Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder, a group of conservatives has decided that there is far too much liberal bias in the bible and has started rewriting it: The Conservative Bible Project (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project)
Our friends at Salon.com offer some help... (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?source=refresh)
John 8:3-7: The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
Jesus bent down and picked up a rock. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "OK, we start on the count of three. And if I see any of you throwing like limp-wristed sissies, you're next."
Matthew 19:23-24: Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for a Socialist to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Van Jones to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 9:10-13: While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
On hearing this, Jesus said, "Tax collectors? I had no idea, and wouldn't have eaten with them if I had known, for I favor a flat tax."
Matthew 5:3-5: Blessed are the GOP, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn the death of Christmas, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the children of the rich, for -- once Congress finally eliminates the Death Tax -- they will inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come to force trial lawyers to stop filing trivial lawsuits every time someone gets hurt and won't take responsibility for themselves.
Matthew 5:21-22: You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, so git 'er done.
Luke 22:17-25: After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!" They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "Reagan. Definitely Reagan."
I thought for sure that Henry would want to sign up to help them with their project. :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Exterminator on October 06, 2009, 01:28:33 PM
Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder, a group of conservatives has decided that there is far too much liberal bias in the bible and has started rewriting it...
Do the translators have to present any credentials to show they are "divinely inspired?" A letter of reference from St. Peter perhaps?
Quote from: Exterminator on October 07, 2009, 07:16:59 AM
I thought for sure that Henry would want to sign up to help them with their project. :icon_twisted:
naw, I'm not in to that kind of crap........the Bible IS what it IS. People need to read it themselves, it is, for the most part fairly straight forward with what it means.
Yeah, it is what it is, a piece of literature which has been constantly reworded. Why would this be any different?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 07, 2009, 08:02:10 AM
Yeah, it is what it is, a piece of literature which has been constantly reworded. Why would this be any different?
that is not true, the dead sea scrolls has shown that the Bible hasn't changed in content down through the ages...there are different translations, but the intent has not changed....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 07, 2009, 08:15:17 AM
that is not true, the dead sea scrolls has shown that the Bible hasn't changed in content down through the ages...
Wrong. The world's oldest known bible (http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2222279/world-oldest-bible-goes-online) "...is likely to cause some controversy, as it contains no mention of the resurrection of Jesus. Instead the disciples enter Jesus' tomb, find it empty and leave in fear."
Quotethere are different translations, but the intent has not changed....
Correct because the intent is to control people.
How many versions are there of the bible? For simplicity sake, you can stick with the 8 primary.
Give or take.....................
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 07, 2009, 09:19:55 AM
How many versions are there of the bible? For simplicity sake, you can stick with the 8 primary.
I really don't know, nor do I care.....ALL of them, have the same message. People are getting TOO hung up on 'the wording'.....but they ALL have the same bottom line.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 08, 2009, 08:10:19 AM
I really don't know, nor do I care.....ALL of them, have the same message. People are getting TOO hung up on 'the wording'.....but they ALL have the same bottom line.
Well if one says that Jesus rose from the dead and the other does not, what, exactly, is the bottom line?
Quote from: Exterminator on October 08, 2009, 09:17:16 AM
Well if one says that Jesus rose from the dead and the other does not, what, exactly, is the bottom line?
Well, there are documented accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter....claiming that Jesus DID arise.......and even Paul, himself says "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.....that the physical body is not important to Christian theology...."
you are taking ONE scripture that is arguable and more than likely taken WAY out of content...and clinging to it.....for arguements sake..........funny, how you discredit scripture but you are NOW ready to grab onto something that fits YOUR ideology.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 08, 2009, 09:28:08 AM
Well, there are documented accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter....claiming that Jesus DID arise....
Documented? Where? How? By whom? Do you know what documented means? In the oldest version of this book known to exist, these accounts do not exist; how do you explain the disparity?
Quoteyou are taking ONE scripture that is arguable and more than likely taken WAY out of content...and clinging to it.....for arguements sake..........funny, how you discredit scripture but you are NOW ready to grab onto something that fits YOUR ideology.
No, I am pointing out to you that you believe in a book that has obviously been changed over time to say something entirely different from what it said originally. Are you in denial about the book that is now posted online being the oldest known copy of the bible because religious historians don't agree with you if you are.
Johns account of the Resurrection is right here (http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=next&folioNo=5&lid=en&quireNo=81&side=r&zoomSlider=0)..from the oldest known Bible....
Matthews account of the Resurrection can be found here (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0)
from what I understand is.......it is Marks writtings that has excluded the Resurrection....
sorry, but there is NOT enough evidence to ROCK the Christian world here....as a mater of fact, it only strengthens my faith...
:rolleyes:
good one....
If my last girlfriend taught me nothing else, I learned that there is no point in arguing with someone who is delusional.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 08, 2009, 10:59:10 AM
If my last girlfriend taught me nothing else, I learned that there is no point in arguing with someone who is delusional.
it hasn't stopped you yet.... ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 08, 2009, 11:00:29 AM
it hasn't stopped you yet.... ;D
Obviously but it's nice that you admit it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 08, 2009, 09:28:08 AM
Well, there are documented accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter....claiming that Jesus DID arise.......and even Paul, himself says "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.....that the physical body is not important to Christian theology...."
you are taking ONE scripture that is arguable and more than likely taken WAY out of content...and clinging to it.....for arguements sake..........funny, how you discredit scripture but you are NOW ready to grab onto something that fits YOUR ideology.
Uh, you may want to think again on that one. From Wikipedia:
The traditional view is that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus.[2] However, 18th Century scholars increasingly questioned the traditional view of composition, and today most of modern critical scholarship hesitates to say that Matthew wrote this Gospel which bears his name, preferring instead to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the first century. They also believe that the Gospel was originally composed in Greek rather than being a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew.[3]Not by Matthew, and not firsthand. This was written some 100 years after the birth of Christ.
Who are these.....18th Century scholars ....and the most of modern critical scholarship ....that you have conveniently referred too? and have assumed it is THEY that are correct...because it fits YOUR agenda?
^ a b c d e Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.43
Oxford University scholarly enough for you? :rolleyes:
Graham Norman Stanton (1940–18 July 2009) was Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University. Stanton's special interests were in the Gospels, Paul's letters, and second century Christian writings.
^-- Also contributes to the article.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 08, 2009, 02:58:49 PM
Who are these.....18th Century scholars ....and the most of modern critical scholarship ....that you have conveniently referred too? and have assumed it is THEY that are correct...because it fits YOUR agenda?
The pursuit of the truth is not an agenda; clinging to a fallacy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is.
More about Mr. Ehrman:
Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written about how the original New Testament texts were frequently altered by scribes for a variety of reasons, and argues that these alterations affect the interpretation of the texts.
Why is scholarship always called into question by you HH? Why is never good enough to satisfy what appears to be an innate belief that all scholars are wrong and you're right? I just don't get it. It's like me throwing a piece of white paper down in front of you and you arguing until you're blue in the face that I may be wrong about the fact that the paper is white.
Quote from: Locutus on October 08, 2009, 03:17:34 PM
Why is scholarship always called into question by you HH? Why is never good enough to satisfy what appears to be an innate belief that all scholars are wrong and you're right? I just don't get it. It's like me throwing a piece of white paper down in front of you and you arguing until you're blue in the face that I may be wrong about the fact that the paper is white.
Must be a pretty shaky belief system that won't withstand scrutiny.
Quote from: Locutus on October 08, 2009, 03:17:34 PM
Why is scholarship always called into question by you HH? Why is never good enough to satisfy what appears to be an innate belief that all scholars are wrong and you're right? I just don't get it. It's like me throwing a piece of white paper down in front of you and you arguing until you're blue in the face that I may be wrong about the fact that the paper is white.
I have no problem with scholars.......I can show you scholars who will defend EVERYTHING you throw at me....and PLEASE don't get me wrong and say that I believe that I am always right.....I just get defensive on these issues, because the first little whim of a story that MIGHT cast a shadow, it seems that YOUR crowd assumes that it is FACT.
It is just my perspective....
Quote from: Exterminator on October 08, 2009, 03:19:14 PM
Must be a pretty shaky belief system that won't withstand scrutiny.
But how do we fix it? This kind of crap has ramifications for us all. It filters down into:
1. Creation (now masked as ID) being taught in the schools.
2. Outright discrimination against homosexuals.
3. My God is better than your God and I'll go to war with you to prove it.
4. Embryonic stem cell research
5. Prevention of HPV vaccination for young girls and sex education for children in general because of some fear it will cause 'em to fuck like rabbits.
6. The outright stifling of science at high levels of government in an attempt to cater to the religious right.
The list just goes on, and on, and on. You put facts down in front of these people and they still can't or won't see. They can't see why the absolute crap they believe in isn't any better than a shepherd circa 1500 BC who believed the sun was swallowed every evening by some god and regurgitated each morning at sunrise.
Quote from: Locutus on October 08, 2009, 03:30:49 PM
But how do we fix it? This kind of crap has ramifications for us all. It filters down into:
1. Creation (now masked as ID) being taught in the schools.
2. Outright discrimination against homosexuals.
3. My God is better than your God and I'll go to war with you to prove it.
4. Embryonic stem cell research
5. Prevention of HPV vaccination for young girls and sex education for children in general because of some fear it will cause 'em to fuck like rabbits.
6. The outright stifling of science at high levels of government in an attempt to cater to the religious right.
The list just goes on, and on, and on. You put facts down in front of these people and they still can't or won't see. They can't see why the absolute crap they believe in isn't any better than a shepherd circa 1500 BC who believed the sun was swallowed every evening by some god and regurgitated each morning at sunrise.
That really is the crux of it, isn't it; no one really gives a shit about the mindless bowing their head at dinner, or playing butt sniffer at the mosques. It's the fanatics, the evangelicals of all the religions that are just so fucking whacked. I still suggest Price's book, A Reason Driven Life, if for nothing more but to point out the idiocy of the christian evangelicals.
Of course, the ones that murder their children (through prayer and outright negligence) need to go to jail the same way those who are constantly plotting to destroy, or makeover America. They are all religious terrorists.
seriously... i just gotta know. what's the thought process that leads to this?
"unless we do something, some of these liberals might just make it into heaven on a technicality!"
that about sum it up?