- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:12 am to Gr8t8s
He was explaining the flaws in the bible to those who took it as literal and the actual word of god.
It was similar to Silent Spring for the environmental movement in the way it brought forth a change of perspective and united those of similar mindsets.
I agree with what you've stated, but you have to imagine the uphill battle he had even publishing this work. It was heresey.
It was similar to Silent Spring for the environmental movement in the way it brought forth a change of perspective and united those of similar mindsets.
I agree with what you've stated, but you have to imagine the uphill battle he had even publishing this work. It was heresey.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:16 am to Gr8t8s
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:48 am to Gr8t8s
quote:
It stands to reason that you can't say that something was most likely altered, then proceed to draw conclusions because of how it was written.
Unless you draw the conclusion that Scripture, having been altered in virtually every way possible, must automatically negate the possibility that the Bible is the sovereign word of God himself. If you have a book which has been at the mercy of religious leaders of varying viewpoints over the course of centuries, lacks original copies or even copies written in the remote vicinity of time that the books are referring to, was often written by someone other than the alleged author, and has been subject to translations and revisions throughout its lifetime then the Bible has no more divine authority that the Odyssey.
That's not an argument over semantics...
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:09 am to Gr8t8s
quote:
Basically, he argues against several passages in the bible based on the verbiage they were written in (mostly old testament). He then argues against the bible because of the probability that it were altered or doctored (whether accidentally or on purpose) through translation and human tendency.
It stands to reason that you can't say that something was most likely altered, then proceed to draw conclusions because of how it was written.
I don't get it. That's how philology works.
There are a number of ways of figuring out whether a text is corrupt. The best way is collating the earliest manuscripts.
The second best way is analyzing the language to see if sounds like a writer from a later time period or something which could be genuine.
That's how Lorenzo Valla among others discovered that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)