(June 17, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Why 3rd century? Wycliffe did his work in the 14th, IIRC.

I said that Wycliffe basically pulled the Bible out of his ass. The counter position is that he translated it whole from another language. So if he just translated it then where did he get the original 2nd or 3rd Century book? The guy was sitting in a musty hovel in England and not having dinner with the Pope in Rome. And we know that the earlier manuscripts were manipulated by various writers through the preceding centuries. Even the Catholics wrote a version to comply with Wycliffe's.

I'm not denying that earlier manuscripts existed. What I am saying is that Wycliffe wrote the basic Bible that is in use today.

What? He had access to the Vulgate and translated it into English. This does not really require a genius or someone having dinner with the Pope. It requires someone who is bilingual, has a run of the mill Latin translation of the Bible, and lots of time on his hands. There are an abundance of English translations available today so I'm not sure what you mean by a "basic" one. But broader translation difficulties aside, generally all Bibles reflect what the earliest manuscripts stated, of which Wycliffe's version is not considered as such (unless you're strictly talking about English Bibles).

(June 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 5:29 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Got a link to a complete authentic copy? Based on the pages I've seen at one site none of them have any complete paragraphs.

So you're saying that old Wycliffe got his hands on the original copy, which was in tatters, and translated every word and thought exactly even when there was nothing to translate. The guy was a genius!!! Sorry, but I have to call bull shit. What the fraud did was to use some of the available material from unknown sources and then proceeded to write his fairy tale. People do that all of the time. And when they have nothing they simply pull it out of their asses like John Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and Gerald Gardner and the liars who wrote the Islamic hadiths did.

Was Ben Hur based on actual events?

Codexsinaiticus.org

I don't understand your claim. You can't be so ignorant as to think the Bible was originally written in the 14th century. Thousands of fragments, in different languages, some nearly complete, existed for a thousand years before Wycliffe took the books long established as the "official" Canon and translated them into English (from the Vulgate, to be precise).

So atheists are now defending the Bible? Is that a miracle or what?

The Vulgate didn't gain any status until the 16th Century, well after Wycliffe wrote the Bible. Sure, there were assorted manuscripts floating around but none of them were original.

As an example, in American history there's a ton of assorted material about slavery and the Civil War. But none of it became the book Gone with the Wind until Margaret Mitchell wrote her fairy tale about it in 1936. Did Mitchell lie about the basic facts, such as slavery, the burning of Atlanta, the Civil War? No. But did she invent characters to bring life to those basic facts? Yes.

That's exactly what Wycliffe did. He took the bones and then put flesh on them. He (and his buddies) wrote the Bible. It didn't exist as an unit before then. And because it's basically a work of fiction it contains clear evidence that the writers included to show that they were just playing a joke.

Atheists are always bitching about the nature of God and why the story is BS but they never think about why they think that. Wycliffe and his buddies wrote it that way. Consider the Garden of Eden and Adam & Eve. Supposedly Adam was made out of dirt, cavorted around with the animals, got lonely, woke up missing a rib but had a wife, Eve got conned by a talking snake, and now everyone is saddled with original sin. They overlook the fact that the story says that the Garden of Eden was just around the corner from Assyria and Cush. So did the God character make the Assyrian Empire when he made Adam from dirt? There are countless things like that in the Bible. It's a work of fiction just like Gone with the Wind. And John Wycliffe and his buddies wrote it.

Now go believe Ben Hur.

errr... so who wrote the Qur'an? and the Torah?

(June 17, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So atheists are now defending the Bible? Is that a miracle or what?

It's called being reasonable and applying critical thinking properly. So not ignoring evidence that goes against one's point helps quite a lot.

(June 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: errr... so who wrote the Qur'an? and the Torah?

Satan and Abraham, respectively, apparently.

Of course, it depends on which denomination you ask . . .

(June 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: errr... so who wrote the Qur'an? and the Torah?

Uthman's committee wrote the Koran. And several guys wrote the hadiths centuries after Mohammed supposedly bit the dust.

I suppose you think that Moses wrote Deuteronomy chapter 34. Why not? Didn't he write all of the others?

At this rate all of the atheists will soon become flaming fundamentalist Christians.

---

(June 17, 2014 at 7:03 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So atheists are now defending the Bible? Is that a miracle or what?

It's called being reasonable and applying critical thinking properly. So not ignoring evidence that goes against one's point helps quite a lot.

Which part of the ethnocentric religious fairy tale don't you believe in?

Awesome piece of lost info! Mind telling us where you're getting this from?

By the way... what can you say about the Vedas and the Kama Sutra?

(June 17, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: errr... so who wrote the Qur'an? and the Torah?

Uthman's committee wrote the Koran. And several guys wrote the hadiths centuries after Mohammed supposedly bit the dust.

I suppose you think that Moses wrote Deuteronomy chapter 34. Why not? Didn't he write all of the others?

At this rate all of the atheists will soon become flaming fundamentalist Christians.

---

(June 17, 2014 at 7:03 pm)Irrational Wrote: It's called being reasonable and applying critical thinking properly. So not ignoring evidence that goes against one's point helps quite a lot.

Which part of the ethnocentric religious fairy tale don't you believe in?

The bit between the covers.

Quote:Which part of the ethnocentric religious fairy tale don't you believe in?

What does this have to do with the unwarranted assertion that the Bible was first written in the 14th century?

(June 17, 2014 at 8:06 pm)Beccs Wrote:

Quote:Which part of the ethnocentric religious fairy tale don't you believe in?

The bit between the covers.

Is that all? So you believe in the bit on the cover about "Holy" then?