turboplanner Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Regards the genocide at Jericho, who charged, tried and convicted the children and babies of "thuggish" or immoral behaviour and decided that their crimes merited slaughtering them? And why would any civilised person celebrate such an act of utter horror as ordained by their God? And we are supposed to love a God that sanctions such a massacre? Not my idea of a kind and just deity. Yet your God is supposed to be perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient well the one in the Bible seems to have the odd peccadillo or two to go with his super powers. We are talking of a collection of stories that wasn't translated into English until 1526 having been translated though the one language (Hebrew) over millennia and then through ancient Greek and Latin to old English and modern English. But no mistakes were made either accidentally or on purpose? Are all Bibles true or all false? Most of us would have difficulty understanding much of Shakespeare's writings without the footnotes even though it is barely 500 years old. Go back another five hundred years to the writings that are in the earliest English (like Beowulf - see below) and I promise you that they are unintelligible to a person who knows only modern English. The same thing happened with the evolution of Hebrew . . yes Hebrew did the unthinkable and evolved over time. There have been scholarly arguments over just about every passage in the Bible at one time or another. There are more versions of the Bible than I've had hot breakfasts. And yet it is the unequivocal literal word of God. And if it is not to be taken literally, who gets to decide what is literal, what is metaphorical and what is parable? And who gets to say the Tyndale Bible is more or less correct than the King James? It is well know that Tyndale put a particular slant on the English translation to reduce the power of the clergy that he despised. In England, it meant torture and death to be found with a copy of this the first ever Bible in the English language. Why? Because some people didn't like the translation or interpretation. For these reasons Bibles have little or no provenance. Yes Bibles, plural. And what about the New Testament? There were not only four there were up to 100 and what happened to the other 96? Destroyed because the early Church didn't like them. I've referred to this post because it is hilarious Don. In the same post you manage to disparage the Bible, but at the same time quote from it to support your argument. The point had already been raised that the King James Bible was not accurate due to translation errors, and of course earlier Bibles had been doctored to suit the flavour of the times. So there's no point in atheists plucking ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations from later Bibles to try to make a case when there is more authentic information available in the original languages written closer to the contemporary times, particularly those of Jesus Christ This information clearly sums up how shaky it is to rely on the King James Bible if you want fact: King James Bible translation: 1604 – 1611 (Source Wikipedia) This was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities. The New Testament was translated from Greek The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars. If atheists want something more contemporary and source-accurate to quote, here are some alternative sources: 3000 BC onwards – Egyptian hieroglyphics 300-100 BC – Dead Sea Scrolls written about 80 km from Jerusalem before and at the time of Christ 0-400 AD – Gnostic Gospels written 1008 AD - Oldest surviving text of Hebrew Bible 1120 AD - Scrolls found under Solomon’s Temple 1955 – Copper scroll
bexrbetter Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 So there's no point in atheists plucking ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations from later Bibles to try to make a case when there is more authentic information available in the original languages written closer to the contemporary times, particularly those of Jesus Christ So it's a reasonable question to ask you that the majority of churches today, regardless of denomination, aren't worth attending in your opinion? And if your answer is in the affirmative, which church or method of 'worship' (sorry for wrong term if so) is truer to the "more authentic information available"? Serious questions, no catches.
dazza 38 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 While I respect your point, and your heritage, being a picky bugger I'd just like to point out that everyone's relatives have been somewhere on Earth about 3.8 billion years. Admittedly you may not see the family resemblance with a single-celled prokaryotic organism (although I know blokes who fit the bill), but follow the family tree back far enough... I should have added my post was tongue in cheek being in the humour section. Being part aboriginal is true though. I just hope nobody points the bone at me.
bexrbetter Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I should have added my post was tongue in cheek being in the humour section. Being part aboriginal is true though. I just hope nobody points the bone at me. Or Phil with his death stick ......
turboplanner Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I should have added my post was tongue in cheek being in the humour section. Being part aboriginal is true though. I just hope nobody points the bone at me. You have a double problem if you want to be an atheist. You are part of what was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth, with an unparalleled method of managing bloodlines to prevent inbreeding, the ability to manage natural resources and some spiritual skills which Europeans have never attained, so you have to decide whether to walk away from that.
turboplanner Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 So it's a reasonable question to ask you that the majority of churches today, regardless of denomination, aren't worth attending in your opinion?And if your answer is in the affirmative, which church or method of 'worship' (sorry for wrong term if so) is truer to the "more authentic information available"? Serious questions, no catches. Based on the information which has been coming out, I have some serious sh$t to consider.
dazza 38 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 You have a double problem if you want to be an atheist. You are part of what was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth, with an unparalleled method of managing bloodlines to prevent inbreeding, the ability to manage natural resources and some spiritual skills which Europeans have never attained, so you have to decide whether to walk away from that. I never said I was a Athiest but I will say that I don't know what happens what we die . I do believe in spirits, pretty hard not too when I lived in a haunted house .I need more evidence to convince me of the jesus / god thing.
dazza 38 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I did a bit of research this morning, the current technology in carbon dating suggests that the Australian Aboriginal has been in Australia for a least 60 000 years. They believe in multiple "gods".
DonRamsay Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 To make it easier to understand the sequence of some of the things we have been discussing, here's a timeline of some events. . . . Any reason for omitting Tyndale's first English Language Bible? It is widely understood that Tyndale was opposed to the Catholic hierarchy and did a far from literal translation putting his personal bias into it and the influences from Luther. Not the first to do his own version it seems. And it almost doesn't matter how distorted the translation was because the provenance of what he was translating from was very poor. Dead Sea Scrolls may be helpful but they are vastly incomplete vis-a-vis the multitude of versions of bibles out there. Even if there were a complete original, first edition of each of the multitude of essays that make up the various bibles, translating them into modern English would take a phenomenal amount of guess work. Every linguist who attempted such a conversion would come up with a different version. How you could describe the outcome as the "inspired word of God" and then require strict adherence to every letter, is beyond belief. But, as you indicate, the earliest Hebrew copy dates from around the Battle of Hastings and would has no reliable or known provenance. As a work of history, it is as wouldn't rate higher than folklore. And yet some people swear by it! And demand that I live my life by an instruction manual written for ancient, wandering tribes (meaning of "Bedouin") that had no knowledge or understanding of just about anything by today's standards.
Recommended Posts