14
   

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 05:37 am
maporsche wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

Honestly, Sam, Bill, and Ralf could, and it wouldn't take a God to do it.

T
K
O


All it would take is a halfway competent editor (of which there were SEVERAL).


Yup, considering how many times the books of the Bible have been copied, translated and edited by people with strong religious covictions.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2007 06:31 am
maporsche wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

Honestly, Sam, Bill, and Ralf could, and it wouldn't take a God to do it.

T
K
O


All it would take is a halfway competent editor (of which there were SEVERAL).


Add to that that Frodo is making **** up. No one, absolutely no one, knows how many authors there were. We do know for a fact that there was a major revision of the Pentateuch after the Babylonian captivity. Since it was considered divinely inspired, no portion was rejected, which accounts for the inclusion of repetitive and contradictory passages--the editors were trying to reconcile texts which did not agree. What the Christians call the "Old Testament" derives from translations to Greek in the 3rd century CE--and that despite the fact that the Jews did not decide upon a canonical text until more than two centuries later, when the texts were revised in the late 5th and early 6th centuries CE.

Of course, what is pathetic is that Frodo responds now twice to my question, after having ignored it literally for weeks. I'd say Diest is right, Frodo doesn't read other people's post, unless they are short and sweet, and he ignores those posts for weeks on end. Really a pathetic performance.
0 Replies
 
XFRODOBAGGINSX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:19 am
Setanta wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

Honestly, Sam, Bill, and Ralf could, and it wouldn't take a God to do it.

T
K
O


All it would take is a halfway competent editor (of which there were SEVERAL).


Add to that that Frodo is making **** up. No one, absolutely no one, knows how many authors there were. We do know for a fact that there was a major revision of the Pentateuch after the Babylonian captivity. Since it was considered divinely inspired, no portion was rejected, which accounts for the inclusion of repetitive and contradictory passages--the editors were trying to reconcile texts which did not agree. What the Christians call the "Old Testament" derives from translations to Greek in the 3rd century CE--and that despite the fact that the Jews did not decide upon a canonical text until more than two centuries later, when the texts were revised in the late 5th and early 6th centuries CE.

Of course, what is pathetic is that Frodo responds now twice to my question, after having ignored it literally for weeks. I'd say Diest is right, Frodo doesn't read other people's post, unless they are short and sweet, and he ignores those posts for weeks on end. Really a pathetic performance.


Now YOU are making stuff up.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 01:36 am
back it up Frodo.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 06:44 am
What Diest said . . .
0 Replies
 
XFRODOBAGGINSX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 10:01 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
back it up Frodo.


what would you like me to back up?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 02:12 am
XFRODOBAGGINSX wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
back it up Frodo.


what would you like me to back up?


If it wasn't obvious enough, I'd like you to back up that Setanta's post is incorrect. You claim he made stuff up. Now back it up.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2007 11:40 pm
yeah, back it up--er, i mean. . . "bm".
0 Replies
 
XFRODOBAGGINSX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2007 11:03 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
XFRODOBAGGINSX wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
back it up Frodo.


what would you like me to back up?


If it wasn't obvious enough, I'd like you to back up that Setanta's post is incorrect. You claim he made stuff up. Now back it up.

T
K
O


So he can say that I am making stuff up and not have to prove it? I think that I have shown you why he is wrong. What more would you like to know?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 01:24 am
XFRODOBAGGINSX wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
XFRODOBAGGINSX wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
back it up Frodo.


what would you like me to back up?


If it wasn't obvious enough, I'd like you to back up that Setanta's post is incorrect. You claim he made stuff up. Now back it up.

T
K
O


So he can say that I am making stuff up and not have to prove it? I think that I have shown you why he is wrong. What more would you like to know?


This is getting out of hand! Put your fingers on the keys, and provide evidence that what he said was made up! If you will read back, you responded to his post that was full of evidence. You, not him, has the problem providing facts.

Your posts are worthless. Put up, or shut up.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 07:10 am
I hate to be in the position of defending Frodo, considering that he has failed to realize that the hope for the majority of mankind is not heaven, but life on earth, and the consequence of disobedience is not eternal torture but death. Nevertheless, Set has provided more than a few sweeping and unsupported statements from authority, not the least of which is this asseveration:
Setanta wrote:
Jews did not decide upon a canonical text until more than two centuries later, when the texts were revised in the late 5th and early 6th centuries CE.
How could decisions made by the Jews in the 5th century affect the OT texts accepted by Christians in the 2nd century?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 07:46 am
neologist wrote:
I hate to be in the position of defending Frodo, considering that he has failed to realize that the hope for the majority of mankind is not heaven, but life on earth, and the consequence of disobedience is not eternal torture but death. Nevertheless, Set has provided more than a few sweeping and unsupported statements from authority, not the least of which is this asseveration:
Setanta wrote:
Jews did not decide upon a canonical text until more than two centuries later, when the texts were revised in the late 5th and early 6th centuries CE.


How could decisions made by the Jews in the 5th century affect the OT texts accepted by Christians in the 2nd century?


How could Christians have derived an "old testament" from sources which no longer existed, having been revised after the Babylonian captivity? The original sources texts, for as much as we know (they do not survive, and all that we know of them comes from Talmudic commentaries) were in Israeli script--but the new revised Torah which had been edited after the Captivity was written in Hebraic script. There was a "renaissance" of Israeli script after the successful uprising against the Greco-Macedonian "Persians" who controlled Palestine in the era of Judas Maccabeus, but that did not involve any "resurrection" of the ancient texts, and occurred more than 300 years after the return from the Captivity.

We have no complete source documents for the Torah in the original, pre-Captivity Israeli script form, and what does survive is a scattering of small fragments. We know that the Pentateuch was revised after the Captivity because Talmudic sources tell us as much, there is so little surviving, original Israeli script text to make comparisons impossible. We also know that the greatest christian scholar of what became the authorized scriptural canon, Origen of Alexandria, used a badly flawed copy of the Septuagint, both because it was commented upon by later christian scholars and Talmudic scholars, and because of serious citation errors in his own writings.

If you want sources for this, i have no doubt that i can find them online. However, my basic argument is logical. How could christians in the 2nd century have based their version of the "old testament" on sources which Talmudic scholars tell us no longer then existed?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 07:48 am
How could the NT writers have quoted extensively from documents that were not available?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 07:55 am
You are either missing the point, or you are being willfully obtuse. The christians of the second century had available to them the version of the Torah as it existed after being revised in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, and not the version which existed prior to that, which is my point.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 07:56 am
In using the terms "Israeli script" and "hebraic script," i am apparently using terms which are no longer in use.

The following is from the Wikipedia article on Hebrew (which i cannot link here because of the syntax of the Wikipedia page address):

Quote:
The original Hebrew script developed alongside others in the region during the course of the late second and first millennia BCE; it is closely related to the Phoenician script, which itself probably gave rise to the use of alphabetic writing in Greece (Greek). It is sometimes claimed that around the 10th century BCE, a distinct Hebrew variant, the original "Hebrew script", emerged, which was widely used in the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah until they fell in the 8th and 6th centuries BCE, respectively. It is not straightforward, however, to distinguish Israelite/Judahite scripts from others which were in use in the immediate area, most notably by the Moabites and Ammonites.

Following the Babylonian exile, Jews gradually stopped using the Hebrew script, and instead adopted the Aramaic script (another offshoot of the same family of scripts). This script, used for writing Hebrew, later evolved into the Jewish, or "square" script, that is still used today. Closely related scripts were in use all over the Middle East for several hundred years, but following the rise of Christianity (and later, the rise of Islam), they gave way to the Roman and Arabic alphabets, respectively.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 08:03 am
url=http://www.reflectingonjudaism.com/?q=and_this_is_the_torah

See the article linked above for a discussion of the transliteration of the original Torah, as well as the change in language resulting from the Captivity. (Just as was the case with the Wikipedia link, the syntax of that web address will not convert to an active link in UBB code; therefore, to visit that site, copy the text of the link, and past it into the address window of an IE or Foxfire address window, then hit "go.")

Quote:
Now this fact creates a dilemma for our religious leaders.. On the one hand they cannot deny the transliteration for it is confirmed by the Talmud. On the other hand they are reluctant to accept it for it runs counter to a fundamental dogma in Judaism, namely, that the entire Torah which we now possess is the same that was given to Moses.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 08:38 am
This page discusses the revision of the Pentateuch, as well as of "the Book of Joshuah," forming the so-called Hexateuch.

This page from the Australian Catholic University is a course outline for the study of the books of the bible from Genesis through 2 Kings.

This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the origin of the Pentateuch.

This article from the Jewish Encyclopedia discusses all of the implications of the Babylonian Captivity, and includes comments on the literary effect:

Quote:
Particular attention was now paid to the ancestral literature; and thus there arose during the Babylonian Exile the profession of the "scribes," those learned in the Law who set the standard of piety and devotion, and who transmitted their precepts both to their successors and to the people at large, while at the same time extending the body of the laws by means of revision and amplification (see Pentateuch). (emphasis added)


To provide at least some balance, this article by a fundamentalist christian argues against a revision of the Torah, and for the direct descent of the Torah from the Mosaic source:

Quote:
According to the Documentary hypothesis, the Biblical claims for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are false. Rather, the first five books of the Bible are made up of many fragments by different authors. The earliest, the Jahwist (J), was an unknown writer who lived in the Southern Kingdom of Judah in about 850 B.C., either 440 or 600 years after the time of Moses, depending upon one's dating of the Exodus. The Elohist (E) was supposed to have been an unknown writer in the Northern Kingdom of Israel who lived around 750 B.C. The writings of J and E were combined a hundred years later by an unknown redactor. Then, according to this hypothesis, in 621 B.C., the Deuteronomic writer (D) composed the book of Deuteronomy during the reforms of King Josiah. Finally, in about 570 B.C., the Priestly writer (P) wrote various sections of the Pentateuch concerned with genealogical lists and the details of the sacrificial system.

These views, which were advocated by Julius Wellhausen, gained a strong foothold in the field of Biblical studies during the twentieth century, despite the fact that both the Pentateuch and many other parts of the Bible specifically state that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. However, there is abundant evidence disconfirming the Documentary hypothesis.


(Please note that this point of view is directly contradicted by the page taken from "Reflections on Judaism" quoted in my previous post.)

This source, at Tyndale House, a biblical study center in Cambridge, England, presents what can reasonably be seen as the majority scholarly view of the origins of the Pentateuch (and many believe of all "books" of the bible through 2 Kings):


Quote:
In several of the footnotes, there is reference to the fact that the additions were made by ancient editors, most notably Ezra.

Irenaeus states that when the Jews returned home in the time of Artaxerxes, God inspired Ezra the priest to compose anew all the discourses of the ancient prophets, and to restore to the peoples the laws of Moses. One of the principal works of Ezra was the settling of the canon of Scripture and restoring, correcting, and editing the whole sacred volume.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 08:43 am
To get to heaven.

Drive to Raleigh NC by the best route from your current position.

Get on 540, go to it's end and wait for the construction finish. Be patient.

Believe me, when it's finally complete, that will be the day of Christ's return. Your patience and vigilance wil surely be rewarded by a seat at our Lord's table.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 08:52 am
This page on Origen of Alexandria is maintained by a private individual, but as one can see at the home page, he provides all of his sources. It is very valuable, because he provides quite a few links on the subject of Origen's studies of the early christian texts.

This article on Origen and his influence on early church exegesis from the Catholic Encyclopedia includes a detailed review of the doctrinal influenced alleged to derive from Origen, and the polemics arising therefrom.

This page provides a text by Sir L. C. L. Brenton (1807-1862) on the subject of the origin of "old testament. Significant in this text, is what can serve as an answer both to Neo's question about the old testament used by early christian scholars, and Frodo's claim that he knows just exactly how many authors there were for the Bobble, and when it was written:

[quote]The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the SEPTUAGINT, that the attempt of some learned men in modern times to introduce the designation of the Alexandrian version (as more correct) has been far from successful.

The history of the origin of this translation was embellished with various fables at so early a period, that it has been a work of patient critical research in later times to bring into plain light the facts which may be regarded as well authenticated.

We need not wonder that but little is known with accuracy on this subject; for, with regard to the ancient versions of the Scriptures in general, we possess no information whatever as to the time or place of their execution, or by whom they were made: we simply find such versions in use at particular times, and thus we gather the fact that they must have been previously executed. If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the Septuagint be meagre, it is at least more extensive than that which we possess of other translations. [/quote]

********************************************

Therefore, to return to the original source of all of the nonsense embodied in the last several posts--Frodo cannot state with any certainty which exists outside his own devoted pate just how many authors there were for the Bobble, or when it was written.

Dime to a dollar that he doesn't even know the difference between the Jawist and the Elohist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 08:53 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
To get to heaven.

Drive to Raleigh NC by the best route from your current position.

Get on 540, go to it's end and wait for the construction finish. Be patient.

Believe me, when it's finally complete, that will be the day of Christ's return. Your patience and vigilance wil surely be rewarded by a seat at our Lord's table.


I can think of few things more Hellish than the thought of driving in Raleigh, North Carolina.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 05:56:04