The Fool wrote:
>
>> No, it doesn't. This is the horrible and full of
>> mistakes King James "translation". We have to get
>> the 'rig to get the right meaning.
>
> As a matter of fact this was from a westcot and
> hort based translation. Nowhere was the KJV ever
> mentioned. You want me to post the aramaic
> [I have several versions] you are saying?
>
Uh? Aramaic? AFAIK the oldest New Testaments are in
(Neotestamentary) Greek. It's supposed that the Greek
text is a translation from Aramaic, but the Aramaic
version - if it was ever written - vanished.
> But plain-text would only garble
> it. I Hate HTML messages.
>
Me too.
> This is a good illustration of what is wrong with religion.
>
No, this is a good illustration of how hard it is to
argue within the framework of religion.
> When someone who is religious is presented with evidence
> that what they believe is based on falsehoods, they
> don't accept the evidence as real. Anything
> that doesn't reaffirm or support their concept of
> 'trvth' or knowledge is wrong. This is irrational.
>
This problem with Jesus genealogy exists for almost
2000 years. If it were a serious contradiction, don't
you think the texts would have been _expurged_ of
the contradiction much earlier? Ergo, this problem
is not serious.
> You want me to break out my concordances?
>
No, I am just pointing that such simple apparent
contradiction wouldn't give any literal biblicist
more than 1/2 second to find a reasonable explanation.
So far, most of the Bible contradictions are of
this kind: either taking texts that are _obviously_
poetic and trying to fit them with literal value,
or number crunching the genealogies, or finding
commandments that contradict themselves when
put out of context.
Take, for example, the biblical text that defines
Pi equal to three. Any engineer would treat this
as a measurement error :-)
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
