ's death, we already know that there was a sect called the Ebionites, which actually contained relatives of Jesus and people who knew him personally. (They actually insisted that the leadership of the church should go to a relative of Jesus, not to Peter.) They also made no claim of resurrection, nor that Mary was a virgin (much less the later idiocy that she stayed a virgin even after giving birth), etc. Generally they thought of him as a _human_. Prophet and divinely inspired, yes, but not the divine incarnation that the later church turned him into.
What we inherited as Christianity is actually mostly due to Paul, who went fanboy and convinced the others that they must (A) proselitise at all cost, and (B) that it's ok to change stuff, e.g., about half the Old Testament, if it makes it easier to swallow by potential new followers. I wouldn't be too surprised if it involved some embellishing about Jesus too, especially given the following fact:
The Ebionites actually considered Paul an apostate. Not a misunderstanding, or mis-representation, or whatever, but outright apostate. That's how much it deviated.
2. That wouldn't even be the end of massaging it into a different shape.
The new religion wasn't even too clear about who Jesus was, or wth did it all mean. A lot of the early "heresies", like Arianism or Pellagianism are, strictly speaking, compatible with what was actually written. They just filled the blanks in differently.
It took several generations of Byzantine philosophers to define exactly wth _do_ they believe in, down to the smallest details. (The schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism came much later, so yes, you did inherit the byzantine construct even if you're Catholic or Protestant.) A lot of things that resulted don't even reflect the original context or meaning, but the effort of fitting Christianity into the Greek way of seeing the world, which at times was like fitting a square peg in a triangular hole. E.g., they had to make Mary and the birth even more perfect and wondrous, because they thought that something perfect (e.g., Jesus) can't possibly come out of something imperfect (e.g., a normal human mother.)
And even then it created even more schisms and heresies, because some things made no sense to cultures who thought differently. At least one schism was because stuff that made sense in Greek, made no sense when translated into Syriac, because the words didn't have the same nuances.
They also defined very strictly what is included in the Bible, what you can write or say about it, and in which terms.
3. Which brings me to the point, they had no problem dealing with the Ebionites or with the Syriac churches which were a lot closer to where it all happened. They just proclaimed them heretics.
I'm guessing it will be the same today. People will just proclaim this manuscript as some gnostic heresy, and continue as if nothing happened.
Re:I really wish people would get a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
I see your anecdote and raise you another.
My Father was caned by Maris Brothers every day he went to school, he was also punched and beaten on a regular basis. On "sports" days they would be required to sit in the middle of a field in the summer heat, with out water or food. Their names would be called and they would have to run around the field. If a student didn't run fast enough a brother would run up behind him and kick him in the arse until he speed up.
Anything considered hearsay or heresy would result in an even more severe beating.
Those men were animals.
Yes, and to take it further (Score:5, Interesting)
Mark's ending, with the cross, was in many ways like the ending of a drama. It opened doors not just for talk about the play, but also for thinking about the matter.
I cant recite what I have read further, but the theologian was going into detail, why the ending did suggest something else to happen, which would have been obvious for people of that time, so mark didn't need the resurrection to be mentioned. it was obvious for them that there was more to it, like it is obvious for us now, that "I am your father" is a reference to Star Wars, but later, when time passed, the resurrection was added to the book.
Most christians know, that Mark did not mention the resurrection chronologically in the original. But, there were 3 other gospels, and plenty of people writing about the resurrection, and even Mark pointed the resurrection out in a lot of passages. So, no, there is no debate at all on our side.
Still, thanx for the news. Accurate timing (BCE?) and some insights which books are in this old bible would have been better, though.
Re:Summary is wildly inaccurate (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, the ./ summary is very inaccurate.
For a more scholarly analysis regarding the Sinaiticus, I recommend reading:
"The Last Twelve Verses of Mark"
by Dean John W. Burgon
ISBN...1888328002
Publisher...John Burgon Society
It is more in depth than the anti-Bible fluff you'll find on /.
I really wish people would get a clue too (Score:5, Interesting)
Can anyone spot the logical flaw in your argument that "I didn't know about any banned books therefore there were no banned books"?
I'm sure if you'd tried working your way through the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum [wikipedia.org]) then I'm sure you'd have been in a lot of trouble.
Familiar discussions... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, this discussion reminds me of those we have when the subject is Linux, Windows or OSX. Or in the old days when we debated vi and emacs...
The importance of primary source material (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that but in the very near future, when the pointless grandstanding that will soon render this topic unreadable happens, or when the discussion inevitably turns to the eternal question of how many polar bears can be balance on the point of an argument, we shall have a new moderation:
Go See.
First Comment on topic! ... oh wait... lol (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:re-written (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm reminded of John Safran's rant about atheists in John Safran vs. God (end of episode 1, I think).
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not faith. Truth! (Score:2, Interesting)
And the truth is: the bible is a collectionof stories. You just don't read the bible as if it were a history manual, or some kind of unfallible transcription of PureTruth(tm)...
Let's look at the old and the new testament separately, shall we?
The old testament is a *typical* collection of short stories -- just like the ones you probably use to buy in your local book store.
But why is it so ... "holy", then?
It's the origin and original purpose of the stories that make them... well, worth a reading :-) (Is this what "holy" means? Who knows... who cares.) You have to know that 3-3.5k of years ago, people in the middle east were mostly nomades. They wandered from place to place. Few of them were educated, almost none of them could write. But the more intelligent of them gathered their share of wisdom, along the years... about how to lead a life, about how to behave in a way that society (whatever their society was like) could function.
So, what does an old wise man do before he dies? Try to teach the younger ones. Not being able to write (and knowing that the youngsters won't be able to read), the only way to teach them wisdom of life is telling them.
Ok, so why not write down "wisdom" instead of the stories? Well, the old testament *is* full of "wisdom". Read the book of Salomon, for example... But it's also full of stories (the story of Job, for example), because of the way people back then and back there used to think... they didn't like to tell one "do this and to that to make things work", they'd rather tell one "things didn't work for me the other day, so then I did this and that, and they they worked!" and then leave it for you to do the same.
In a nutshell: people 3.5k years ago in the middle east shared life experience and life wisdom by telling stories and passing legends around the camp fire -- stories about arguments, about wars, about ... "enlightening" experiences, aboud what they believed to be an experience of God etc. Of course, stories got exagerated, they became legend-like, but hey... that can happen to a story if it's being carried on from father to son for several hundred years :-) The key point here is that they shared life experience (and experience of what they thought to be "God") through stories.
(As a sidenote: read the genesis once again with the information I just gave you in mind: you'll clearly notice the fact that there are at least two texts having been mixed up that actually make up the genesis as we read it ... you clearly notice two different wrinting styles, belonging to two different authors. And there are even some passages that seem to repeat and/or contradict, further supporting the fact that a third author/redactor carefully put together some kind of a "Genesis" story from bits & pieces of information that he could find on the topic... a "Genesis" story that could possibly explain the origin of the world back then.)
Well, at some point, some guy decided to write down a besf-of collection those stories. *That* became the old testament. More or less... :-)
New testament.
The oldest evanghelium of the new testament was written sometime 70 AD, and the youngest one around 300 AD. So most of the "evanghelists" were certainly not around to witness Christ. Whoever wrote the evangheliums, they gathered whatever information they could, and then put it togegher to somehow make sense.
This would be like somebody *now* trying to write down what happened during the Civil War in USA, couple of hundreds of years ago, using nothing but information that somehow... well, just made it through to here :-)
How would it look like? Well, there would probably be a lot of documents with official Government stamps, some letters between this general and that other general, some orders, some plans... all kinds of stuff which's genuinity could somehow be proved. We'd take all tha
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Buddhist suttas of the Theravada tradition would like to have a word with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon [wikipedia.org]
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2, Interesting)
The bible has a secure claim of being the oldest preserved book
Ok fair enough, but imagine of instead of some fairytales, we had a history book. Imagine how great that would be.
Well we are MORE certain about the bible being unchanged than we are about that little event actually having had place.
Really? I mean, those MILLIONS of people involved have made records. (I can read my grandfathers diary, for instance) There are newspapers from the time. There are literally millions of DIFFERENT sources all describing the event in different ways. There are photos. How can you possibly make this statement?
Re:Best part missing from later versions! (Score:5, Interesting)
I never speak about my faith on slashdot generally, since doing so tends to get exactly same reactionism without considderation as talking to a Southern Baptist about evolution does. Most Christians in the rest of the world think American Christians are idiots who give us all a bad name. Not least because they seriously underestimate the very God they will use as an excuse to do anything they want and control everybody else.
Enlightened Christians have long since decided that Genesis is METAPHORICAL not LITERAL. Many parts of the Bible are literal truth and we often have archeological evidence to back them up (See the Towns built by Solomon for example - archeologists on those digs actually use the book of Kings to know WHERE to dig for WHAT part), many parts are not. The prodigial son is not literal truth - it's a teaching story. So why is it so hard to think that Genesis was a teaching story for a humanity 3000 years to early to understand the science of evolution ? It's point is that God created the universe and life, not HOW ! Evolution and the big bang theories make no claim otherwise (at least, when it's done by proper scientists without an agenda).
What's worse is that they really don't seem to get what 'allmighty' MEANS. God is not bound by time ! He says it in the gospels and they still pretend otherwise. There is no reason why both the creation tales in Genesis AND evolution can't all three be literal truth ! God could create the earth in six days AND in the universe in a hundred billion years without contradiction - time happens to other people. Any God who couldn't do that wouldn't even be very potent, let alone OMNIpotent !
It's like the old question of whether God could create something to heavy for him to lift. The answer to one of faith is a simple "yes". And afterwards, he could lift it. This is only logically inconsistent if you are bound by the laws of logic - God can change them to suit himself.
Many people have forgotten that Christianity is all about love. Try this one out. A common reading of some texts get people to claim 'do good unto all, and especially good unto others of the same faith'. I read it the exact opposite: do ESPECIALLY good to people of other religions. Don't try to convert people with long speeches, or draconic laws ! The bible tells us that most important act of mission we must do is the example of love. American fundamentalists are creating a global impression of Christians as people without understanding or empathy or love - and that is undoing the single most important task given to them by God AND Jesus. Charity is the ultimate form of mission - and charity without agenda, those who - impressed by it - ASKS - you then teach why you do it, that you are trying to show the same love you have received. If Christians were any good at actually acting according to their faith - we would not be in the PR disaster we are in.
Some protestant theological schools (notably my own church's) even have a required subject for preachers called "criticism of scripture" which studies historical alteration of the Bible, modification of meanings, likely entries that got added by accident and the like and evaluates it line by line to try and improve the quality. It takes a lot of time and effort to make a correction (think 30-40 years) which then goes for ultimate approval (with all the evidence) to the synod - but they do happen, and being rash with them would be irresponsible- and it helps that every preacher voting at the synod will have studied the subject, and probably participated in some of the research when they were students.
So the vision of Christians as closed-minded bigots is limited to a few groups scattered around the world, with the American bible-belt most likely the single largest concentration - it is not how most Christians live and act. Most Christians do NOT think the SPLA deserves any of our support. We do not think we should get to write the laws either, quite the contrary - our mandate according to Jesus is to follow the law, whatever the
Re:Same as always? (Score:4, Interesting)
wtf dude, the version of the old testament that I read had all the stuff about circumcision and restricted foods etc.
While the Roman Catholic church worships images, reformed/protestant churches still think of that as wrong. When I was a Christian I regarded the catholic church to be an attempt by the Roman government to water down Christianity and actually turn it into an organisation under human control (the pope) rather than one that considers God as its leader.
Yes, whole sections of OT law are obviously superseded by the new testament (that's kind of the point), but that doesn't mean they aren't included in the bible.
The reformed church was a genuine attempt to get everything back as purely as possible to the way Jesus intended the church to be. The Roman Catholic church does a whole bunch of weird stuff that I've always considered decidedly un-christian :p Praying to Mary and confessing to priests, etc.. the Roman Catholic church just tries to take Jesus out of the picture and gain control/money. Sadly the ministers in my ex-denomination don't even make much money, though they do get accomodation provided for them :p They are genuine people too, not in it for control (my grandad was a minister, quite a few of my friend's are minister's kids, and I know people that have gone on to train for the ministry.. all very genuine people)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
it means, that the rough parts of translation were made in such a right sense, that it kind of reflects the original meaning.
"Inspired" in religious terms generally means something along the lines of "channeling": God Himself came down and wrote the translation through the author's hands.
Re:Bad Summary, Questionable Claim (Score:2, Interesting)
"Atheists, in large, suffer from the inability to accept that the entire process of deconstructing a religious belief serves no purpose but to stroke your ego, since the existance of a false belief in a world where belief is a null sum game is by definition a null sum circumstance."
Are you sure? If people can be moved away from religion and taught to think objectively in a way that is required to denounce belief in some deity then, well, it's not exactly null sum. There is plenty of benefit to be had from improving the human race with very little negative response to the loss of many religions, they've served their purpose and hinder far more than they can ever help in today's world. It's only null sum if the end effect is that there isn't one. The abolition of religion would quite clearly have many positive benefits. Furthermore, should there be no challenge to religion then in many nations you could expect homosexuality and similar to be illegal still where it's currently not.
You need it to act as a balance, and hopefully over time as a force to remove, and hence progress the human race.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Same as always? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, when people do new translations of bibles (at least the ones being translated into English, I'm not sure about those translating into other languages which don't yet have the bible) they do it from the original greek and hebrew manuscripts. My dad was even learning Hebrew before he died, presumably so he could read more original versions of the old testament, so the OT and Jewish Torah should be very similar. I wouldn't expect the differences to be any more than you'd get translating any other piece of writing. Hebrew sentence structure can be ambiguous, you often get footnotes in bibles saying stuff like 'this could also be translated as [...]'.
Re:re-written (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd have thought the religious argument would be that God would correct the errors in translation so its original message still shines through.
I realize "Saint Gerbil" is attempting to be inflammatory. However, a little knowledge/understanding never hurt. I can't speak for other groups, but protestants' view of the creation story is that sin took over with the "original sin." Sin is simply the result of human choice - free will. Thus, the protestant view isn't that God can't make the "perfect translation," its that humans are given free-will and there is minimal interference with that.
Even if it does contradict that last passage, encourage people to kill each other etc.
Show me where to find it, and don't neglect context. However, when you do point out your source, I can promise you I wont be able to convince you otherwise. As a student of Constitutional law I have become acutely aware of the fallible nature of human communication. Truth is measured by 5 votes. There will never be a medium of communication that we/I can't manipulate. Give me "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and some time to research, and I can give you a completely different theory of relativity.
Of course, my new theory might need to navigate around what is scientifically verifiable. But then again, it might not need to even be consistent with science. Most people simply accept science on faith. For example, even though I have an engineering background, I have not independently verified the vast majority of science - I simply believe. I realize science is VERY distinguishable from religion because of its verifiability. However, scientists are very religious in the sense of their uncritical acceptance of belief. Real science is made by heretics - those that challenge dogma. Even scientists blindly believe.
To segway into the unrelated theory of relativism - that doesn't mean there is not absolute truth. It would be self defeating to claim that the only truth is that there is no truth. My statements mean (as much as statements can have any meaning) that we bring our own meanings to all information we recieve. Finally, to tie it all together - my freedom to bring my own meaning to communication - that's free will.
How do you know? (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism. I don't think Jesus was anything special, but I do think that _a_ man called Jesus might have existed. If nothing else because it was such a common name, that it's akin to saying that a Russian called Ivan must have existed. At any rate, you know, keep your canned speeches about "wishful thinking" for when they actually apply. Or was it too hard to come up with some original thought?
Second, this is such a monumental stupidity that it still cracks me up.
Get this: we don't have all documents and records from back then. In fact, we have only a small fraction. We don't even know half the commanders of the legions, or half the consuls of, say, the Gaul Empire (which was actually a bunch of provinces which rebelled and split up their own piece of the Roman Empire), or half the governors (e.g., who the heck _was_ governor of Britannia after Agricola?) You know, important people. But it was lost anyway.
A lot of records were destroyed in the warfare. A lot simply rotted away in some ruins. A lot were destroyed by the christian monks who erased old scrolls and wrote new stuff over them. Some even took it as an act of purification to destroy the heathen writings and write some copy of the Bible on that parchment instead.
So, pray tell, what kind of madness or idiocy makes you think that we'd absolutely have the records about every single unimportant John Doe? Because that's what's required to claim that lack of records proves non-existence.
No, seriously. We don't know anything about most of the _citizens_ of the Empire. What makes you think you can take lack of records about a John Doe as confirmation that it didn't exist?
For the Romans, Jesus was a John Doe. Just another non-citizen nutter who spoke against the Emperor and was nailed for it. Business as usual. According to Roman law, they didn't even have to grant a proper trial to a non-citizen, he could be executed on any whim of the governor or a military commander. Pilat wasn't even required to note anywhere that he had him executed. But again, even if you want to believe he did, we lost more important stuff in those 2000 years.
So basically, to cut it short, what you're doing there is just a pretentious kind of the Argument From Ignorance fallacy. Not knowing something doesn't automatically make it false.
Re:Summary is wildly inaccurate (Score:1, Interesting)
Some further bits of info:
1. Markan primacy (the theory that Mark was the first Gospel written) is only one of the theories in the synopic problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem
2. Codex Sinaiticus wasn't "discovered", it was stolen. (there is some discrepancy in how the documents were removed from St. Catharine's Monastery @ Mount Sinai).
Re:I really wish people would get a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
Too funny. We sent our kids to a Catholic elementary school mainly because they had an after-school program. Both of us being public school (in the US sense) educated, we were leery of separating our kids from everyone else and giving them a religious education.
Much to our surprise, the kids love it. The teachers are wonderful, dedicated people. Virtually all of them have or had children in the school and are parish members with a personal stake in the quality of the education. Our kids are at least a grade level ahead of where my wife and I were in terms of academic accomplishment. Their science education has been first rate. The building is meticulously clean and in perfect repair.
So then we decide to take them to mass. The parish priest stands up there and talk about the value of family and community, using bible stories to illustrate his point, and he's funny, too. Turns out he's also a terrific community leader who lives his values: tuition is the lowest in the entire region. The parish is full of families who work for a living and are trying to teach their kids not to be self-centered assholes. I sincerely doubt many of them would be interested in arguing the finer points of theology. Now, we're afraid to take them OUT of Catholic school.
Every time I hear people argue theology or talk about a "personal savior" I cringe. How egocentric can you be? Wasn't there a bible story about Jesus washing feet? Are we supposed to sit around talking about the theological implications of the story or are we supposed to put aside our prejudices, adopt an attitude of humility and actually live the values?
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Christians -- at least, English-speaking Christians -- seem to be alone among the world's major religions in relying exclusively upon translations of their sacred texts. Muslims believe that one can truly understand the Koran only in the original Arabic; Jews are instructed in Hebrew in their youth; Hindus learn Sanskrit in order to read the Bhagavad Gita and other writings. But among Christians, only scholars and specialists have even the slightest knowledge of the Greek in which the New Testament is written.
Curious . . . .
Re:Same as always? (Score:2, Interesting)
The bible says Egyptians had Jewish slaves build the pyramids. That isn't true. Not only did Egyptians not use slave labour to build the pyramids, but the only possible time that some of the events in the bible could have happened in real life (mainly the part about first born sons being hid) was when Egypt was being occupied by an invading force.
You don't have to check your brain at the door... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a BS in Physics from a state school (Emphasis on theory not some science-math-wimpy-education-track). I have listened to the higher criticism of the Bible as well as equally capable defenders of the faith. Those in defense of the Bible have a better case.
Now, if you take someone who has poor logical and rhetoric skills and put them up against a professor, it is easy to make the educated side seem to have the correct position. But, that works both ways.
Have a listen to what some well educated and well spoken men of God say in the defense of the Bible. Of course, there are charlatans, who masquerade as if they know what they are talking about and make Christianity look stupid. But, every field has those - cold fusion, anybody?
I would suggest Ravi Zacharias rzim.org [rzim.org] if you are looking for a modern man with excellent logical skills and comprehensive knowledge on the subject. He has Q&A sessions (often at colleges after a debate) and takes questions such as yours seriously and gives educated answers that actually address your criticism. Take a look here [rzim.org] for the past 100 broadcasts of his 'Let My People Think' program, you might find answers to some questions you have had. If he isn't to your liking, look for another - there are many.
Re:Bad Summary, Questionable Claim (Score:4, Interesting)
You have no proof of that, as religious beliefs remain widely spread. You think it would be a benefit. It might turn people into self-centered assholes. Well, more than they are already.
By my reckoning, humans are social animals, and social animals will congregate. If you take away religion we'll just replace it with some other form of tribalism. Maybe base it on professional sports teams. And then we'll be right back where we are now. This, of course, assumes that you can wipe away all religion in a single stroke. As it happens, religious types tend to out-reproduce non-believers, so unless you can wave a magic wand your scheme is likely destined to fail.
Interestingly, part of the doctrine of many Christian sects is the inherent sinfulness of Man. You seem to believe that if we just shake off this religious baggage that Man's better nature will shine through. You can bet on the latter if you wish, but the former is the way to go unless you dig on disappointment.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
A warning to the feint of heart and/or those who are depressed and/or have a low tolerance for stupidity: the following links/quotes are not for you. Stop reading here.
Those are excerpts from the Fundies Say The Darndest Things! Top 100 Quotes [fstdt.com].
FSTDT! will usually make you angry, sad, or depressed. Occasionally there's a laugh in there, but it's generally so damned depressing that these people barely even know their own religion that you're going to be popping Xanax like Pez Candy.
I once made the mistake of reading through a year and a half of their archives [fstdt.com] in one sitting.. I have never wanted to drink myself into oblivion more than that one day.
The ones up there are pretty funny - silly, almost - but there's a lot that just make you depressed or angry, such as:
If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol
To say the Bible was written by men and may contain inaccuracies completely contradicts the word of the Bible.
Atheists See No Problem With Human To Animal Sex
Best ones? Hypocrasy.
I am 100% pro-life, unless we're talking about capital punishment, in which case I am 100% pro-death.
Re:theologically correct, not historically accurat (Score:3, Interesting)
They destroyed the rest that they could find
I've heard that before, but never seen it actually backed up. Who are "they"? Do you mean the Nicene council? What books did they destroy? How do you know they destroyed them? IANAH or anything, just wondering where the proof is for this. I always just assumed that it happened, but then realized I had never seen any real evidence of it.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2, Interesting)
You can start here for the bible :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible [wikipedia.org]
As usual the page is not 100% correct, but this is wikipedia. Anything anyone takes offence with gets molested beyond recognition (in religious matters, mostly by muslims, e.g. try to find a "textual history" in the article about the quran, because that's seen as criticism of their stupid religion).
The new testament was spread in both Greek and Latin first, later only Latin. It was originally in Greek, with small sections of Hebrew and Arameic ("Syrian").
Problems with summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Summary says "world's oldest Bible"
Actually its the oldest extant New Testament
Summary says "makes no mention of the resurrection"
Actually the New Testament is rife with references to the resurrection. This particular book contains a shortened version of Mark that ends when the disciples discover the empty tomb. Any biblical scholar is familiar with this shorter version of Mark.
In other words the summary is not merely bad but suggests an agenda.
Re:Book burning (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No resurrection? Do your homework. (Score:1, Interesting)
The NIV is an easy read for most Americans. I'm not sure which pages you read, but the Bible is full of non-fluff which sometimes seems too "real" to be appropriate for children. Take the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. There isn't a whole lot of fluff in it, and it's a story that I would be uncomfortable explaining to a child *in full detail*.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah)
Re:As a literary.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Oh, so similar to women?
Re:How do you know? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think Jesus was anything special, but I do think that _a_ man called Jesus might have existed.
You're entitled to think that, but in the absence of any evidence to suggest it outside of a collection of works which are all related and many of which were written based on the others in the collection, there is no evidence that he actually existed.
For the Romans, Jesus was a John Doe. Just another non-citizen nutter who spoke against the Emperor and was nailed for it. Business as usual.
But that's not true at all! Jesus made major political waves and was almost certainly seen as a figure to be discredited. The Romans put an inordinate amount of effort into killing the guy (if he existed, of course...) and vastly more people turned out to be involved in his execution than was normal.
EVERY supposed historical account of Jesus' existence is based on hearsay. The man built a major political movement by just walking around and talking. I'm fairly certain they'd have recorded his existence and his death pretty well.
The plural of anecdote... (Score:2, Interesting)
For examples of atheist-turned-Christian see CS Lewis [wikipedia.org] to quote "...Lewis claimed he became an atheist at the age of 15..."
Or you could listen to a radio drama of another true life converstion at unshackled [unshackled.org] right here [unshackled.org] in their archives (wma and ram sorry). Heck you can search their archives for others. And when you find them, look the people up in the phone book an call them and ask them yourself instead of taking a radio drama's word for it.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
I find your point of view of "hypocrisy" to be hypocritical.
The viewpoint you're mocking believes that innocent life should be spared, while the worst of murderers should be put to death.
Your viewpoint is that we should save the lives of the murderers, but continue to put to death the innocent unborn.
Re:Original (Score:3, Interesting)
The unfulfilled prophecies, including those in the book of Revelation, are similar for us today. We don't know exactly when it will happen, or how. So, nobody has a perfect knowledge of it.
I grew up in a solidly Christian environment, and what my years of Christian education (all the way from the 3rd grade through university with a year of "student mission" work thrown in for good measure) have led me to believe that you're on the right track, but not quite taking your line of reasoning far enough.
What most Christians don't seem able to do is take the screwed up things that "popular" bible authors say and see them as screwed up.
Take Paul for example. Great guy, has a lot of good things to say. But when in 1st Corinthians 14, he says that women shouldn't speak in church because it's a disgrace, the average Christian should be able to say, "Whoa, that's fucked up".
The fact that some biblical authors/heroes/characters got things wrong doesn't need to be disheartening, it should be reassuring. "Look, Paul screwed up, we're all human, phew."
So many Christians seem to think that it's sacrilegious or inappropriate to find fault with these biblical characters, but it's clear that (and here I'm assuming a Christian worldview) God delivered a bible with inconsistencies, and being God, he must have done that for a reason.
I like to think that reason was so that we could use our brains, and figure out which parts of the bible give screwed up instructions. Because it's either that, or he did it as some sort of cruel joke. I prefer a God who's not into cruel jokes.
Re:You don't have to check your brain at the door. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lee Strobel's "Case for *" books are very good.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Why wouldn't it be just as valid, from a "religious point of view", for a particular translation to be seen as inspired or, say, for the original writing of the various documents later assembled into the "Bible" and the assembly of the canon and many translations into many different languages at different times all to be seen as inspired? Is there something in the definition of "religious point of view" that mandates that inspiration happen once, and only with regard to the first reduction of an idea to writing?
Re:I really wish people would get a clue (Score:3, Interesting)
When I moved to public school - partly prompted by the poor excuses for teachers they had - I was shocked because I was quite quickly 2 grades *ahead* of those left behind at the private school. Because the public school was so much larger they had the resources and ability to have separate classes for LD, regular, honors, A.P. whereas the private school only had enough kids for two class of each grade and wasted a lot of class time with things like learning parables and filling out reports on monday to prove we went to church sunday, etc.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2, Interesting)
Just so you know, there is some argument over whether Kufic script was the original medium for the Quran. It seems the gents in the link below have a pretty good argument against Kufic being the initial written version of the Quran.
Given the difficulty of reading Arabic scripts at the time and the duty of the qurra to preserve it's continuity, the Quran has many translation issues as well.
For a great deal of the work, it could be be compared to the Catholic version of the Bible as presented in Latin. The Quran in Arabic is considered to be the authoritative translation... but is it?
http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurmanu.htm [debate.org.uk]
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Interesting)
inspired also means, it is not translated word by word. which would be very dangerous for people, reading a book that old, withouth knowing about the habits in this era, can lead to extreme one sided reading of the bible, and a lot of misunderstandings.
Very true...I always laugh when people talk about the virgin Mary....back then women with children before being married were called virgin mothers.
Then there is the whole was Jesus married. He had to be. He was a Rabi and back then to be a Rabi you had to be married. Then there is an entire gospel that is mostly destroyed/lost ...Mary Magdalene's. With the whole fact that she kept saying her Lord which could mean her husband...
the whole thing is way too open for us from a modern perspective to get confused.
The best thing to do is take the parts that make your life better to heart and live it. Benjamin Franklin did. He crafted his own bible. The most important thing is to try to do better. To try to improve oneself.