Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Bible Is A Forgery

page: 4
61
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You are talking total crap ;

en.wikipedia.org...

Old TestamentFor their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[110] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[111] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions [they maul] my hands and feet"[112]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[113] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places.

[edit] New TestamentFor their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[114] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[115] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[116] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[117]

[edit] Apocrypha




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
You are a fanatic.

Facts mean nothing to you.


You ignore the earliest Christian Bible in existence - and yet try and use a reference to a book that the early church rejected as corrupt to to assist you in your failed argument.

PATHETIC.



You only gave the facts from the line of the Alexandrian text, not the Byzantine text. I hope you realize they are completely different? The Alexandrian Texts, (Vaticanus and Sinaticus) were made in Egypt and edited by Esubeus. The Syrian Text, (Receptus) was made in Antioch, Syria. 95% of all bible manuscripts that have been found agree with the Byzantine text, not the Alexandrian. That's why it's called the "MAJORITY TEXT"...

Congratulations, you told 25% of the story and ignored the other 75%.


The Syrian Text was translated into Old Latin in 150 A.D.

The reason there are older versions of the Alexandrian Text is because the first Christians REJECTED anything that came from Alexandria, Egypt and didn't use the Bibles, they sat on shelves. The Syrian Texts were used daily and had to be re-written every 50-60 years from the abuse of constant use by the early Christians.

edit on 17-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


First of all, to understand the JEWISH Hebrew Bible, you need to read JEWISH pre-christian literature.. If you want to know what the Bible is about, and for instance why it was transmitted in the holy Hebrew tongue (which the church father deliberately concealed from the masses, instead choosing to convey the christian religion through the pagan Greek and later pagan latin tongue) you will need to understand the Bible from the Jews themselves. Otherwise, your learnign about the Hebrew bible according to the opinion of those who reject the Jews and so would have every reason to distort the basic simple message of the Hebrew Tanakh. Would you think one could learn of Christianity through Islam? If not. Then similarily one cannot learn of the HEBREW Torah without the help of the Jewish sages. It is simple logic.

My greatest qualm with Christianity is their not realizing that their not having a knowledge of Hebrew completely disqualifies them from being able to truly understand the Torah and Neviyyim/Ketuvim. For instance, are you aware that the Torah is the only 'holy' book revered by the Jews? And that the prophets and writings are merely supplementary? If the Mosaic code was annulled by Jesus, than Judaism, the Hebrew bible, the entire gamut of thr Hebraic tradition is erased. All that is continued through Christianity is the platonic/orphic spirit of Pagan Rome and not Judaism.

Did "Christ" meet the requirements of the messiah? First, and most importanty, and this is acknowledged by scholars of these subjects, Judaisms conception of the messiah was a POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS Figure, ie; as Bar Khoba was for instance. Why else would the Torah refer to David as Moshiach, or Cyrus, King of Persia as Moshiach? A Moshiach is first and foremost a human being with political power who does the will of G-d. That is it. He is not some krishna or unus mundi that combines opposites and becomes the 'self' that transcends opposites..... Jesus' most deplorable teachings are his lack of explicit, action based commands of "do not do" etc. Albeit, i am happy that he appears to uphold some aspect of the mosaic code (the 10 commandments) but not enough obviously to prevent the separation between church and state (thus preventing the upholding of the mosaic code)....There is simply too much pagan philosophy in the new testament for my liking.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
" Please stop citing Wikipedia. It is not a reputable source, apart from a place to send people for an overall introduction to a topic, which we are far beyond."


Its a whole lot more reliable then the rubbish you and your pal are coming out with.

The fact is clear - the oldest Christian Bible in existence is the Codex.

It was ordered by Constantine.

You have been totally exposed as talking rubbish - the pair of you.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
You are a fanatic.

Facts mean nothing to you.


You ignore the earliest Christian Bible in existence - and yet try and use a reference to a book that the early church rejected as corrupt to to assist you in your failed argument.

PATHETIC.




spare me the fairy stories - the fact is the Codex is the earliest Christian Bible in existence.

You have zero proof for the rest of your nonsense, the Codex is a real Bible.


You only gave the facts from the line of the Alexandrian text, not the Byzantine text. I hope you realize they are completely different? The Alexandrian Texts, (Vaticanus and Sinaticus) were made in Egypt and edited by Esubeus. The Syrian Text, (Receptus) was made in Antioch, Syria. 95% of all bible manuscripts that have been found agree with the Byzantine text, not the Alexandrian. That's why it's called the "MAJORITY TEXT"...

Congratulations, you told 25% of the story and ignored the other 75%.


The Syrian Text was translated into Old Latin in 150 A.D.

The reason there are older versions of the Alexandrian Text is because the first Christians REJECTED anything that came from Alexandria, Egypt and didn't use the Bibles, they sat on shelves. The Syrian Texts were used daily and had to be re-written every 50-60 years from the abuse of constant use by the early Christians.

edit on 17-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
So, contrary to what you think these historians/poets speak for themselves. Jewish beliefs had infiltrated Roma Pagan society and values and this was a bane to the Roman authorities, as it challenged more than just their religious beliefs, but their whole way of life (which included their power)...


The Romans didn't really have any religious beliefs to threaten, and they actually had a pretty tolerant attitude toward other faiths -- so long as you worshipped the state gods and Emperor (which was seen as a means of allegiance to Rome, not salvation,) they didn't care what you did.


More importantly though, Judaism allows converts when the person is SINCERE. It doesnt just go seeking converts. In the past if there were many converts it was due to the fame and reknown of the Jewish people and their religion. But that isnt possible today thanks to the demonizations of the Christian religion.


That may well be the case, but that's not the same thing as what you're trying to portray -- a Rome that invents a religion because they are threatened by a minor faith in an Imperial backwater, a couple of hundred years after its been attacked, conquered and dispersed.



The Romans cut the Jews a lot of slack, particularly in the area of religious observances, because they were so stubborn and unyielding about their faith


Huh? Umm.. 70 CE the ROMAN emperor Vespasian led by his son and general Titus destroyed the Jewish temple. In 135 CE, according to Cassius Dio, during the war [ the bar Kobha rebellion] 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed. And millions of other over the following centuries were exiled from the land.

Ya...Thankyou Rome for showing the Jews slack.


Guess that you didn't bother reading the rest of what I wrote, because I did reference that. However, it is indisputable that, prior to the uprising, Jews enjoyed liberties that other minorities in the Roman Empire did not.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Its a whole lot more reliable then the rubbish you and your pal are coming out with.


In case you hadn't noticed, both NOTurTypical and I are both fairly well studied in church history, and are citing generally accepted facts. You're not going to win any arguments by citing wikipedia and claiming that, because you believe something matters, it suddenly does.

There is sufficient historical evidence that the Bible, as it exists today, was written prior to the Second Century, and that the majority of books which are now canonical have been viewed as such since a time prior to the Third Century. In addition, there is zero evidence that clearly Gnostic texts which were written in the mid-Second Century, such as those found in Nag Hammadi, were ever considered to be non-heretical by anyone other than the Gnostics.

Those are facts, and they are not in dispute by reputable authorities, even those who do not believe the Christian story as presented in the Bible.

Your claim that the New Testament was written by priests under the direction of Roman authorities is nonsensical, you have no factual evidence to support it, and there is significant evidence, already cited by both NOTurTypical and myself, to refute it. If you wish to further your claim, please present reputable scholarly evidence to do so.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

The name calling and rude remarks end here.

Further violations will result in posting bans.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 



Try and get your head round this - The OT has nothing to do with Christianity.


The OT has everything to do with Christianity. Jesus fulfilled over 108 detail-specific prophecies from the OT with His life, death, and resurrection. Every detail, ever ritualistic ceremony, every appointed feast day in the OT pointed to Jesus Christ. The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

Without the OT you have no Christianity.


Christ never said he was the Jewish Messiah.


I am all for civility - but how did this escape the notice of the mods - is it okay to call people 'ignorant'

Absolutely stupid on an unparalleled level. Every time Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" is was a DIRECT reference to Daniel Chapter 7 for the Messiah, the "Moshiach Nagid". (Messiah the King)


The OT was included in the Bible by the romans who produced the Bible after Constantines council of Nicea in 325.


The Biblical cannon was completed and distributed around the churches in Jerusalem and Asia 150 years before Nicea. Nicea was convened to address the Arian Controversy concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. And even when people claim that Jesus wasn't worshiped as divine until Nicea that's blatantly false. Nicea wasn't convened to decide if Jesus was divine or not, but was convened to decide how to define His deity!

You're one of the most ignorant person to church history I've ever encountered in all my time discussing Church History and Christianity.



I am all for civility - but how come my posts get removed but this one calling me ignorant is allowed to stay and no infraction issued ?

How about some fairness and setting an example on fairness in moderation.
edit on 17-5-2011 by leejohnbarnes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Could you please remove the post above from the thread.

Thank you.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


The thread calling me 'ignorant' is here ;

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 17-5-2011 by leejohnbarnes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The Bible is a bedtime story nothing more nothing less



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
I am all for civility - but how come my posts get removed but this one calling me ignorant is allowed to stay and no infraction issued ?


There is a significant difference between saying that someone is ignorant, and saying that someone is an idiot. Ignorance is a state of lacking knowledge in an area, which is not really offensive, it's just what it is. I am, for example, woefully ignorant in matters of sociology or archaeology, having never studied them. If I made claims that are contrary to accepted facts in those fields, one would be right to call me ignorant.

Calling someone names, however, is offensive and is intended to be offensive.

You have made statements, for example, regarding what you believe to be the precepts of Gnosticism, but which are inaccurate and seem to demonstrate that you're either not familiar with those beliefs, or you don't understand them. Thus, you are ignorant of Gnostic beliefs -- that's not an insult, it's just a fact, like my ignorance of sociology.

I would not, however, call you an "idiot", because I believe that you're sincere in your beliefs, and that you're not saying what you're saying just to get a rise out of people.

One condition, lack of knowledge, can be remedied through education, which is what ATS is all about (the whole "Deny Ignorance" thing,) if one is open to learning. The other condition, rudeness, is generally not something that a person grows out of, sadly.

Some of my best friends here on ATS started out as people that I had deep and fundamental differences of opinion with (and most of them, I still do
). Heck, even NOTurTypical and I don't always see eye to eye. But, regardless of disconnect, we remain civil, and, in a lot of cases (on my part, anyway
) emerge a better, more educated and less ignorant person.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
I am all for civility - but how come my posts get removed but this one calling me ignorant is allowed to stay and no infraction issued ?


There is a significant difference between saying that someone is ignorant, and saying that someone is an idiot. Ignorance is a state of lacking knowledge in an area, which is not really offensive, it's just what it is. I am, for example, woefully ignorant in matters of sociology or archaeology, having never studied them. If I made claims that are contrary to accepted facts in those fields, one would be right to call me ignorant.

Calling someone names, however, is offensive and is intended to be offensive.

You have made statements, for example, regarding what you believe to be the precepts of Gnosticism, but which are inaccurate and seem to demonstrate that you're either not familiar with those beliefs, or you don't understand them. Thus, you are ignorant of Gnostic beliefs -- that's not an insult, it's just a fact, like my ignorance of sociology.

I would not, however, call you an "idiot", because I believe that you're sincere in your beliefs, and that you're not saying what you're saying just to get a rise out of people.

One condition, lack of knowledge, can be remedied through education, which is what ATS is all about (the whole "Deny Ignorance" thing,) if one is open to learning. The other condition, rudeness, is generally not something that a person grows out of, sadly.

Some of my best friends here on ATS started out as people that I had deep and fundamental differences of opinion with (and most of them, I still do
). Heck, even NOTurTypical and I don't always see eye to eye. But, regardless of disconnect, we remain civil, and, in a lot of cases (on my part, anyway
) emerge a better, more educated and less ignorant person.


If you think calling someone ignorant is not offensive - then go up to any person in the street and call them ignorant and see what reaction you get.

I find being called ignorant offensive.

I am here to debate and learn - but that requires that people are willing to accept their beliefs are wrong.


I am prepared to do that.

I am not ignorant in any way.

I had an IQ of 147 when I was 12 and had to have special tests at school to find out how smart I was as I was gettting bored so uch I was misbehaving all the time as the work was too easy.

I am not a genius, but I am also not ignorant.

I have an honours degree in law.

People need to accept when they are wrong and rop the dogma - and not call me ignorant or I will respond in kind.

I am a free thinker.

Not a person who attack people for fun.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 

You are correct in a way, the book was made to control people, even if it contains some important information, without something to compare it, it has no value because you can't compare it to anything, since the book is the law in the medieval christianity, anyone going astray is a witch or a unholy presence and it is to be punished.

The guy who invented the word matrix was burned down on a stick by the inquisition.

So the bible was made for control by the Roman Empire, the stories, scrolls, books that made the bible were selected, a lot of other stuff was left aside, some simply because they were female writers, some because they told too much, or did not match with the rest of the stories. The same people that made the book control the world today, the same Roman Empire.

edit on 17-5-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


Christ did not preach Chritianity.
He preached a purer form of Judaism.
Christianity was invented by a roman emperor.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If you knew even 1% of what the truth is you would be amassed.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 


Christ did not preach Chritianity.
He preached a purer form of Judaism.
Christianity was invented by a roman emperor.


I agree with the latter and former proposition - not the middle one though.

Gnosticism is no relation to Judaism I believe.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by leejohnbarnes
 

You are correct in a way, the book was made to control people, even if it contains some important information, without something to compare it, it has no value because you can't compare it to anything, since the book is the law in the medieval christianity, anyone going astray is a witch or a unholy presence and it is to be punished.

The guy who invented the word matrix was burned down on a stick by the inquisition.

So the bible was made for control by the Roman Empire, the stories, scrolls, books that made the bible were selected, a lot of other stuff was left aside, some simply because they were female writers, some because they told too much, or did not match with the rest of the stories. The same people that made the book control the world today, the same Roman Empire.

edit on 17-5-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)


Good points.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

I am here to debate and learn - but that requires that people are willing to accept their beliefs are wrong.


Oh give us a break, you are clearly not here to learn. Otherwise you'd be asking questions and engaging in debate instead of started threads titled "The Bible Is A Forgery" like you have some concrete evidence that legitimate scholars seem unaware of. You have been presented with ample evidence that completely rips your claims apart and rather than engage in debate you simply cling to citing info from Wikipedia which is a HORRIBLE source of information on ANY subject, and then you stoop to calling people names for picking your weak arguments apart. Debate requires research, and you've shown yourself to be unwilling to do any research beyond perusing Wikipedia.


Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
I am not a genius, but I am also not ignorant.


You've demonstrated plenty of ignorance regarding the subject of this thread.





new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join