Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure what you mean, but I have no inner turmoil over what seems obvious or possible to me

If you're referring to raising people from the dead, or walking on water, science cannot explain, but according to eyewitness accounts, someone once did just these things, but only one guy could pull that off and no other has since

To steal a line from fox news, "We report, you decide" .. Whatever floats your boat

I have some reporting to do. Enjoy!

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

The funny thing is that you don't have to alter the Bible at all in order for parts of it to be considered "objectionable" by these sorts of people.

You're not the first to notice. Such luminaries as Noah Webster undertook to purify the Holy Bible. I wonder if the irony was lost on him? I'm sure many devout ones were conflicted at the time.

Nope. You're a liar. "The earliest substantial New Testament manuscript known to exist is a slightly mutilated codex of Paul's epistles from about the year 200." http://www.bible-researcher.com/papy46.html

There's another side to the Galileo debate - that he was the victim of a political persecution by fellow scientists who felt Galileo was making fools out of them. It was they, not the church, who put forward the idea that Heliocentrism would lead to sun worship. Galileo kept much of his research secret not because he feared the Church, but because he feared the rebuke of his fellow scientists.

Read here:

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/scheiner.html

Also read this excerpt from Columbia Humanities Professor Robert Nisbet:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nisbet1.html

It's alright, I think I recognize most of your examples (please correct me if i'm wrong), although I think if we look at them in their original context, they don't mean quite what you make them out to mean:

"telling people to kill their children" - Abraham was being tested, but he knew that Isaac would be with God, so this was not a conflict of love. In the end, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead anyway. If you are talking about the public stoning of your children, this is a great example of what I was talking about when I said there were things that don't make sense or should cause the reader to ask questions. The purpose of this law was not to encourage capital punishment against your children, but rather to discourage it. Compare these laws to the Roman laws, known as patria potestas, which gave the father power to kill his child at whim. The Biblical law requires the cooperation of the mother, as well as the public, while the Roman law left judgement and responsibility with one person, the father. So this increases accountability, which is a major theme in the Bible, and I think a solid moral value (Isn't it better the more accountability leaders have?).

"avoid women on their periods" - This chapter is just talking about when someone is considered unclean (not the same as sin). It lists situations for men as well, and it doesn't say to avoid women.

"kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath" - Not sure if you're referring to specifics here, but what Jesus says about revenge involves turning the other cheek, and loving your enemy. He doesn't say to kill them or shun them; in fact, Jesus was known for ministering to those that were looked down upon. He didn't shun the lady at the well, and instead of calling for the adulteress to be stoned, He said "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"). Jesus also healed on the Sabbath, supporting the moral of love.

"endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism"
A lot to cover here, but slavery then is not as we think of it today. These slaves were paid (so you might call them servants), with conditions comparable to low class workers, or army servicemen. I don't believe endorsement of sacrifice (besides human sacrifice) conflicts with love. Not sure where you see child abuse, perhaps you mean the proverb of disciplining child; however, you can see that this doesn't endorse abuse, but discipline, which a loving father will do. If the torture you refer to is Revelation 9:5, context shows that it's not an endorsement, but a prophecy of torture, administered by a "fallen star" (probably Satan). Jesus teaches against bigotry and racism, in the parable of the good Samaritan, and with his own interactions with the woman at the well.

So yeah, these things wouldn't make sense the way you list them, but I think the meaning has been distorted (Not that I think you purposefully distorted it; a lot of these things are commonly mi

• Has anyone in the last couple of decades attempted a translation from the oldest possible sources for the Bible's contents?

For a compendium of many translations see The Bible Gateway.

A quick look on the Net for more info should you be interested lead me to this page, which APPEARS to be a fairly decent resource for more info on this topic. (*I haven't reviewed it thoroughly just briefly--but it rings objective*)

A shame. The King James Bible was almost certainly based on his translation. I've seen estimates that as much as 80% of the King James Bible was actually his work.

Like so many great reformers, he was put to death. His last known letter before he died is especially tragic to read.

The Tyndale Society

This page seems to accurately describe the CSB: http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb.html.

The CSB is currently available as a printed book and in HTML at http://www.broadmanholman.com/hcsb/bible-index.asp .

To quote an article: "This is aimed at those who want serious Bible study but in a version that is more readable than others on the market".