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.
So they did what Hollywood does (Score:5, Funny)
!= The Septuagint (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means it'll possibly be very different.. what we have reflects the collection decided to be correct at the time of the council of nicea. Other books existed and there was some debate about which ones went into the final collection. We have some of the others in the apocrypha, and others were simply lost to history.
Love the inflamatory summary... I mean so what? It's not a complete text anyway, and if you're talking about something written around ad330 it's a time when there were still multiple diff
Re:!= The Septuagint (Score:4, Informative)
Well...
1) No, it's not the Septaguint, because the Septaguint is the old testament (aka Jewish Torah), whereas the main interest in the Codex Sinaiticus is that it is (maybe - in contention with the Codex Vaticanus) the oldest new testament, although it does also contain part of the old testament. Other copies of the old testament (e.g. dead sea scrolls) are much older.
2) The new testament canon was not decided upon at the (1st) Council of Nicea - it was provably already established before then, and the "procedings" of the Council still survive (as do writings about it by participant Eusebius). There are many persistent and untrue internet myths about the Council of Nicea.
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/Nicea/CouncilNicea.html [cua.edu]
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html [tertullian.org]
3) It may in fact be exactly the same version of the new testament as existed in the time of roman emperor Constantine I (who convened the Council of Nicea) - given that it may well date to his time (although **precise** dating unknown), it may be one of the 50 copies of the bible that Constantine is recorded (by Eusebius) to have had produced.
Re:revelations and the Revelation (Score:5, Insightful)
Having the devil cast into a fiery pit with his minions, then everyone else going to a massive city made of gold and gems to live with God and Jesus isn't a happy ending for Christians?
Have you read it?
Not BCE (Score:5, Informative)
It would be a neat trick to have a gospel of Matthew from the fourth century BCE. It should be CE (or AD).
So the end of the Gospels are missing (Score:4, Funny)
Bad Summary, Questionable Claim (Score:5, Informative)
Where to start, where to start...
First of all, there's some dispute as to whether Sinaiticus is indeed the oldest -- a cursory Google will show that Codex Vaticanus is believed by some to be older [wikipedia.org].
Second, it's patently untrue that Sinaiticus "makes no mention of the resurrection". The version of the gospel of Mark in it omits the last passage where Jesus appears to his disciples, but other post-resurrection appearances occur in the other gospels -- and even the Sinaiticus Mark version ends with an angel's pronouncement that he has risen. You can read an English translation for yourself here [jacksonsnyder.com].
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.
Summary is wildly inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
First, as others have pointed out, the Codex is from the 4th century CE (i.e. "AD") rather than BCE (or "BC").
Second, saying "it makes no mention of the resurrection" is inaccurate. It doesn't contain the final 8 verses from Mark's Gospel, which have been considered to be a late addition for years and are usually square-bracketed in modern Bible editions.
However, if you actually *read* Mark's Gospel, it has plenty of references to the resurrection of Jesus earlier in the text. Plus the Codex Sinaiticus also includes the other three Gospels, all of which include post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.
But apart from misdating the document by 800 years, misstating the impact of putting it online and misrepresenting the likely attitude of Christians to its publication, the summary is fine...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
New Slashdot now combines the worst of both Old Slashdot and Reddit â" wildly inaccurate story blurbs combined with crude and inappropriate slurs directed towards anyone with faith. I can't wait for the dupe tomorrow.
Welcome to Rabidly Anti-Christian Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
But apart from misdating the document by 800 years, misstating the impact of putting it online and misrepresenting the likely attitude of Christians to its publication, the summary is fine...
What do you expect from Slashdot? Honesty? That's a laugh.
Re:Welcome to Rabidly Anti-Christian Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Welcome to Rabidly Anti-Christian Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is not rabidly anti-Christian. A vocal section of the slashdot readership is anti-religion, not specifically anti-Christian.
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:Yes, and to take it further (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong Interpretation by Poster (Score:5, Informative)
This is a misleading statement by the poster and the article itself. The post-resurrection text in Mark (which is the only text the article seems to mention is in contention) has always been recognized by the modern Christian church as not appearing in the earliest manuscripts. Don't take my word for it; pick up the latest NIV Bible and look at Mark 16:9-20. It most likely mentions this very fact.
The article only mentions the text in Mark missing. From the article:
Unfortunately, you still need to deal with the resurrection stories in the other three gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) as well as the Old Testament references such as Psalms 16:10.
The resurection in early documents (Score:4, Informative)
However Mark 16:6, which is included, still declares the resurection:
"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."
Additionally, the article only refers to the book of Mark as making no reference to the resurection. No mention is made of the other three gospels.
See Mark 16 in the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Oldest and Newest (Score:3, Funny)
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.
No resurrection? Do your homework. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Fourth century BCE you say (Score:4, Funny)
It has won a popularity contest though 600 years later.
Re:Fourth century BCE you say (Score:4, Funny)
ob Red Dwarf (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fourth century BCE you say (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
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:I really wish people would get a clue (Score:5, Informative)
The Index (of forbidden books) was updated until the Vatican II council (1966) and is still considered by the Holy See to have a moral value as a list of the books one should prevent oneself from reading.
The general feeling is that the Roman Catholic Church's main dogma is the "the doctrine is the truth" so if something seems to be the truth outside of the doctrine, it is dangerous and should be fought. The Church is not known for its research centers trying to find archaeological proofs of the Bible or to correct its versions with the many manuscript fragments that are found regularly.
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.
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.
Re:I really wish people would get a clue too (Score:4, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") was a list of publications prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church...
Re:I really wish people would get a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no point trying to counter faith with facts. Many people have *faith* that the Catholic church, and/or Christianity in general, has all kinds of weird, sinister practises and beliefs. That faith is part of how they define themselves and how they build their worldview, and presenting facts will get the reaction you'd expect whenever facts are held up against cherished beliefs. They can always pick some weird incident or some isolated remark or some urban legend or something they think they read in the Da Vinci code or something and focus on that. Like that guy posting just down from here about how his father got caned by the Maris Brothers (sounds like a circus act, but I'm going to assume they were monks). See how this one anecdote about how his family like to be educated by loons justifies the whole belief structure?
The Real WTF (tm) is that this conflict needs to be *constantly repeated* on the internet when there might otherwise be scope for actual discussion. For example, you'd think there could be actual discussion of the interesting textual and linguistic points raised by the Codex Sinaiticus, but there isn't, because thousands of teenagers will jump in going 'LOL this book has been translaited and the translaitions vary haha' first.
Having the Codex Sinaiticus online is very useful for anyone who may be interested in being able to compare early editions of one of the world's most importand (and textually complicated) books. The fact that some bits from the end of Mark are left out (and a few extra bits added on) is hardly the only interesting point -- the whole document is a vital palaeographical record. Not everyone has a copy lying around and there are *some* people out there striving for scholarship, ya know, among the whining voices of faith.
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: (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:As a literary.... (Score:4, Funny)
You ever try putting a burkha on a dog?
Re:As a literary.... (Score:5, Informative)
Muslims don't have a problem with dogs, they have a problem with *pet* dogs.
You can own a dog to protect your property or yourself, but it shouldn't be allowed into the house.
Re:As a literary.... (Score:5, Informative)
This will probably never get seen and not get modded up, but while you are correct in one sense you are not in another; as a Muslim let me explain:
A fundamental belief in Islam is that through the ages, the uncorrupted Bible became rife with revisions and mistakes - the resurrection of Jesus being a prime example (the other big one being the trinity). For Muslims then, this version of the Bible bolsters the belief that Christianity during the time when Islam was beginning, was corrupted - not the word of God, but the word of man, if you will.
Without these changes there isn't a need for Islam because Islam (like Christianity) and Muslims perceive Islam as a correction to faiths before it.
I say all this as a Muslim and you are right - most Muslims do and all should respect the other people of the book (and other faiths as well - I was born in the West and other people's religions are none of my business). Moreover, there is an overlap in the views of people of faith especially extremists): Muslim-Americans voted in droves for George W. Bush in droves the first time around because they saw the Christian's right family/conservative values issues as overlapping with their own (as a small L liberal I found that particularly disgusting and as a result refuse to have anything to do with CAIR, who endorsed Bush).
Some Muslims may see a "hierarchy of infidels" but I think calling anyone an infidel, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, is pretty blasphemous myself.
Re:As a literary.... (Score:4, Informative)
fundamental belief in Islam is that through the ages, the uncorrupted Bible became rife with revisions and mistakes - the resurrection of Jesus being a prime example (the other big one being the trinity).
Being a muslim, I can see how you got this wrong, but the Trinity was never outlined in the bible. It is a tenant of faith that was conceived by the Church later on. I believe the councils of Nicea and Trent established it.
Re:As a literary.... (Score:4, Informative)
Tertullian espoused trinitarian theology back in the 2nd century (and in fact coined the term "trinity" in its theological sense), based on various proof texts where the Bible equates God, Jesus, and the holy spirit as being the same in power and substance, which essentially means they are the same person. Of course, this interpretation requires the use of logical inference (which shouldn't be a problem for anyone who's had to take a college class on law, philosophy, or higher-level mathematics).
Re:As a literary.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is funny to see the religions getting together to get rid of Atheists. It is like George Bush and Saddam Hussein getting together to get rid of pacifists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, that. All the usual religious suspects will throw a fit, because they know well that common insight into how their religion has evolved over time instead of being conceived in perfection ab initio, will destroy any claim to any higher power being the original source.
If you're one of the nutjobs claiming that the bible is "god's word" in the literal sense, and not a human creation, then evidence that "the bible" doesn't exist, but is a collection that changed over time, is the death-blow to a core pill
Re:As a literary.... (Score:4, Informative)
As to the "evolution over time" argument, a careful study of the earliest manuscripts or their transcripts (there are tens of thousands of extant copies of the various gospels and epistles, and a significant number of these can even be traced into the first century AD) will show that none of the central tenets of Christianity undewent any modification since the earliest manuscripts. Portions that have been found to have been appended by other writers at other times (most likely well-meaning scribes or monks) have never been found in sections of the text that deal with the core beliefs of Christianity (e.g., virgin birth, miracles, death, resurrection--others have already addressed the issue of the recent Mark text not invalidating other internal references to resurrection). One of the most well-known examples of such an embelishment is the end of the "Lord's Prayer" [I'm typing from memory here]:
Our Father, who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy name
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our tresspasses
As we forgive those who tresspass against us
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil
For Thine is the kingdom,
And the power,
And the glory,
Forever and ever. Amen!
The final section (those lines in bold italics ) does not appear in the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts. Modern translations that hold to high standards to scholarship omit those verses, or at least print them following a note the explains that they do not appear in the best manuscripts. If you take away those lines, no critical teachings of the Christian gospel have been compromised. In fact, they are sentiments expressed of God elsewhere in the Chritian Scriptures, including in the book of Psalms and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John.
Yes, while church leaders came together in the fourth century to formalize the official canon that is accepted today, history shows us that there were lists of accepted writings as early as the second century AD. Most scholars agree that no such list was needed during the first century, because many of the original witnesses, or the people who had received their direct accounts, were still living. The modern "conservative" or "fundamentalist" Christian sees the canonization of Scripture as a divinely sanctioned act that preserved only those texts that were necessary for the advancement of the Gospel. I find myself in a slightly different camp. While I believe God used canonization to preserve those writings that were passed on to this day, I believe there were likely other writings that were lost, either temporarily (yet to be discovered) or permanently (destroyed). The teachings of the Christian Scriptures encourage believers to critically examine all teachings to see if they align with the truth of the previously recognized Scriptures (the Old Testament--the Hebrew Law and Prophets, plust the Poems). In the letters of Peter, he places Paul's writings on the same level as Scripture in that day (during the first century), so there was an early acceptance that Paul's teachings of Christ's death and resurrection aligned with the Old Testament's prophecies of a suffering messiah who would
Re:As a literary.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could comment on the Catholic one, it is so true, well at least in our area (or at least with the devouts). People ( not just Catholics ) would tend to follow their religion blindly even if it contradicts with the Bible (or their religious texts)
I had encountered some that rants that they're doing this and that and that they're not doing this and that... I sometimes would ask them if what they're doing is in the Bible (or the other way around, i.e. they're not doing the things stated in the Bible) (or any other religious text)
I often get the answer that the leaders of their sect tells so. I would tell them that it is pointless to contradict or not follow your "manual" or "foundation". Well my point is moot to them most of the time.
Conclusion: Most of the religions use the Bible as a front. If it contradicts their purpose, they would ignore that part. If it is not there and they like to do it, they would still do it.
okay back to regular programming..
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Funny)
"It's too risky for anybody to translate that [The Bible] into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English."
"If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right."
http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/1131751.html [livejournal.com]
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
From a religious point of view, if there is anything inspired, it would be the first version in its original language. So the closer you get to the original ones, theoretically would be the better.
This news is great, we could actually see one of the oldest copies around. Part of me truly wonders how many more manuscripts (religious or not) would have been available today if people back then don't have the habit of burning every piece of paper they dislike.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.)
Re:Original (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.)
So there are almost no christians who have a perfect understanding of the text? I mean if the language requirement cuts out a huge percentage of readers, and then they would have to not only feel the inpiration to read for perfect understanding, but also have access to the text at the time of inspiration. How many christians could that possibly be?
I live in a small rural town in the midwest FULL of christians (more than two dozen churches) who think they have a true understanding of the word. So out of 9,000 people, how many could really know what they say they know? Why are the rest of them fooling themselves?
What are the odds that the ones who knock at my door have a clue?
And how can I tell the difference?
C.
Re:Original (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that nobody has a perfect understanding... not myself, not the pastor of my church, nobody. That's not the point, as far as I can tell.
Most prophecy in the Bible is written so that it isn't obvious exactly when or how it will be fulfilled, until it has been fulfilled. For instance, the birth of the Messiah (or Christ) did not have a date, and nobody knew that he would be born in a feeding trough. The point is so that God can show the world that He has a plan, and that He has the power to fulfill it after it has been stated (in other words, he knows the future).
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.
He's God... if He wants you to know a certain amount of the Bible, He can and will give you the insight to make it happen.
(For those who don't believe in God, please... please, spare me the comments on how I am stupid for my beliefs and how anyone living in a modern world who believes in God is insane... those comments are getting quite old, and prove nothing.)
Re:Original (Score:5, Insightful)
I myself believe in GOD, I just don't believe in the bible. As I've always said. The bible is a book written by man to control man. I have no faith in churches either, they are just a conduit to try to push the "Christian belief" onto it's masses. I'm not saying that the Christian/Catholic mindset is wrong but the measures that the "Church" have used for centuries to gain it's powers go against it's very "word". How many wars have been fought due to religion in general. How many countless individuals have been killed due to "religion" I don't think GOD would be happy that people are using him as a reason to kill someone else just because they don't agree with them. One of the supposed 10 commandments are "thou shall not kill", not "thou shall not kill unless one disagrees with your religious belief"
I could go on and on but I'll stop here. This post is in no way meant to anger anyone but if it happens then well........
Re:Original (Score:5, Insightful)
Neat! The same is true of horoscopes and fortune cookies!
Re:Original (Score:5, Funny)
Great Scott!! He's right!
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Interesting)
Book burning (Score:5, Informative)
This news is great, we could actually see one of the oldest copies around. Part of me truly wonders how many more manuscripts (religious or not) would have been available today if people back then don't have the habit of burning every piece of paper they dislike.
Religious book burnings are only part of it. Try to imagine what went up in smoke when the great library of Alexandria burned (mostly as a result of warfare). Modern archeologists and historians find it hard to even contemplate that loss. Fortunately, once in a while we do get very, very, lucky:
The Oxyrhynchus papyri [wikipedia.org], not religious texts and much of the material was mundane public and private stuff like invoices, edicts and tax records but valuable to archeologists.
The Villa of the Papyri [wikipedia.org], IMHO by far one of the most spectacular discoveries yet. Much of it seems to consist of Epicurean texts but who knows what else is in there. The lost works of some of the great ancient historians and scientists? One can hope...
There are probably quite a few more such finds that deserve mention. Book burning and generally all efforts to suppress and destroy written material, be it religious or secular, are among of the worst manifestations of ignorance. We are fortunate that once in a while the efforts of these zealots and vandals are undone.
Re:Book burning (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is one thing as a species we are really good at..... it's ignorance.
The hateful and oppressive will always outnumber the pacifistic and enlightened.
Re:Book burning (Score:4, Funny)
If there is one thing as a species we are really good at..... it's ignorance.
That was a truly ignorant statement. As ignorant as humans are, all evidence points to the fact that we are far more knowledgable than any other species on the planet.
Re:Book burning (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
All the oldest writings the find are only parts of the bible, most often in different languages ranging from greek, latin, vulgar latin, hebrew and aramaic and the like.
For anyone studying the bible from a non-religious perspective, it is obvious that the bible is a patchwork of stories written by different individuals at different times in different languages.
Some of these stories made the final cut, some did not and were forgotten, while others live on as semi-official religious works (I'm not sure of the correct term in english, but in university I studied a great work that tells about Jesus going to hell to pick up all the persons there who couldn't have known about the true belief because he did not yet spread it).
If you have been raised with a certain translation as reference and the notion that this is the word of god, I can imagine that accepting that god delivered his words piecemeal through different individuals and that some other individuals decided what was his word and what was not can be quite confronting.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Informative)
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:Oh noes! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it is both in Latin and in Greek, and arameic, and hebrew, and ... The versions that were accepted as bible were initally spread with greek and latin versions of the same text on facing pages, or only the latin text.
You are correct that greek is the original language of the bible (well actually a syrian arameic dialect for most of the bible, but most of the new testament was indeed originally written down in greek), but the versions that were actually used were latin, not greek.
Latin is certainly the language of the bible, despite the book being originally written in greek. And the bible and the church were the main motivation, and the main people for the renaissense to push latin as a language.
For comparison, muslims use an arabic quran. However the quran was written in kufic script of a southern arameic dialect, which has long been a dead language that noone has understood for more than a millenium, and even an arabic linguist would not be able to read the few orignal verses that remain, nor can you learn either arameic or kufic anywhere in the islamic world (google "christopher luxenberg" for the description of someone who actually tries to understand it). Arameic and arabic are of the same family, but then again so are English and Parsi (example farsi site [bhrc.gov.ir])
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Funny)
"It's too risky for anybody to translate that [The Bible] into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English."
"If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right."
http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/1131751.html [livejournal.com]
At least a few of those quotes I recognise as having come from the Landover Baptist Church forum:
http://landoverbaptist.net/ [landoverbaptist.net]
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:Oh noes! (Score:5, Funny)
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie
Dear sir, I thank you for this gem.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:re-written (Score:5, Informative)
The slashdot article is wrong. The codexsinaiticus website says it's 1600 years old, which would put it at about 400AD (or 400CE for the politcally correct crowd), not 400BC.
The kdawson factor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm reminded of John Safran's rant about atheists in John Safran vs. God (end o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because I wasn't Roman Catholic so most of the history I know was since the reform (and even then it's not like I read books about it, just heard sermons or had conversations about it).
Also because we have the bible in English already and a lot of Christians don't know Latin (though plenty learn it and study the original texts too). You don't have to learn about the Wright brothers to go on a passenger airline. Most Christians just go to Church each week and never really learn much from beyond what
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books. The New Testament is a collection of what were considered the best sources available: mostly books and letters.
You might understand better if you knew what faith was and why people have it.
theologically correct, not historically accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
They weren't the "best sources available." They chose the books that supported a particular set of theological views. They destroyed the rest that they could find, and persecuted the sects that held different views. Historical accuracy was the objective.
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:Same as always? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. I don't believe in the bible either, but would you listen to yourself? It's people like you that made me stand more by my faith for years, because I believed that people wouldn't be so desperately opposed to Christianity if there weren't some truth in it.
I basically can't be bothered reading the rest of your post after this obvious fallacy:
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
You do realise that the Jews have the Old Testament too? How do you think changes to the Christian version of the old testament would somehow go un-noticed? Try thinking about stuff you hear before blindly accepting it just because you want to believe it. That's how Christians end up as Christians in the first place, because they get tricked into being afraid of Hell and are given an easy way out - it's like a form of brainwashing.
I'll be damned if I know what is the ultimate truth about life, the universe and everything, but I think there are too many inconsistencies in Christianity that people make gradually build up excuses for. One of the main reasons I have decided that the bible is a load of rubbish is not just that Genesis only takes 7 'days', but the way things are done are in the wrong order, so it doesn't really even make much sense as a metaphor..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that the two aren't exactly identical, and the interpretations and recognized additional sources even less so, right?
E.g., the Jews were big on circumcision, the early Christians did away with that, because it didn't sound too tempting to the barbarians they were trying to convert. E.g., the Jews shouldn't eat pork, that was another thing
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:Same as always? (Score:4, Informative)
1. It was perverted from the start.
There's a lack of evidence to support that claim. There's no good reason to believe than any of the New Testament books were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. And we can see the full gospel message - resurrection for our sins all over the NT e.g. in books as early as 1 Corinthians written between AD 53 and 57 - less than 30 years after Jesus death. You want to say that both the NT and the OT have been changed by New Testament believers. The former is unlikely - there's an abundance of ancient NT manuscripts (20,000 by some counts) which are identical by and large, no evidence for this process of accretions and deletions. The latter is impossible, because we have access to books of the OT from before the time of Jesus out of the dead sea scrolls. The eternal virginity of mary is not something that I'm concerned about. Clearly Jesus did have brothers - we hear about them in the NT. This is a late Roman Catholic thing. I'd like to hear more about Ebionites. Perhaps you can give me some credible references. It surprises that they're so small on the academic radar.
2. That wouldn't even be the end of massaging it into a different shape.
Fortunately because the sources for Christians today are so very good e.g. the Syniaticus, modern Christians can go back to the text and work out what the truth of the matter is. So we can make conclusions about things which are true for ourselves, and detect the things we've missunderstood. The good news as well is that new fragments are turning up all the time which take us back earlier toward the events, all giving greater support to the later codices that we have.
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.
People claim things are gnostic heresies when there's *evidence* to suggest that they're heresies. e.g Muslims sometimes claim the 16th c. Gospel of Barnabus is in fact a true gospel account that the church has surpressed. But we know that this can't be true for all sorts of reasons. e.g. some soldiers are recorded rolling out barrels to be refilled with wine. But we know this impossible because there were no barrels until much later in the near east. This is an example of the application straight-forward tools that historians use every day.
Hope that helps. Joel
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.
Not so, sir (Score:4, Informative)
"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."
Have you read the Gospels? Jesus did not speak out against the Roman Empire. He preached keeping your faith to God and worldly affairs separate ("render unto to Caesar"). This is why Pontius Pilate was so perplexed that Jesus had been arrested. He could find no fault with the man, and certainly didn't find that he'd rebelled against Rome in any way. Jesus was arrested because the old Hebrew priesthood considered him a blasphemer and wanted him dead. They just didn't want the blood on their own hands, so they turned him over to the Romans. Recall that Pilate pleaded with the crowd to let Jesus go.
This little meme really annoys me, because it's starting to catch on in some circles. Shane Claiborne writes in his books that Jesus came to topple Rome. He did no such thing, and he made his purposes clear. He was here for the coming kingdom, not this one. The Jews rejected him as a Messiah in part because he wouldn't oppose Rome. They thought the Messiah would be a kind of military commander to free them from the Roman yoke.
Damnatio Memoriae? (Score:4, Informative)
1. You don't seem to understand the Romans very well.
For a start, they actually deliberately erased the records about some people, who they thought he _shouldn't_ be remembered. Traitors, for example, could get a "Damnatio Memoriae", meaning that the Romans literally tried to erase the person from all recorded history. Census data, chronicles, monuments, etc, they'd erase any mention they could find.
They weren't the only ones, btw. In Egypt, Hatshepsut was almost erased from history as a Pharaoh by her son (though he did leave everything alone that didn't mention her as a Pharaoh), and Akhenaten. The Greek states also occasionally practiced that kind of thing.
Basically you seem to assume that, like today, if someone got famous for the wrong reasons (at least from the point of the view of existing law and government), you'd want to know and record every single detail about him. E.g., the way everyone knows all the details about the Unabomber. In the ancient world essentially they'd try to prevent other people like Herostratus from being tempted to achieve fame by nefarious means. Precisely _because_ those bombings were made to achieve a certain exposure for him and his manifesto, someone like the Unabomber would have vanished from the records altogether in the ancient world.
2. Well, you have to understand that he achieved that notoriety a (relatively) long time after his death. It would be many decades before Rome even figured out the difference between Christians and Jews. The Jews were quite rebellious and had a major religious problem with the Romans too, so yet another group of them preaching fire and damnation against the romans, was, well, business as usual.
Basically by the time that Jesus got really famous, there was no way to go back in time and tell the governor, "psst, make sure you record everything about this guy."
3. I don't know what you mean by, "The Romans put an inordinate amount of effort into killing the guy". It doesn't seem like any signifficant kind of effort to me. Just about everything about it, that I remember, was bog-standard (in fact, regulation standard) for a Crucifixion. Even posting guards there, or breaking those two other guys' legs when they weren't dead yet, and everything, was a standard crucifixion. They already knew in advance exactly what to do when they can't leave someone on the cross for several days. The Romans were organized like that :P
Or what did you mean?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, are you right! Why, if the Codex' Gospel of Mark was written in the 4th Century BCE as the headline says, then they had three centuries to revise it before the events even happened!
As it is, I (a Christian) do not intend to get very upset about this... much of the Bible does not speak of the resurrection, though much of it does.
Even Christ had to point out some of the finer points to the Sadduccees (God is a God of the living, not the dead; but says "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" to Moses. Therefore, they must be living.)
Aside from that, conspiracy theorists always go over the deep end, making much out of nothing. Anti-Christian conspiracy theorists are no different.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:5, Funny)
Do Americans still have first-year Latin classes?
They got rid of it just before they did away with Pompous 101.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're aware that 400 AD is in the 5th century, right? This Bible was really written between 330 and 350 [1] [wikipedia.org].
First Comment on topic! ... oh wait... lol (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It was dated to "400 Anno Domini".
Re:First Comment on topic! ... oh wait... lol (Score:5, Informative)
So, if it was dated to 4 BCE (thats BC for you christians who havn't adopted the new format for dates) ... how does it have the gospel of mark (which was written after christ?)
Because whoever wrote the summary has trouble with dates. The article makes it clear:
Handwritten in Greek more than 1,600 years ago
...or the very first line:
The oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, a 4th century version that had its Gospels and epistles spread across the world, is being made whole again â" online.
How sad is it that neither the editor nor the first poster bothered to check the article for errors, especially one involving 800 years?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The summary above, where it says "The Codex Sinaiticus dates to the fourth century BCE" is wrong. The article states "Handwritten in Greek more than 1,600 years ago". Whoever wrote the summary just got confused about the difference between BCE and CE.
All you need to know... (Score:5, Informative)
1. The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...
2. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries.
3. There are glaring examples where one scribe had copied verses up to the end of the first, but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.
4. If you are not acquainted with the Greek, you can study the alterations and changes that have come into the New Testament by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus through Westcott and Hort by getting "The Doctored New Testament"
Google is your friend, not Wikipedia, nor Slashdot. Seek and ye shall find - Anonymous Coward 5:1
Re:First Comment on topic! ... oh wait... lol (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. atheism is just the absence of believe in Gods. That's all. No rituals. No leaders. Belief in anything else, such as proper science, not required. Ergo. Not a religion.
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:Best part missing from later versions! (Score:4, Insightful)
"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."
If I write a sci-fi book using the city of London as a location, but populate it with godzilla and flying cars, what relevance does London actually existing have to the rest of the story's veracity ?
Unless the whole document is true, then none of it can be relied upon to be an accurate representation of what went on at the time.
Re:fp (Score:5, Funny)
*Bonk*