Dinosaurs went extinct 5000 years ago, idiot!

johnsoninca: Dinosaurs went extinct 5000 years ago, idiot!

Not if Jesus was riding them 2,000 years ago ;)

Very cool. We had a thread about this when they announced the plans for putting the Sinaiticus online, been waiting to see this in the news again.

Wiki has a decent preliminary, with some solid notes on the textual variances within this copy. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this copy does not include the resurrection of Christ in Mark 16.

(Quick search confirms).

ninjakirby: Very cool. We had a thread about this when they announced the plans for putting the Sinaiticus online, been waiting to see this in the news again.

Wiki has a decent preliminary, with some solid notes on the textual variances within this copy. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this copy does not include the resurrection of Christ in Mark 16.

(Quick search confirms).

It looks they they said Jesus got risen there..

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

There is nothing further about the resurrection in the current form of Mark

ninjakirby: Very cool. We had a thread about this when they announced the plans for putting the Sinaiticus online, been waiting to see this in the news again.

Wiki has a decent preliminary, with some solid notes on the textual variances within this copy. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this copy does not include the resurrection of Christ in Mark 16.

(Quick search confirms).

Well... an abbreviated version, compared to the usual ones we know. But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

That's a resurrection, or at least news of one. Even if the women didn't say anything about it. And the other three gospel stories are intact anyway, as are the accounts in Acts and Corinthians.

Ha ha, your book is written in scriptio continua.


It's true, it is.

Benevolent Misanthrope: That's a resurrection, or at least news of one. Even if the women didn't say anything about it. And the other three gospel stories are intact anyway, as are the accounts in Acts and Corinthians.

Yeah, but Mark is generally considered the earliest source; that the account of 16:9-19 isn't within this version or the Vaticanus is whats so interesting.

Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe (c. ~400) coming across this mere allusion to a return of Christ in Galilee and comparing it to the other texts at his disposal which give an account (not necessarily the same account, but an account) of the resurrection, so he tosses in a few lines confirming that in Mark, and voila.

Wow this is pretty cool!

Con_Authority: Ha ha, your book is written in scriptio continua.


Welcome my friend to the script that never ends?

ninjakirby:

Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe (c. ~400) coming across this mere allusion to a return of Christ in Galilee and comparing it to the other texts at his disposal which give an account (not necessarily the same account, but an account) of the resurrection, so he tosses in a few lines confirming that in Mark, and voila.

Can't be! We all know that the bible was inspired by God! There can't be any revisions! I mean, Jesus snuck back to earth and handed it to King James! So this Greek version must be a lie.

Jesus was English.

eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

The entire thing is ridiculous. I think it is comforting to have the glimmer of hope that they will live beyond death and that is how they can justify the stupidity.

I am fairly certain you could add walking jellyfish saviors and breakdancing burning bushes and they will still maintain that it is reasonable.

But, who are we to judge? We are enjoying life beyond the slavery. If they want to remain in the matrix, so be it.

Darth_Lukecash: When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

consider for a moment that there are a section of people on this planet that think god wants them to cut their peckers to please him.

not getting into the 'you should/you shoudn't', or wanting to turn down the turtleneck direction w/ the thread - just something that's always overloaded my creepymeter. any god that told you to hack anything else off would be automatically assumed goofy, but this is just accepted as normal.

Darth_Lukecash: Welcome my friend to the script that never ends?

*golf clap*

As an historical document, it is fascinating.

But it's still complete rubbish.

It's still bullshiat.

eyehate: eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

The entire thing is ridiculous. I think it is comforting to have the glimmer of hope that they will live beyond death and that is how they can justify the stupidity.

I am fairly certain you could add walking jellyfish saviors and breakdancing burning bushes and they will still maintain that it is reasonable.

But, who are we to judge? We are enjoying life beyond the slavery. If they want to remain in the matrix, so be it.

eqtworld
I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

Religion: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Soooo, can we get a fresh translation from this thing, with footnotes where words might have multiple connotations depending on usage?

Because we've been chained to the KJV for far too long, and all the mistakes and bad translations in that have really farked with a lot of christians. Need a more accurate version so they REALLY know what's an abomination and what's OK.

/turns out shrimp were OK all along
//but 70-acre church complexes complete with gyms and swimming pools... not so much

Darth_Lukecash: eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

think of it this way: they worship a zombie

DemonEater: Need a more accurate version so they REALLY know what's an abomination and what's OK.

There are many, the problem comes from them being ignored because they came from elitist intellectual types with fancy degrees rather than the resident head of a megachurch.

NeuroticRocker: think of it this way: they worship a zombie

Wow. When you put it that way, Christianity sounds a lot cooler than it actually is.

/braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiins

It's not the bible! The bible was written in the same language Jebus spoke....English!

Darth_Lukecash: eqtworld: I am sure once Christians finally see well documented inconstancy in the Bible:

They will come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that God did not have sex with a human virgin and create a mangod baby who logically needed to be killed as a blood sacrifice.

When you put it that way, it sounds a bit creepy.

Maybe you'll prefer this description:



/hot

NeuroticRocker:
think of it this way: they worship a zombie

We had this argument a few of these threads ago, i think the consensus was that zombie was closest, but not perfect, and that a lot depended on what zombie movies you were basing the evaluation on. And also that we're a buch of farking nerds.

ninjakirby: Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe...

Yep, that's pretty much the interpretation among biblical scholars as well as non-literalist Christians. Highly recommended: "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (same guy that is quoted in the article).

Ultimately, it's not that different from following a modern news story about a celebrity death and finding that the details reported a week later are different from the details reported the day of the killing or the stories that emerge a year later. Heck, there are people today who are convinced that Elvis and Tupac are alive. Of course, these days we are "too sophisticated" to believe in people rising from the dead, so instead they have to convince themselves that they never died.

I'm a little disappointed - When I saw the headline, I was hoping for an elaborate illuminated text. Some of those are breathtaking works of art - but on reflection, I should have thought about the date - that's well before the "golden age" of text illumination.
Still, I'm sure it's a fascinating artifact if you're a biblical scholar or some such.

Awesome. This should keep my Greek-reading atheist ass busy for a long time.

eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.



I like the way I read your post better.

/hotter than Godzilla's heat ray

I won't believe a word of it until Bevets tells me what quotes to read

Site offline. And the proto-bible is probably in some funny-looking foreign language anyway. It didn't occur to me to wonder about textual changes. I was wondering how many entire books were added or missing; this was during the editing process that resulted in the modern canon.

maddogdelta: It's not the bible! The bible was written in the same language Jebus spoke....English!

Everyone knows that Jesus speaks spanish.

kabloink: Everyone knows that Jesus speaks spanish.

I don't know about that... I just watched Jesus the other night ^{(^)}, I didn't talk to him...(but since he's from Puerto Rico...you may be right...

maddogdelta: kabloink: Everyone knows that Jesus speaks spanish.

I don't know about that... I just watched Jesus the other night (^), I didn't talk to him...(but since he's from Puerto Rico...you may be right...

I've always wondered about that. If Jesus was really Jewish, how come he has a Mexican first name?

I came here for pics of Jesus riding a dinosaur & have seen none so I guess I will have to add some.

ZAZ: this was during the editing process that resulted in the modern canon.

It was during one of the many cycles of editing. I think, around this time, is when they decided the Wisdom of Solomon was out because it was written in Greek but was an Old Testament book.

FTA: "[The Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God,"

Wait... wut?

rideSpecialized: FTA: "[The Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God,"

Wait... wut?

Yeah really...and there was me thinking it was the infallible word of god dictated by him personally...

/love the moving of the goalposts

CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

rideSpecialized: FTA: "[The Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God decide which parts they find agreeable,"

Well considering the bulk of the bible belt in the US can barely speak, yet alone read and and write, proper English I don't think something written in Greek is going to do much for them. Maybe if they get Jeff Foxworthy to read the translation of it on an audio book and simulcast it during a NASCAR broadcast you might get somewhere with these people but until then we just have to endure the stupid.

Great... just exactly what we need... more bibles.

ninjakirby: Benevolent Misanthrope: That's a resurrection, or at least news of one. Even if the women didn't say anything about it. And the other three gospel stories are intact anyway, as are the accounts in Acts and Corinthians.

Yeah, but Mark is generally considered the earliest source; that the account of 16:9-19 isn't within this version or the Vaticanus is whats so interesting.

Seems to me the likely scenario would be one of a later scribe (c. ~400) coming across this mere allusion to a return of Christ in Galilee and comparing it to the other texts at his disposal which give an account (not necessarily the same account, but an account) of the resurrection, so he tosses in a few lines confirming that in Mark, and voila.

If you read with a critical eye, and have a decent sense of authorial "voice" you can spot all sorts of latter-day "additions" to a number of the gospels where Jesus' character and speech patterns radically shift for a few verses before shifting back to the original. Once you realize that most of these "breaks" just happen to neatly match up with raging doctrinal controversies of the Early church; It becomes obvious that some over-eager postulants wanted to settle matters by putting words in Jesus' mouth.

However, its is also clear when you read them, that Mark, Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke, were all writing based on some earlier oral or written source that focused less on the narrative of Jesus's life and more on his teachings. Where the three strongly agree, the likelihood of forgery is much lower.

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

Actually, the most Hard-corps of the Fundies believe that the document mutated over time, but this was all Part of God's Plan to produce the final, authoritative and literally true version of the bible; Which is, of course the King James Version.

To these folks the English version of the KJV is literally true, and if you point out that a particular word had a different connotation in greek, Hebrew or Latin, they don't care because the only REAL bible is written in English

eyehate: Mithra Christ smiles on your foolishness.

Actually its really more Manichiest-Christ, unless you really want to blow your mind and read up on Mandeanism, which was a middle eastern mystery religion that very closely matched the practices that we ascribed to the Essene sect of Judaism and called their highest level initiates Nasoreans (enlightened teacher more or less). In their tradition both John the Baptist and Jesus were Nasoreans, but, here's the fun twist: John the Baptist was their most revered teacher and Jesus was reviled as basically their version of a Sith Lord who betrayed the order and turned to the dark side.

Magorn: However, its is also clear when you read them, that Mark, Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke, were all writing based on some earlier oral or written source that focused less on the narrative of Jesus's life and more on his teachings.

That would be the hypothetical Q, correct?


Not this Q.

Magorn: the only REAL bible is written in English

And screw them non-English speakers. God is for Americans. Yes, you are correct. It's not so much that Fundies deny the historical nature of the document, they simply ignore it.

Magorn: It becomes obvious that some over-eager postulants wanted to settle matters by putting words in Jesus' mouth.

It becomes even more clear when you look at the Epistles. Some of those questionable edits are clearly added based on the content of those Epistles.

I tend to think of Jesus much like Socrates. Socrates probably existed, and probably said some mildly interesting things, but Plato fictionalized him to such an extent that the record and the reality are probably so divergent that one wouldn't even recognize them as having the same source.

t3knomanser: CheeseEatingBulldog: /love the moving of the goalposts

In all fairness, there's a lot of variation in Christian thought on this subject. Only the most fundie of fundies deny the fact that the Bible is a historical document that has mutated over time.

Oh right...so god is so perfect he couldn't dicatate what he meant in the first place...so when he said send all teh geys to hell, he actually meant that they are ok?

/move the posts any further and we can play aussie rules

CheeseEatingBulldog: Oh right...so god is so perfect he couldn't dicatate what he meant in the first place...so when he said send all teh geys to hell, he actually meant that they are ok?

Well, if you want to go that route, one could point out that if God were actually omnipotent and omniscient, there would have been no need to do the whole New Testament thing in the first place.

The dodge the religious use is "free will". Fallible humans received the infallible message, and corrupted it, or whatever.

The reality of the situation is that the Bible is so large, and so vague, and so open to interpretation that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. It's like a horoscope or a tarot card.