Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS

This is a discussion on Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) - VMS ; Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 323

Thread: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

  1. Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)

    Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why

    When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
    texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
    discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
    had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman
    tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes
    made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the
    Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on
    how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once
    ultraconservative views of the Bible. Since the advent of the printing
    press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed
    that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy
    of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen
    hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were
    deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes
    of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the
    surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to
    reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these
    changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the
    original words of the New Testament as closely as possible. Ehrman
    makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories
    and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity,
    and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional
    and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically
    affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.

    Listen to a 53 minute interview here:
    http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/072207.html

    One Oxford bible scholar (John Mill) in 1707 published an in depth
    'textual analysis' of more than 100 biblical manuscripts documenting
    more than 30,000 differences.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_analysis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill
    Since then, other bible researchers have documented more than 100,000
    differences.

    Example-1, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus is
    total fiction and doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts.
    It was added by scribes who knew exactly what they were doing.

    Example-2, every last page (codex) of the Book of Revelation was
    missing when St Jerome was working on the Latin Vulgate so he just
    read a bunch of Greek manuscripts (which were mostly different) and
    then translated the average meaning back into latin. (so much for all
    the people who labor over every word in this strange book)

    Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    available in Western Europe at the time)

    Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
    did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
    can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
    of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
    text.

    NSR


  2. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/21/07 22:38, Neil Rieck wrote:
    [snip]
    > Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    > that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    > have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    > available in Western Europe at the time)


    Well, no, everybody does *not* love the KJV.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  3. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)


    you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
    trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...

    everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead
    people in Rome and around the world did not just let
    themselves die for no reason ... they all saw something
    that changed them completely, enough to die for it ...

    I posted this awhile ago ... this should make your
    head spin ...

    http://www.jimandpenny.com/en/
    http://www.baseinstitute.org/features/mtsinai.htm
    http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm
    http://www.wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai.htm

    I am still waiting for you to explain this ...


  4. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 22, 8:13 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > > Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)

    >
    > you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
    > trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...
    >
    > everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead
    > people in Rome and around the world did not just let
    > themselves die for no reason ... they all saw something
    > that changed them completely, enough to die for it ...
    >


    I never said that Jesus didn't exist. There are many (so called
    "profane sources" that say he did)

    I did say that the author of the book (the James A. Gray Professor and
    Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at The University of
    North Carolina at Chapel Hill) claimed that our bible has been heavily
    modified over the past 1900 years. Apparantly are large number of his
    peers agree with him. (Oh and by the way, he first learned this stuff
    while attending an AMerican Bible College)

    Rather than throw a bunch of web sites at me, why not just read the
    book then tell me what you think.

    NSR





  5. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
    ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    >
    > you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
    > trying to deny the bible


    which one of the many versions that claim to be true ?
    Seems what you call bible has seen as many patches as has
    M$ Windoze.

  6. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 21, 10:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
    >
    > Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why
    >
    > When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
    > texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
    > discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
    > had been made by earlier translators.

    [...]

    You might as well try to convince a leopard to change its spots.

    Religious writings are self-protected by their insistence that "only
    if you open your heart to (Deity-of-reference) will you know the
    truth." In other words, their understanding requires faith and those
    without faith can not understand them. Atheists and nay-sayers are
    acting under the influence of Satan, whose goalis to tempt and beguile
    the faithful.

    See the links Bob provided. They have nothing to do with anything your
    post addressed. If you attack any part of the Holy Book, you will be
    rebutted with another contradicting scripture or historical "fact."

    Face it. Those old scholars did a good job, and if they were around
    today they'd probably be working in either in politics or marketing.
    Most of today's Biblical scholars understand the points you've made
    and many life-times have been spent studying them.

    These following links won't be of interest to Bob, but they might be
    to someone interested in following the points you made (beyond Wiki.)
    These sites are non-secular but attempt to tell the Bible's history
    factually with minimum bias (from what I have seen --- I obviously
    haven't followed every sub-link or I'd still be caught in the web.)

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

    *******


  7. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    >On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)

    >
    >you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
    >trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...
    >

    I think most people would agree that there was probably a historical figure
    but how much he and his teachings resembled what is portrayed in the Bible
    is more open to debate. As recent discoveries of lost gospels and other early
    christian writings have shown there existed many different versions of
    Christianity in the first and second centuries.

    >everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead
    >people in Rome and around the world did not just let
    >themselves die for no reason


    Pretty much all religions have individuals within them who are prepared to die
    for their faith - for a modern example just think of the Islamic suicide
    bombers. (I know you will critise me for that analogy since the early
    Christians weren't blowing up the Romans but as far as they are concerned
    they are dying for their faith. However if you don't like that analogy think of
    all the Jews who suffered persecution during the Middle Ages rather than
    convert to Christianity.)

    Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any validity to
    that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >... they all saw something
    >that changed them completely, enough to die for it ...
    >
    >I posted this awhile ago ... this should make your
    >head spin ...
    >
    >http://www.jimandpenny.com/en/
    >http://www.baseinstitute.org/features/mtsinai.htm
    >http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm
    >http://www.wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai.htm
    >
    >I am still waiting for you to explain this ...
    >


  8. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)

    >
    > you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
    > trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...
    >
    > everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead


    I'm an atheist, but I won't be a a head case for you. I'm quite sure
    everyone I know, including all the atheists, agnostics, Muslims,
    Jews, Christians (well, duh), Bhudists, ... agree that Jesus of
    Nasareth did exist.

    Trying to make everyone beleive that Jesus is God on Earth is
    entirely another thing. Records show that early Christians did not
    agree on whether Jesus was devine, that was made dogma by the
    Catholic Church some centuries later.


  9. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    >
    > I posted this awhile ago ... this should make your
    > head spin ...


    Anybody can post that stuff. Running around the modern Mt. Sinai
    or the suspected biblical Mt. Sinai (not the same mountain), arguing
    which is which, making claims about what someone sees, ...

    Nothing new.


  10. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    {...snip...}
    >Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any validity to
    >that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.


    Death for one's faith, or in this case, truth simply won't change much.

    http://www.tmesis.com/slower_than_guns.html

    However, I'd be willing to die for the truth over some unfounded faith
    any day!


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg

  11. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    > Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
    >
    > Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why
    >
    > When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
    > texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
    > discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
    > had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman
    > tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes
    > made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the
    > Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on
    > how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once
    > ultraconservative views of the Bible. Since the advent of the printing
    > press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed
    > that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy
    > of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen
    > hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were
    > deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes
    > of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the
    > surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to
    > reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these
    > changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the
    > original words of the New Testament as closely as possible. Ehrman
    > makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories
    > and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity,
    > and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional
    > and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically
    > affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.
    >
    > Listen to a 53 minute interview here:
    > http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/072207.html
    >
    > One Oxford bible scholar (John Mill) in 1707 published an in depth
    > 'textual analysis' of more than 100 biblical manuscripts documenting
    > more than 30,000 differences.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_analysis
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill
    > Since then, other bible researchers have documented more than 100,000
    > differences.
    >
    > Example-1, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus is
    > total fiction and doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts.
    > It was added by scribes who knew exactly what they were doing.
    >
    > Example-2, every last page (codex) of the Book of Revelation was
    > missing when St Jerome was working on the Latin Vulgate so he just
    > read a bunch of Greek manuscripts (which were mostly different) and
    > then translated the average meaning back into latin. (so much for all
    > the people who labor over every word in this strange book)
    >
    > Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    > that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    > have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    > available in Western Europe at the time)
    >
    > Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
    > did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
    > can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
    > of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
    > text.
    >
    > NSR



    Sounds like the bible was written by a committee - and we all know how good
    a job committee's do with anything ;-)

    Not that I'm for religion in any way, but I'm prepared to tolerate it in
    others so long as they keep it to themselves.

    --
    OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV
    base.



  12. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    > that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    > have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    > available in Western Europe at the time)
    >
    > Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
    > did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
    > can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
    > of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
    > text.



    well these links seem to shot holes in your misguided theory ...


    http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/...nuscripts.html

    http://theologos.net/NTpapyrus.html

    http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/art...?Article_ID=72




  13. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    > that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    > have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    > available in Western Europe at the time)
    >
    > Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
    > did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
    > can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
    > of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
    > text.
    >
    > NSR


    and here are some more ... your false assertions are
    revealed as just that ... FALSE!

    http://www.consider.org/library/text.htm

    http://www.entheology.org/library/winters/NEWTEST2.TXT

    http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=91

    http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writi...eliability.htm

    http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/sec5p4.htm




  14. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 22, 9:06 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >


    Any idiot can set up a website which can be used by others as proof.
    It is hardly what any rational person would accept as peer-reviewed
    literature.

    Why not try reading the book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
    Changed The Bible and Why" (which was peer-reviewed by the way) then
    get back to me. The proof laid out in this book shows that a majority
    of very early Biblical manuscripts are different. If you're going to
    believe in something you had better be aware of the warts and all.

    p.s. as an aside, reading the book has not changed "MY" belief in
    Christianity. In fact, it has cleared what I saw as a few
    inconsistancies. YMMV

    NSR


  15. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:

    > Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    > validity to
    > that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.


    It suggests a psychosis.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  16. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 22, 9:06 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    > Any idiot can set up a website which can be used by others as proof.
    > It is hardly what any rational person would accept as peer-reviewed
    > literature.
    >
    > Why not try reading the book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
    > Changed The Bible and Why" (which was peer-reviewed by the way) then
    > get back to me. The proof laid out in this book shows that a majority
    > of very early Biblical manuscripts are different. If you're going to
    > believe in something you had better be aware of the warts and all.
    >
    > p.s. as an aside, reading the book has not changed "MY" belief in
    > Christianity. In fact, it has cleared what I saw as a few
    > inconsistancies. YMMV
    >
    > NSR


    are you dense? The sites show they found pieces
    of New testament that date anywhere from just after
    John to the first century ... and those writings translate
    to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
    deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
    yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
    in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
    thing ...

    I wouldn't call Israeli archaeologists idiots ...



  17. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On 08/23/07 08:06, Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
    >> validity to
    >> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.

    >
    > It suggests a psychosis.


    It suggests stupidity. Kill the other guy for his cause before he
    kills you for your. (Paraphrased from George Patton.)

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  18. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)


    wrote in message
    news:1187829941.906578.232570@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>
    >> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
    >> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
    >> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
    >> available in Western Europe at the time)
    >>
    >> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
    >> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
    >> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
    >> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
    >> text.

    >
    >
    > well these links seem to shot holes in your misguided theory ...
    >
    >
    > http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/...nuscripts.html
    >
    > http://theologos.net/NTpapyrus.html
    >
    > http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/art...?Article_ID=72
    >
    >



    Arrgh. First of all, the "Bible" consists of more than just the New
    Testament. Second of all, the only site you quote that has any form of
    objectivity is the first one at Duke - and it dates the earliest papyrus
    examples of New Testament writing at between 150 and 200 years ACE. In fact
    it agrees that the earlier English translations of those writings were
    flawed and were not improved until the late 19th century and again in the
    mid-20th. Nor does it deal with nuance of meaning when translating the
    words in their context of (say) 1st or 2nd century Greek into 21st century
    English. Have you ever read the original Sheakspear? Chaucer?

    Interestingly, all of these "sources" appear to start with the premise that
    the New Testament was originally written in Greek - and if that is the case
    then I am left to wonder why if Jesus and his disciples spoke Arameric - why
    they can draw any conclusion that the GREEK writing was written either first
    person, or by someone who was a contemporary of the writer. It is far more
    likely to be the codification of oral history several generations removed
    from the time of Christ. OTOH - some things may well BE transcriptions of
    actual letters written in Greek. Which neither proves or disproves the
    "truth" of their content.

    Nor does any of this address why the books in the New Testament qualify for
    inclusion in the Bible - and other books from the same periods were banned
    from the Bible. So ignoring transliteration problems with Arameric, Greek,
    German and English - the entire editing process of what *is* and what *is
    not* the inspired or literal word of God is suspect as humans made political
    and theological decisions as to what should be orthodoxy in the Church...
    and different splinter groups of Christianity have over time removed and
    added things as they saw fit - for example the book of Mormon.

    Lastly, it doesn't matter. You believe what you want to. Be it the Bible
    or the Qu'ran. No amount of evidence to support or disprove it matters - it
    is a matter of faith. If your faith leads to you believe things that to
    most people make you a fool - like the age of the earth being 5000 years -
    then so be it.

    So.

    Bob: Give it up. Proof of your beliefs can't be found in the writings of
    men. The existance of God has yet to be proven - otherwise you would not
    need faith to believe. Please try to refrain from using this forum to
    convert the heathen - there are many better ways to do that - and to follow
    the commands of Christ.

    Neil: Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun. If
    things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
    waste huge amounts of time in.








  19. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    In article <1187875962.879607.232430@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    >
    > are you dense? The sites show they found pieces
    > of New testament that date anywhere from just after
    > John to the first century ... and those writings translate
    > to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
    > deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
    > yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
    > in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
    > thing ...
    >
    > I wouldn't call Israeli archaeologists idiots ...


    So if I find an original manuscript of Tom Sawer, that makes it
    true? More to the point, how about an old manuscript discussing
    Zeus, Odin, or Jupiter?


  20. Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)

    On Aug 23, 12:19 pm, "FredK" wrote:
    > wrote in message
    >
    > Neil: Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun. If
    > things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
    > waste huge amounts of time in.


    Couldn't resist posting this one:

    <http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.asp...ge%20W.%20Bush
    %20imitation/Funny%20videos/>

    That'll probably wrap, but if you need a good laugh and want to take a
    few minutes to do so, go to www.stupidvideos.com and click the "Funny
    Videos" link on the left. Scroll down and find the "George W. Bush
    imitation" video. It's relevant to more than one of the recent Bob-
    related off-topics being discussed here.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast