POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Don't mess with Hitchens : Re: Don't mess with Internet comments Server Time
29 Jul 2024 14:14:43 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Don't mess with Internet comments  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 10 Jan 2012 21:35:08
Message: <4f0cf55c$1@news.povray.org>
On 1/10/2012 7:39 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> All of that aside, here's an interesting observation: There's no
>>> evidence that God exists. There's no evidence that Adam or Eve existed.
>>
>> But we are playing "What if" game! Just assume that whatever fantasy is
>> true, then tell...
>
> What if I'm right about everything. Given that this is true, do you can
> concede that I am right about everything?
>
>>> In fact, a lot of people regard the entire Bible as something that
>>> should be in the "fiction" section. But think about this for a moment:
>>> the Bible *itself* most definitely *does* exist. It's a real book, and
>>> it has existed for a very long time.
>>
>> can you define long time ?
>> The bible (which Bible ?) has been made as an assembly of various texts
>> from various sources, along various translation paths, which were highly
>> disputed at the beginning of the church
>
>> Whatever is called the "New Testament" is just the final result of that
>> evolution. About the "Old testament"... it should be, as of Jewish
>> sources, in Hebraic texts (Torah ?).
>
> The more I look at this, the more complicated it becomes.
>
> Short version: The original text of the Bible has long, *long* since
> been lost to history. All that remains now is a trillion different
> versions, translations, editions, revisions, edits and alterations of
> it. If you stare hard enough, you can kinda sorta figure out how one
> version is related to some other version. We will probably never know
> what the originals said, when they were written, who wrote them, or even
> what language. (It seems even the "original" Hebrew was based on earlier
> documents.)
>
> All of which makes it utterly laughable when people say that "the" Bible
> is inerrant. Uh, yeah, which one exactly? (Ah, but wait - isn't that why
> we have a dozen conflicting religions based on the same bundle of texts?)
>
> Regardless, this is an *old* document.
Yes and no.. The "old" part goes so far back that parts of it probably 
existed "before" Judaism did. The NT... as near as any documentation 
suggests, and we have nothing, despite a lot of looking, that goes back 
very far, is around 40-50AD. Which is really sort of odd, given that 
there *should* be some evidence of its contents say.. at least 10 years 
*prior* to 1AD, at minimum. A 40-50 year gap, in a culture that 
preserved even the names of people that collected dung from their roads, 
is... kind of, 'wtf?'.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.