From: timf@microsoft.com (Tim Fleehart)
Subject: Re: Jesus?
Date: 05 Oct 92 23:38:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <92279.25559.J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>It is relavent today.  For instance, "You shall not murder" is relavent today.
>"You shall not steal" is relavent today.  "You shall not commit adultry" is
>relavent today.  "You shall not steal" is relavent today.  This is the

More like:

You shall not murder, except when your government condones it for whatever
reason or the church sanctions it in the name of Jeeesus.

You shall not steal, except from those who can least afford protection
against it.

You shall not commit adultry, except when you are a member of the clergy.

You got the 'shall not steal' in there twice...  

>reader's digest version.  If you don't think principals of the Bible are
>relavent today, go rob a bank, or give your spouse, or boyfriend or
>girlfriend to have sexual relations with your best friend.  Better yet, let
>your best friend rape then murder your SO, then talk about the irrelavency
>of the above.

But the penalties for the actions you suggest are codified in civil law...
God isn't gonna zap me with a thunder-bolt if I filch a candy-bar from the
safeway down the road...

What about the other principles of the bible, like you aren't supposed to
wear clothing made of a mix of fibres?  Is this relevant today?

>In order for it to be reliable, it must be transmitted accurately through
>time.  Must be correct when dealing with historical personages and events.
>If it is God's word, it should be without sany scientific absurdities that
>would betray that it came from mere human authorship.

But it isn't...  what about the places (two I believe) where it is written
that someone climbed into a tree from which he could see *all* of the earth?

And suppose that we've been translating some stuff incorrectly throughout
the ages, so instead of "thou shalt not kill", the original "thou shalt kill
with reckless abandon"?  How can you prove *this* isn't true?

Why is a work supposedly of devine inspiration so sloppy in the first few
chapters of the first book to repeat itself?  Wouldn't you think god would
have a clear head for this?  Wouldn't you think god would choose those
vessels most able to flawlessly transmit his work to us?

>It is unique.  Written over 1500 year time span. Over 40 authors (Bible is not
>one book, but several).

And not everyone agrees which several books either...

>Written on 3 continents. Written in three languages Hebrew, Aramaic and
>Greek.  It deals in hundreds of controversial topics. Yet, the biblical
>authors spoke in harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revala- tion.  It
>has been read by more people and published in more languages than any other
>book in history.

All this for $19.95, but wait there's more...

>A brief comparison of historical manuscripts:
>
>WORK              When Written   Earliest Copy    Timespan  No.of Copies
>============================================================================
>New Testement      40-100AD          125AD           25yrs.     over 24,000
>Homer (Illiad)      900BC            400BC          500yrs.       643
>
>AUTHOR            When Written   Earliest Copy    Timespan     No. of Copies
>============================================================================
>Caesar               100-44BC       900AD           1,000yrs.      10
>Plato(Tetralogies)  427-347BC       900AD           1200 yrs.      7
>Aristotle           384-322BC       1100AD          1,400 yrs.     49
>There's alot more that can be cited.

What?  So it's a best seller; people have been duped before but never so
greatly...

>Manuscript reliability is supported by different versions.  Syraic and Latin
>versions of the NT date to 150BC, and are supported by the older Greek texts.
>In addition all 24,000 manuscripts, with the exception of 40 lines are ac-
>curate transmissions from the older Greek texts.  There are 764 lines in doubt
>in Homer's Illiad.

So the translations at the time were better than our translations now...
Does this surprise anyone considering that aramic and the greek it was
written in relatively 'dead' languages today?

>The Talmudists (100AD-500AD) had a strict code for transcribing the Bible.  It
>dealt with word placement on the page, as well as preparation of the medium
>that would be used.  If only one word were out of place, the manuscript could
>not be authenticated and used for later transcriptions.  It also dictated the
>color and consistancy of the ink.  Nothing could be written from memory.
>
>The Massoretes (500AD-900AD) treated the scriptures with the same reverence.
>In addition, they numbered the verses to assure transcription correctness.
>When the Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea
>Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question.  10 of
>these are simply a matter of spelling.  4 were minor stylistic changes such
>as conjunctions.  The remaining comprise the word light which does not change
>the meaning of the text.  In addition, this word is supported by the LXX
>(Septuagint) transcription.

The above only suggests that it has been copied well, not that the originals
were correct...

>This is the Reader's Digest version of what makes the Bible so "different."
>There's more such as archeological digs that support places of the Bible.
>Isaiah spoke of the comming of the Christ.  It used to be, "Gee, the oldest
>manuscript of Isaiah is 900AD.  Who's to say they didn't alter the manuscript
>to 'fortel' the coming of Jesus?"  Now we have a manuscript that predates
>Jesus.  How do we handle that?

How do we handle the prophesies of Nostradamus?  Sooner or later something
that is similar to the prophesy will occur.

>After months of reading the group, it can be concluded that the participants,
>using the logic they currently use, could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
>that George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln did not exist.

I just can't take anything on faith that I can't see and reproduce.  To me
it doesn't make a difference whether or not jesus/god, George Washington or
Abraham Lincoln existed or not.  There aren't here now, and things are they
way they are.  But if I were to worship one, I'd probably choose Lincoln
because IMHO the story is a whole lot more realistic.

Tim
Newsgroups: alt.satanism