I don't get it!

And apparently he never will.

There's tons of so called gospels. Take it however you want, but this is not the bible and christians don't care about it either.

(May 4, 2014 at 12:49 am)Lek Wrote: There's tons of so called gospels. Take it however you want, but this is not the bible and christians don't care about it either.

It's actually refreshing to see a christian being this blase and upfront about their unfounded assertions. Lek, you will be exactly as wrong on your last day as you are today, and you have nothing to blame but your own inability to accept new information.

Quote:There's tons of so called gospels

Including the 4 you think are so special. They passed the committee vote.


You may as well worship a House-Senate Conference Report on a Farm Bill.

(May 4, 2014 at 12:49 am)Lek Wrote: There's tons of so called gospels. Take it however you want, but this is not the bible and christians don't care about it either.

Of course - -
Christians never require TRUTH to be part of their beliefs.

The problem is - if there are TONS of gospels - that gives ME a reason to reject them all - simply because they do not agree. IF some of them can be called fakes - then the "real" ones need to be identified by PROOF.

The bible remains the claim of the Catholic Church who put it together. We do not even know if ANY of the bible exists in what is claimed to be original state. 400 years later - there is no record of the changes made in the writings.

Sometime last year there was a petition going around to carbon date the Codex Sinaiticus to find out if it was a modern fraud.

Wonder whatever happened to that?

All I know for "sure" is ...




'God said it, that settles it' - always works for me. It doesn't matter what some ancient dark brown book says. I read the Bible and know exactly what it means.
So join me brethren in burying thine heads in thine asses.



{Where's Drich (the self proclaimed messenger of god) when the internet needs him most? }

(May 5, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Sometime last year there was a petition going around to carbon date the Codex Sinaiticus to find out if it was a modern fraud.

Wonder whatever happened to that?

I've just googled it and it appears that the petition was made in November.

Present Location

Quote:The codex is now split into four unequal portions: 347 leaves in the British Library in London (199 of the Old Testament, 148 of the New Testament), 12 leaves and 14 fragments in the Saint Catherine's Monastery, 43 leaves in the Leipzig University Library, and fragments of 3 leaves in the Russian National Library in Saint Petersburg.[3]

Maybe there's a lot of red tape to cut through and somebody's looking for a big enough pair of scissors.

By the way, Ape, based on your earlier post you might find this interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Ar..._the_Koran

Quote:The work advances the thesis that critical sections of the Qur'an have been misread by generations of readers and Muslim and Western scholars, who consider classical Arabic as the language of the Qur'an. Luxenberg's analysis suggests that the prevalent Syro-Aramaic language up to the 7th century formed a stronger etymological basis for its meaning.[4][5]

A notable trait of early written Arabic was that it lacked vowel signs and diacritic points which would later distinguish e.g. B, T, N, Y ب ت ن ي (Defective script), and thus was prone to misinterpretation. The diacritical points were added around the turn of the eighth century on orders of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef, governor of Iraq (694–714).

Luxenberg remarks that the Qur'an contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even Muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional Muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Qur'an of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of Muslim scholars.

The book's thesis is that the Qur'an was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century.

Quote:Luxenberg also argues that the Qur'an is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in the Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Qur'an we know today.

And the howling swirls and the rocks fly!!!