Get In The Ark Before It Is Too Late!!!

[Confused Ape]

Ref. Post #297 ~

You're forgetting your European history. The English (for you, the people who lived in England) were more literate that the other country bumpkins on the mainland. They had a rich history of story-telling and could spin some fantastic tales. They wrote them down and other people read them.

Guess what. I'm English and have lived here all my life the same as my ancestors. I know who lived in this part of Britain before the Germanic tribes came over in the 5th century because I learned about it in school and went on to read reputable history books.

I don't give a rat's ass about the scraps of religious manuscripts crazy old fanatics kept hidden in damp monasteries or in the Vatican. Those were not Bibles. The people living in England wrote the Bible and not some clown in Italy or Asia. And once the English (people living in England) sent it to the Pope everyone else fell in line with the basic tales. When one Pope decided to write his own version he messed it up with a couple of thousand of assorted errors. Now how did anyone know about those errors? They compared the Pope's tale with the English version.

Provide proof from reputable scholars that the English wrote the Bible and got away with it because nobody on the continent could read the Vulgate Bible or Old Latin Bible. If you're right, a few minutes googling will turn up dozens of articles which you can link to.

And while the English were writing their fairy tale they gave all of the main characters non-traditional Jewish names. The didn't have any problem giving the minor characters Jewish names but all of the main characters were given European names.

OK, so Jesus, Mary, Joseph and other main character names started out as English names. Obviously they wouldn't be the modern English versions but having their roots in Anglo Saxon names will do. Here's a list of Anglo Saxon names to get you started. I'm sure it won't take you long to find proof that the name Elizabeth started out as something like Eadburga. All you have to do is google for the meaning of the name Elizabeth. You can then do the same for Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

[Whateverist]

Correct one error a man makes and you set him straight for the moment. Teach him to google his own answer and you have taught him how to set himself straight.

[Revelation777]

Being a servant or slave back in Biblical times with the exception of under Egypt's oppression, not like what we are familiar with in America. It was a way of life for many to survive in Israel's economy.

The bible says you can beat your slaves until they die, so long as they linger with their injuries for a few days first. It also says that the children of slaves are also slaves to the one who owns their parents. Are you okay with that?

Homosexuality is not a natural act and is considered sin in the Bible. God did not create man to have sex with another man nor any animals for that matter.

Homosexuality occurs in nature with many species, thus making it, by definition, natural.

And frankly, what god "created" man to do is completely irrelevant: you lot are always going on about how we have free will in order to excuse god's lack of intervention in evil acts, the least you could do is behave consistently about that.

Besides, we fallible humans are able to improve upon god's designs in numerous ways, so let's not pretend that the guy's slapdash workmanship is the be all and end all of how things are supposed to work. We're clearly better craftsmen than him when it comes to organisms now.

Sir you are wrong about your view of what the Bible says about slavery. http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10...bible.html

Also, just because animals that can't reason do something in nature doesn't mean God gave the green light for humans to do. You can find animals stealing each other's food but does that mean it is right for us to do with each other?

[Jenny A]

Ref. Post #297 ~

You're forgetting your European history. The English (for you, the people who lived in England) were more literate that the other country bumpkins on the mainland. They had a rich history of story-telling and could spin some fantastic tales. They wrote them down and other people read them.

Nonsense. The English did have a rich history of story telling as did everyone else. If you have any real evidence that the English were better educated then Europeans generally or that they had the only story telling history during the 300-1300s or so I'd like to see it. [/align]

And while the English were writing their fairy tale they gave all of the main characters non-traditional Jewish names. The didn't have any problem giving the minor characters Jewish names but all of the main characters were given European names.

Um, they are now English names because people name their kids after Bible characters.

[Ravenshire]

Also, just because animals that can't reason do something in nature doesn't mean God gave the green light for humans to do. You can find animals stealing each other's food but does that mean it is right for us to do with each other?

Take your gawd-glasses off and read some science texts.

Educate yourself for fucks sake. Your ignorance is making the rest of us embarrassed to be the same species as you.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Ref. Post #297 ~

You're forgetting your European history. The English (for you, the people who lived in England) were more literate that the other country bumpkins on the mainland. They had a rich history of story-telling and could spin some fantastic tales. They wrote them down and other people read them.

Guess what. I'm English and have lived here all my life the same as my ancestors. I know who lived in this part of Britain before the Germanic tribes came over in the 5th century because I learned about it in school and went on to read reputable history books.

I don't give a rat's ass about the scraps of religious manuscripts crazy old fanatics kept hidden in damp monasteries or in the Vatican. Those were not Bibles. The people living in England wrote the Bible and not some clown in Italy or Asia. And once the English (people living in England) sent it to the Pope everyone else fell in line with the basic tales. When one Pope decided to write his own version he messed it up with a couple of thousand of assorted errors. Now how did anyone know about those errors? They compared the Pope's tale with the English version.

Provide proof from reputable scholars that the English wrote the Bible and got away with it because nobody on the continent could read the Vulgate Bible or Old Latin Bible. If you're right, a few minutes googling will turn up dozens of articles which you can link to.

And while the English were writing their fairy tale they gave all of the main characters non-traditional Jewish names. The didn't have any problem giving the minor characters Jewish names but all of the main characters were given European names.

OK, so Jesus, Mary, Joseph and other main character names started out as English names. Obviously they wouldn't be the modern English versions but having their roots in Anglo Saxon names will do. Here's a list of Anglo Saxon names to get you started. I'm sure it won't take you long to find proof that the name Elizabeth started out as something like Eadburga. All you have to do is google for the meaning of the name Elizabeth. You can then do the same for Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

The point is that the English writers could have retained the original Jewish names of the main characters if they had wanted to. They did keep the Jewish names for the minor characters. They didn't call the minor characters Tom, Dick, Harry, Bob, or Richard. They used those names for the major characters to make them more appealing to the readers. It was a psychological manipulation.

The Old Latin Bible was the first Bible version written in Latin. It wasn't written in old Latin.

[Bad Wolf]

Also, just because animals that can't reason do something in nature doesn't mean God gave the green light for humans to do. You can find animals stealing each other's food but does that mean it is right for us to do with each other?

In the right circumstances, yes.

[Confused Ape]

The point is that the English writers could have retained the original Jewish names of the main characters if they had wanted to. They did keep the Jewish names for the minor characters.

They didn't call the minor characters Tom, Dick, Harry, Bob, or Richard. They used those names for the major characters to make them more appealing to the readers. It was a psychological manipulation.

You haven't done what I asked you to -

Provide proof from reputable scholars that the English wrote the Bible and got away with it because nobody on the continent could read the Vulgate Bible or Old Latin Bible. If you're right, a few minutes googling will turn up dozens of articles which you can link to.

The Old Latin Bible was the first Bible version written in Latin. It wasn't written in old Latin.

Vetus Latina

Vetus Latina ("Old Latin" in Latin), also known as Vetus Itala ("Old Italian"), Itala ("Italian") [n 1] and Old Italic, is the collective name given to the Biblical texts in Latin that existed before the Vulgate, the late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that later became the Catholic Church's standard Latin Bible.

That's before English people existed.

Below are some comparisons of the Vetus Latina with text from critical editions of the Vulgate.

The following comparison is of Luke 6:1–4, taken from the Old Latin text in the Codex Bezae:

Vetus Latina: Respondens autem IHS dixit ad eos, Numquam hoc legistis quod fecit David quando esurit ipse et qui cum eo erat ?

Latin Vulgate: Et respondens Jesus ad eos, dixit : Nec hoc legistis quod fecit David, cum esurisset ipse, et qui cum illo erant ?

Christogram - Western Christianity

In the Latin-speaking Christianity of medieval Western Europe (and so among Catholics and many Protestants today), the most common Christogram became "IHS" or "IHC", denoting the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, IHΣΟΥΣ, iota-eta-sigma, or ΙΗΣ.[3][4][5]

IHS in the Vetus Latina was changed to Jesus in the late 4th century Latin Vulgate. People knew the name Jesus before English people existed.

[Tonus]

Sir you are wrong about your view of what the Bible says about slavery. http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10...bible.html

That is some pretty pathetic apologetics, if they can even be called that. Slavery was okay in a "cultural context" because it wasn't based on racism, cheap labor, or sex? In other words, there is a context under which slavery is okay. Perhaps you can provide the specifics of when it's okay to enslave other humans, and when it isn't?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Ref. Post #297 ~

You're forgetting your European history. The English (for you, the people who lived in England) were more literate that the other country bumpkins on the mainland. They had a rich history of story-telling and could spin some fantastic tales. They wrote them down and other people read them.

Nonsense. The English did have a rich history of story telling as did everyone else. If you have any real evidence that the English were better educated then Europeans generally or that they had the only story telling history during the 300-1300s or so I'd like to see it. [/align]

And while the English were writing their fairy tale they gave all of the main characters non-traditional Jewish names. The didn't have any problem giving the minor characters Jewish names but all of the main characters were given European names.

---

Um, they are now English names because people name their kids after Bible characters.

Speaking of names you just made a very important point. A lot of muslim parents name their boys Mohammed. But some muslims go off the deep end when people draw Mohammed. So if someone drew a caricature of a funny looking guy named Mohammed and titled it "Mohammed Unhinged" would the fanatics demand that the artist be beheaded for offending their prophet when the drawing was actually about someone else?

Some Saudis won't reveal the names of their female relatives to outsiders. http://www.arabnews.com/node/267149

Could the Bible writers' practices of using aliases for the main characters be a method of protecting them from evil forces? Ulysses used that tactic when he told the Cyclops Polyphemos that his name was "Nobody". He stabbed the Cyclops in the eye and when his friends asked Polyphemos who did it the Cyclops replied "Nobody" did it. Ulysses thus evaded immediate retribution but Poseidon eventually caused Ulysses ten years of hardship for harming his son.

A lot of the Bible characters used aliases, including Jesus.