-
-
Thought this would be interesting.
As an atheist, I'm intrigued by how much faith, etc, is put into their holy books. I'm not here to judge or anything, I'm just really really curious. -
i proudly declare.....
To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition. as FOR THE HOLY BOOK SAME OPINION... -
Man makes things...
We are taught that God created mankind... But What I say is man created God! As per his wish, as per his knowledge, culture and reach, man created God of his wish! Those who lived life extraordinarily like Jesus, Buddha are made God!
But I believe in the power of halo that is created around everyone ( including man) as a result of powerful thoughts he or she has! -
intelligence in the universe
I find it interesting that established religions has taken intelligence out of the universe and projected it on to a personality external to the universe and called it God.
-
Being that there are so many different manuscripts of each Biblical text, and that there are often places where several original texts having equal or near equal authority disagree... well, I really don't know anymore. I believe in God, and find the study of manuscripts, Biblical Hebrew, and the general history of the Bible to be fascinating, but also find that the more I study the more questions I have (which is not necessarily bad, of course).
-
I've always wanted to have a Bible, or something of the sort. Religion has always interested me ... but it's also kind of strange because in debates and discussions with friends, sometimes I get attacked with religious ideas. And that always amazes me how people assume that the Bible is completely fact. Er, because well, wasn't the Bible written by ... humans? And has it been ... edited, or something of the sort? Because I had a friend who once used evidence from the Bible in a debate, but for say atheists, wouldn't it not be considered fact and therefore not proper evidence?
Just curious
- SilverMilk -
-
Rather than stating that Biblical evidence is merely not factual, I would challenge your friend regarding the authenticity of the text. The Bible that most people read these days is a translation (already problematic) of a specific vowel system (the Masoritic text, to be specific, though several completely different vowel systems exist, and they don't always agree with each other in terms of meaning). Each Biblical book that we now consider to be canon was chosen from several slightly different versions of the same text by the group of scholars that developed each vowel system (meaning that each set of texts within a vowel pattern tradition will be slightly different). For example, the text that I Samuel (as it appears in most Bibles today) is known by Biblical scholars to be an inferior manuscript, meaning that the other manuscripts of the same story make more sense than the one chosen by the Masorites. If that makes any sense at all.
-
-
*slowly processing* Umm. Hmn. Wait, but then why are there so many different Bibles? What happened to the original one?
-
-
The closest thing to an original Bible would be the collection of texts chosen from a large body of available texts (now referred to as "The Dead Sea Scrolls") by each of the groups of ancient scholars that did the voweling (meaning there would have been at least 3, if I remember correctly). It is also important to note that these texts didn't start out as "Holy", and scribes were allowed to make changes as they saw fit (of course there were restrictions on this, but scribes could change words where they thought that a misplaced consonant had resulted in the inappropriate placement of a word, for example) until a text was sanctified. This did not happen simultaneously either.
-
-
Aaaah ... that's interesting ...
-
-
Lol, this just came up in my Advanced Biblical Hebrew course today, and I thought you might find it interesting.
Turn to first Samuel, verse five. What does it say? It will probably say that Hannah is given either a single portion or a double portion, yes? Both "single" and "double" (one suggesting the bare minimum, one suggesting a reward) appear in different translations of the same manuscript. Remember my comment about how the Masorites (contemporary Biblical translations come from the Masorites) picked a bad text for first Samuel? The Hebrew states that Hannah is given "face portions". I'm not even kidding. It is a spelling error that cannot be corrected because the text is now considered holy. -
-
Face portions? (I dunno what that is ><)
Wow, I looked up Samuel, verse five, and I found ... twelve different versions of it. o.o; -
-
Lol. There is no such thing as a "face portion", not now, nor in Biblical times, it is an error. Translators take liberties and supply whatever they think should fit. As you have probably seen in your research, they don't all agree.
-
-
Oh man -__-;
-
-
Indeed. Would it not have been better to make it known that the actual translations cannot be deciphered because of an error, or, t the very least, to get together so as not to give (at least) two completely opposite translations of the same passage?
-
-
That would have been better, I think.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Does no-one have any ideas of their own? Do they all have to be spoonfed attitudes to life, the meaning of life without it being in some blasted book or other. The indipendance of thought which should reign supreme is my creed as an avowed atheist.
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
Iorek
Jun 2 3:41 PM 2006
Reply