Is the Holy Spirit Misleading You?

[Minimalist]

It's much, much more than that.  If the Hebrews were in Egypt, then there would be some archeological evidence of that, and, indeed, there is none, an untenable proposition, as there should have been some artifacts from just outside of Egypt, from the Hebrews leaving.  Again, find me a scholar who takes the Exodus story at face value who is not also a Biblical inerrantist (an absurd position equivalent to Holocaust denial), and post their findings and/or reasons here.  All the evidence is that the Biblical narratives were written much later than was traditionally believed and underwent layers upon layers of redaction and modification up until and even beyond the 1st century of the common era.

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls would refute this.

The earliest tangible evidence for your silly bible are fragments of the Septuagint.  It was written in Greek.  The significance of the DSS is that, among Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, they contain the earliest Hebrew accounts.  Do try to keep up.

[Jehanne]

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls would refute this.

The earliest tangible evidence for your silly bible are fragments of the Septuagint.  It was written in Greek.  The significance of the DSS is that, among Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, they contain the earliest Hebrew accounts.  Do try to keep up.

And, most of the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint, which itself contained errors in translation from Hebrew to Greek.  Of course, my original claim is that redaction occurred in the Old Testament all the way into the 1st century, not that the entire Old Testament was changed during that time.

[Lek]

If that which can be known is incorrect, why trust that which cannot be known? If your basic arithmetic is faulty, why should I trust your calculus?

He who is faithful (trustworthy) in little will be faithful in much. Apparently, Lek disagree with this.

I guess you can't trust anything then. Science and history have been shown to be incorrect. Do you trust them? Do you trust doctors? We learn much truth about ancient civilizations by examining their writings whether they be totally factual or partially or wholly myth. That's one way we learn about ancient history.

---

The earliest tangible evidence for your silly bible are fragments of the Septuagint.  It was written in Greek.  The significance of the DSS is that, among Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, they contain the earliest Hebrew accounts.  Do try to keep up.

And, most of the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint, which itself contained errors in translation from Hebrew to Greek.  Of course, my original claim is that redaction occurred in the Old Testament all the way into the 1st century, not that the entire Old Testament was changed during that time.

Then give us an example of old testament scriptures that were redacted during the first century so I can directly address your claim.

[Jehanne]

Right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Wisdom of Solomon late 1st century BCE/early 1st century CE, on the basis of shared outlook with other works dating from this time.[64]

[Edwardo Piet]

Fuck the so-called "holy spirit" in the ass with a frozen solid used condom.

Also Jesus can go fuck himself.

And his father can take a cactus to the scrotum.

Also when's Blasphemy Day™ ? I always forget so I thought I'd get it out there early.

[Astonished]

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls would refute this.

Believe it all you want, it doesn't mean shit.

I guess you can't trust anything then. Science and history have been shown to be incorrect. Do you trust them? Do you trust doctors? We learn much truth about ancient civilizations by examining their writings whether they be totally factual or partially or wholly myth. That's one way we learn about ancient history.

You simple, backward little nothing. Logic and reason help to improve our understanding of things, religion retards it in every way it can. If science is honest (and not pseudoscience and superstition which your kind often try to pass off as science, rather pathetically) then it acknowledges when it is wrong and corrects it. This process doesn't have to be a big painful controversial deal the way it is when the fucking Pope has to announce some major change based on an arbitrary decision about policy, if they even bother to admit fault or being wrong at all. Being closed to correction is religion's own downfall. It's already been cast out by science along with the idea of the Humours to indicate health and the method of leeching. We've moved long past it and science continues to improve and evolve while religion continues to kick and scream like an impotent two-year-old having a tantrum to get attention. Science itself isn't a belief, it's a process, by which to determine what is likely and what is not, self-correcting and it's more powerful than it's ever been to help narrow down our uncertainty about some of the biggest mysteries we've ever contemplated. Religion can't even begin to lick the dirt off science's heel.

Here's the other thing: history isn't exactly significant at giving us anything useful. Those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it, yes, and yet somehow that completely goes over the heads of the religious because they've made the same fuck-ups century after century and still do TODAY. But I don't care if Caesar scratched his balls before Brutus knifed him because it's of no significance. We know power corrupts, the church is the absolute best example of that we have ever had. It's only in religious context that history really matters because it's the only way you can even hope to claim any of it is true because the 'wisdom' is anything but, the morality is hideously primitive and the character of the deities is odious indeed. The only reason to cling to it is if you've been brainwashed to think it's true, not a goddamn thing else.

[Lek]

Right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Wisdom of Solomon late 1st century BCE/early 1st century CE, on the basis of shared outlook with other works dating from this time.[64]

First of all, you're using Wikipedia for a source. Secondly, this book is one of the Apocryphal books which were written in Greek, unlike all the universally accepted books of the old testament, which were written in Hebrew. I believe it's accepted as biblical mainly by the catholic and orthodox churches. I'll agree that parts of it may have been written in the early first century, but there's nothing in your source that indicates that any redactions were made to it.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Wisdom of Solomon late 1st century BCE/early 1st century CE, on the basis of shared outlook with other works dating from this time.[64]

First of all, you're using Wikipedia for a source.  Secondly, this book is one of the Apocryphal books which were written in Greek, unlike all the universally accepted books of the old testament, which were written in Hebrew.  I believe it's accepted as biblical mainly by the catholic and orthodox churches.  I'll agree that parts of it may have been written in the early first century, but there's nothing in your source that indicates that any redactions were made to it.

First of all it seems that you don't know jack about the Bible.  The apocrypha were part of every Bible version until 1881-1885 when two English guys decided to toss them.  The Protestants obeyed but the Catholics kept the Bible intact.

[Minimalist]

First of all, you're using Wikipedia for a source. Secondly, this book is one of the Apocryphal books which were written in Greek, unlike all the universally accepted books of the old testament, which were written in Hebrew.

Evidence for that statement?  Where is an example of any OT Hebraic text which pre-dates the Septuagint.  In reality Greek scholars probably wrote down the oral tales which were passed around the elites of the miserable little shithole of a province known as Yehud by the Persians and the Greeks of the Ptolemaic Dynasty found themselves the rulers thereof in the aftermath of the death of Alexander.

You can believe any fucking silly thing you want, Lek.  What you cannot do is back it up with evidence.

Sucks to be you.

[Lek]

First of all it seems that you don't know jack about the Bible.  The apocrypha were part of every Bible version until 1881-1885 when two English guys decided to toss them.  The Protestants obeyed but the Catholics kept the Bible intact.

Martin Luther's Bible edition of 1534 contained the apocrypha, but noted that these books were not considered to be part of scripture. Numerous bibles came out in the ensuing years, long before 1881, also containing the apocrypha, but also not recognizing them as biblical. I will agree that these books were accepted as part of the canon by the catholic church. Anyway, whether you accept the book of Wisdom to be biblical or not, I see nothing about any of it being redacted after its completion.

---

Evidence for that statement?  Where is an example of any OT Hebraic text which pre-dates the Septuagint.  In reality Greek scholars probably wrote down the oral tales which were passed around the elites of the miserable little shithole of a province known as Yehud by the Persians and the Greeks of the Ptolemaic Dynasty found themselves the rulers thereof in the aftermath of the death of Alexander.

You can believe any fucking silly thing you want, Lek.  What you cannot do is back it up with evidence.

Sucks to be you.

Some of the Hebrew language manuscripts in the Dead Sea scrolls could be as old or older than the Septuagint, but it doesn't matter. I'll back up my claim as well as you back up yours.