| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Steven Jones" |
| Date: |
19 Mar 2005 06:39:49 AM |
| Object: |
Da Vinci Code |
Cardinal Bertone has made some interesting comments regarding the Da Vinci
Code, one of which makes me wonder if he knows what irony is.
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read
it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said.
That comment could, equally if not more so, apply to Bertone's favourite
book, the Bible.
.
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
19 Mar 2005 01:48:27 PM |
|
|
"Steven Jones" <stevenj76@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:d1ghgl$9ps$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
Cardinal Bertone has made some interesting comments regarding the Da Vinci
Code, one of which makes me wonder if he knows what irony is.
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who
read
it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said.
That comment could, equally if not more so, apply to Bertone's favourite
book, the Bible.
Thanks for the quote. Absolutely hilarious.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
19 Mar 2005 10:01:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:39:49 +1100, "Steven Jones"
<stevenj76@aapt.net.au> wrote:
Cardinal Bertone has made some interesting comments regarding the Da Vinci
Code, one of which makes me wonder if he knows what irony is.
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read
it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said.
That comment could, equally if not more so, apply to Bertone's favourite
book, the Bible.
Most irony meters should have gone nuclear after that comment.
JPG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
19 Mar 2005 12:01:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:39:49 +1100, "Steven Jones" <stevenj76@aapt.net.au>
wrote:
Cardinal Bertone has made some interesting comments regarding the Da Vinci
Code, one of which makes me wonder if he knows what irony is.
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read
it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said.
That comment could, equally if not more so, apply to Bertone's favourite
book, the Bible.
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of biblical
research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
The Da Vinci code is admitted to be fiction by it's author. The problem is that
you atheists are so weak of mind that you may actually come to believe it is
real in your desperate attempt to get a free ticket on the downtown train.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
19 Mar 2005 01:19:32 PM |
|
|
In article <st4o31djegivjodsg1l7isbguntqufr6mv@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:39:49 +1100, "Steven Jones" <stevenj76@aapt.net.au>
wrote:
Cardinal Bertone has made some interesting comments regarding the Da Vinci
Code, one of which makes me wonder if he knows what irony is.
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read
it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said.
That comment could, equally if not more so, apply to Bertone's favourite
book, the Bible.
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of biblical
research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
The bible that you know is less than 400 years old, is still being
rewritten, and contains many glaring omissions.
The Da Vinci code is admitted to be fiction by it's author.
At least he's honest about it.
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
19 Mar 2005 08:01:39 PM |
|
|
Le Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:19:32 -0800, Frank J Warner a écrit :
The bible that you know is less than 400 years old, is still being
rewritten, and contains many glaring omissions.
and countless inconsistancies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 12:10:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:19:32 -0800, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of biblical
research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
The bible that you know is less than 400 years old, is still being
rewritten, and contains many glaring omissions.
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
..
The Da Vinci code is admitted to be fiction by it's author.
At least he's honest about it.
-Frank
Yep.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 07:13:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:10:01 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:19:32 -0800, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of biblical
research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
The bible that you know is less than 400 years old, is still being
rewritten, and contains many glaring omissions.
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
The King James Translation. Which changed several important verses to
support the rule of Kings.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 02:00:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:13:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
The King James Translation. Which changed several important verses to
support the rule of Kings.
The KJV was a horrible example of the NT full of errors. It however is
considered a good translation of the OT.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 04:11:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:00:22 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:13:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
The King James Translation. Which changed several important verses to
support the rule of Kings.
The KJV was a horrible example of the NT full of errors. It however is
considered a good translation of the OT.
So much for the Bible being "unabated" (which doesn't mean what you
think it means) for 2000 years if you just admitted there are
translation errors and different versions.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 12:16:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:11:14 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The KJV was a horrible example of the NT full of errors. It however is
considered a good translation of the OT.
So much for the Bible being "unabated" (which doesn't mean what you
think it means) for 2000 years if you just admitted there are
translation errors and different versions.
Sorry, berry. Every bible says the same basic thing. But there are various
translation problems between given languages and given talents of the
translators.
One translators sees "hate mother/father more than..." and another sees "love
jesus more than mother/father".
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
23 Mar 2005 10:41:38 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
Sorry, berry. Every bible says the same basic thing.
Which begs the question as to why there are 20,000 sects in
Christianity. TWENTY THOUSAND GROUPS THAT DISAGREE ON WHAT THE BIBLE
SAYS. One new sect a month, pretty damn near, for 2,000 years.
You have to wonder at that. If there were a divine message, how did it
get so screwed up and why didn't an omniscient god see it coming?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 03:24:06 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:19:32 -0800, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of biblical
research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
The bible that you know is less than 400 years old, is still being
rewritten, and contains many glaring omissions.
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
So, changing your story, duke? You said that the Bible was a
mistranslation of an earlier text. Bearing false witness makes baby
Jesus cry.
And the Egyptian god of Ra was certified as the true God of Light (the
sun). So what?
.
The Da Vinci code is admitted to be fiction by it's author.
At least he's honest about it.
-Frank
Yep.
Yep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 01:58:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:24:06 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
So, changing your story, duke? You said that the Bible was a
mistranslation of an earlier text. Bearing false witness makes baby
Jesus cry.
I did???? Perhaps you should remove your head from your *****.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 12:58:09 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:24:06 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
So, changing your story, duke? You said that the Bible was a
mistranslation of an earlier text. Bearing false witness makes baby
Jesus cry.
I did???? Perhaps you should remove your head from your *****.
Yes, you did. Here is what you said, and I quote:
duke wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:49:14 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Duke, I have a question. Do you hate your mother and father?
Nope, not a chance.
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If
anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and
children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be
my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me
cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:25-27) (NIV)
That one is as old as Jesus.
It's in the translation - trying to get from one language to another. A
translation, mind you, is required in biblical research, and not an
interpretation.
For instance, Greek is a horrible language coming out of Aramaic, the
language
that Jesus and his followers spoke. Really bad one-to-one translations.
"Hate father/mother", or the same thing as "love me more than
father/mother".
Seeing as God is all love, it's clear which one is the proper
"interpretation".
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:30:51 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
That one is as old as Jesus.
It's in the translation - trying to get from one language to
another. A
translation, mind you, is required in biblical research, and not an
interpretation.
For instance, Greek is a horrible language coming out of Aramaic,
the language
that Jesus and his followers spoke. Really bad one-to-one
translations.
"Hate father/mother", or the same thing as "love me more than
father/mother".
Seeing as God is all love, it's clear which one is the proper
"interpretation".
So, the KJV, NIV, Darby, ASV, etc are errant? I agree.
Errant? I don't specifically know. They are what those specific
translators
came up with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 06:16:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:58:09 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:24:06 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for 2000 years
now.
So, changing your story, duke? You said that the Bible was a
mistranslation of an earlier text. Bearing false witness makes baby
Jesus cry.
I did???? Perhaps you should remove your head from your *****.
Yes, you did. Here is what you said, and I quote:
Errant? I don't specifically know. They are what those specific
translators
came up with.
My personal bible - the St. Jerome Edition
Luke 14:26:
"Whoever comes to me cannot be my disciple unless he loves me more than he loves
his father and his mother, his wife and his children, his brothers and his
sisters, and himself as well.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wmech" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 08:24:15 PM |
|
|
I keep seeing people quoting from the Bible as though it was proof or a
fact.
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word of
ANY God.
There are no originals still in existence. They are all copies of copies of
copies etc. with alterations, additions and deletions to suite the
transcribers. Remember the printing press was not even invented until the 5
th. Century and the Bibles date back over 4,000 years.
Here is a list of just the ENGLISH translations of the Bible. Which are the
correct ones? And were the copies they translated from accurate translations
of the originals?
The evidence is that these Bibles, written by over 150 men over a period of
some 2500 years are nothing but a combination of history, myths, folklore
and legends. There is NO
objective evidence that they are accurate history or the words of any God.
New American Standard
New International Version
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21 St. Century King James Version
New International Version
American Standard Version
Holman Christian Version
New Life Version
Darby Translation
Young's Literal Translation
New International Readers Version
World English Bible
New Revised Standard Version
The Jerusalem Bible
Bill
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2l3u31t3kuk2tkhsr3ijgdqpqvdqdtcjhr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:58:09 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:24:06 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Uh, nooooooo. The Christian bible, the last one to be written, was
occurred
2000 years ago, was experienced by hundreds, and certified true for
2000 years
now.
So, changing your story, duke? You said that the Bible was a
mistranslation of an earlier text. Bearing false witness makes baby
Jesus cry.
I did???? Perhaps you should remove your head from your *****.
Yes, you did. Here is what you said, and I quote:
Errant? I don't specifically know. They are what those specific
translators
came up with.
My personal bible - the St. Jerome Edition
Luke 14:26:
"Whoever comes to me cannot be my disciple unless he loves me more than he
loves
his father and his mother, his wife and his children, his brothers and his
sisters, and himself as well.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 11:58:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:24:15 -0500, "wmech" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I keep seeing people quoting from the Bible as though it was proof or a
fact.
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word of
ANY God.
Of course there is. You simply refuse to look at it.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
23 Mar 2005 10:50:13 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word
of
ANY God.
Of course there is. You simply refuse to look at it.
Yet *another* pathetic and desperate lie from a renowned liar and the
father of lies. If Earl Weber is representing anyone on Usenet, it's
not any god, but Satan himself! LoL!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
22 Mar 2005 10:21:00 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:24:15 -0500, "wmech" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I keep seeing people quoting from the Bible as though it was proof or a
fact.
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word of
ANY God.
Of course there is. You simply refuse to look at it.
There is no god.
You refuse to look at the evidence.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 10:30:02 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
The bible has undergone millions of man hours of biblical
research
And not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god or the
relaity of Jesus has **EVER** been produced. Yep, it's proven fiction
when it comes to talking of supernatural events.
The Da Vinci code is admitted to be fiction by it's author.
Another clueless lie from the most clueless liar on the Internet.
Immediately before the Prolog, Brown states that significant items in
the story are fact. just like significant items in the Biblical
history of the Jews are fact. But that doesn't make all of "The Da
Vinci Code" fact, just like it doesn't make all fo the bible fact.
The problem is that
you atheists are so weak of mind that you may actually come to
believe it is
real in your desperate attempt to get a free ticket on the downtown
train.
This from the most cluelessly gullible ***** on the planet, who
swallows a camel, but strains at a gnat.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 12:21:48 AM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2005 14:30:02 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
This from the most cluelessly gullible ***** on the planet, who
swallows a camel, but strains at a gnat.
Budikka
Hey, bud, open your eyes and smell the roses.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 10:46:48 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 20 Mar 2005 14:30:02 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
This from the most cluelessly gullible ***** on the planet, who
swallows a camel, but strains at a gnat.
Budikka
Hey, bud, open your eyes and smell the roses.
The only smell you need concern yourself with, Earl J. Weber of Baton
Rouge, LA is you shitting yourself when we meet in court.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
19 Mar 2005 05:04:33 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:39:49 +1100, "Steven Jones"
<stevenj76@aapt.net.au> wrote:
Cardinal Bertone has made some interesting comments regarding the Da
Vinci Code, one of which makes me wonder if he knows what irony is.
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people
who read it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said.
That comment could, equally if not more so, apply to Bertone's
favourite book, the Bible.
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of
biblical research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
Yes it has and if you actually learned anything about what you claim you
woiuld find that most of what is written in the bible is myth.
Modern archeology alone has shown much of it to be historical fiction and
the Document Hypothesis shows that it contains many vesions of a story in
many places.
The Da Vinci code is admitted to be fiction by it's author. The
problem is that you atheists are so weak of mind that you may
actually come to believe it is real in your desperate attempt to get
a free ticket on the downtown train.
The author of the Da Vinci code is alive, the authors of the bible and it's
redactors dead.
I would guess that if the bible redactor put two completely different
stories of the same event into a book he would realize that one or both had
to be false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 12:12:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:04:33 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of
biblical research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
Yes it has and if you actually learned anything about what you claim you
woiuld find that most of what is written in the bible is myth.
Actually I've found out otherwise.
Modern archeology alone has shown much of it to be historical fiction and
the Document Hypothesis shows that it contains many vesions of a story in
many places.
Nope. What you can't see doesn't make it not be there, much to the chagrin of
you atheists.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 07:33:59 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:04:33 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No, not really. The bible has undergone millions of man hours of
biblical research, and has survived unabated for 2000+ years now.
Yes it has and if you actually learned anything about what you claim
you woiuld find that most of what is written in the bible is myth.
Actually I've found out otherwise.
Another lie.
This is a response to an email I sent asking about the alleged abandoment of
"The Document Hypothesis"
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis has been
disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What can I say? It is
taught at the great majority of universities and seminaries, it figures in
nearly all the standard textbooks. The faculty of the major graduate
institutions in the U.S. for study of the Bible are persuaded by the
evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania,
Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt.
More to the point: the strongest arguments for the hypothesis are (1) the
convergence of several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic
evidence (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us
to identify when the sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of
the text (we can separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like
the two flood stories, when read independently). And these three arguments
are never addressed by those who question the hypothesis.
In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other guys'
arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that evidence and
those arguments, and then just claim that the hypothesis has been disproven,
that tells you something about the weakness of their position.
Much of this is discussed in the appendices of my book, The Hidden Book in
the Bible.
With best wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
Unlike you Earl, I have supporters and am not afraid to consult with them.
Modern archeology alone has shown much of it to be historical
fiction and the Document Hypothesis shows that it contains many
vesions of a story in many places.
Nope. What you can't see doesn't make it not be there, much to the
chagrin of you atheists.
Earl can't be stupider than I think he is, this must be just another of his
lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 02:10:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:33:59 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Yes it has and if you actually learned anything about what you claim
you woiuld find that most of what is written in the bible is myth.
Actually I've found out otherwise.
Another lie.
Nope. What is this below?
*****
This is a response to an email I sent asking about the alleged abandoment of
"The Document Hypothesis"
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis has been
disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What can I say? It is
taught at the great majority of universities and seminaries, it figures in
nearly all the standard textbooks. The faculty of the major graduate
institutions in the U.S. for study of the Bible are persuaded by the
evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania,
Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt.
More to the point: the strongest arguments for the hypothesis are (1) the
convergence of several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic
evidence (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us
to identify when the sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of
the text (we can separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like
the two flood stories, when read independently). And these three arguments
are never addressed by those who question the hypothesis.
In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other guys'
arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that evidence and
those arguments, and then just claim that the hypothesis has been disproven,
that tells you something about the weakness of their position.
Much of this is discussed in the appendices of my book, The Hidden Book in
the Bible.
With best wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
*****
Unlike you Earl, I have supporters and am not afraid to consult with them.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
Nope. What you can't see doesn't make it not be there, much to the
chagrin of you atheists.
Earl can't be stupider than I think he is, this must be just another of his
lies.
Actually, I'm a lot more intelligent than you think. See any pink unicorns
today?
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
20 Mar 2005 06:58:08 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:33:59 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yes it has and if you actually learned anything about what you
claim you woiuld find that most of what is written in the bible is
myth.
Actually I've found out otherwise.
Another lie.
Nope. What is this below?
*****
This is a response to an email I sent asking about the alleged
abandoment of "The Document Hypothesis"
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis
has been disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What
can I say? It is taught at the great majority of universities and
seminaries, it figures in nearly all the standard textbooks. The
faculty of the major graduate institutions in the U.S. for study of
the Bible are persuaded by the evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley,
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt.
More to the point: the strongest arguments for the hypothesis are
(1) the convergence of several different lines of evidence; (2) the
linguistic evidence (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the
sources enables us to identify when the sources were written); and
(3) the narrative flow of the text (we can separate whole stories
that each flow without a break, like the two flood stories, when
read independently). And these three arguments are never addressed
by those who question the hypothesis.
In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other
guys' arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that
evidence and those arguments, and then just claim that the
hypothesis has been disproven, that tells you something about the
weakness of their position.
Much of this is discussed in the appendices of my book, The Hidden
Book in the Bible.
With best wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
*****
Unlike you Earl, I have supporters and am not afraid to consult with
them.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
Apparently none you understand.
The above is a message called an email and it was sent to me by a man who is
quite well known in the small world of people who know enough to actually do
real work in bible research.
He has several books to his credit. It is safe to say that if you don't
recognize the name you haven't done any real objective study of the bible.
His name has been mentioned specifically to you in the past and one of his
books has been suggested.
What you claim is not supported by him or any of the schools mentioned
above.
You know how you got your after school rote learning of Catholic Catechism
pre Vatican II.
Yet you claim to know more than all the people who have spent their lives
studying the subject.
I don't have to make a point. You've made it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 12:19:22 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:58:08 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Nope. What is this below?
*****
This is a response to an email I sent asking about the alleged
abandoment of "The Document Hypothesis"
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis
has been disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What
can I say? It is taught at the great majority of universities and
seminaries, it figures in nearly all the standard textbooks. The
faculty of the major graduate institutions in the U.S. for study of
the Bible are persuaded by the evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley,
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt.
More to the point: the strongest arguments for the hypothesis are
(1) the convergence of several different lines of evidence; (2) the
linguistic evidence (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the
sources enables us to identify when the sources were written); and
(3) the narrative flow of the text (we can separate whole stories
that each flow without a break, like the two flood stories, when
read independently). And these three arguments are never addressed
by those who question the hypothesis.
In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other
guys' arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that
evidence and those arguments, and then just claim that the
hypothesis has been disproven, that tells you something about the
weakness of their position.
Much of this is discussed in the appendices of my book, The Hidden
Book in the Bible.
With best wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
*****
Unlike you Earl, I have supporters and am not afraid to consult with
them.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
Apparently none you understand.
The above is a message called an email and it was sent to me by a man who is
quite well known in the small world of people who know enough to actually do
real work in bible research.
He has several books to his credit. It is safe to say that if you don't
recognize the name you haven't done any real objective study of the bible.
His name has been mentioned specifically to you in the past and one of his
books has been suggested.
What you claim is not supported by him or any of the schools mentioned
above.
But it is my millions of man hours of biblical research. You're too much into
"if you can find it, it doesn't exist", instead of "you just haven't looked in
the right place yet."
You know how you got your after school rote learning of Catholic Catechism
pre Vatican II.
Yet you claim to know more than all the people who have spent their lives
studying the subject.
And my sources, biblical researchers, have millions of man hours more than your
few research guys.
I don't have to make a point. You've made it.
Yes, you don't know what you're talking about. But nothing unusual a-boot that.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 05:29:31 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:58:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nope. What is this below?
*****
This is a response to an email I sent asking about the alleged
abandoment of "The Document Hypothesis"
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis
has been disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What
can I say? It is taught at the great majority of universities and
seminaries, it figures in nearly all the standard textbooks. The
faculty of the major graduate institutions in the U.S. for study of
the Bible are persuaded by the evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley,
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt.
More to the point: the strongest arguments for the hypothesis are
(1) the convergence of several different lines of evidence; (2) the
linguistic evidence (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the
sources enables us to identify when the sources were written); and
(3) the narrative flow of the text (we can separate whole stories
that each flow without a break, like the two flood stories, when
read independently). And these three arguments are never addressed
by those who question the hypothesis.
In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other
guys' arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that
evidence and those arguments, and then just claim that the
hypothesis has been disproven, that tells you something about the
weakness of their position.
Much of this is discussed in the appendices of my book, The Hidden
Book in the Bible.
With best wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
*****
Unlike you Earl, I have supporters and am not afraid to consult
with them.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
Apparently none you understand.
The above is a message called an email and it was sent to me by a
man who is quite well known in the small world of people who know
enough to actually do real work in bible research.
He has several books to his credit. It is safe to say that if you
don't recognize the name you haven't done any real objective study
of the bible. His name has been mentioned specifically to you in the
past and one of his books has been suggested.
What you claim is not supported by him or any of the schools
mentioned above.
But it is my millions of man hours of biblical research. You're too
much into "if you can find it, it doesn't exist", instead of "you
just haven't looked in the right place yet."
As usual Earl talks about it but can't produce it. Probably does that when
talking about women.
You know how you got your after school rote learning of Catholic
Catechism pre Vatican II.
Yet you claim to know more than all the people who have spent their
lives studying the subject.
And my sources, biblical researchers, have millions of man hours more
than your few research guys.
You have no sources.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code |
21 Mar 2005 01:06:51 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:33:59 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Yes it has and if you actually learned anything about what you claim
you woiuld find that most of what is written in the bible is myth.
Actually I've found out otherwise.
Another lie.
Nope. What is this below?
*****
This is a response to an email I sent asking about the alleged abandoment of
"The Document Hypothesis"
"Yes, I keep hearing that, too: people claiming that the hypothesis has been
disproven, refuted, that nobody believes it anymore. What can I say? It is
taught at the great majority of universities and seminaries, it figures in
nearly all the standard textbooks. The faculty of the major graduate
institutions in the U.S. for study of the Bible are persuaded by the
evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania,
Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt.
More to the point: the strongest arguments for the hypothesis are (1) the
convergence of several different lines of evidence; (2) the linguistic
evidence (that the stages of the biblical Hebrew of the sources enables us
to identify when the sources were written); and (3) the narrative flow of
the text (we can separate whole stories that each flow without a break, like
the two flood stories, when read independently). And these three arguments
are never addressed by those who question the hypothesis.
In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other guys'
arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that evidence and
those arguments, and then just claim that the hypothesis has been disproven,
that tells you something about the weakness of their position.
Much of this is discussed in the appendices of my book, The Hidden Book in
the Bible.
With best wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
*****
Unlike you Earl, I have supporters and am not afraid to consult with them.
Is there a point you're trying to make?
Nope. What you can't see doesn't make it not be there, much to the
chagrin of you atheists.
Earl can't be stupider than I think he is, this must be just another of his
lies.
Actually, I'm a lot more intelligent than you think. See any pink unicorns
today?
You do know what the Invisible Pink Unicorn is all about, right? If you
are intelligent as you say you are, you already know what it's all about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
