• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Handwritten Draft of The Bible Discovered Proves Complete Work of Fiction

ZiprHead

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
39,369
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.
An early draft of the Bible has been discovered at the University of Cambridge in the UK that has been marked as one of the most significant discoveries in modern history.

The handwritten draft was found after it had been mislabeled inside an archive and had gone undetected for decades.

The book has been confirmed by leading experts as an early working of The King James Bible which is one of the most influential and widely read books in the English language.

The discovery has been hailed as definitive proof that Bible is a work of fiction as it shows a process of revising, cutting, and then more rewriting, which contradicts popular belief that the book is the "divine word of God".
Click to expand...

Looks like a crackpot site.
 
It really does speak to the power and majesty of Almighty God that, even given a process like that one, he still managed to divinely inspire a perfect and error free translation of His Word.

His workings are a mystery, but they always work. Praise Be.
 
The history of the KJV (long before this discovery) made it completely obvious to any rational observer that one-and-six-Jimmy wasn't even vaguely interested in accuracy or consistency with any earlier works; His purpose was to stamp his authority on the Bishops of both of his Kingdoms, and to put an end once and for all to the constant bickering, civil unrest, and even open warfare, between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

That he attempted to do this while in England and under the authority of the English Bishops, with little input from the Scots, goes some way to explaining how he managed to be so spectacularly unsuccessful in this, that his son Charles's reign was blighted by what were called 'The Bishop's Wars' between England and Scotland.

Indeed, the cost of these wars was a major factor in the split between Charles and his Parliament, and ultimately led to seven years of war (with a brief interlude while Charles was in jail) and hence after his escape and second attempt at a civil war, to the king being beheaded, and the United Kingdom being run as a Protectorate (a kind of half-arsed republic) for a decade and a half.

Even after the Stuart line had been restored to the throne, they had constant difficulties both between Scotland and England, and between the three churches - English, Scottish, and Roman - that rumble on to this day in Ireland and Scotland. And the Stuarts didn't last out the century - they were deposed in a military coup against James the Second and Seventh, by an invited Dutch invader, William of Orange.

Even a passing knowledge of C17th history shows that the KJV, published in 1611, was an entirely political document, which ultimately caused nothing but trouble. Nothing in it bears any relationship to earlier Bibles, unless and except those parts that James I and VI couldn't readily bend to his primary objective.

To expect it to be anything other than a crutch for the power ambitions of the house of Stuart in uniting their English and Scottish thrones would be deeply foolish. Oh, look, there's a perfect description of evangelical literalists.

Talk about unintended consequences.
 
bilby said:
The history of the KJV (long before this discovery) made it completely obvious to any rational observer that one-and-six-Jimmy wasn't even vaguely interested in accuracy or consistency with any earlier works; His purpose was to stamp his authority on the Bishops of both of his Kingdoms, and to put an end once and for all to the constant bickering, civil unrest, and even open warfare, between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

That he attempted to do this while in England and under the authority of the English Bishops, with little input from the Scots, goes some way to explaining how he managed to be so spectacularly unsuccessful in this, that his son Charles's reign was blighted by what were called 'The Bishop's Wars' between England and Scotland.

Indeed, the cost of these wars was a major factor in the split between Charles and his Parliament, and ultimately led to seven years of war (with a brief interlude while Charles was in jail) and hence after his escape and second attempt at a civil war, to the king being beheaded, and the United Kingdom being run as a Protectorate (a kind of half-arsed republic) for a decade and a half.

Even after the Stuart line had been restored to the throne, they had constant difficulties both between Scotland and England, and between the three churches - English, Scottish, and Roman - that rumble on to this day in Ireland and Scotland. And the Stuarts didn't last out the century - they were deposed in a military coup against James the Second and Seventh, by an invited Dutch invader, William of Orange.

Even a passing knowledge of C17th history shows that the KJV, published in 1611, was an entirely political document, which ultimately caused nothing but trouble. Nothing in it bears any relationship to earlier Bibles, unless and except those parts that James I and VI couldn't readily bend to his primary objective.

To expect it to be anything other than a crutch for the power ambitions of the house of Stuart in uniting their English and Scottish thrones would be deeply foolish. Oh, look, there's a perfect description of evangelical literalists.

Talk about unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

In other word, fake news?
 
If I reread the OP right I think I agree. Translations of translations between languages will always reflect the views of the times.

From the Oxford commentary the passage written by Paul reference gay sex may have likye meant a general condemnation of libertine pagan sexuality. There are not a lot of precise one to one translation from the oldest versions to English. There is subjective interpretation by the translator as to true meaning. Do not know about today, ancient Hebrew was highly contextual. Difficult to be precise today in translation. Transcribe from Hebrew to Greek would certainly have introduced interpretation. Ancient Jews themselves up to modern times do not all agree on meaning. A Jew told me on a specific issue it is up to the individual Jew to interpret scripture. And he or she is bound by it.

Mary Medellin as a lowly prostitute was introduced in Europe. The imagery of the Jewish hell, if we can call it that, came from Dante.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
It really does speak to the power and majesty of Almighty God that, even given a process like that one, he still managed to divinely inspire a perfect and error free translation of His Word.

His workings are a mystery, but they always work. Praise Be.
Click to expand...

May the Lord open.

A bunch of fiction to corral the great unwashed in some sort of coherent society that represses the wimmen folk.
 
starwater said:
Tom Sawyer said:
It really does speak to the power and majesty of Almighty God that, even given a process like that one, he still managed to divinely inspire a perfect and error free translation of His Word.

His workings are a mystery, but they always work. Praise Be.
Click to expand...

May the Lord open.
Click to expand...

Nope. With his batting average, I would hesitate to put him in as night watchman. Even if they did name the ground after him.



Everybody loves obscure cricket references, right? Right?
 
That's a translation of the Bible. Translations often involve revisions.
 
Unfortunately the theory is not so good a discovery because of the dead sea scrolls. Those poor desperateers didn't think this through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom