|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
joshua7choi
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Location: Suwon
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:26 pm Post subject: handwritten Bible over 1600 years ago (Codex Sinaiticus) |
 |
|
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript � the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity � is of supreme importance for the history of the book.
Find out more about Codex Sinaiticus on...
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of the damage had already been done by that stage. The Bible is not an accurate reflection of its original form. It was changed heavily by functionally illiterate Christian scribes in the first 150 years after the main parts of the new testament were written.
What I don't understand is, if the Bible were divinely inspired why couldn't God keep it in one piece? Surely that is as easy to do as divinely inspiring the thing in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Most of the damage had already been done by that stage. The Bible is not an accurate reflection of its original form. It was changed heavily by functionally illiterate Christian scribes in the first 150 years after the main parts of the new testament were written. |
Stop lying.The bible is absolutely unchanged since it was written.
They already compared the dead sea scrolls and many other manusccripts.
| Quote: |
| What I don't understand is, if the Bible were divinely inspired why couldn't God keep it in one piece? Surely that is as easy to do as divinely inspiring the thing in the first place. |
It is divinely inspired, it is in one piece, it is unchanged, and it has survived every attempt over millenia to distort it or ban it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Most of the damage had already been done by that stage. The Bible is not an accurate reflection of its original form. It was changed heavily by functionally illiterate Christian scribes in the first 150 years after the main parts of the new testament were written. |
Stop lying.The bible is absolutely unchanged since it was written.
They already compared the dead sea scrolls and many other manusccripts.
| Quote: |
| What I don't understand is, if the Bible were divinely inspired why couldn't God keep it in one piece? Surely that is as easy to do as divinely inspiring the thing in the first place. |
It is divinely inspired, it is in one piece, it is unchanged, and it has survived every attempt over millenia to distort it or ban it. |
Well, you converted me. Which denomination do you suggest I join?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Most of the damage had already been done by that stage. The Bible is not an accurate reflection of its original form. It was changed heavily by functionally illiterate Christian scribes in the first 150 years after the main parts of the new testament were written.
What I don't understand is, if the Bible were divinely inspired why couldn't God keep it in one piece? Surely that is as easy to do as divinely inspiring the thing in the first place. |
If they were illiterate, how would they change written text?
Also, the books of the Bible were created by men. They were voted on and assembled in the 4th century. Anyone who doesn't know this is uninformed, Protestant, and likely both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's a collection of Iron-Age folktales. Who cares. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| It's a collection of Iron-Age folktales. Who cares. |
If you're going to take that line and reject christian moral authority, then you shouldn't whine about some woman walking out on her husband. Boo hoo.
re
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=160113 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Most of the damage had already been done by that stage. The Bible is not an accurate reflection of its original form. It was changed heavily by functionally illiterate Christian scribes in the first 150 years after the main parts of the new testament were written.
What I don't understand is, if the Bible were divinely inspired why couldn't God keep it in one piece? Surely that is as easy to do as divinely inspiring the thing in the first place. |
If they were illiterate, how would they change written text?
Also, the books of the Bible were created by men. They were voted on and assembled in the 4th century. Anyone who doesn't know this is uninformed, Protestant, and likely both. |
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the subject as my Bible study basically consists of this book.....
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247060885&sr=8-1
and a catholic school education.
But, from what I understand no original manuscripts exist. But more importantly, many of the early scribes, before the church started to become powerful around the 4th century, were functionally illiterate. They would simply copy what they saw on the page and often the next guy had to make educated guesses about what the ambiguaties meant.
Later, more ambiguities crept in when educated scribes decided something didn't jibe with their own theology. The "cast ye not stones lest ye be free from sin" parable is a much later addition. So is the ending of the Gospel of John. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
The textual evidence for the integrity of the Bible is better than for any other ancient book or document.
Compared to other ancient writings, we have more manuscripts still in existence, and manuscripts whose age we know is much closer to the time of original writing, than it is in the case of other ancient writings. All variations which exist are of a very minor nature which do not affect any major doctrine of the Bible.
There are amazing mathematical patterns in Bible when looked at in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. Hundreds of facts based around the number 7 appear in every passage of the Bible when you look at the numerical values of the words in the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. Many of these patterns were discovered by Ivan Panin in the 19th century. This discovery turned him from being an agnostic to being a Christian. His subsequent research provides a virtually irrefutable evidence that the Bible is not simply the product of human minds. No computer today could create such a text. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Most of the damage had already been done by that stage. The Bible is not an accurate reflection of its original form. It was changed heavily by functionally illiterate Christian scribes in the first 150 years after the main parts of the new testament were written.
What I don't understand is, if the Bible were divinely inspired why couldn't God keep it in one piece? Surely that is as easy to do as divinely inspiring the thing in the first place. |
If they were illiterate, how would they change written text?
Also, the books of the Bible were created by men. They were voted on and assembled in the 4th century. Anyone who doesn't know this is uninformed, Protestant, and likely both. |
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the subject as my Bible study basically consists of this book.....
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247060885&sr=8-1
and a catholic school education.
But, from what I understand no original manuscripts exist. But more importantly, many of the early scribes, before the church started to become powerful around the 4th century, were functionally illiterate. They would simply copy what they saw on the page and often the next guy had to make educated guesses about what the ambiguaties meant.
Later, more ambiguities crept in when educated scribes decided something didn't jibe with their own theology. The "cast ye not stones lest ye be free from sin" parable is a much later addition. So is the ending of the Gospel of John. |
Yeah, I think Ehrman has done some really good research. There were early manuscripts, but no complete Bible. There were a lot of books out there that were eventually refuted or used by various denominations and sects. Catholics and Orthodox rely heavily on tradition as well as the Bible, not arguing that the books were produced and assembled by men. It was after the reformation period when people decided that God had written the Bible as one solid text. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
The textual evidence for the integrity of the Bible is better than for any other ancient book or document.
Compared to other ancient writings, we have more manuscripts still in existence, and manuscripts whose age we know is much closer to the time of original writing, than it is in the case of other ancient writings. All variations which exist are of a very minor nature which do not affect any major doctrine of the Bible.
There are amazing mathematical patterns in Bible when looked at in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. Hundreds of facts based around the number 7 appear in every passage of the Bible when you look at the numerical values of the words in the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. Many of these patterns were discovered by Ivan Panin in the 19th century. This discovery turned him from being an agnostic to being a Christian. His subsequent research provides a virtually irrefutable evidence that the Bible is not simply the product of human minds. No computer today could create such a text. |
Haha, I was willing to accept your point until you came out with that last paragraph. The Bible predicted 9-11, right?
Off the top of my head (since you aren't posting references either), the major variations include the interpretation of the holy trinity, my previously mentioned examples, and a quote from the book itself lifted off Amazon........
| Quote: |
| "It would be wrong, however, to say - as people sometimes do - that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case. In some instances, the very meaning is at stake depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was the completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning? Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the "unique God" there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on, and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has come down to us." |
If you want to read the book PM me. I think I have a PDF copy floating around some where. Or I think it's available on torrent sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| It's a collection of Iron-Age folktales. Who cares. |
If you're going to take that line and reject christian moral authority, then you shouldn't whine about some woman walking out on her husband. Boo hoo.
re
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=160113 |
Huh?
"the bible" says it's ok to stone adulterous women to death. Morally it's on the same plane as the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs. Look who's talking.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Huh?
"the bible" says it's ok to stone adulterous women to death. Morally it's on the same plane as the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs. Look who's talking. |
Old testament, obsolete law. No longer applies under the new covenant.
Atheism = no authority to ultimately and definitively judge what is right and wrong.
Marriage is a holy, God-ordained institution bound by clear and serious instructions as revealed in the bible. You reject this.
By your lack of morality it is simply an old fashioned outdated tradition that is fairly meaningless. There is no right or wrong. Maybe she got bored and decided to follow her feelings. Justification enough in this free society surely? Democracy. Anyone can do whatever they want, and nobody should judge. The guy should've been more romantic and exciting. He obviously didn't hold her interest. He lost. Black widows kill the male after he's donated sperm. Boo hoo.
If you were honest about the moral quandary you live in, you'd admit that...Its neither fair nor unfair, it just ..is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Huh?
"the bible" says it's ok to stone adulterous women to death. Morally it's on the same plane as the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs. Look who's talking. |
Old testament, obsolete law. No longer applies under the new covenant. |
So "the bible" means whatever you want it to mean. Nothing new there.
| Quote: |
| Atheism = no authority to ultimately and definitively judge what is right and wrong. |
And as a result, you can lead a moral life because you freely choose to do so, not because a mythical figure tells you that you will go to hell if you don't. 
| Quote: |
| Marriage is a holy, God-ordained institution bound by clear and serious instructions as revealed in the bible. You reject this. |
Regardless of your religious interpretation of marriage, *I* don't reject it at all. I criticized the woman in the other thread because I think she is an arschloch for arbitrarily deciding to walk out of a marriage and abandon her committments to her spouse and family. You don't have to believe in mythical beings to find that morally repugnant
| Quote: |
| By your lack of morality it is simply an old fashioned outdated tradition that is fairly meaningless. There is no right or wrong. Maybe she got bored and decided to follow her feelings. Justification enough in this free society surely? Democracy. Anyone can do whatever they want, and nobody should judge. The guy should've been more romantic and exciting. He obviously didn't hold her interest. He lost. Black widows kill the male after he's donated sperm. Boo hoo. |
I'm sorry, but I think you've completely missed the point of the previous thread. *That woman* believes that marriage is simply an old-fashioned, meaningless tradition...I certainly don't. That was my point. It's certainly true that in a democracy, anybody can do whatever they want, but that doesn't necessarily make it morally right. She made a committment, freely given and freely entered into, and she simply decided that she was no longer bound by it. Like walking away from a contract.
| Quote: |
| If you were honest about the moral quandary you live in, you'd admit that...Its neither fair nor unfair, it just ..is. |
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. WHAT moral quandary? I believe that marriage is an institution that is valuable in and of itself, it needs no religious justification to be entered into, cherished, or valued. I deplore the fact that there is so little respect given to it in Western countries nowadays...and the fact that a lot of religious people feel free to divorce at will demonstrates there is no direct, causal link between marriage and religious practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Julius wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Huh?
"the bible" says it's ok to stone adulterous women to death. Morally it's on the same plane as the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs. Look who's talking. |
Old testament, obsolete law. No longer applies under the new covenant. |
So "the bible" means whatever you want it to mean. Nothing new there. |
No, his point it that there was an old law that the Jews followed (and still follow) and then a law of faith in a salvational figure rather than codified rules which is the standard interpretation of the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
