this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
435 points (98.4% liked)
Humor
7327 readers
271 users here now
"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"
Rules
Read Full Rules Here!
Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.
Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!
Rule 3: No spamming!
Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.
Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.
Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.
Please report any violation of rules!
Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"I don't like Christianity, therefore the Bible is not canon to itself."
The Bible isn't even self-consistent, let alone canon.
Current Bible has been rewritten a bunch of times by different people. Definitely not canon.
It's not a millenia-long game of whisper down the lane. We have access to the original text. And we still cross-reference different translations to be sure.
Uh, aren't the original texts that were compiled to make the bible long gone? What "original texts" are you referring to? A cursory search couldn't find anything except Christian pages saying the original texts no longer exist.
https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
Is this not it?
It's authoritative but not original. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
That text is the best we have, but is not original. Plus, it's disputed as to whether there was ever one "original", since the bible is a compilation of various texts which may not have had the exact same text all together in one book as an original.
The text you have linked is from hundreds of years after there would have been an original.
Huh, good to know, thanks.
I guess you’re choosing to ignore the generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive.
The original claim was:
All I said is that the original texts are long gone. Sure the generations of Jews kept the word of God and traditions alive, but we don't have the original texts. We have the Masoretic text, and we know that is different to what was in use prior because of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940s and 50s that were mostly the same but with some differences. And the Dead Sea Scolls were not original either, with scrolls found from different Jewish sects.
The different scripts were also written at different times, separated by at least many hundreds of years.
We may have different ideas of what "original" means. In my view, "generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive" is quite different from having the original texts.
And? That's still a group of people claiming to be God's chosen who have nothing but their own political-religious historical texts to draw that conclusion from.
If a Swede claimed they were Odin's chosen people, would you just immediately accept that their God is real?
If by "original text" you mean "the first full version which was written over a century after the proclaimed event."
We have like four words and one corner of papyri from Mark in the first century, not exactly a bulletproof passdown.