Latin? Was it really?
after it was compiled yes, the different books etc were not.
why do we blank out the word god?
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
after it was compiled yes, the different books etc were not.
Who said anything about it being re-written? I agreed with you that the authors were the original authors and other than the many myriad of mistakes made in the translations from Greek, Latin and however many other languages neither I nor Gilly said they had been altered in any way. Just that whole books which did not fit into the overall ethos had been left out wholesale.
Anyway propaganda has always been ameliorated to the benifit of the ruling bodies
Last edited:
I've heard it all now. The bible was Latin to begin with??
Hahahahaha.
I believe you will find that the old Testament was originally Hebrew and the new Testament was Greek.
Look out Evan Baxter.
not correct.
You mean like the Gospel of Judas?
sure, but the books that were left out were left out becasuew they were not relevent, eg diary extracts or personal letters which were not relevent.
And who told you they were not relevant? Have you read them? (genuine question I'm not trying to get a rise out of you.)
@Azagoth Yes, among others
How is the Gospel of Judas not relevant? Is he not one of the major characters in your religion?
No, there were whole Gospels left out. Don't let your inability to question hinder your inability to see facts
look at post 201
Your words were 'it was latin to begin with', not 'it was latin after it was translated' for example.
![[PTG]shogun](/styles/overclockers/avatars/2.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 147
- Location
- running from 8igdave
\true but we are limited by technology and due to science itself (quantum mechanics) there is uncertainty in everything (e.g. electrons passing through impassable materials and gamma rays traveling through opaque objects faster than light, i can go into detail if u wish)) and what is observed is changed by observation. we can tell with a limited % of accuracy which is well within accepted degree of error.
no, all of the continental crust is over 1 billion years old and even some of the youngest oceanic crust is about 150 million years. this we now because of the creation/destruction of tectonic plates
there just opinions, the bible doesnt say that in black and white, you seem to forget that lots of chirstians have different points of view. like lots of atheists do.
Last edited:
my dad has read them,
and they are in exsistance they were not destroyed, just not included.
No, there were whole Gospels left out. Don't let your inability to question hinder your inability to see facts
Your words were 'it was latin to begin with', not 'it was latin after it was translated' for example.
i meant to begin with since it was compiled, there was no "bible" before it was compiled it was seperate books.
[PTG]shogun;10814503 said:
yes which is basically what that thing says.
It also works the other way round too.
how do you define opinion anyway, some people's opinion is that the holocaust never happened or other such things yet they can be proved wrong.
Is this an opinion or something else, belief, is belief opinion etc?
*googles for opinion deffinintion*
Last edited:
I never said they were destroyed
just suppressed. Anyway I have an early start so I'm out of here, props to you yantorsen for not taking offense and answering everyone, we will have to agree to disagree as I'm a bit old for imaginary friends at 39
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Mary
Gospel of James
Gospel of Judas
These four were left out of the bible. Mary Magdalene was Jesus' partner and closest and most devoted disciple. Why would her Gospel be left out? Same question for the others really, are they not particularly important?
I wasn't arguing that. Read my post again.
It can be seen from certain points that the bible contradicts what we have found through science as to the age of the Earth. No argument stands up against it unless you bypass what is said in your holy book. At which point you might as well not bother with it at all.
As we have seen above, the holy book is tainted, due to being selectively created. I stand by my assertion that it is a storybook created to aid in the mass control of the people it was created for. Thats why some Gospels and other important documents were left out of it. Because they didn't fit in with what the compilers of the bible were trying to do.
Gospel of Mary
Gospel of James
Gospel of Judas
These four were left out of the bible. Mary Magdalene was Jesus' partner and closest and most devoted disciple. Why would her Gospel be left out? Same question for the others really, are they not particularly important?
[PTG]shogun;10815611 said:
I wasn't arguing that. Read my post again.
It can be seen from certain points that the bible contradicts what we have found through science as to the age of the Earth. No argument stands up against it unless you bypass what is said in your holy book. At which point you might as well not bother with it at all.
As we have seen above, the holy book is tainted, due to being selectively created. I stand by my assertion that it is a storybook created to aid in the mass control of the people it was created for. Thats why some Gospels and other important documents were left out of it. Because they didn't fit in with what the compilers of the bible were trying to do.