virus: Re: Why religious? Validity of the Bible

Lior Golgher (
Fri, 08 Nov 1996 18:45:08 -0800

>Martin Traynor wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 96 at 9:49, 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.
> 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*)

The original script of the Tanach [A.K.A. the old testamony] wasn't
lost. Therefore it IS possible to point out all the changes and
distortions, both intended and natural, in all the Bible translations
used by Christians.
When I first understood that the word 'Bereshit' was translated into 'In
the beginning' I burst out laughing.

How 'original' is that 'original' script? Well, if I'm not wrong the
first five books of the Torah were sealed somewhere in the second
century B.C. The whole Tanach was sealed somewhere in the third century
I think, though I'm not so sure about it.
What's the meaning of 'sealed'? It means that from then on, not a word,
not a letter and not a comma may be changed. Every ancient Tanach script
found which is dated after the sealing contains *exactly* the same
script I have in my own Tanach. Conservation meme is quite strongly
expressed here I guess.

Enough with preaching... Back to my lair.

Lior [Phonetically lix#'owr]