Enema Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out? I don't have much comment. The article is pretty interesting, have a read. A couple of nuggets: "....and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection." "...the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament." "...Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 This is incredibly fascinating, with potential for frightening consequences. Link to post Share on other sites
wuggle Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 The roman emperor Constantine, effectively brought together the Christians and 'solidified' the religion a couple of hundred years after Christ. He had a big 'conference' at which was agreed the central tenents of the religion, bits were agreed on and bits were thrown out. It never was the 'divinely transcribed' document that some believe it to be , it was always just a collection of bits that were agreed upon after a lot of debate and thumb-screwing by Constantine, who was desperate to 'coalesce' the religion from its fragmented and argumentative beginnings. No surprise that poeple find bits that were left out, sure they will find more bits in the future. Link to post Share on other sites
burning 4 revenge Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 While this is certainly interesting, the article states that we already have earlier versions of most of the books This is the oldest codex where all the books are put together, so it will give us some illumination into early editing of the Bible, but it's not going to bring any new information about the "historical Jesus" Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I think that it is great, as it demonstrates even further that the "word of god" does in fact chang over time, both in interpretation and by what is included. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I think that it is great, as it demonstrates even further that the "word of god" does in fact chang over time, both in interpretation and by what is included.Let's not forget that Christianity wasn't born from a collection of writings. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Christianity as we know it today was. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Christianity as we know it today was. Cheers, D.That is as you and other extreme cynics would like to believe. Wishful thinking does not define reality. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 *sigh* Another entirely useless post by FleshNBones. Come back when you actually have something to say. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Christianity as we know it today was. D's actually making a good point – there are many "Christian" religions that are "Bible-based," whose followers explicitly state that unless you "believe the Bible" (i.e., their version of the Bible) you cannot call yourself a true Christian believer. as a Catholic in the Bible Belt of Texas, I get a lot of skeptical questions about being "Christian" because I don't follow the "Bible" ... ironically enough, it was the early Catholic Church that put all this stuff together and started disseminating information Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 :laugh: did anyone else think it was quirky that the "burning bush" portion of the text was laid out next to a photo of a bush with pink flowers? If you weren't really focused on the tree first, and read that part of the text, your first thought was, "they got a shot of the burning bush!" okay, silliness aside ... no it's not unusual to hear that books have been left out of the Bible, depending on what version you grab – we once had a rabbi tell our RCIA class at the church that HE preferred the Catholic version of the Old Testament because it had a couple of books that the Torah didn't, and felt it gave a fuller body of information because of that. as for the resurrection not being mentioned, well ... nothing is going to shake the faith of a believer when God reveals Truth to him. We may question it, but ultimately, it's not going to shake our belief if it is a strong belief to start with. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 well ... nothing is going to shake the faith of a believer when God reveals Truth to him. We may question it, but ultimately, it's not going to shake our belief if it is a strong belief to start with. True. But then they'll only say that anyone with unshakeable belief is just deluded anyway. A religious person really can't win. Christians attempt to debunk the Holy Quran all the time. It only makes sense that agnostics and atheists spend so much time trying to debunk Christianity to the "true" believers. Believe it or not, though, there are many Christians that question the legitimacy of some things included in the Bible. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 questioning is good, very good, because it helps people understand their faith – and why they believe – better. however, the tricky part is keeping straight the premise that the Bible is a document of man's spiritual journey, and that there are different references involved (government, historical, economy, etc) so that the readers have a grasp of the culture at the time, and nothing more. we get into trouble when someone tries to debunk the Bible based on science or modern-day thinking, when it's a book about spirituality. How do you even begin comparing the two? Same thing with trying to insert spirituality into science, etc. There has to be a careful approach that provides credibility, not attempt blow into water or overwhelm the reader! Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Christians attempt to debunk the Holy Quran all the time. It only makes sense that agnostics and atheists spend so much time trying to debunk Christianity to the "true" believers.I haven't seen it. Believe it or not, though, there are many Christians that question the legitimacy of some things included in the Bible.Some people never miss an opportunity to take a stab at it. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 questioning is good, very good, because it helps people understand their faith – and why they believe – better. however, the tricky part is keeping straight the premise that the Bible is a document of man's spiritual journey, and that there are different references involved (government, historical, economy, etc) so that the readers have a grasp of the culture at the time, and nothing more. we get into trouble when someone tries to debunk the Bible based on science or modern-day thinking, when it's a book about spirituality. How do you even begin comparing the two? Same thing with trying to insert spirituality into science, etc. There has to be a careful approach that provides credibility, not attempt blow into water or overwhelm the reader! I think I love you! Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I haven't seen it. Then you must not read religious nutso sites that claim Islam is of the devil. It really does exist. You'll find this in some tracks. On some Christian websites and the like. Some people never miss an opportunity to take a stab at it. I'm not sure why you seem so angry (the "stab" part) about people questioning the Bible. Do you think questioning the Bible should be off limits? I don't. The Bible has a well-documented history of being tampered with. We don't even have it in its original language - which has lots of Christians confused about what it actually is telling them to do. There is a such thing as "lost in translation". Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Then you must not read religious nutso sites that claim Islam is of the devil. It really does exist. You'll find this in some tracks. On some Christian websites and the like.Would you characterize this site as an athiest nutso site? I'm not sure why you seem so angry (the "stab" part) about people questioning the Bible. Do you think questioning the Bible should be off limits? I don't. The Bible has a well-documented history of being tampered with. We don't even have it in its original language - which has lots of Christians confused about what it actually is telling them to do. There is a such thing as "lost in translation".I wouldn't have a problem with it if the scrutiny was tempered with honesty instead of malice. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 The problem with your last comment is that you reflexively interpret any and all questioning as being malicious almost by definition. Cheers, D Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I'm trying to figure out what was malicious in any of my posts to this thread. Color me con-fus-sed. The Bible has been tampered with. Its basic message hasn't been tampered with, IMO. But IT has been changed by each reformation and translation that it has undergone. What I find interesting is that most theologians already know this point - as it is part of their training if they go to a good school that considers everything when it relates to the Bible and Christianity. In fact, many bible scholars are probably salivating over the possibility that this new discovery may give more weight to their opinions or theories on what was changed and what is original. There are plenty of things in the Bible that I can point to where questioning or seeking more knowledge is encouraged, not treated like its maliciousness or something else sinister. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I think I love you! I think that's a Partridge Family song! I think I love you! Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I'm trying to figure out what was malicious in any of my posts to this thread. Color me con-fus-sed. The Bible has been tampered with. Its basic message hasn't been tampered with, IMO. But IT has been changed by each reformation and translation that it has undergone.So you are lecturing me. You seem to be suggesting that these changes are meant to decieve instead of clarify. The writings came from the Church. The Church did not come from the writings. What I find interesting is that most theologians already know this point - as it is part of their training if they go to a good school that considers everything when it relates to the Bible and Christianity. In fact, many bible scholars are probably salivating over the possibility that this new discovery may give more weight to their opinions or theories on what was changed and what is original.It is just more hoopla like the "Tomb of Jesus." Do any of you remember that? The mountain of evidence looks more like a pebble. There are plenty of things in the Bible that I can point to where questioning or seeking more knowledge is encouraged, not treated like its maliciousness or something else sinister.Again, the mountain of evidence. This is one little piece of a big puzzle, and some people here are already drawing conclusions from that. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 So you are lecturing me. You seem to be suggesting that these changes are meant to decieve instead of clarify. Sorry, I didn't see this until now. No, I'm not lecturing you. Not interested. But you aren't listening to me. You are making assumptions about what I mean and responding to that, not to me. I think theologians are quite interested in this find. It isn't likely to change anything for the majority of Christians because once their ministers/pastors/priests get into the pulpit - most of those leaders stop learning their doctrine and start learning what strategies get their church the most money. I do very much believe that many of the changes were not clarifications. Some were outright added to limit the action of some worshippers. Like many of the parts attributed to Paul about keeping women silent in church that have been used for centuries to keep women out of leadership positions in church. It directly opposes the fact that the Bible says that God has no respect of persons. I didn't see a disclaimer for gender. I'm not saying that deception was the goal. Because there is also proof (sorry no links at this time) that some of the edits intended for "clarification" were still not accurate translations of the language. And it ends up giving you the wrong interpretation. The Bible does say "my people perish for lack of knowledge". Ignorance is not bliss. ...question... I don't quite get the point of this: Again the mountain of evidence. This is one little piece of a big puzzle, and some people here are already drawing conclusions from that. Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Regarding an earlier post regarding atheists debunking Christianity but not Islam. Atheists by definition reject Islam as well, and there are many books written by atheists that do just that. Sam Harris' books leap to mind. There is even a Skeptics Annotated Koran. Living in a culture dominated by Christianity and visiting English language boards, it makes sense that most of the discussions about the rationality of religious belief centers around that religion, but it does not follow that Christianity is the only religion atheists reject, or are capable of rejecting based on their book. It just doesn't come up as often. While it might make Christians feel good to be "singled out" for "persecution"--something at which Christians excel--the fact is that they aren't. Christians thinking that should get out more. For anyone interested, there are some very interesting threads regarding Islam on the WWGHA boards. There is a resident Fundamentalist Muslim that posts "proofs" that the koran is true that are entertaining and at times very funny. Link to post Share on other sites
lovelorcet Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Let's not forget that Christianity wasn't born from a collection of writings. Actually it most certainly was! The story of Jesus is just a pimped out newer version of stories that already existed. For example taken from Horus, Mithras, or even Joseph from the old testament... These are all previous drafts of the story of Christ. Link to post Share on other sites
lovelorcet Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Again, the mountain of evidence. This is one little piece of a big puzzle, and some people here are already drawing conclusions from that. What mountain of evidence are you talking about? I would not think that stories made up and written by humans can be considered evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts