Slashdot Mirror
World's Oldest Bible Going Online
99luftballon writes "The British Museum is putting online the remaining fragments of the world's oldest Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus dates to the fourth century BCE and was discovered in the 19th century. Very few people have seen it due to its fragile state — that and the fact that parts of it are in collections scattered across the globe. It'll give scholars and those interested their first chance to take a look. However, I've got a feeling that some people won't be happy to see it online, since it makes no mention of the resurrection, which is a central part of Christian belief."On Thursday the Book of Psalms and the Gospel According to Mark will go live at the Codex Sinaiticus site. The plan is to have all the material up, with translations and commentaries, a year from now.
Truth is that they just like it because the King James Bible has more of the sort of blood-and-thunder language that appeals to these sorts. The old-fashioned English it uses sounds kinda scary to the modern ear and that's how they like it.
hmmmm "NT" ... I wonder what that stands for ...
Nice Troll?
Muslims don't have a problem with dogs, they have a problem with *pet* dogs.
You can own a dog to protect your property or yourself, but it shouldn't be allowed into the house.
No that's not it, they have a problem with police dogs, you know when they're sniffing out drugs or weapons .. they get highly religious then.
Cite your sources?
The general feeling is that the Roman Catholic Church's main dogma is the "the doctrine is the truth" so if something seems to be the truth outside of the doctrine, it is dangerous and should be fought.
This is what apologists refer to gently as "Protestant propaganda," or just "nonsense."
Maybe you're thinking of Southern Baptists? The Bible occupies a much less important position among Catholics; there are the basics we accept out of it and then you have the discussion with coffee and donuts and THERE is where you learn. Ergo archaeological "proof" is not some Holy Grail like it is for the Fundamentalists; we don't need everything to be a true historical event, we don't need the Prodigal Son to have existed to understand what the moral of the story is, etc. See Lorenzo Albacete's talks on Job--Catholics learn things like the concept that shared suffering always ends in an expression of grace and love, whereas...well, Fundies like to quote chapter and verse and then bug out. Slightly different approach.
The Old Testament is the instruction manual (and most Jews don't even follow all the silly bits of that any more.) The New Testament is just illustrative stories, or at least it was until it got edited into a set of commands. A lot of it has been mistranslated or misrepresented to say things it never did say (e.g. "god hates fags" or "masturbation is wrong".)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It hasn't been "rewritten" over and over. Scholars pretty much know what the original said, give or take the odd word here or there.
Explain please why the KJV and NIV so clearly produce a dramatically different meaning even than the several-generations-removed Greek texts that are known to exist, and are still used in spite of this fact.
It doesn't matter what the Scholars know if it doesn't make it into the book that the typical man in the pew reads at home, or has misinterpreted for him in church.
Even the most divergent of manuscripts are still the same bible, and a typical man in the pew probably wouldn't notice which manuscript it was translated from.
That's because he's been lied to about the sanctity of the text that has been delivered to him, brainwashed about its validity, and is incapable of reading the translations on which they are badly based in any case.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Being a muslim, I can see how you got this wrong, but the Trinity was never outlined in the bible.
Uh...
Is the Trinity in the Bible? * What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?
You're both right and wrong in that it was established at the council of Nicea (I always spell that wrong and am probably doing it now) but has informed later editions of the bible.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The you will be destroyed. I mean it isn't that difficult and if you have read the bible, you already know that answer.
I understand you wanting to use words like mythology and superstitious morons. I know it makes you feel superior and you need all that you can get. But that doesn't stop what is written from being written or happening. If you refuse to accept him, then you just don't participate in the afterlife and what little you will be in, will be a hell for you. This again is something that you would already know if you read the bible like you said. Of course you were only 15 by your own admission and you probably didn't understand a thing in it. But that is just a guess on my part. You could just be an idiot. BTW, I don't even think you know what the beliefs are, that could be why you couldn't objectively do anything when you were 12 or whatever age you are now.
How can we believe anything said about the Bible by the guy with your user ID?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.