Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The accuracy of the Bible

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The accuracy of the Bible

    Originally posted by brokensickle View Post

    When on the cross, one of the criminals hanging there with Jesus hurled insults at him. "Aren't you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" But the other one spoke up and rebuked the first, saying," Have you no fear of God? You're getting the same punishment as he is. Ours is only fair; we're getting what we deserve for what we did. But this man did nothing wrong." Then he said, "Yeshua, remember me when you come as King." Yeshua said to him,"Yes! I promise you that today you will be with me in paradise."
    That is how 'John' reported it in the gospel ascribed to him.
    It is not what happened. The three who were crucified together were 'Jesus', 'Judas Iscariot' and 'Simon'. Describing the other two as common criminals is at best contentious as they were all in the same religious sect. The Jewish Council was the Sanhedrin and they were violently opposed to the sect. It was they who called in Pilate. All three survived the crucifixion due to the timing of the punishment. Jesus appeared dead but the other 2 had their legs broken and all three were thrown into a latrine as Judaic law would not permit them to remain on the cross so close to the sabbath. Simon was a Magi and administered medicine to Jesus, reviving him. Judas was thrown from the latrine into the adjoining ravine where he 'burst assunder'. Jesus was soon able to walk again but Simon (at this time probably his closest friend) needed tending until his broken bones healed. Simons standing rose considerably for saving Jesus from apparent death. In fact it had been arranged for somebody to administer a drug to him when on the cross by means of a sponge to the mouth. Jesus of course was in on the plot, so took it even though it tasted foul.
    Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:13.
    Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

  • #2
    Originally posted by glyn View Post
    Originally posted by brokensickle View Post

    When on the cross, one of the criminals hanging there with Jesus hurled insults at him. "Aren't you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" But the other one spoke up and rebuked the first, saying," Have you no fear of God? You're getting the same punishment as he is. Ours is only fair; we're getting what we deserve for what we did. But this man did nothing wrong." Then he said, "Yeshua, remember me when you come as King." Yeshua said to him,"Yes! I promise you that today you will be with me in paradise."
    That is how 'John' reported it in the gospel ascribed to him.
    It is not what happened. The three who were crucified together were 'Jesus', 'Judas Iscariot' and 'Simon'. Describing the other two as common criminals is at best contentious as they were all in the same religious sect. The Jewish Council was the Sanhedrin and they were violently opposed to the sect. It was they who called in Pilate. All three survived the crucifixion due to the timing of the punishment. Jesus appeared dead but the other 2 had their legs broken and all three were thrown into a latrine as Judaic law would not permit them to remain on the cross so close to the sabbath. Simon was a Magi and administered medicine to Jesus, reviving him. Judas was thrown from the latrine into the adjoining ravine where he 'burst assunder'. Jesus was soon able to walk again but Simon (at this time probably his closest friend) needed tending until his broken bones healed. Simons standing rose considerably for saving Jesus from apparent death. In fact it had been arranged for somebody to administer a drug to him when on the cross by means of a sponge to the mouth. Jesus of course was in on the plot, so took it even though it tasted foul.
    My goodness! Are you one of those that would believe anything so long it's contrary to the Bible says.
    Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:14.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Zinja View Post

      My goodness! Are you one of those that would believe anything so long it's contrary to the Bible says.
      You are aware that the 'New Testament' (a term worth thinking about, but the adherents never seem to do that) was written in Greek by Hellenistic Jews during the period of Roman occupation? Consequently there is much 'veiled speech' employed in the texts as the fun-filled Romans would have had a sense-of-humour failure if they fully realised what was going on. The early church (3rd and 4th Centuries AD) were highly selective of the gospels used, and they were responsible for excluding some by authors like Phillip. They also called those who didn't accept the final form of the Bible 'heretics' and treated them accordingly. This means the Bible lacks the knowledge those writers contributed. Add to the fact that the works of several writers were expunged we next come to translation. Some of those early monks were lousy scholars! There are many howlers in the Bible. Don't ask a fundamentalist Christian about them though as he thinks they are the 'Words of God'! In the English speaking world King James ordered a new translation which became known as the Authorised Bible just to clear up the most obvious errors and to put it in correct English. Now we have a book in beautiful classical English which is even farther removed from the original. So yes, I am very likely to dispute what is in the Bible - especially as the latest edition has been dumbed down (to suit this dumb age?).
      Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:14.
      Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by glyn View Post

        You are aware that the 'New Testament' (a term worth thinking about, but the adherents never seem to do that) was written in Greek by Hellenistic Jews during the period of Roman occupation? Consequently there is much 'veiled speech' employed in the texts as the fun-filled Romans would have had a sense-of-humour failure if they fully realised what was going on. The early church (3rd and 4th Centuries AD) were highly selective of the gospels used, and they were responsible for excluding some by authors like Phillip. They also called those who didn't accept the final form of the Bible 'heretics' and treated them accordingly. This means the Bible lacks the knowledge those writers contributed. Add to the fact that the works of several writers were expunged we next come to translation. Some of those early monks were lousy scholars! There are many howlers in the Bible. Don't ask a fundamentalist Christian about them though as he thinks they are the 'Words of God'! In the English speaking world King James ordered a new translation which became known as the Authorised Bible just to clear up the most obvious errors and to put it in correct English. Now we have a book in beautiful classical English which is even farther removed from the original. So yes, I am very likely to dispute what is in the Bible - especially as the latest edition has been dumbed down (to suit this dumb age?).
        interesting post,I will be following.
        Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:15.
        sigpicaction speaks louder than words

        Comment


        • #5
          Glyn is correct. Jesus said completely different things than what is stated in the Bible. If one studies the book closely, he resembles a Buddhist monk more than a Christian figure. Something he probably was.

          The 4 Evangelians were possibly not even present at the time when Jesus lived. Some of them are letters, written to convince someone (a certain Theofile, in one case) and others are written according to rumors. Marcus is the only one who is believed to have seen Jesus in person and follow him, but it is uncertain.

          As for the cross, the story was "retrofitted" with the crucifix symbolics for a reason. Ancient correspondence shows us that the death on the cross wasn't any spectacular. So did one wrote (can't recall his name, but he wrote the history of the fires of Rome during Nero's time as well): There was one man in Galilea, Jesus from Nasareth, which gained a large crowd of followers and then was crucified by Pontius Pilatus.

          A death on the cross was something only slaves received, so the Catholic Church had to cover it up quite quickly. So instead of making the death only one episode in the life of Christ (as well as eradicating the true teachings of Jesus, such as the gnostics, the Cathars and the like) they wrote a story in which the death of Jesus on the cross was the climax of the story, and made up a story where he died for our sins.

          Roman traditions required a special sort of religion, one where there was a commercial deal between deity and worshipper. This is how the catholic church was born. They eradicated many works and many sects of Christians, so the original message has been lost. What you read in the Bible is an early example of totalitarist propaganda.

          Comment


          • #6
            Revisionism...

            Originally posted by glyn View Post
            Originally posted by brokensickle View Post

            When on the cross, one of the criminals hanging there with Jesus hurled insults at him. "Aren't you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" But the other one spoke up and rebuked the first, saying," Have you no fear of God? You're getting the same punishment as he is. Ours is only fair; we're getting what we deserve for what we did. But this man did nothing wrong." Then he said, "Yeshua, remember me when you come as King." Yeshua said to him,"Yes! I promise you that today you will be with me in paradise."
            That is how 'John' reported it in the gospel ascribed to him.
            It is not what happened. The three who were crucified together were 'Jesus', 'Judas Iscariot' and 'Simon'. Describing the other two as common criminals is at best contentious as they were all in the same religious sect. The Jewish Council was the Sanhedrin and they were violently opposed to the sect. It was they who called in Pilate. All three survived the crucifixion due to the timing of the punishment. Jesus appeared dead but the other 2 had their legs broken and all three were thrown into a latrine as Judaic law would not permit them to remain on the cross so close to the sabbath. Simon was a Magi and administered medicine to Jesus, reviving him. Judas was thrown from the latrine into the adjoining ravine where he 'burst assunder'. Jesus was soon able to walk again but Simon (at this time probably his closest friend) needed tending until his broken bones healed. Simons standing rose considerably for saving Jesus from apparent death. In fact it had been arranged for somebody to administer a drug to him when on the cross by means of a sponge to the mouth. Jesus of course was in on the plot, so took it even though it tasted foul.


            I usually respect your view Glyn. On this subject however your information is sorely revised to fit the misconceptions of this age.

            I'm sorry you have been so grossly misinformed.

            Respectfully,
            Ivan
            Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:15.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by brokensickle View Post




              I usually respect your view Glyn. On this subject however your information is sorely revised to fit the misconceptions of this age.

              I'm sorry you have been so grossly misinformed.

              Respectfully,
              Ivan
              Ah, dear heart, you'd be surprised how long this information has been around. For you I expect the highest accolade you can award something is to say "It's the Bible truth!". Do you accept that the bible of today is but a bowdlerised version of what the ancient Christians had? Are you aware that the Ceasar of the time ( Constantine,who practiced the worship of Sol Invicta up to his death) made himself Pope? He went to Nicea with his deranged mother (a most devout Christian lady) and they devised what has become known as the Nicine (Nicean) creed. It was there that the casting out of gospels they didn't like took place. So you could say that a member of another religion and a loony-tunes were the ones most responsible for the creating of your bible. As regards to the rubbish translations, try this one. A character crops up who the bible calls 'Joseph of Arimathea', familiar to everyone who had to endure watching schoolchildrens plays just before Christmas. Archeologists from the four corners dug up 'the Holy land' trying to find a town or city called Arimathea. They could have saved their energy if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are the oldest records of parts of the bible. What does it say? (in Greek) "Yussuf, rama Theo" - which means simply, 'Joseph, beloved of God'. Nothing to do with Arimathea. No such place. Never was. Purely the work of a spectacularly incompetant monk in a scriptorium. There are so many other examples.
              Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:16.
              Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by glyn View Post

                You are aware that the 'New Testament' (a term worth thinking about, but the adherents never seem to do that) was written in Greek by Hellenistic Jews during the period of Roman occupation? .... ....even farther removed from the original. So yes, I am very likely to dispute what is in the Bible - especially as the latest edition has been dumbed down (to suit this dumb age?).
                Originally posted by Antropy
                Glyn is correct. Jesus said completely different things than what is stated in the Bible. If one studies the book closely, he resembles a Buddhist monk more than a Christian figure... .... ...so the original message has been lost. What you read in the Bible is an early example of totalitarist propaganda.

                Ahhhh! I don't even know where to start here. If someone opens up a thread relevent to this subject, i will respond. Otherwise, this will have to wait for now friends.
                Last edited by Parihaka; 11 Sep 07,, 03:17.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Brilliant, simply brilliant, I always liked to think there's a explanation to everything, now this further supports that. Anyway, thanks to you, I have something extra to tell the guys and girls that regularly tell me to convert and that their God is the only true god and they are trying to save me.

                  I got no problem with religion, but I really hate those guys that try to convert you and think they know the answer.
                  Those who can't change become extinct.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by glyn View Post
                    That is how 'John' reported it in the gospel ascribed to him.
                    It is not what happened. The three who were crucified together were 'Jesus', 'Judas Iscariot' and 'Simon'. Describing the other two as common criminals is at best contentious as they were all in the same religious sect. The Jewish Council was the Sanhedrin and they were violently opposed to the sect. It was they who called in Pilate. All three survived the crucifixion due to the timing of the punishment. Jesus appeared dead but the other 2 had their legs broken and all three were thrown into a latrine as Judaic law would not permit them to remain on the cross so close to the sabbath. Simon was a Magi and administered medicine to Jesus, reviving him. Judas was thrown from the latrine into the adjoining ravine where he 'burst assunder'. Jesus was soon able to walk again but Simon (at this time probably his closest friend) needed tending until his broken bones healed. Simons standing rose considerably for saving Jesus from apparent death. In fact it had been arranged for somebody to administer a drug to him when on the cross by means of a sponge to the mouth. Jesus of course was in on the plot, so took it even though it tasted foul.
                    Glyn:

                    It happened so long ago that we are bound to have many accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection. The one you relate is clever. It offers a plausible explanation instead of the miraculous one that forms a basic tenet of Christianity. I would argue that the Gospels are basically accurate, but what took place was not a miracle, but the manipulation of an extraordinarily charismatic man possessed of a high degree of consciousness. This takes nothing away from his teachings since it was to spread them that he went through with the ordeal.

                    Many who knew Jesus believed him to be the Messaih, but the ultimate test lay in a series of prophecies going back to Moses. Any Jew whose life played out strictly according to these prophecies could be proclaimed the long awaited Messiah. There are about 30 of them. Although the Jews fervently believed God would send a Messiah to save them, they didn't want to be hoodwinked. The prophecies were their answer. Together, they set a bar so high that no ordinary man could get over it. This makes sense if you don't look at the prophets as seers. They weren't predicting the future. They were setting up hurdles. Why not? Afterall, what were a few hurdles to the son of God? It's ironic that they were accusing in advance their own people of failing to see when the right man came along, and that is exactly what happened. Power politics and greed did their thing.
                    Last edited by JAD_333; 11 Sep 07,, 04:50.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Glyn,

                      The bible is a collection of writings that have been authorized by the Church(Catholic) in the final canon. There are numerous books that were NOT allowed in the final canon.

                      Amazon.com: THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE: BEING THE GOSPELS, EPISTLES, AND OTHER PIECES NOW EXTANT ATTRIBUTED IN THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES..: Books: Author Unknown

                      Here's the Catholic say on the bible:
                      CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Bible

                      The different bibles:
                      CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Versions of the Bible
                      Last edited by Kansas Bear; 11 Sep 07,, 05:33.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by glyn View Post
                        Ah, dear heart, you'd be surprised how long this information has been around. For you I expect the highest accolade you can award something is to say "It's the Bible truth!". Do you accept that the bible of today is but a bowdlerised version of what the ancient Christians had? Are you aware that the Ceasar of the time ( Constantine,who practiced the worship of Sol Invicta up to his death) made himself Pope? He went to Nicea with his deranged mother (a most devout Christian lady) and they devised what has become known as the Nicine (Nicean) creed. It was there that the casting out of gospels they didn't like took place. So you could say that a member of another religion and a loony-tunes were the ones most responsible for the creating of your bible. As regards to the rubbish translations, try this one. A character crops up who the bible calls 'Joseph of Arimathea', familiar to everyone who had to endure watching schoolchildrens plays just before Christmas. Archeologists from the four corners dug up 'the Holy land' trying to find a town or city called Arimathea. They could have saved their energy if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are the oldest records of parts of the bible. What does it say? (in Greek) "Yussuf, rama Theo" - which means simply, 'Joseph, beloved of God'. Nothing to do with Arimathea. No such place. Never was. Purely the work of a spectacularly incompetant monk in a scriptorium. There are so many other examples.
                        Congratulations on finding the strawman needed to make this preposterous thread work, Glyn. Certainly your revelations will be welcomed by any Christians whose beliefs don't ultimately rest on faith (and there are many).

                        Where's this tactic cropped up before, plucking a choice quote in order to pad one's ego?

                        AFAIK Glyn, no one else here has assumed a monopoly on truth and pushed it on you (or Truth, as of the kind I assume Brokensickle and Christians sometimes refer, when he attempted to convey the spiritual location of someone willing to walk into a lion's den coated with tomato sauce, if only to get in a few words before they're devoured).

                        You may think it all stems from a sandcastle in the sky that can be brought down with a few historical corrections. However I find it hard to believe that in the last 67 years you haven't discovered religious persons whose beliefs, if not their entire livelihoods and sanity, rests ultimately in their spirit.

                        If you'd care to comment, the original topic was about using discretion when exercising free speech, particularly when speaking critically about another religion. I think most would agree that while one shouldn't suffer for this exercise, a healthy dose of humility is both wise and pragmatic when the topic is religion.

                        You know, I've always wondered why your words are the largest on the board. I guess I passed it off as a running joke, poor vision maybe. Now I realize its because of their supreme importance and wisdom of their speaker.

                        But you can save your spluge for a choir that'll eat it.

                        I'm not going to chop your head off, but its not polite to mentally masturbate in public. Please stop it.
                        Last edited by FibrillatorD; 11 Sep 07,, 07:37.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wkllaw View Post
                          Brilliant, simply brilliant, I always liked to think there's a explanation to everything, now this further supports that. Anyway, thanks to you, I have something extra to tell the guys and girls that regularly tell me to convert and that their God is the only true god and they are trying to save me.

                          I got no problem with religion, but I really hate those guys that try to convert you and think they know the answer.
                          Try the Bible. If read critically, you will have the picture in front of you.

                          The things start in the beginning: Genesis I is made of two different stories linked together. And it goes on...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by FibrillatorD View Post
                            Congratulations on finding the strawman needed to make this preposterous thread work, Glyn. Certainly your revelations will be welcomed by any Christians whose beliefs don't ultimately rest on faith (and there are many).

                            Your congratulations are accepted.:) even though no straw man was raised, just an example given. I don't think you correctly understand the straw man gambit.

                            Where's this tactic cropped up before, plucking a choice quote in order to pad one's ego?

                            I can't begin to guess which particular example you had in mind. I expect it is a regularly used ploy.

                            AFAIK Glyn, no one else here has assumed a monopoly on truth and pushed it on you (or Truth, as of the kind I assume Brokensickle and Christians sometimes refer, when he attempted to convey the spiritual location of someone willing to walk into a lion's den coated with tomato sauce, if only to get in a few words before they're devoured).

                            I don't see what point you are trying to score here. Nobody is claiming a monopoly of truth, merely mortals here on WAB trying to seek it.

                            You may think it all stems from a sandcastle in the sky that can be brought down with a few historical corrections.

                            You've stumped me there, Sunshine. I don't know what you are talking about, or what analogy you've misquoted.


                            However I find it hard to believe that in the last 67 years you haven't discovered religious persons whose beliefs, if not their entire livelihoods and sanity, rests ultimately in their spirit.

                            I was once a religious person, but through my studies of things like the Knights Templar, and having an interest in philosophy and science, listening to interesting conversations etc I began to query what I had been led to believe by my religion. ( C of E ) The truth came to me only slowly, and I was outraged when I realised that I had been lied to. I then delved deeper. The deeper I delved the more errors and faults I found. The study of Atheism was especially helpful to me. The important thing is to keep an open mind, and truth comes from different quarters. I learned not to pooh-pooh any source outright, but at least read it and reflect on it.

                            If you'd care to comment, the original topic was about using discretion when exercising free speech, particularly when speaking critically about another religion. I think most would agree that while one shouldn't suffer for this exercise, a healthy dose of humility is both wise and pragmatic when the topic is religion.

                            Can't remember how the thread started, but it has been made a thread with its own subject now.

                            You know, I've always wondered why your words are the largest on the board. I guess I passed it off as a running joke, poor vision maybe. Now I realize its because of their supreme importance and wisdom of their speaker.

                            Quite right. It could be through having an enormous ego. It could be a form of compensation for only having 8 letters in my entire name. Or it might be just that I like Garamond in this weight and colour. And it might be that I do it because I can. You are spoiled for choices here.

                            But you can save your spluge for a choir that'll eat it.

                            The Readers Digest pays for examples of this sort of thing in "Towards more colourful speech". The teeny-weeny snag here is that it has to mean something. Never mind, keep trying.

                            I'm not going to chop your head off, but its not polite to mentally masturbate in public. Please stop it.
                            I don't think the Readers Digest will greatly reward you with nonsense like that. Nonsense is amusing, that is simply foolish. Dear dear. What do you wish me to stop? Writing anything that threatens the equilibrium of your mind, I suppose. May I suggest that you try to adopt a more robust attitude? WAB is (famously) not a knitting circle.
                            Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bible controversy is as old as Methuselah

                              By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
                              More on religion


                              * Timeline of the Christian's Bible evolution
                              * Passover's Hagadda maintains theme

                              Translating the Bible is no job for cowards.

                              From scholars burned at the stake centuries ago to current translators excoriated by their peers, bringing the Bible to the people is risky business. The current controversy over contemporary language in the newly published Today's New International Version is just the latest manifestation of the tension inherent in high-stakes work.

                              It starts with second-century Greeks, says David Burke, dean of the New York-based American Bible Society's Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship.

                              When they created the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, it was the first translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic. The underlying idea: People should have the revelation of God in a language they could read. Later, that concept was absorbed into Christian thought, and the Roman church sought a Latin translation. The man now known as St. Jerome did the work, and it became the early standard for the West. Indeed, Burke says, many came to see the Latin version as the sacred scripture of revelation. Fourteenth-century preacher John Wycliffe, who knew neither Hebrew nor Greek, was declared a heretic and expelled from his post at Oxford for daring to turn from sacred Latin to ordinary English.

                              The next world-shaking revolution in Bibles is part of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation.

                              "Martin Luther brought the Renaissance into the church by insisting on a German translation everyone could read. Heretofore you had to accept what the church told you," says Jim Sanders, president of the board of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, Calif., and a translator of the New Revised Standard Bible.

                              "Every translation ever made is done for the needs of the community it is prepared for," Sanders says.

                              William Tyndale set down the same road in English — and was put to death when his Old Testament began circulating in the hands of commoners. Miles Coverdale added a New Testament, and by 1537 completed the first full Bible printed in English.

                              Other translators were emboldened, and soon 10 versions were in circulation in Latin and German and English, including one authorized by the newly established Church of England. The first English Catholic Bible, produced in Belgium and France, was published just before the most influential English Bible of all, the 1611 King James Version.

                              The now-beloved King James Version, mandated by royalty and based on Hebrew, Greek and all the best competing Bibles of the time, was not an instant success, however. The Pilgrims refused to carry it on the Mayflower, clinging instead to the Geneva Bible.

                              Archaeological discoveries prompted more translations as scholars in the 1800s could examine newly found fourth- and fifth-century Greek texts. Waves of discoveries, up through the 1948 finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, would continue to reword Bibles as scholars found "no two manuscripts are the same," Sanders says. "And how you read the same manuscript varies. These are deep judgment calls, and everyone brings his own filter to the work."

                              By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were Bibles prepared for the audience of every nation.

                              The modern language battles began taking shape, Burke says, as translators disagreed on whether it was truer to emulate Greek or Hebrew syntax or aim for presenting the manuscripts' meaning in current language.

                              "Would you say 'gird up the loins of your mind' or 'prepare your mind'? Which is accurate? Which is more clear?"

                              These dilemmas led to the first major paraphrased Bible, The Living Bible, drawn from earlier English texts, and the Good News Bible, which was drawn from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts but written with an emphasis on "reproducing the meaning, not emulating their syntax," Burke says.

                              "There is no God-given English base," he says. "The Bible didn't come in a straitjacket. We get letters that say, 'You're changing the word of God and you're going to hell.' No one is changing the word of God."

                              Sanders described the scholarly tussles over the pronouns for God and man during the translation of the 1989 New Revised Standard Version. "We had long debates, but even the mainline churches weren't ready to hear she for God," he recalls.

                              The 1978 New International Version, translated by the International Bible Society and published by Zondervan, was a breakthrough Bible because it emphasized that the work was done specifically by evangelical scholars whose names — and credentials — were publicized. This said to traditional evangelicals: This Bible is trustworthy as a template for Christian faith and life, Burke says.

                              "And it was the first Bible that was promoted like a product. Before this it was thought gauche to hype the Bible in the marketplace."

                              Hence, the current debates over Today's New International Version started, not in religious academia, but in the public eye.

                              USATODAY.com - Bible controversy is as old as Methuselah
                              What can one say?

                              It is the era of 'enlightenment'!


                              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                              HAKUNA MATATA

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X