NationStates Jolt Archive

My point was that people read what they want to read in the Bible. Most people who go around quoting Bible verses at you will never have read the ACTUAL Bible, they've only read a many-times-re-translated copy of a copy of a copy. They won't so much as speak the language that the Bible was written in, yet they'll be quick to tell you what it says and what it means.

Whatever the actual Bible originally said has very little importance these days. Nobody really cares, to be frank, because they're all too busy fighting over who's got the best mistranslation. :)

But there is in fact no such thing as an ACTUAL Bible. The merge of older mostly unrelated stories into one book was first attempted in the Ptolemaic era of Egypt and the theological contents was only then streamlined to create a monotheistic perspective of the biblical god. From then on the Bible has been translated or copied many times of course, but I have all reason to think that the conceptual flaws were contained from the very beginning of the book's history. Under the Hasmoneans the Bible text was again streamlined. And regarding the NT it's even worse. The history of the texts in it is simply a mess. The differences between the numerous factions of the early Christians resulted in a number between 50000 and 100000 of differing handwritings. There are 4680 greek versions of the NT and no two have the same text. Only after 383 CE the NT was streamlined to be the latin Vulgata. In 1590, 1592, 1598 revised editions were published by the Vatican (likely reacting to Luther's translations into German).
.

But there is in fact no such thing as an ACTUAL Bible.

Sure there is. Or was, at any rate. It's just that what we currently refer to as "the Bible" bears very little resemblance to the original Bible.


The merge of older mostly unrelated stories into one book was first attempted in the Ptolemaic era of Egypt and the theological contents was only then streamlined to create a monotheistic perspective of the biblical god. From then on the Bible has been translated or copied many times of course, but I have all reason to think that the conceptual flaws were contained from the very beginning of the book's history. Under the Hasmoneans the Bible text was again streamlined. And regarding the NT it's even worse. The history of the texts in it is simply a mess. The differences between the numerous factions of the early Christians resulted in a number between 50000 and 100000 of differing handwritings. There are 4680 greek versions of the NT and no two have the same text. Only after 383 CE the NT was streamlined to be the latin Vulgata. In 1590, 1592, 1598 revised editions were published by the Vatican (likely reacting to Luther's translations into German).
.
Hey, I'm totally on board with you on this one. I've personally never viewed the Bible as anything more than an interesting piece of literature with a curious history.

Pagans and Jews the next 5000 odd years Christians had a good two now it is the turn of the muslim, all hail our Islamist overlords to be!

Read a post before you show your ass, my friend. It was clearly and specifically NOT addressed to "Christians" as a whole. I also wasn't telling Christians when to speak, I was simply telling a certain type of whimpering Christian what they would have to do to get me to quit "bashing" them. If they are comfortable being "bashed," then they can continue on as they have been.

It's like how if a racist whines about how people pick on him. I tell him, "Quit calling black people 'niggers,' and maybe people will stop calling you a racist fuckwit." If he wants to keep calling black people 'niggers' then that's his right, and I'll defend that right, but he needs to quit bitching about how people pick on him when he does it.

Oh yes, almighty bottle, you keep telling us when to speak. Funny how you compare Christians to racists too. You sure you're not on the bottle?:p

Not catholics cause, come on, the only serious catholic i know is judgemental and worldly, thats gotta be the most corrupt religon on earth, cept Jehova's wittnesses O.O.


Seriously, that's got to be up there with some of the crazy atheist threads for how bigoted that is! Catholicism was the first form of Christianity, and look - you're generalizing, like saying that all Germans kill Jews, or that all Japanese torture people like with the Bataan death march and stuff... you're not really using the Christian spirit yourself, you know that?!?

-snip-
Have a nice day :D

Welcome to NSG, grow a thick skin or they'll eat you alive.

PS: In my experiance fundie Christians have the worst morals of all.

No acualy if you did RESEARCH evelution has too many missing links to be proved correct, and grow up ofcourse :rolleyes: im not in the bible, but evolution if correct would have been here forever

Oh, dear...

described by several theories of evolution hmmmm well a theory isn't fact is it?

Oh, dear dear dear...

1. Nothing can be "proved correct." That is a contradiction in terms. Please look up a little something called the "scientific method" sometime.
2. The word "theory" as used in science is as close to "fact" as one can get. Gravity, like evolution, is a theory. Have you noticed yourself drifting away from the earth lately? "Theory" effectively means "model which no one has ever been able to falsify." But, hey, you're welcome to try to succeed where centuries of well-educated, intelligent people have failed. Good luck with that!
3. "Too many missing links"? In the cases of most modern-day creatures, that's like saying that if I show you a picture of a human child at age two years, seven months, and a picture of the same child at age two years, eight months, you can't possibly deduce that it's the same child without seeing pictures of every second of every day in between - not to mention that deducing a particular species's lineage has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of evolution as a whole. If tomorrow new evidence was uncovered that somehow incontrovertably indicated that birds developed from some group of creatures totally unrelated to the therapod dinosaurs, how would that invalidate the general idea that species evolve and change over time?
4. "Evolution if correct would have been here forever." Well, assuming we define "forever" as "since life first came into being," then yes, it has been. Something wrong with that? :)

What's <3?
2

Yes, God can do a paradox (#1). And since #2 is a paradox, and God can do a paradox, it's not a problem for God.
I did a pair o' docs, once . . . well, this isn't really the right thread for that joke :rolleyes:

Welcome to NSG, grow a thick skin or they'll eat you alive.

Not true. Most of our victims are flamed golden brown before being eaten.

Not unlike the Christian version of hell, really.