| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7861 Posts |
 Posted - 12 October 2009 : 3:39:02 PM
|
A new translation of the original Hebrew text of the Bible suggests that the author of Genesis did not mean God to be the 'creator' of heaven and earth. A new study by a respected Old testament scholar suggests that the Hebrew word 'bara'(to spatially separate) was mistranslated as 'to create', and the first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth". This suggests that while the Genesis author intended God to create humans and ananimals, the earth was already there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.
|
|
|
CTL666
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 12 October 2009 : 7:00:56 PM
|
Seems to me that the Bible - and many other religious works - have, on many occasions, been translated to suit those who are in power at the time. The original texts have been deliberately hidden away from anyone who might rock the boat and reveal that so much of what people are told is "the absolute truth" is no more than the words of the powerful. For example, entire sections of the Bible have either been reinterpreted over the years or entirely removed because it didn't suit those who wished to control the populace. So much of religion is about wealth, power and population control, and so little is genuinely about the Word of God.
D.
 |
 |
|
|
ToxicJR
Single Cell Organism
United Kingdom
39 Posts |
Posted - 12 October 2009 : 9:44:36 PM
|
Sighs.... Corruption in the world can have a devistating effect
الجنون هو الهدية التي أعطيت لي |
|
|
|
WarrenH
Homosapien
United Kingdom
2020 Posts |
Posted - 13 October 2009 : 09:52:03 AM
|
Why does the first part of this thread sound so familiar! Have I not stated no a number of occasions that the whole Creation story was designed to answer question that no-one knew the answer to in the first place. We now have a good idea, we research and despite what the opponents say, both aspects are correct and the actually run together......... so what the hell is new............ I am off to finish my Caffeine DRIP!
 |
|
|
|
Peter Croft
Dinosaur
United Kingdom
363 Posts |
Posted - 13 October 2009 : 10:34:06 AM
|
| Creation myths are prevalent amongst primitive societies. It's what they have before they discover enough knowledge to realise what dickheads they have been. So, it really doesn't matter what the bible says or who wrote it. Trouble is, that some of the DHs have yet to move on... |
|
|
|
Stomachus Grossus
Homosapien
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 13 October 2009 : 12:56:50 PM
|
Is a dickhead and proud of it
Moriarty: I see that ten years in Britain have not changed your Imperial Roman outlook, Caesar.
Caesar (G): True, Moriartus, always a Roman eye.
Moriarty: Will you take wine?
Caesar: No thanks, I think I'll have a half of mild and a packet of crisps.
*the Goon Show the history of Plinny the elder
www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7861 Posts |
Posted - 13 October 2009 : 1:45:36 PM
|
You are strange, Stom. Proud of being a DH? I don't think Jesus would have promoted that. He never ever forgave others who criticized him or rejected his claims; at best he forgave others who wronged other people, but never himself.
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
|
|
|
WarrenH
Homosapien
United Kingdom
2020 Posts |
Posted - 13 October 2009 : 7:22:35 PM
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
|
Stomachus Grossus
Homosapien
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 14 October 2009 : 09:47:54 AM
|
I am proud of beng a foolish person for Jesus........
Moriarty: I see that ten years in Britain have not changed your Imperial Roman outlook, Caesar.
Caesar (G): True, Moriartus, always a Roman eye.
Moriarty: Will you take wine?
Caesar: No thanks, I think I'll have a half of mild and a packet of crisps.
*the Goon Show the history of Plinny the elder
www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Stomachus Grossus
Homosapien
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 14 October 2009 : 09:48:43 AM
|
Oh and "Forgive them for they do not know what they do......" that was as they nailed him to the cross and shoved a used toilet roll in his mouth....
Moriarty: I see that ten years in Britain have not changed your Imperial Roman outlook, Caesar.
Caesar (G): True, Moriartus, always a Roman eye.
Moriarty: Will you take wine?
Caesar: No thanks, I think I'll have a half of mild and a packet of crisps.
*the Goon Show the history of Plinny the elder
www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7861 Posts |
Posted - 14 October 2009 : 10:02:40 AM
|
...which ONLY appears in the Gospel of Luke (and not in any of the other writings at all). "Luke" (or whoever wrote that gospel) was not an "eyewitness" to Jesus' life, and his gospel is the latest of all the gospels (the chronological sequence of gospels being Mark (70s AD), Matthew (80s AD), John (90s AD) & Luke (90s-125AD)). Luke wrote for the Roman world and that forgiveness phrase was inserted to absolve the Romans from blame for Jesus' death, making the new Christianity more palatable for Roman converts. Furthermore, many early manuscripts of Luke's Gospel omit that phrase alltogether. So we can safely conclude that it is a late insertion and not a saying of Jesus.
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
Edited by - Ankhsy on 14 October 2009 10:05:15 AM |
|
|
|
Stomachus Grossus
Homosapien
United Kingdom
1949 Posts |
Posted - 14 October 2009 : 10:32:58 AM
|
O course luke was not an eyewitnes he never claims to be. Im afraid I do not agree with you on the luke dates Ankhsy. I favour more the dates now accepted by most biblical academics scholars
Mark AD 50's
Matthew late 50's early 60's
luke AD 60's
John between ad 70 and ad 100 probably the 90's
These are based on things such as the destruction of the temple, and for Luke when Acts finishes. there are arguments for later dates but they do not really stack up. The thinking has changed somewhat from te 1970 's and 1980's when later dates were being aspoused.
Also just beacuse it is in one and not another does not mean that it did not happen. Each Gospel was written by a different person for a different audience they tell the story as a whole.
That phrase is missed out of some manusripts as well that is true.
Moriarty: I see that ten years in Britain have not changed your Imperial Roman outlook, Caesar.
Caesar (G): True, Moriartus, always a Roman eye.
Moriarty: Will you take wine?
Caesar: No thanks, I think I'll have a half of mild and a packet of crisps.
*the Goon Show the history of Plinny the elder
www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7861 Posts |
Posted - 14 October 2009 : 2:37:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stomachus Grossus
O course luke was not an eyewitnes he never claims to be. Im afraid I do not agree with you on the luke dates Ankhsy. I favour more the dates now accepted by most biblical academics scholars
And which "most biblical academic scholars" might these be? Anyone modern?
Luke could not have possibly written his Gospel in the 60s. He alludes to Titus' siege of Jerusalem (Luke 19:43-44), and even the Journal of Biblical Studies agrees to that.
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
Edited by - Ankhsy on 14 October 2009 3:08:47 PM |
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2009 : 11:09:13 AM
|
| Out of interest what dates are given for the apocryphal gospels? |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7861 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2009 : 12:10:29 PM
|
Here is a short article out of the Journal of Biblical Studies on the issue (and dates). As it says, no precise dating is possible, but based on content and later references to the work, earliest and latest possible dates can be ascribed to some works.
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
For those who cannot be bothered to read it, here is a timeline of Christian Writings:
First Century AD
50s Paul's letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon)
70s Gospel of Mark
80s Gospel of Matthew
90s Gospel of John
Sometime late 1st century
Didache
Letters of James
Parts of the Gospel of Thomas
Letters attributed to Paul but probably not written by him (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians)
Gospel of Luke & Book of Acts (dates range from 90s to 120s)
2nd Century
100 Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd)
150s Infancy Gospel of James
after 150 Gospel of Peter
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus. |
Edited by - Ankhsy on 19 October 2009 12:24:00 PM |
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2009 : 12:58:46 PM
|
Interesting article. But I am still a little confused.
"Only two known events are helpful for determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64 C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus’ siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24)"
does not seem to square with Stom's:
"I favour more the dates now accepted by most biblical academics scholars
Mark AD 50's
Matthew late 50's early 60's
luke AD 60's
John between ad 70 and ad 100 probably the 90's
These are based on things such as the destruction of the temple, and for Luke when Acts finishes. there are arguments for later dates but they do not really stack up. The thinking has changed somewhat from te 1970 's and 1980's when later dates were being aspoused.1"
If the siege is mentioned in Matthew and Luke then they must have been writing after 70 AD, by a margin of some years. Which precludes them from being capable eye-witnesses of events taking place forty years earlier, I'd have thought. The same article, cited by Ankhsy, says that they could have been written well into the second century. It's not looking good for the reliability of the New Testament... |
|
|
|
John Prigent
Homosapien
United Kingdom
8794 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2009 : 4:16:41 PM
|
I wonder exactly when the texts were written down in a fixed form. Maybe "editing" to "update" them took place before the final form was agreed? We've seen enough of that over the past few years from our own beloved (mis)Government.
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
|
|
|
Simon Scarrow
Ape
Uruguay
1048 Posts |
Posted - 20 October 2009 : 09:53:34 AM
|
| Possibly, but that rather waters down any objectivity in the gospels and weakens their authority as any kind of accurate depiction of the life and times of the cult's leader. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
God is not the 'creator'
