Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Diotrephes, can you or can't you provide any fucking testable, repeatable evidence that the documents in question in the British Library are fake? What tests have been conducted? Who conducted them? What are the results of those tests? For example, is the ink consistent with the 3rd century? Has that been tested?
Sing and dance all you want but until you provide that, I reject your assertion that these docs are faked.
LogicForTW,
My contention is that the Bible as an unified collection of stories simply did not exit until a committee of writers in England wrote the 75 pound Codex Amiatinus around the year 700 A.D. Sure, they might have had various scraps of assorted manuscripts but they had the oral stories, which were more important.
Consider the Hymn to the ancestors in Sirach chapters 44-50 (CEB) Sirach 44-50 CEB - Hymn to the ancestors - Now allow us to - Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+44-50&version=CEB
A person can easily remember that word for word if he was so inclined and then write all kinds of stories about those characters. Only lunatics think that there was a reporter on hand to record the dialogue and events between one or two people in some of the stories.
The Bible even has a verse in it about being a story.
2 Maccabees 15:38 (CEB) = "If the story was told effectively, this is what I wanted. But if it was told in a poor and mediocre fashion, this was the best I could do."
Of course someone can say that that applies to something else but I contend that it was inserted as a hidden gem to reveal that the entire Bible is just a story that is intended to illustrate the Ten Commandments from Exodus 34:10-28. All of the stories are based on one of those Ten Commandments. Sometimes the stories show what happens when they are not followed and sometimes they show what happens when people do follow them.
Since the books were written by different writers on the committee there are some variations between them although they followed the basic script.
In the early 16th Century Luther wrote his German Bible and kept revising it.
In the middle of the 16th Century the Catholics decided to write their own Bible, the Vulgata Sixtina Vulgata Sixtina - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata_Sixtina. After several committees having a go at it Pope Sixtus V bit the dust (propbably murdered) and they tossed his garbage version into the trash can.
The English then wrote another committee version in the 17th Century. It included the Apocrypha books for the next 274 years until some guy got a bug up his butt and removed them in 1885. APOCRYPHA KJV
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ So all of the Protestant versions of the Bible are less than 131 years old.
@Diotrephes: The documents that are displayed in the British Library are authenticated and their age tested, if not the British Library, an institution at the height of the Smithsonian Institute, would not exhibit them.
Another thing... that these documents prove that most of the gospels were written in Greek in the third century, deny the ancient maxim that the gospels came from Judea, or from first-hand accounts of Jews. Having said this... What exactly do you want to sell us?
Well it isn't. You seem to be roped into this weird conspiracy theory that the religious (and I'd say fictional/mythological) works are of modern origin. Like when you claimed no English bible (before 18th century ) describes Jesus as being Jewish under any conditions. And since you seemed trapped by this conspiracy idea, you are forced to conclude that the Wycliffe bible (and presumably the King James) did not exist before the 18th century. It seems you have gone pretty far out on that limb, and I'm suggesting perhaps you should reconsider that.
Nyarlathotep,
As I pointed out in another post some guy in the 1880s got a bug up his butt and tossed out the Apocrypha books that had been in the KJV Bible since it had been written 274 years previously. That's why the Protestant Bibles now have 66 books.
The word "Jew" didn't exist before the 18th Century. There were a series of other descriptive words but "Jew" wasn't one of them. It might be helpful to learn the etymology of words. It helps you to date manuscripts. So Google it.
History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htm
Origin of the Word Jew
http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/origin_of_the_word_jew.html
I've made several points and given references. You know how to do independent research. You can present your alternate facts for consideration. If I disagree I will present references to counter your alternate facts or simply state what my opinion is. Maybe you can discover who the guy was that got the bug up his butt and deleted those books from the Bible in the 1880s? APOCRYPHA KJV
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
Let me guess: The Canterbury Tales are a fraud as well?
Nyarlathotep,
You are failing your research assignment. You could end up back in pre-school at this rate.
Research the etymology of the word for yourself.
The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament, and the New. Imprinted at London : By Robert Barker ..., 1611. In Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library. BS185 1611 .L65.
Romanes (Romans) 1:16
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I'm starting to wonder if Diotrephes is actually Jeff.
Nyarlathotep,
It's my sad duty to inform you that your Bible is a fake. As I mentioned earlier, everyone has a vested interest in supporting the fairy tale and you have been hoodwinked by a clever scam artist.
In the book of Susanna (it just has one chapter) the writer slipped up and used the word "acknowledged" in verse 14. So that dates the fake after 1760-1770.
My evidence: http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kj...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/acknowledged?s=t
Origin of acknowledged
1760-1770
First recorded in 1760-70; acknowledge + -ed2
I therefore stand by my earlier claim. The word "Jew" as spelled "Jew" didn't exist before the 18th Century in the Bible.
Sorry about the size of the image. It's not showing as I copied it. You will have to use the link to the verse in the book of Susanna to read it.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Diotrephes
Don't you think it is odd that you have this crazy belief; and every book that is shown to contradict you, you must then claim is fake to maintain your belief? Why doesn't that make you skeptical? What is wrong with you?
Nyarlathotep,
Are you really incapable of rational thought? I presented independent evidence that your evidence is fake because it uses words that were not in existence when your book was supposedly published. It seems that some self-professed atheists have more interest in defending the fairy tale than Bible thumpers do. You have exposed yourself as a believer. Which church or synagogue do you attend?
@Nyarlathotep: We don't need to look in the bible, look for history... http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/if-jesus-didnt-exist-w...
@Diotrephes: Well, if you think the word "Jew" didn't exist before the eighteenth century, perhaps you should discuss it with Titus Flavius Josephus, you know, lesser known as Yosef ben Matityahu, and ask him how he dared to write Ἰουδαὴκἀ ἀρχαιολογία, sorry, better known as Antiquitates Iudaicae because with that title book was presented to TITVS CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVGVSTVS, which together with De Bello Iudaico, are the historic summits of the historical period leading up to the sacking of the Jerusalem temple at the hands of the Romans and the conquest of Matsuda... or with TIBERIVS CAESAR AVGVSTVS which, as you know, was who dictated the prohibition that the Jews could live within the walls of Rome... and I can continue, if you want.
SBMontero,
How can I discuss anything with a person who never existed by that name? There was no one named "Joseph" or "Josephus" 2,000 years ago because the letter "J" didn't exist then. Get that through your head. And when supposedly ancient Bibles use words that created centuries after they were supposedly written it's proof that those Bibles are fakes. If a supposedly ancient Bible had the phrases "flat screen television" or "Sherman tank" in it you wold probably believe it without a second thought.
"The first English language book to make a clear distinction between ⟨i⟩ and ⟨j⟩ was published in 1633"
J - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J
Online Etymology Dictionary
http://www.etymonline.com/?l=j
"If the letter J wasn't invented until 1600, how did Jesus get his name 2013 years ago?"
If the letter J wasn't invented until 1600, how did Jesus get his name 2013 years ago? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/If-the-letter-J-wasnt-invented-until-1600-how-did-...
@Diotrephes: Wait, wait, wait... Are you now saying that Yosef ben Matityahu, Titus Flavius Josephus, writer of Antiquitates Iudaicae and Bello Iudaico didn't exist??? I'm going to repeat it for the last time, What the hell do you want to sell us? You seriously think you can treat us like idiots, like we were jerks sitting listening to a preacher in a church and we were not going to tell you anything, Or what? Ôo)-~
I plainly said that that Joseph (Josephus) didn't exist by that name 2,000 years ago because that name did not exist at that time. If the guy's name was "Green Grass" then refer to him as "Green Grass" and not by an alias such as "Transistor Radio". I have seen Bible Thumpers who don't defend the fairly tale as strongly as you do. You might as well be the Pope.
"because the letter "J" didn't exist then"
By that logic, Julius (Iulius) Caesar didn't exist either. Accidents of orthography in different languages don't rule out the existence of individuals or races. In most languages the word for "Jew" begins with a "Y" sound, as in the German word "Juden". The name "Jesus" is written "Iesus" in Latin (fourth declension if my memory serves), which would also be pronounced with an initial "Y" sound. The Japanese word for "Jesus", which I believe they got from early 17th century Portuguese missionaries, sounds exactly like the English word "Yes".
There are many arguments against the existence of Jesus. Orthography isn't one of them.
Algebe,
Please pay attention. The person might have existed as a physical entity. But he didn't exist by that name. If his original name was "Shit Bucket" then refer to him as "Shit Bucket" and not as "Mercedes Ferrari" because "Mercedes Ferrari" was never his name.
Some con men in Amsterdam made up the name "Jesus" in 1632 when they wrote a bogus Bible. If people want to worship the guy they ought to have enough respect to use his name and not some alias. Maybe the Japanese could have given him the name "Tree Stump" because the word "Jesus" hurt their ears and he died on wood.
@Diotrephes: "Please pay attention."
No you pay attention. You've obviously got some wires crossed between historical linguistics and history. The fact that the Jesus character may or may not have been called by other names is irrelevant to the debate over whether or not he existed. The name "Jesus" is derived from Iesus, which is the Latinized version of "Yeshua." Do you expect words and names to remain unchanged over millennia?
Algebe,
OK, from now on I'm referring to the Jesus character as "Tree Stump".
Why not call him Mr. Nails and his father Busy Whiskers?
Accidental repeat post
I learned a new word today!
@Nyarlathotep: Wait, wait, Are you saying that there are people here who argue that the gospels are from the eighteenth century? Ôo)-~
I never said that the Gospels are from the 18th Century. I said that a number of books were deleted from the Bible around 1880-1885.
I've also said that the first Bible with all of the books was completed as an unified book around the year 700 A.D. And then around the year 1880-1885 some guys got a bug up their butts and tossed the Apocrypha books. The result was the "Protestant Bible".
Can you show your 3rd Century Greek alphabet Bible?
@Diotrephes: I've never said that there was a bible in the third century, I have shown images of two gospels of the third century authenticated and tested, because of the third century all the gospels were written in Greek, 48 appraised, although we know that there were more than two hundred, and 73 Of them were taken to Nicaea, from which only four. Don't you know read?
SBMontero,
Forgive me for my error. I thought you wrote that you read the Bible in original Greek. I asked if you would be kind enough to post some clear images of it. As I might have mentioned, the images you posted are worthless because they are unreadable. Besides, they are not the Bible.
@Diotrephes: Sorry, but... What interest could the British library have in falsifying historical documents which demonstrate that most of the gospels were written in the third century by Greeks? Because I'm not able to find meaning Ôo)-~
Are you seriously saying that the British library has exposed authenticated, age-tested Bible documents that are false? Do you have any proof of this?
SBMontero,
When you find out why the Protestant Bible has 66 books you may start to understand.
Pages