On Sep 27, 8:43*am, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:50:40 -0700 (PDT), 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. "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. 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.

Well, yeah - I mean, why didn't God just speak in plain ol' English - it would
have made things so much easier...or maybe a .pdf or something - I mean, so, OK,
it wouldn't have done Moses much good, but think of all the recent problems it
would have solved...He would have known that computers were coming, right....?

IAC, the whole idea of "scholars" on either side of (the) "religion" issue(s)
makes no sense. *Most folks have no problem when someone says, "I prefer (grape,
apple, strawberry, or whatever) jam/jelly on my PB & J," but if someone says
they prefer (Jesus, Mohammad, or none of the above), all hell breaks
loose...what's so hard to accept about that some folks believe that Jesus was
the son of God, and they are absolutely correct for them, and others believe
that he wasn't, and they are absolutely correct for them. *Hey, that's why
there's Gnostic and Vedanta...

HTH,
R

Cretin.

g.