Originally posted by Hand of HecateToo late: I changed a few names/things (subbed yours for Scribby's; changed the priest to Mr. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the sour wine to high-grade MaryJane) and submitted it post haste.
Actually, I was thinking of submitting it. You can pull in $100 to $300 per submission at http://www.rd.com/submitjoke.do
As soon as I saw it, I knew it was solid gold, baby. They said my check's in the mail.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't believe / assume anything.
The basic problem with any "no modifications" doctrine is that it is proovably false.
If I take a copy of the Bible or Qu'raan, make a few changes and then take it and preach to some pacific island people who have no access to other books, will God stop me? Will the modifications magically retain thier origional meaning?
It is an undisputable fact that ...[text shortened]... and true. Why do you assume that this particular sentence was not altered or is not false?
I was merely responding to Bosse's misconception.
I don't think the Qu'raan / Bible / Torah is divine.
I barely trust any of it. Some of it is a lot of good ideas. Some just bull. Historicaly speaking everything changes, so I try to fall back upon the core and soul of the bible and not all the rest. I myslef am not a christian, but I find its main points to be in the right place. Like not killing, and peace.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm speaking historically. They have found old religous documents thought to have been one of the first bibles. Hell they have even found something thought to be the original tablets of commandments.
Interesting how you make claims that people have made major changes and the throw in words like "the origional bible" like such a thing ever existed. It always amazes me how people never seem to think about thier own beliefs.
You wanna lecture me on my beliefs though. I doubt you'd understand half the stuff I'd tell you. and watch the history channel sometime you might find something out...
Originally posted by sjegNo, the snake was in it yes. But my point is a lot of stuff has been changed. I simply said "the snake was changed to represnt the devil'
Eh?
So the big bad Church added the snake to the Garden of Eden, and before the Church did this, it was just a benevolent serpent hissing away and playing backgammon?
And then the Church changed the text to exclude the noofters, on top of all that? My goodness!!! 😲
Originally posted by Dracos Chikoua) Don't be silly. What did the snake mean, then? Was it just a thing to place on a board of ladders for family fun?
a) I'm right there is historical evidence to back it,
b) yes I don't believe in a lot of stuff in the bible, I'm not saying its all bad. There a lot of good stuff in it. Like peace, not killing, be a good neighbor. Stuff like that.
The snake as a symbol of evil/corruption/temptation is far older than you seem to think. And if you were right in some other dimension, say, the alegory would lose all meaning.
b) Peace!
Originally posted by sjegRegarding a) we do know that the Gospels went through an
a) He's wrong b) he doesn't.
editorial process comparing extant versions of those text with
each other. Lines are added, changed, and even entire parables
(such as the first 11 verses of chapter 8 of St John's Gospel, which
very likely came from a Lucan tradition). There are probably about
a dozen other examples, with literally hundreds of minor (and largely
inconsequential) examples.
Nemesio