kallend 1,635 #601 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow hard can it be! I see you posted your actual pic on here. It's a well known character from literature (original illustration, there have been other more recent versions as well as movie and TV characterizations). 5 brownie points for a correct identification. I guess I'll have to give a clue. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hercules Grytpype-Thynne and this is my aide Count Jim Moriarty... No, wait - thats the Goon show isn't it? You silly twisted boy you. Shuttup, Eccles.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #602 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteJudging a document's authenticity is what the original point was about, and your silly little strawman has nothing to do with that. >Ha ha, so you have no real argument. Based on all the evidence available, Zeus is every bit as real as your god, He's just out of fashion right now. Sure, we can discuss Zeus if you want to. But first you've got to put your toys-- strawmen-- away and deal with the original point I was making about the authenticity of the document called the "Bible." It seems you want to do that, tho'. It would require more thought than what you're used to putting into your Speaker's Corner religion retorts... not to mention what it might mean if you should come to the realization that the Bible is what it claims and that, therefore, Jesus Christ is who He claims.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #603 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteJudging a document's authenticity is what the original point was about, and your silly little strawman has nothing to do with that. >Ha ha, so you have no real argument. Based on all the evidence available, Zeus is every bit as real as your god, He's just out of fashion right now. Sure, we can discuss Zeus if you want to. But first you've got to put your toys-- strawmen-- away and deal with the original point I was making about the authenticity of the document called the "Bible." It seems you want to do that, tho'. It would require more thought than what you're used to putting into your Speaker's Corner religion retorts... not to mention what it might mean if you should come to the realization that the Bible is what it claims and that, therefore, Jesus Christ is who He claims. Um, didn't you just argue that the "authenticity" (whatever it is you want that to mean) of a document had nothing to do with the truth of its claims?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #604 January 12, 2007 Quote The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented. Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs (not to mention all the existing documents that were intentionally left out) speaks volumes. Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #605 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteJudging a document's authenticity is what the original point was about, and your silly little strawman has nothing to do with that. >Ha ha, so you have no real argument. Based on all the evidence available, Zeus is every bit as real as your god, He's just out of fashion right now. Sure, we can discuss Zeus if you want to. But first you've got to put your toys-- strawmen-- away and deal with the original point I was making about the authenticity of the document called the "Bible." It seems you want to do that, tho'. It would require more thought than what you're used to putting into your Speaker's Corner religion retorts... not to mention what it might mean if you should come to the realization that the Bible is what it claims and that, therefore, Jesus Christ is who He claims. There is ABSOLUTELY no proof of that claim. The Bible has been edited and re-edited.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #606 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented. Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs How is the content of the original Gospels different from the content of current versions? Specifically? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #607 January 12, 2007 QuoteI guess I'll have to give a clue. I did not want that! I was hot on the trail. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #608 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteI guess I'll have to give a clue. I did not want that! I was hot on the trail. The game was afoot, eh, Watson?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #609 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess I'll have to give a clue. I did not want that! I was hot on the trail. The game was afoot, eh, Watson? This has just reminded me of a twisted short story I read recently by Neil Gaiman that has Sherlock Holmes investigating a murder that involves Cthullu and the Old Ones from the world of H.P. Lovecraft. Very cool.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #610 January 12, 2007 QuoteUm, didn't you just argue that the "authenticity" (whatever it is you want that to mean) of a document had nothing to do with the truth of its claims? No. Maybe you're projecting??Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #611 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented. Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs How is the content of the original Gospels different from the content of current versions? Specifically? Since nobody alive has actually seen the originals, we really don't have a clue. We have absolutely no way to compare the text of today with the original text. I don't know what the original text said. Neither do you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #612 January 12, 2007 QuoteSince nobody alive has actually seen the originals, we really don't have a clue. We have absolutely no way to compare the text of today with the original text. I don't know what the original text said. Neither do you. Have you ever read any Shakespeare? Do you believe he wrote what you read? How do you know since there are no surviving original manuscripts? Do we really have any idea what the original writings said? .........Actually, I think we do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #613 January 12, 2007 QuoteJack, who authored the Koran? Dunno. Muslims believe god did but it was probably a bloke called Mohammed. The trouble is people are known and documented liars, manipulators, delusional psychotics and fraudsters, whereas the number of confirmed gods remains at zero so I know where I'd place my bet. I don't know why you asked that question, you already knew what I'd say. You're either pulling my chain or don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #614 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteSince nobody alive has actually seen the originals, we really don't have a clue. We have absolutely no way to compare the text of today with the original text. I don't know what the original text said. Neither do you. Have you ever read any Shakespeare? Do you believe he wrote what you read? How do you know since there are no surviving original manuscripts? Do we really have any idea what the original writings said? .........Actually, I think we do. That's hardly an argument for belief in the supernatural based on redacted literature.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sweetmoose 0 #615 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteJack, who authored the Koran? Dunno. Muslims believe god did but it was probably a bloke called Mohammed. The trouble is people are known and documented liars, manipulators, delusional psychotics and fraudsters, whereas the number of confirmed gods remains at zero so I know where I'd place my bet. I don't know why you asked that question, you already knew what I'd say. You're either pulling my chain or don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about. I work in Saudi Arabia, so the Koran is discussed sometimes, don't know if any of this is actual fact, but this is what I was told, Mohammed was illiterate, so he didn't actually write the Koran, he more of dictated it. Also, Mohammed was a profit, and to the muslims, THE profit, so if you want to get technical, GOD wrote the Koran, through Mohammed. That's just what I was told though.We die only once, but for such a very long time. I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #616 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSince nobody alive has actually seen the originals, we really don't have a clue. We have absolutely no way to compare the text of today with the original text. I don't know what the original text said. Neither do you. Have you ever read any Shakespeare? Do you believe he wrote what you read? How do you know since there are no surviving original manuscripts? Do we really have any idea what the original writings said? .........Actually, I think we do. That's hardly an argument for belief in the supernatural based on redacted literature. My comment was in reference to what she said about not being able to trust a document or know what it said because we don't have the originals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #617 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSince nobody alive has actually seen the originals, we really don't have a clue. We have absolutely no way to compare the text of today with the original text. I don't know what the original text said. Neither do you. Have you ever read any Shakespeare? Do you believe he wrote what you read? How do you know since there are no surviving original manuscripts? Do we really have any idea what the original writings said? .........Actually, I think we do. That's hardly an argument for belief in the supernatural based on redacted literature. My comment was in reference to what she said about not being able to trust a document or know what it said because we don't have the originals. And we don't. So we don't know, do we? Of course, unlike the Bible, there's no point re-writing Twelfth Night for political purposes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #618 January 12, 2007 QuoteAnd we don't. So we don't know, do we? So you don't believe what you read were the words of Shakespeare? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #619 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd we don't. So we don't know, do we? So you don't believe what you read were the words of Shakespeare? Some say they are the work of Marlowe. Who can tell? Based on temporal proximity, we can be more sure about Shakespeare's works of fiction than we can about Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's and John's. Or are you saying that if Shakespeare DID write it, that Puck, Bottom, Oberon and Titania were all real?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #620 January 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd we don't. So we don't know, do we? So you don't believe what you read were the words of Shakespeare? Does it matter who wrote it? Romeo and Juliet is a great story but that's all it is. Shakespeare never claimed to be anything other than a playwright. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,404 #621 January 13, 2007 >Some say they are the work of Marlowe. Who can tell? And more importantly - who cares? If you like Shakespeare, read him. If you like what's in the Bible, believe it. Whether or not someone made a source or translation error 1700 years ago seems like a pointless thing to get upset about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #622 January 13, 2007 Quote>Some say they are the work of Marlowe. Who can tell? And more importantly - who cares? If you like Shakespeare, read him. If you like what's in the Bible, believe it. Whether or not someone made a source or translation error 1700 years ago seems like a pointless thing to get upset about. True... That being said, despite all the differences of opinion regarding that rather complex piece of literature called the Bible, whether you believe it or not, there are a lot of good positive philosophies contained in the scriptures. Unfortunately, there is also a way to justify just about any action be it negative or positive. -Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #623 January 13, 2007 Quote>Some say they are the work of Marlowe. Who can tell? And more importantly - who cares? If you like Shakespeare, read him. If you like what's in the Bible, believe it. Whether or not someone made a source or translation error 1700 years ago seems like a pointless thing to get upset about. True, but I don't remember the last time someone introduced legislation based on Shakespeare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #624 January 13, 2007 and no one has come up with a good excuse for the XXX number of men, women, and children killed for not bowing their knee to "jesus". This includes what can only be termed "the american holocaust" on the north american continent HOW ABOUT LUKE 19:27, "BRING ALL WHO WILL NOT HAVE ME AS KING, BEFORE ME AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME" Any way that you want to exegete it. it is what the christian church used to get where it is today. jesus loves me?we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #625 January 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote The redaction of the Bible is Christianity's dirty little secret. It's pretty well documented. Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs How is the content of the original Gospels different from the content of current versions? Specifically? As Nightingale pointed out we do not actually have the original gospels, the earliest copies we have were written when the apostles could not possibly be alive any more, so they have to be copies. Also I seem to recall that they were written in some form of ancient Greek that the apostles did not speak themselves, so we know that they are not just copies but also translations. And in 2000 years of history there have been many more translations as languages evolved, I suppose the Bible you read is written in English, a language that came into existence over I thousand years later. Believe me when I tell you that a lot gets changed or lost in a translation, sometimes it is unavoidable (i.e. some things simply do not translate and have to be approximated), sometimes some people have ulterior motives for slipping in a few changes here and there. For example, are you aware of the controversy about Mary's virgin birth? Some scholars say that the word used in the earliest (Greek) copies of the Gospels in reference to Mary actually meant "young woman" and not necessarily "virgin". Curiously, the German word for "virgin" is "Jungfrau", which is a composite word and read literally means young (Jung) woman (Frau). If somebody where to find a German text let's say 500 years in the future when German might not be spoken any more, surely not as it is spoken toaday, and found the word "Jungfrau" used in reference to some female character. Let's say they do not know the meaning of this word but know the meanings of its components, they might make an educated guess and translate it as "young woman" which has no relations to the character's marital status. It's a good guess but it's also very wrong, that word at the time it was used actually meant "virgin" which implies a lot more than just young age. And then there is the whole thing about the Gospels that did not make it into the Christian Bible at all, they where discarded for various reasons by the early Roman Catholic Church. As Kalled pointed out it's a well documented dirty little secret, i.e. no secret at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
