This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The rival to the Bible

The rival to the Bible - Comments

Jamie V's Avatar Comment 1 by Jamie V

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.


I weep for their pain...

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:33:00 UTC | #248018

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 2 by Stafford Gordon

I'm sure David Parker will endeavour to do what's necessary from the Christian point of view!

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:34:00 UTC | #248019

Vaal's Avatar Comment 3 by Vaal

News update. An even older Bible has been found. It was only a prank, says Saint Judas!

EDIT: I wonder what David Robertson has to say about it?

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:45:00 UTC | #248022

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 4 by Bonzai

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.


I doubt that. Chances are the fundies wouldn't even know that. They probably think Jesus spoke American. How else can we explain that they think a nth hand translation of the Bible is God's literal words?

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:47:00 UTC | #248023

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 5 by hungarianelephant

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

What, I wonder, does he mean by this? Who gets to have editorial control?

Perhaps we should create WikiBible and allow everyone to edit it. As we all know, these collaborative efforts can be a very effective way of harnessing collective talent, so if we're agreed that the Bible is a living text, a wiki is the logical conclusion. Also, peak oil.

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:56:00 UTC | #248027

Pertwee's Bouffant's Avatar Comment 6 by Pertwee's Bouffant

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.


The sound of a penny dropping!

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.


That's put a lot more delicately than I would put it.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:03:00 UTC | #248030

Eventhorizon's Avatar Comment 7 by Eventhorizon

This is only news to the believers and I doubt many of them will pay any regard to these 'new revelations'. Evidence means nothing to these people

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:39:00 UTC | #248045

fergusg's Avatar Comment 8 by fergusg

I have an MP3 of the programme if someone wants to host it.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:50:00 UTC | #248047

King of NH's Avatar Comment 9 by King of NH

Haha

I can't believe the scientists fell for this. Scientists really are stupid. Satan put these books onto the island to test our faith and pull our minds toward him. And all you dumb thinkers fell for it.

After the whole "fossil" embarrassment, I thought scientists would look and see if they've violated any of the Bible's claims. Hey scientists, if evidence and the Bible don't agree, one of them has to be wrong. Sheesh.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:57:00 UTC | #248050

bucketchemist's Avatar Comment 10 by bucketchemist

HungarianElephant

http://www.theopedia.com/Main_Page

(also http://wikibible.org but it seems to be dead)

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:29:00 UTC | #248057

Biblebeltheretic's Avatar Comment 11 by Biblebeltheretic

There are enough discrepancies in the current version to be unsettling. Why would a few more make any difference??

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:55:00 UTC | #248063

alfonso's Avatar Comment 12 by alfonso

"The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle."

Not really, we just don't know how many books didn't make it at all :)

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:04:00 UTC | #248065

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 13 by hungarianelephant

bucketchemist - And there's me thinking I had an original idea. Oh well.

I'll be interested to see how Genesis 1:1 works out.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:04:00 UTC | #248066

Type I error's Avatar Comment 14 by Type I error

Here is a comment from the bbc article:

"Would it be too much to ask for a balancing voice in this article? The codex has been studied for years and globally the evangelical church is growing faster than ever so there must be a response. My understanding is that this codex was compiled by a Christian sect who even then was considered unorthodox and whilst it is the oldest complete bible many earlier copies of the gospels predate this codex. It is these gospels from which modern bibles are translated. They are both more numerous and closer in age to the events describe in the New Testement.
Frank Hill, Bristol"

I haven't established how true this is but I suppose it's a thought. Even then, a later version of a fanciful story doesn't make the earlier versions any truer.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:34:00 UTC | #248076

notsobad's Avatar Comment 15 by notsobad

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

No. That's why they are fundamentalists: they live in their own reality ignoring things like logic and facts.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:42:00 UTC | #248077

dvespertilio's Avatar Comment 16 by dvespertilio

A nice scholarly footnote in the long history of scriptural criticism. But it makes no difference in the overview, that it's all about stories, myths, parables, etc, and has no real basis in objective reality.

On a similar note, I read just a few days ago about the rc bishops meeting in rome and how the vatican has issued a document stating that scripture is not to be interpreted literally. Isn't that like shooting one's self in the foot? If Genesis is just stories, then why are the gospels any different? And if it's all just stories, and therefore just HUMAN literature, from whence comes the writ of DIVINE authority? I see a pattern here: grudingly they admit to evolution in some form, then they say that scripture is allegorical and symbolic, etc. Eventually they'll come around, but by then we'll all be extinct or transmogrified into someone's transhumanist fantasies.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:45:00 UTC | #248079

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 17 by Peacebeuponme

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.
Why would they? They don't find the inconsistencies in their King James' unsettling.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:51:00 UTC | #248081

alexmzk's Avatar Comment 18 by alexmzk

The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle.

*takes a drink*

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:13:00 UTC | #248088

Christopher Davis's Avatar Comment 20 by Christopher Davis

I predict this will have zero effect on your average American evangelical...unless they figure out a way to work it in on "Dancing With the Stars".

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:14:00 UTC | #248090

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 19 by God fearing Atheist

#261558 by Apophenia


"Evolution" of bible, c.f. evolution.

Seems like evolutionary geneticists could help them out here (tracing branching of single letter/word mistakes/mutations etc).

Do you think biologists would be willing to help them out?

Do you think they would listen?

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:14:00 UTC | #248089

DrDCB's Avatar Comment 21 by DrDCB

Apparently the real first page reads:

To my Darling Mandy,
all characters contained within are fictitious, and and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

(shamelessly stolen from Grant & Naylor)

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:23:00 UTC | #248094

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 22 by irate_atheist

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.
No shit, Sherlock.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:07:00 UTC | #248104

mmurray's Avatar Comment 23 by mmurray

We know which one is the real Bible. It's here

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Michael

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:21:00 UTC | #248109

j.mills's Avatar Comment 24 by j.mills

I think you're all being very mean, casting aspersions and jeering like this. Didn't Jesus say, let him who is without sin cast the first -

Oh hang on, no he didn't...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:34:00 UTC | #248111

Swordmaiden's Avatar Comment 25 by Swordmaiden

It all makes no difference....its still just stuff written by people a long time ago for manipluative entepreneurs to play around with to their own greedy ends.

" It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible. "

>>But I thought we all knew this anyway?Any fool can see it....what with the translation mistakes as well. We've been telling them this for years....why would they react any different now?

Can you imagine if they find a bit that says the Pope and all his little wizards should give all their Vatican gold to the poor.....do you think that would get into the final edit?

By the way, what about the Dea Sea Scrolls? (Gnostic Scriptures),Aren't they supposed to be missing scriptures? Mary Magdelane, Thomas etc the ones the Church quickly edited out altogether cos they would give the ordinary people ideas above their station? Should they figure in this at all?

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:39:00 UTC | #248113

nalfeshnee's Avatar Comment 26 by nalfeshnee

Apophenia quoted:


"Would it be too much to ask for a balancing voice in this article? The codex has been studied for years and globally the evangelical church is growing faster than ever so there must be a response. My understanding is that this codex was compiled by a Christian sect who even then was considered unorthodox and whilst it is the oldest complete bible many earlier copies of the gospels predate this codex. It is these gospels from which modern bibles are translated. They are both more numerous and closer in age to the events describe in the New Testement.
Frank Hill, Bristol"


Or, the short version:


This Bible is not OUR Bible. It's not the TRUE Bible.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:45:00 UTC | #248116

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 27 by Rosbif

This will not rattle the US churches at all.
If we stumble across the original Disney scripts, will this cast doubt in the minds of children as to their beliefs in Peter Pan and Co.
Evangelists are just (mentally) toddlers having a tantrum and bawling their eyes out when those nasty atheist take their toys away.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:52:00 UTC | #248119

practicing atheis's Avatar Comment 28 by practicing atheis

"St Catherine's Monastery - Today, 30 mainly Greek Orthodox monks, dedicated to prayer, worship there, helped as in ages past by the Muslim Bedouin. For this place is holy to three great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a land where you can still see the Burning Bush where God spoke to Moses. "

Can someone tell me if this guy is for real??? You can still see the burning bush where god spoke to moses? WTF!?!?!?! i need an explanation.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:39:00 UTC | #248171

Ed-words's Avatar Comment 29 by Ed-words

Their library contains 33,000 books and has no
room for "The God Delusion"?

Maybe some monks hide it under their beds.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:43:00 UTC | #248177

bluebird's Avatar Comment 30 by bluebird

Lemonade out of a big lemon......
I bestow qualified kudos to HarperCollins Publishers for their recent release of 'The Green Bible':

http://greenletterbible.com/about.php

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:44:00 UTC | #248178