On Sep 27, 7:50*am, riverman wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:45*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:

*A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff,

NAHAY?

but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. *Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. *

Very few BIBLICAL scholars, perhaps, but I would bet that a majority
of secular scholars would wholeheartedly agree.

You would bet? What the **** is a "secular scholar"?

"Completely
manufactured" possibly overstates its human origins, but remove the
'word of God' component, and that's all that is left. As for heavily
politicized and massively edited, I'm sure everyone from King James to
Billy Graham would agree to that.

I suspect that niether of them would agree that his preferred version
was heavily or massively edited or politicized.

All devout biblical scholars I know
(maybe a couple dozen over the years) discuss the importance of
learning the original Greek, or even Aramaic or Hebrew, in order to
undo the effects of editing and linguistic interpretation.

And how many of those couple dozen over the years have been fluent in
ancient Greek and ancient Aramaic and ancient Hebrew and medieval
English and thoroughly modern English? Or am I mistaken, and we are
speaking of early Norwegian and thoroughly modern Farsi translations
here?

g.
does anybody here ever read what he writes?