I just think it’s funny because every time I talk to religious people they always want to revert back to their Bible. But for people like me I would just as soon use the Bible to wipe my ass with. I tell them that and they think I’m evil but it’s only because I don’t have the same beliefs as they do. More my hate toward religion is founded on the Bible itself because of how many times it has been translated and how it was actually written by the king of England in the 16th century to suit his Needs and was never written by some religious guys in the middle of the desert or in a cave like they think. Their ridiculous love for the mythical book called the Bible is based on blind faith which without evidence is a lie. Sometimes I like to ask them if they saw someone such as even me come out of the desert or a cave with a big book saying that I wrote this book while being inspired by God would they believe me. They always say no and I know there is no difference between that and them believing in what they believe as to who wrote the Bible but they call the holy word of God. Really the word of king Henry 8.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I don't think anyone uses the 'Great Bible' any more, or the 'Bishop's Bible' or even the very restricted 'English Bible'.........although I do congratulate you on referencing Henry 8's early foray into anglicising worship in the Churches.
The KJV is probably the most ubiquitous and well known of the English versions of the Bible and of much later origin and more referenced by modern 'christians' than the three bibles you allude to in your OP.
Other than that I agree with the sentiment of your OP. Theists tend to be appallingly ignorant of the facts and origins of their religion.
Most theists who reference the bible as a legitimate source are unaware of it's history, that it was written by unknown authors, and was knowingly and deliberately edited when the chapters were compiled.
My favorite line is asking them if the four synoptic gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by such persons.Most likely they believe those four mentioned individuals wrote the gospels. Wrong.
The Bible was written by the anonymous writers time to time. It has more than 500 self-contradictions, errors, omissions and changes. The thing that makes Bible as the worst fictional book, is ridiculous claims such as Seth lived for more than 900 years or the God counted two creation days before the presence of sun. If you read the Greek Bible, you may notice that the gospels start from 'according to Mark/Luke/John's generation'. That means none gospel writer was alive when they were being written.
Archaeologists found 8000 manuscripts of the Bible dated to fourth century. None of the two look similar alike. Every gospel writer and apostle were dead on that moment. Nevertheless, KJV never touches a single manuscript. It was created by editing previous translations.
@Oscar27436 "and how it was actually written by the king of England in the 16th century to suit his Needs and was never written by some religious guys in the middle of the desert or in a cave like they think."
You are NOT correct in your assertion above. The KJV is an english translation of the bible, however the bible existed well before the 16th century. Mark & Mathew were written in the 1st century, as were the Pauline epistles.
The bible as a cannon existed probably from the 2nd or 3rd centuries. All the original manuscripts were written in Greek, however none of the original manuscripts remain. It is doubtful that any of the authors of the 'New Testament' were 'eyewitnesses' as claimed by christians. There are also not 4 seperate accounts as claimed by christians, but one account, which was Mark, & the other gospels all used Mark as their source, & rewrote them to suit their particular theology. Jesus becomes more divine each time the gospel is rewritten.
It is thought that 'Mark' (probably not the authors actual name), used Homers Odyssey as inspiration to construct the original narrative of jesus, with many parralels to jesus life, & Odysseus. That is why in Marks gospel, jesus is often travelling in a boat. There is also a narrative in the Odyssey about Euriclea, Penelopes servant who bathes Odysseus feet & recognises him. Mark copies this story in his Gospel, where the old woman bathes jesus feet, & recognises who he is.
The KJV includes many translation errors, some of them were quite deliberate to support the theology.
Just to add to your explanation of the Homer/Mark connection, for those not familiar with the details of both stories, the woman who washed Ulysses's feet was his old wet nurse, Euriclea whose name means 'broad fame'.
In Mark 14:9 (KJV) Jesus declares of the woman who washed his feet, "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done, shall be spoken of for a memorial of her."
Matthew copies this in 26:13. almost word for word.
Luke and John do not mention the prospect of the woman's 'broad fame' but the similarity of the Homer and Mark stories could not be mere coincidence.
It seems obvious that Mark was a Hellenised Jew, and most likely did not understand Hebrew or Aramaic, a circumstance that had been prevalent for many Jews for a few hundred years, under Seleucid and Ptolemy domination, when sons of ambitious Jews were enrolled in Greek academies instead of Jewish synagogue schools to learn the Greek language and culture to improve their prospects in the Hellenised world. Such an education involved a solid grounding in the writings of Homer and various Greek literary styles. The gospel of Mark is a very complex and comprises an intricately constructed writing style that evidences its Greek origins.
It looks like Mark rebelled against his family's hopes and took up a Jewish heresy. Kids.
The theory gaining traction amongst historiographers and historians most recently seems to be that "Mark" ( lets just go with that name) was exposed to the writings of Paul in the late 60's CE and possibly early 70's CE, and applying the gnostic tradition ( the most prevalent at the time) used his own visions/dreams to construct the story that has eventually been accepted as his gospel.
The mysterious and unproven precursor document 'Q' probably like the 'gospel jesus' just did not exist. This seems to be a whole lot more likely bearing in mind the earliest writings we have of Jesus stories is Paul/Saul, and based on his gnosis.Not predicated on the existence of a real person answering to the later descriptions..
That many temples and synagogues existed that were dedicated to a risen Messiah Yeshua( One of the many at the time) is not unusual before the Great Diaspora, and certainly the events of 70CE precipitated the Hellenestic legendary inclusions in "Mark" and stimulated "Matthew" to rewrite, correcting errors in Law and Lore to regain/reinforce the Jewish christians in their communities.
"The mysterious and unproven precursor document 'Q' probably like the 'gospel jesus' just did not exist"
Have I gone and gotten all confused again?
Does the argument of the existence of The Q document sound to you an awful lot like the god of the gaps argument used to argue the existence of god(s)?
PS Yes, I've been aware of the claims about the Q document for over 30 years. Using an argument from ignorance I've always just dismissed the idea as risible. Nice to have a more learned reason to reject it. :-]
I agree with you about the Q document. I was surprised to learn that it was first raised as a possibility in 1900 to explain the similarities between the gospels. I think it is a furphy.
I see no mystery as to why the synoptic gospels are similiar. Mark takes the basics from Paul and the other lesser known gospels and verbal stories, and creates his narrative on the familiar Odyssey, another heroic epic tale. Matthew copied from Mark and Luke copied from Matthew and when they needed more material they adapted known segments including lots of tenuous 'prophecies' from the Septuagint or made stuff up.
From memory Spong has even suggested the Septuagint was the Q document. But theists like to cling to the idea that each gospel was written in isolation and that no-one copied over each other's shoulder, which apparently supports the hope that each was divinely inspired and therefore proves the inerrant truth of the gospels.
The explanation that there are no copies of Q extant because it was nearly all copied into the gospels, and so wasn't required anymore doesn't wash either. If it was so important that it was used to create two of the gospels then why destroy it? And if Matthew and Luke both had a copy that would suggest it was widely available anyway. The chance of destroying every single copy of an early supposedly primary source christian document about Yeshua is not likely.
Mainline biblical scholars have thought for awhile now that Luke re-wrote Matthew to correct certain things he disagreed with Matthew on. Which makes me wonder what Luke would have felt about having his Gospel included side by side with the other three gospels in a collection called the "New Testament."
They all might better ponder why a deity lets this subjective contradictory guff go unchecked, but takes the time to make it's "face" appear in a sliced tomato.
"---and how it was actually written by the king of England in the 16th century to suit his Needs and was never written by some religious guys in the middle of the desert or in a cave like they think"
Did you actually make those claims?
Umm,from whence did you get the idea that the bible was written in a cave? You've made the claim, burden of proof is yours. Keeping in mind that the bible is not a single book, but an anthology of dozens of books by dozens of authors
I suspect the king of England in question is James 1. That he obviously wrote the bible because it's called "the king James version"
King James COMMISSIONED that translation in 1604. It appeared in English in 1611 as the authorised version of the bible in English in Britain. It was translated by top scholars using the oldest texts they could find.
The Tyndale bible appeared in 1526, but was 'unauthorised'. William Tyndale was executed for his trouble .
"The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, was commissioned in 1604 and completed as well as published in 1611 under the sponsorship of James VI and I.[a][b] The books of the King James Version include the 39 books of the Old Testament, an intertestamental section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha, and the 27 books of the New Testament. Noted for its "majesty of style", the King James Version has been described as one of the most important books in English culture and a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world."
"Tyndale’s translations were condemned in England, where his work was banned and copies burned. Catholic officials, prominently Thomas More, charged that he had purposely mistranslated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views, In particular they cited the terms "church", "priest", "do penance" and "charity", which became in the Tyndale translation "congregation", "senior" (changed to "elder" in the revised edition of 1534), "repent" and "love", challenging key doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Betrayed to church officials in 1536, he was defrocked in an elaborate public ceremony and turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake. His last words are said to have been, "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes.""
Cranks - I’m not sure Oscars around. These old threads that get resurrection makes me want to believe in life after death! Lol
Welcome elphidium :)
I love the delusionoids that think the bible was written by doG...ooops, I mean god
...they are fun.
@Oscar27436: The bible is a book of stories and claims. Claims are not evidence. I rarely find it useful to go to the contents of bible when discussing anything with Christians. Instead, stay with the facts. Who wrote it, how has it been changed. What is the evidence that it was God inspired? Why should I believe anything based on faith? Arguing contents is like swimming in mud. (Excuses for everything.)