> Martin Traynor wrote:
>
> >
> > On 7 Nov 96 at 9:49, jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.sl wrote:
> >
> > > One problem about this is that the Bible has been translated and re-translated,
> > > and modernised, and fuck-knows what else that it's original meaning may
> > > well have been lost. I know this sounds like I'm shooting my own arguments in
> > > the foot, but it's a fact that cannot be denied.
> >
> > Yes indeed. Add to that the fact that it's a loose collection of
> > separately produced writings in a number of languages which were
> > selected by the church to support its arguments and it loses even
> > more value. The very term 'The Bible' is a carefully crafted misnomer
> > to give the impression that 'this is THE BOOK' when in fact it wasn't
> > even A book.
At least 66 books according to the Protestants. And Genesis is a blatant
compilation work itself; it should be 5 books....
> Not forgetting of course, that the Bible was written a number of centuries after
> the incident which is called "the birth of Christ". Evidence suggests that
> the Gospels were written sometime in the 4th and 5th centuries (ie, 300-400 CE*)
Oh: what about those copies that C-14 date back to 130 AD???
Note that C-14 dating does NOT have the maximum age caveat that applies
to many other forms of radioactive-based dating methods. Unlike those, the
initial concentration is well-defined.
Also, it's hard to translate books that don't exist in 270 BC. That
applies to all of the OT.
The actual canonization was in the time-zone mentioned. I'll buy that
some filtering in approved variations occurred then.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////