> From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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
greek/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
There is some aramaic. This is what happens when you don't eat for 14
hours.
Matthew and luke are in 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.
No. A falsehood is a falsehood.
> > 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.
Well they didn't expunge any of the other more serious contradiction now
did they? You are expecting people to be smart and rational, but for the
most part the people who were spreading this garbage, even 2000 years ago
weren't all that competent.
> > 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.
A biblical literalist is not a rational person. You can't argue with a
biblical literalist. I know, I've tried, many many times. They are
incapable of seeing things rationally,
> 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 :-)
But god is supposedly omniscient. God would know what the correct answer
is and 'inspire' the correct answer. Where is the correct answer?
And No I am saving a few special contradictions that cannot be argued
away for my essay.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
