(August 16, 2010 at 7:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: WTF are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Dead

Beat me to it I actually got to see some very old pages of "the book of the dead" at a big Ancient Egypt exhibit at a museum a few years ago. They were found in the same area that tutankhamun was discovered, and a whole bunch of artifacts made it's way here over to NZ in the latte 90's.

The thing Godschild seems incapable of understanding is that the book of the dead is not used to prove the existence of any of the more mythical beings in it's pages.

(August 16, 2010 at 6:47 pm)solja247 Wrote: You are ready to accept the fact that the book of the dead is real (although we have never found one) yet, you have the audacity to create a pseudo-theory about the origins of Jesus, while there is a large amount of evidence for His existence and resurrection.

A book of fairy tales that has been consistently proven wrong (the bible) and modified countless times to suit agendas or "personal experience" as has been discussed in another thread do not count as proof or evidence. So I also cannot wait to see what kind of evidence you can provide that does not come from your "holy" bullshit book.

Quote:Please be consistent, if you want to reject Jesus as being a real man. reject Plato and Homer as well. Dont chop and choose.

---

What a moronic statement. You cannot compare men whose existence have reliable historical records, and who have many written works. This is contrary to the mythical Jesus. There are no reliable historical records that prove he even existed apart from some made up, modified writings in some book by "annonymous writers". You might as well ask us to reject Einstein or Hitler ever existed. But of course, your mind is already made up and you will reject anything that contradicts your bullshit dogma.

I have actually read both the Egyptian book of the dead and the Hindi version as well. Godschild like I said before get your head out of your bible and read some real history. You might learn something. Arguing from the bible is the weakest position you could take since its stories are unreliable and its history is dubious at best.

(August 16, 2010 at 8:14 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(August 16, 2010 at 7:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: WTF are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Dead

Beat me to it I actually got to see some very old pages of "the book of the dead" at a big Ancient Egypt exhibit at a museum a few years ago. They were found in the same area that tutankhamun was discovered, and a whole bunch of artifacts made it's way here over to NZ in the latte 90's.

The thing Godschild seems incapable of understanding is that the book of the dead is not used to prove the existence of any of the more mythical beings in it's pages.

I've never mentioned the 'book of the dead' so I have no idea what you are talking about.

---

(August 16, 2010 at 1:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(August 16, 2010 at 3:14 am)Godschild Wrote: [quote='Minimalist' pid='87305' dateline='1281937389']

Quote:Explain please how you know that the copies we have today are not like the originals.

Because we have different versions of these texts in whole or in part which show that they evolved ( I know you guys hate that word...tough!) over time and to suit the political needs of the church.

Different versions by who. That response does not answer my question if we do not have the originals then how do you know what we have now isn't the same as the originals. You can't.

MIN Wrote:What difference does it make? Your fucking gospels were not written by the people they were attributed to in the first place. The fact that legions of nameless scribes were busily copying down differing versions of this bullshit is sufficient to show that what we have today is NOT ORIGINAL.

You all act as if the Bible was copied by people who did not care what they were perserving. The Book of Isaiah is 2100 to 2300 years old and it says the same things today as it did then and in this book there is a prophesy about Christ and it does match with the NT. So with this being true why would you think that the rest of scripture is not as accurately copied. There is physical proof of the accuracy of the copies of the Bible.

(August 16, 2010 at 11:17 pm)Godschild Wrote: There is physical proof of the accuracy of the copies of the Bible.

But for every one coincidence you can find in the bible there are also dozens of contradictions.

(August 16, 2010 at 11:17 pm)Godschild Wrote: You all act as if the Bible was copied by people who did not care what they were perserving.

I'm sure they did care a great deal...especially since their 'masters' wanted the book to say "just what I want it to say"....yes I am certain that they cared a great deal.

(August 16, 2010 at 11:17 pm)Godschild Wrote: The Book of Isaiah is 2100 to 2300 years old and it says the same things today as it did then and in this book there is a prophesy about Christ and it does match with the NT.

Very interesting character (see below for linkys). One that struck me as odd was that Isaiah is an old testament book and therefore belongs to the Judaic tradition not Xtian. Secondly, the difficulty in translating Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Assyrian,...not to mention that there is some serious debate amongst rabbinical circles as to authorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah *This is about the best ref*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_in_R...Literature

(August 16, 2010 at 11:17 pm)Godschild Wrote: So with this being true why would you think that the rest of scripture is not as accurately copied. There is physical proof of the accuracy of the copies of the Bible.

King James version is not a true copy yet it is held to be so.... I'm afraid history and the determination of monarchy to control the masses undermines any authority such a book strives to present. At best I think it would be fair to say that most religious books were just tabloid stories of the day...not necessarily accurate ones...

my2c

Quote:You all act as if the Bible was copied by people who did not care what they were perserving.

You have forgotten the highly human principle of "ineptitude" which seems to have hammered xtian copyists particularly harshly. However, simple copying errors aside, there were numerous examples of direct editing (insertion/deletion) to suit the needs of church doctrine.

As for Isaiah, here we go again. Jews disagree. The story talks about the Babylonian exile and has nothing to do with fucking jesus whatsoever. You know, the chapter and verse headings did not exist in the original. Xtians claim Isaiah "53" predicts their godboy but "53" is a continuation of a story begun in "52".

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/sin.html

Quote:The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel.

Please strop telling jews how to be jews. You have enough trouble with your own brand of bullshit.

All those sites and your opinions do not refute that the Book of Isaiah is over 2000 years old and that what was written then is the same as we have now, the copiers of Isaiah and the rest of scripture is very accurate.

And you evidence of this?

Actually, G-C you are wrong again but you must be used to that by now.

Quote:The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations

So, even though the copies at Qumran (which are the earliest Hebrew versions we have of any of this bullshit) were copied by practiced scribes (as opposed to the early xtian copyists who seem to have been amateurs, according to Bart Ehrman) there is still a 5% error rate.

At this point I have to assume that all of the data you spout is tainted by xtian bullshit. You need to develop some credibility.