> <Objectivity may not be the finest in this message.>
>
> Martin Traynor wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Almost the whole Tanach [the book later distorted into the Old
> Testamony] is written in Hebrew. It contains 24 books, while in one of
> them there are some chapters written in Aramite. The Jews never claimed
> to have A book, nor that it has been written by one objective source.
> Anyway, The Tanach IS called "The Book of Books".
That is utterly correct. The Hebrew OT/Tanach is constructed that way.
When I talk about photocopy accuracy in copying, I'm referring to the Tanach.
I think the English version's I,II Samuel are an artificial split, and
I,II Kings are an artificial split.
> Kenneth Boyd wrote:
> > 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.
>
> First, C-14 tests have a range of 250 years to each direction, which
> means the period between 120BC and 380AD rather than a fixed date. Are
> you sure you're talking about the Christian bible with both of your
> testamonies? I'm not sure Christianity as we know it has even existed at
> 130AD...
It's a lot more precise once you have calibrated C-14 vs. tree
rings. This was done in the early 1980's. Depending on how accurate
the raw measurements, I think we can claim plus-or-minus 50 years.
Of course "Christianity as we know it" didn't exist at 130 AD. It takes a
millenium or two to transform it from something where being a member can
get you executed ["KILL HIM! HE'S AN ATHEIST!"], to fleshly
extravaganzas like "The Hour of Power" and publicly corrupted ministers
like Jimmy Swaggart.
> > Also, it's hard to translate books that don't exist in 270 BC. That
> > applies to all of the OT.
>
> Don't remember who said the various translations only enrich the quality
> of the text. I don't agree with it anyway. It's not only hard to
> translate religious books - it's almost impossible. Actually this
> 'almost' is just as big as our leniency towards the manipulative
> translator. The Christian translators have done a horrible job
> translating it all onto the Old testamony not only because they've done
> it about a zillion times, but also because they all intended to fit the
> text onto their own religious truths. What's so important about the
> period of 270BC?
Nothing--that's the year, when converted to our calendar from Roman
history, that the Jews had the OT Testament/Tanach translated from
Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek [I don't recall which dialect of Greek].
I'm giving an existence argument, not a claim as to accuracy of translation.
The mistranslation you refer to is bad enough that the Eastern Orthodox
Church [or rather, the swarm of photocopy denominations where a deacon in
one denomination can be a member of another denomination entirely....] has
decreed that ALL current translations of it into English are
inappropriate for their commentary.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////