While I understand your point I still think it would be sad to see it go. Cecil b Demille's Ten Commandments still remains one of my favorite films of all time. I love the story of Joseph and his coat of dreams, and I even enjoy the story of Jesus's wandering in the desert as an inspired work of fiction.

Just because a book has been taken to justify atrocities doesn't mean we should throw it out (Catcher in the Rye, anyone?)

(October 15, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 10:47 am)Chad32 Wrote: I just told you. The leaders of a government should be accountable to the people. Not an indisputed ruler over them. That is what's best for society. So laws change according to the need, and there isn't one judge, jury, and executioner. If someone commits a crime, they're only accountable for the person or people they hurt. They don't have to beg the judge for forgiveness, nor can the judge decide if the person is forgiven.

This is quite different from what christians think about their god and his view of justice.

That's not how most goverments work. Matter of fact the vast majority of the people alive today do not live under such a goverment.

That's how they should work under a true representative republic. I'm aware that not everyone has one, but I know the USA isn't supposed to be an Oligarchy, and this is the country I was raised in.

(October 15, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Natachan Wrote: While I understand your point I still think it would be sad to see it go. Cecil b Demille's Ten Commandments still remains one of my favorite films of all time. I love the story of Joseph and his coat of dreams, and I even enjoy the story of Jesus's wandering in the desert as an inspired work of fiction.

Just because a book has been taken to justify atrocities doesn't mean we should throw it out (Catcher in the Rye, anyone?)

Um no, no one is saying throw it out, what we are saying is not to use it for laws for everyone. And the Catcher in the Rye is not a holy book and no one tries to base government law on that book as if it is a holy book.

You cannot use faith to write laws, you cannot use holy books to write laws. You can only have a neutral law as in "freedom of religion" which also has to include freedom FROM religion.

The nature of religions are that they set up social pecking orders where the majority at best treats the non majority as house pets or guests, the East is a reminder where mixing government and religion can lead.

All religions are volcanos, in the west our volcanos are more dormant because of secular common law, in the east their volcanos are more active. The difference between the east and the west is the west has had 250 years of common law. The west became civil in spite of religion, not because of it.

There are people who sAy burn it, since it can't be decoupled from the harm it has caused. I say teach it as mythology. I don't advocate making laws from based on ANY piece of fiction or mythology. Why would I?

One of the best ways to de-mystify religion is to teach its mythology and teach it AS mythology. I say teach the bible. Embrace it. Teach it like you would teach the Greek and Roman mythologies. We reach those and require no one to believe it.

They teach mythology in the west?!! hock:

We know about The Prophet, sure.

Do they about me? cause I'm a legend

(October 12, 2014 at 9:54 am)Chas Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 1:02 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: As I've said before, the English wrote the Bible as a gift to the Pope. The Bible as such didn't exist before that. The English writers included a lot of discrepancies as a prank to show that it was just a fairy tale.

Is this something symbolic or metaphorical?

Because you can't possibly mean this literally.

When do you think the Bible was written?

The English assembled everything into the Codex Amiatinus and gave it to the Pope. The Bible as such didn't exist before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

(October 20, 2014 at 3:38 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 9:54 am)Chas Wrote: Is this something symbolic or metaphorical?

Because you can't possibly mean this literally.

When do you think the Bible was written?

The English assembled everything into the Codex Amiatinus and gave it to the Pope. The Bible as such didn't exist before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

That depends on what you consider to be "the bible", huh?

Indeed, the version you speak of is "the earliest surviving manuscript of the nearly complete Bible in the Latin Vulgate version,[1] and is considered to be the most accurate copy of St. Jerome's text."
And this Vulgate "is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible."

Now... notice that the Codex Amiatinus dates back from the 8th century, well after the 4th century, when this Vulgate is thought to have originated as "the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of Biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church."

So we have a pre-existing and pre-established text, in an old form of Latin, which was updated in the 4th century to the so-called "Latin Vulgate" (common Latin). And the oldest surviving copy of this new version is the one "produced in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria as a gift for the Pope".

This does not mean that the English wrote the original... far from it, it seems.
So why do you insist that the English wrote the bible in its current format?

(October 20, 2014 at 4:52 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 20, 2014 at 3:38 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: When do you think the Bible was written?

The English assembled everything into the Codex Amiatinus and gave it to the Pope. The Bible as such didn't exist before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

That depends on what you consider to be "the bible", huh?

Indeed, the version you speak of is "the earliest surviving manuscript of the nearly complete Bible in the Latin Vulgate version,[1] and is considered to be the most accurate copy of St. Jerome's text."
And this Vulgate "is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible."

Now... notice that the Codex Amiatinus dates back from the 8th century, well after the 4th century, when this Vulgate is thought to have originated as "the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of Biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church."

So we have a pre-existing and pre-established text, in an old form of Latin, which was updated in the 4th century to the so-called "Latin Vulgate" (common Latin). And the oldest surviving copy of this new version is the one "produced in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria as a gift for the Pope".

This does not mean that the English wrote the original... far from it, it seems.
So why do you insist that the English wrote the bible in its current format?

You do know why Christians go to the greek rather than the Latin for exegetical research don't you?

Because the textus receptus far exceeds any vulgate translation in age, authnicity and in number of avaiable manuscripts.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html