Islamic Jesus

[Townsend]

+1

First long post I've read all the way through in a while.

Nice job

[Hawkins]

I took this from the Wikipedia entry on "Armageddon."

quote: The word Armageddon in Scripture is known only from a single verse in the Greek New Testament[1], where it is said to be Hebrew, but it is thought to represent the Hebrew words Har Megido (#1492;#1512; #1502;#1490;#1497;#1491;#1493;), meaning "Hill of Megiddo" or "Valley of Megiddo". Megiddo was the location of many decisive battles in ancient times (see Battle of Megiddo).

Has anyone else ever thought that maybe... just maybe... a secret organization of wise individuals planted this phrase in the Bible to ensure that one day, under the influence of this directive, religious extremists from all sides would kill themselves off, and leave the world a better place? []

[dggriffi]

grist for the mill from bibleinfo

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.

HISTORY OF TRANSLATIONS

The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388.

A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.

From which language was the KJV was translated. Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate. As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch. And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale's New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.

The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752.

[jne]

quote:Originally posted by dggriffi

grist for the mill from bibleinfo

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek.

HISTORY OF TRANSLATIONS

The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388.

A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.

From which language was the KJV was translated. Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate. As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch. And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale's New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.

The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752.

I love this picture.  Makes me think of  "English as She is Spoke"

[Wingnut]

Very interesting CF. Is that all you could find? The first website says there are 143 supposed contradictions in the Bible. Scroll down a little.
For answers to those issues and more, go here:http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
or here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bible.html
More info here: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bible/Contra/

Thanks for posting them. It keeps me on my toes.

[dggriffi]

so wing,   just curious,   do you believe the earth is 4000 years old and do you believe that Christ was born on December 25th?   No disrespect intended,  just curious.

[cannon_fodder]

In Wingnut's defense, the Bible never says Jesus was born on the 25th.  It is a well documented historical fact that the date was chosen much, much later in the Roman Empire to coincide with a pagan holiday.

And no Wingnut, those are not all that I can find.  However, many are subject to linguistic quirks that I am not an expert on (Jesus told Mary "What business of that is yours Woman?"  Is that lack of respect for his mother or poor translation?) and still other's can be explained as issues of faith (there was light in Genesis before he made the sun, but perhaps the power of the Lord could accomplish this).  Understanding of those arguments, I tried to post a few that seemed resolute in their differences and are, to the best of my knowledge, not subject to linguistic or simplified faith-based arguments.

I admit that of those I posted some can be explained away and have read many of the explanations you cited.  However, to many there is no logical explanation except that it must have been an error in translation, a misrepresented memory, or an editing mistake at some point.  Frankly, if there are this many apperent errors that need an explanation it is not a perfect book.  I would think a divine creation would be largely free of such obvious flaws.

All that ignores the fact that Roman Emperor Constantine set in motion the bureaucracy that determined what made it into "THE Bible" some  300 years after Jesus' death.  Shortly thereafter 66 New Testament books were adopted as official Christian texts.  Of course, later Popes decided to cut this, that and the other to end up with our now 27 Book new Testament. Coupled with translations, other editing, general time changes in language, and the myriad of different versions and I seriously struggle to conclude it remains divine.

[Wingnut]

quote: do you believe the earth is 4000 years old and do you believe that Christ was born on December 25th? No disrespect intended, just curious

Another can of worms........
Dec 25th .  Not at all. CF is correct, it was pretty much picked at ramdom, I believe by the Catholic Church.
4000 years old. Most creationists say around 6000 years old. I don't believe in evolution at all. There are too many holes in it. The ideas keep changing. Millions and millions++ of years?? 30 years ago it was the next ice age coming, now global warming is going to do us in in the next 30 or so? Give me a break!

quote: And no Wingnut, those are not all that I can find

I didn't realize that there had been that many (at least 143) possible issues found. I have heard about some, but not that many.

[TeeDub]

I had the opportunity to go down the grand canyon.  there was another raft of "creationist geologists" we kept running into.

Anyone that thinks that the grand canyon as made in just a few years has a serious mental defect.


Other than that, I think I will go with the "Buddy Christ" version of things.

[EricP]

Wait, so you are saying with ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the evidence there is that suggests the earth is MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH older than 6,000 years, you just think there are too many holes in it to give up that piece of your religion to reality? We have had friggin trees that are a significant fraction of 6,000 years old. You're not just saying you don't believe in evolution.. you are saying that even the most basic science that a 2nd grader can understand is absolutely thrown out the window and we now live in la-la land, where nothing we do has any consequences because jebus will save us. Why worry about pollution?

Argh. Sorry. Cliffs: I have farts that have lasted more than 6,000 years. If you are going to believe that, at least don't make the rest of us suffer because of it.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Other than that, I think I will go with the "Buddy Christ" version of things.

Dude.  I've been thinking about that pic for DAYS.  Every time I look at this thread, I keep thinking, "what everyone needs is a little more Buddy Christ in their lives."

And look.  Ask and ye shall receive.

[Wingnut]

quote: you just think there are too many holes in it to give up that piece of your religion to reality?  

What reality? What proves evolution really happend?
Where are the transitional species? Fossils don't prove evolution? All they prove is that a creature died and we found it. Every time they find something different, they change their theory.
All carbon dating is based on assumption. There is no way to prove it's accurate. Carbon degrades at different rates, not linearly, as believed. It's been proven in the lab.
Even as a non-Christian I didn't believe in evolution. Million of years? Billions of years??
We can't even conceptualize that kind of time. It just was too far-fetched to me.

[rwarn17588]

Wingnut wrote:

Million of years? Billions of years??
We can't even conceptualize that kind of time. It just was too far-fetched to me.

<end clip>

Go to the Grand Canyon. Then try to reconcile the notion that it was created in 6,000 years, like some Christianists claim. It's preposterous.

Given the Grand Canyon's slow rate of erosion and its extrordinary depth, millions or billions of years for its creation seems extremely plausible to me.

[rwarn17588]

Wingnut, if you don't believe in evolution, guess what?

Apparently bacteria and viruses do.

That's the reason we have "superbugs" now. They evolved to be more resistant to antibiotics and other medicines.

Whether you believe it or not, evolution *is* happening.

[Hawkins]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

In Wingnut's defense, the Bible never says Jesus was born on the 25th.  It is a well documented historical fact that the date was chosen much, much later in the Roman Empire to coincide with a pagan holiday.

Thats such a polite way of saying that the Catholics screwed that up, along with all the other ridiculous wars, attacks on science, and torture that make up their illustrious history.

How anyone can be a Catholic, given their history, is quite the mystery.