The mind is a terrible thing

[centerpin fan]

Once again, Vulgate means 'common language,' and there are and have been any number of versions that have been called by this name as well. So congratulations, you have found yet another mistranslation somewhere, this one apparently in latin, which has escaped my attention.

You're killin' me.

This is the second or third time you've brought up the Vulgate, and you obviously don't even know what it is. What do you mean "apparently in Latin"? It is THE Latin translation, done by St. Jerome in the 4th century. Yes, the name "Vulgate" means "common language", but when people use the term, they're not talking about the KJV or any other "common language" Bible. They're talking about one version and one version only: St. Jerome's Latin translation.

And, once again, the word 'religion' does not appear except as a deliberate mistranslation in any of the 'original' writings of this farce. One word is not as good as another when one is seeking to bully all of mankind over to your own point of view, and no words can take the place of facts.

You just won't let that go, will you?

Are you a Greek/Hebrew scholar? What English word should the translators have used rather than "religion"?

 

[centerpin fan]

And, once again, the word 'religion' does not appear except as a deliberate mistranslation in any of the 'original' writings of this farce. One word is not as good as another when one is seeking to bully all of mankind over to your own point of view, and no words can take the place of facts. And the fact is that all the words in existence cannot create a 'God' who simply does not exist. (I say so with all due respect to the Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, and UFO fans, among others -- sorry fellas -- the popularity of a delusion does not demonstrate the fact of the delusion.)

From what I've seen, your grasp of the facts is pretty poor.

 

[gordon 2]

Why do post in this forum go to the hundreds as a usual?

Oh! and opinions trump facts East of Eden and always have.

 

[ted_BSR]

#124 You melt your cheese the way you want, I'll melt my the way I want. You can call it fondue, or dip, or queso, in the end, it is all melted cheese.

 

[Asath]

One more time, just for the fun of it -- Even if you were to get your hands on Jerome's original, hand written version, and could understand even a word of it, that particular writing would bear almost no resemblence to later versions, notably, but not limited to -- Alcuin's revision of 801; Lanfranc's revision of 1089; Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux's revision of 1134; Cardinal Nicolas' revision of 1150; Gutenberg's first printing in 1456; the Louvain Theologies as developed from 1547 through 1583; Sixtus V's revision; and Franciscus Toletus' revision of that revision in 1598.

And this was before everyone and their brother started translating things into their own languages -- and let's be serious here -- Old Latin didn't have enough words or expressive symbolic content to find equivalency in English, Spanish, Serbian, Bengali, Chinese, Hindustani, Russian and Swedish (again, among dozens of others) all at the same time. EVERYONE has a different version. That is what 'vulgate' means, after all.

The word in question, most accurately rendered by scholars, was 'faith.' Not a bad word in and of itself. But a far cry from the word 'religion.' Even the official Vatican history warns: "From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions."

And the reason that it matters is because those who sow and sell superstitions, snake oil, and fear for their own personal gain have no other stock-in-trade than words. They have no actual truth or product or reality that they can place in front of the customers, and can offer only thundering oratory and slick, well-crafted words to try to convince people to give up their freedoms and wealth to the orators. The fact that every one of these words that the various cults employ has the effect of snowing and deliberately misleading huge numbers of people causes each of those words to be called into question. If a corporation tried this sort of misinformation campaign to separate people from their money they'd be held criminally liable.

Words, no matter where they are written, are not facts. Words are not actions. Words represent, but the word 'apple' cannot be made into a pie. When the object, fact, concept, idea, action, or specific real truth a word acts as a referent for cannot be shown to exist, then there is only one word that applies: Fraud.

 

[bullethead]

You are in a ZONE!!!!!

 

[centerpin fan]

One more time, just for the fun of it -- Even if you were to get your hands on Jerome's original, hand written version, and could understand even a word of it, that particular writing would bear almost no resemblence to later versions, notably, but not limited to -- Alcuin's revision of 801; Lanfranc's revision of 1089; Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux's revision of 1134; Cardinal Nicolas' revision of 1150; Gutenberg's first printing in 1456; the Louvain Theologies as developed from 1547 through 1583; Sixtus V's revision; and Franciscus Toletus' revision of that revision in 1598.

Of course there are differences, but church doctrines don't change with each revision. The KJV of today looks very different from the KJV of 1611. The NIV is different from the KJV, and the NASB is different from the ESV. The message remains the same, though.

And this was before everyone and their brother started translating things into their own languages -- and let's be serious here -- Old Latin didn't have enough words or expressive symbolic content to find equivalency in English, Spanish, Serbian, Bengali, Chinese, Hindustani, Russian and Swedish (again, among dozens of others) all at the same time. EVERYONE has a different version. That is what 'vulgate' means, after all.

As I said before, you're reading too much into the word "version". Everyone has a different translation. There is a difference.

The word in question, most accurately rendered by scholars, was 'faith.' Not a bad word in and of itself. But a far cry from the word 'religion.'

What word are you talking about? What verse? OT or NT? Different words are used in different passages. "Pistis" is Greek for "faith", and it is not the word used in the James 1.

And the reason that it matters is because those who sow and sell superstitions, snake oil, and fear for their own personal gain have no other stock-in-trade than words. They have no actual truth or product or reality that they can place in front of the customers, and can offer only thundering oratory and slick, well-crafted words to try to convince people to give up their freedoms and wealth to the orators. The fact that every one of these words that the various cults employ has the effect of snowing and deliberately misleading huge numbers of people causes each of those words to be called into question. If a corporation tried this sort of misinformation campaign to separate people from their money they'd be held criminally liable.

Good grief.

 

[centerpin fan]

You are in a ZONE!!!!!

He certainly is:

 

[centerpin fan]

One more time, just for the fun of it -- Even if you were to get your hands on Jerome's original, hand written version, and could understand even a word of it, that particular writing would bear almost no resemblence to later versions, notably, but not limited to -- Alcuin's revision of 801; Lanfranc's revision of 1089; Stephen, Abbot of Citeaux's revision of 1134; Cardinal Nicolas' revision of 1150; Gutenberg's first printing in 1456; the Louvain Theologies as developed from 1547 through 1583; Sixtus V's revision; and Franciscus Toletus' revision of that revision in 1598.

And this was before everyone and their brother started translating things into their own languages -- and let's be serious here -- Old Latin didn't have enough words or expressive symbolic content to find equivalency in English, Spanish, Serbian, Bengali, Chinese, Hindustani, Russian and Swedish (again, among dozens of others) all at the same time. EVERYONE has a different version. That is what 'vulgate' means, after all.

The word in question, most accurately rendered by scholars, was 'faith.' Not a bad word in and of itself. But a far cry from the word 'religion.' Even the official Vatican history warns: "From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions."

And the reason that it matters is because those who sow and sell superstitions, snake oil, and fear for their own personal gain have no other stock-in-trade than words. They have no actual truth or product or reality that they can place in front of the customers, and can offer only thundering oratory and slick, well-crafted words to try to convince people to give up their freedoms and wealth to the orators. The fact that every one of these words that the various cults employ has the effect of snowing and deliberately misleading huge numbers of people causes each of those words to be called into question. If a corporation tried this sort of misinformation campaign to separate people from their money they'd be held criminally liable.

Words, no matter where they are written, are not facts. Words are not actions. Words represent, but the word 'apple' cannot be made into a pie. When the object, fact, concept, idea, action, or specific real truth a word acts as a referent for cannot be shown to exist, then there is only one word that applies: Fraud.

All this and not even a "thanks" for explaining what the Vulgate is.

 

[Greaserbilly]

All this and not even a "thanks" for explaining what the Vulgate is.

Anyone with even 1/10 of a clue about how the Bible was assembled, how the NT was originally written, the number of differences between any two versions of the Greek manuscripts, the fact that the Roman Catholic church burned many of their originals (after all, we have the Vulgate), demanded that parts of their Vulgate be back-ported into the Greek texts, etc. would be less interested in figuring out how to pick the fly droppings out of the pepper and more in simply loving his neighbor and trusting in God.

The Koine Greek was written as a wall of text. SOMETHINGAKINTOTHISWITHOUTANYPUNCTUATIONORACCENTSORANYWAYOFTELLINGWHERESENTENCESAREMEANTTOBEGINANDEND...

So tell, me, is GODISNOWHERE "God is nowhere" or "God is now here?" the interpretation thereof is as much theology as it is translation, because in many places the number of meanings for any given stream of text is not one.

 

[stringmusic]

He certainly is:

 

[bullethead]

Anyone with even 1/10 of a clue about how the Bible was assembled, how the NT was originally written, the number of differences between any two versions of the Greek manuscripts, the fact that the Roman Catholic church burned many of their originals (after all, we have the Vulgate), demanded that parts of their Vulgate be back-ported into the Greek texts, etc. would be less interested in figuring out how to pick the fly droppings out of the pepper and more in simply loving his neighbor and trusting in God.

The Koine Greek was written as a wall of text. SOMETHINGAKINTOTHISWITHOUTANYPUNCTUATIONORACCENTSORANYWAYOFTELLINGWHERESENTENCESAREMEANTTOBEGINANDEND...

So tell, me, is GODISNOWHERE "God is nowhere" or "God is now here?" the interpretation thereof is as much theology as it is translation, because in many places the number of meanings for any given stream of text is not one.

Is that combination of words (GODISNOWHERE) in the original anywhere? Would it look anything like that in it's original language? What letters are before and after it? or is that a modern spin on words to make your point?

Maybe it means Go Di Snow Here?? betterbeonyourwaysoyoudontgetcaughtinthestorm.......

 

[centerpin fan]

I agree that this:

... simply loving his neighbor and trusting in God.

... is what's important.

So tell, me, is GODISNOWHERE "God is nowhere" or "God is now here?" the interpretation thereof is as much theology as it is translation, because in many places the number of meanings for any given stream of text is not one.

What verse in scripture reads "GODISNOWHERE"?

 

[Asath]

I had a feeling that we might walk off of one cliff only to encounter another built of the same stubborn rock . . .

The Church doesn’t change with each revision???? Really?

Then why did they, each and all, bother revising?

If the Church (please read the word ‘Church’ here to be synonymous with the word ‘religion’) remained exactly the same with each revision of the one true Holy Book that is the true and unerring Word, then why is the Church so much different now than it was originally? And how in the name of Ernest can there be so very many different ones? If the Church, and the message of same, has remained the same, then what exactly did the Protestant Reformation accomplish?

And if the message is the same, across all of the centuries, then why are the religions (Churches) (with notable exceptions) no longer killing folks who dare to say that the sun does not revolve around the earth? Why are most of them no longer stoning ‘sinners’? Be serious. Clearly the ‘message’ is not the same. Reality keeps on being updated, and they have to keep reacting solely in order to survive.

And let us be quite clear about the niggling difference between a ‘version’ and a ‘translation,’ in the context we are using here. Meanings are changed dramatically by the choice of words (which is what the entire Protestant movement was all about, if you will recall), and once everyone decided that they could provide their own words to reinforce their own interpretations, and started, then, trying to enforce their own words as factual, all differences between a ‘translation’ and a ‘version’ went out the window. As I pointed out several posts ago, if you believe the words you, personally, have read to be true, then they are. To you. If someone else reads a different set of words (translation? version?) and believes those words to be equally true, then you have what we see – a quagmire of disparate cults all arguing over the same thing. One person’s translation error becomes the official ‘version’ for millions, and we all see that truth all around us, so the distinction between a translation and a version is that, for all practical purposes so far as this bible is concerned, there isn’t one. EVERYONE, in every language, and often in the same language, has a different set of words attributed to the same source.

This problem doesn’t even begin to address the deeper problem in structural linguistics, wherein the sign, signifier, and signified assigned to any abstract symbol (such as a word) is of needs filtered individually, and the same symbol may not necessarily connote the same meaning to each observer.

As Nicholas Colas observed, “Human nature, as it turns out, is a veritable minefield of biases and distortions that push rational thought through emotional screens to the point where clearheaded thinking can mutate into irrational outcomes.” Consider any mass movement, and the clear reality of the mob mentality throughout history and it is easy to see that Mr. Colas’ observation holds water.

I will thank you for explaining what the Vulgate isn’t, since I have an English language copy on my shelf which is certainly not what the St. Jerome of myth and legend may or may not have written. And unless you have a copy of the original and can translate it in context then you also have no idea what the ‘Vulgate’ is or was. Your enlightenment is always welcome, however.

And nice try with the bluff, but we were not speaking of the Greek word for anything at all, but rather the mistranslation of the original Biblical Hebrew. The fact that the Greeks were among the first to create the mistranslation is well noted. Citing an error as a factual source is rather odd, but demonstrates the point I’ve been trying to make.

And, gentlemen, I thank you for the repeated insults, and the suggestions that I am in the ‘Twilight Zone’ and all the like, but I believe that it is you who walked into the ‘Atheist’ forum, not any of us who sought you out. I did not insult you, or resort to suggestions that you are somehow unhinged for thinking as you do. I did not accuse you of lacking a grasp of the facts, though you have not yet wielded a defensible one – you hurled that insult yourselves. I will thank you to conduct yourselves as intellectuals and as gentlemen rather than as a one-man inquisition. Be aware that your own tactics paint your entire sect in an unfavorable light, and one they are well known for.

And I agree with Greaserbilly that the Koine Greek is a dense and difficult bit of garlic to sort out, and it confounds even those who have devoted their entire careers to the study of it. But are we going to then argue that Martin Luther had a stroke of inspiration, and got it right all by himself, thus setting those darned Catholics straight? Or that just because it is dense and difficult to decipher it must then be an accurate translation of the Old Hebrew? Or that because of all of these things it must prove the existence of God? Or are we once again dismissing the point in favor of derailing thoughts into only our own siding? Doesn’t much matter which, or whose, words you use. All you argue over is just whose nonsense is the most historically or linguistically accurate nonsense. Not a bit of it, at any time, in any language, has a bit of credible truth to back it up. You might as well translate a Harry Potter book into Urdu, then into Cyrillic, and then get on with arguing over which is the proper sentence structure. It is fiction.

Once more we devolve into an argument over words, since that is all you guys have. We can play semantic games all day long, and as you see, I’m happy to play, but you’ll still never be able to put a face to your names and actually demonstrate that the ‘apple’ you have a name for can be eaten. And, speaking for myself, I find no nourishment in the theoretical possibility of provender. I prefer things that are real. If something cannot be shown to exist, then it has no real authority to command my attention.

God did not make words, and words cannot make God.

 

[bullethead]

Where's the High Five emoticon? Bravo.

 

[centerpin fan]

Gee, you're verbose. For the sake of expediency, I'll leave your post in black and I'll reply in blue.


I had a feeling that we might walk off of one cliff only to encounter another built of the same stubborn rock . . .

The Church doesn’t change with each revision???? Really? Yes, really.

Then why did they, each and all, bother revising? Because languages change. The English spoken in 1611 is not the English that is spoken today.

If the Church (please read the word ‘Church’ here to be synonymous with the word ‘religion’) ... That's mistake #1. They are not synonymous, but I'll play along.

... remained exactly the same with each revision of the one true Holy Book that is the true and unerring Word, then why is the Church so much different now than it was originally? My church follows the Nicene Creed. Most churches of today follow it or something similar, like the Apostles' Creed. My church uses the exact same Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that he used in Constantinople about 1,600 years ago. And how in the name of Ernest can there be so very many different ones? Easy. They took the same book and interpreted certain things differently. If the Church, and the message of same, has remained the same, then what exactly did the Protestant Reformation accomplish? Much division.

And if the message is the same, across all of the centuries, then why are the religions (Churches) (with notable exceptions) no longer killing folks who dare to say that the sun does not revolve around the earth? You're talking about a time when there was very little difference between the church and the state. Add to that the fact that the government in those cases was almost always a monarchy. Why are most of them no longer stoning ‘sinners’? Nowhere in the NT are Christians told to stone sinners. Sinners were stoned in the OT. Ask a Jew why they no longer do that. Be serious. Clearly the ‘message’ is not the same. Reality keeps on being updated, and they have to keep reacting solely in order to survive.

And let us be quite clear about the niggling difference between a ‘version’ and a ‘translation,’ in the context we are using here. Meanings are changed dramatically by the choice of words (which is what the entire Protestant movement was all about, if you will recall), and once everyone decided that they could provide their own words to reinforce their own interpretations, and started, then, trying to enforce their own words as factual, all differences between a ‘translation’ and a ‘version’ went out the window. As I pointed out several posts ago, if you believe the words you, personally, have read to be true, then they are. To you. If someone else reads a different set of words (translation? version?) and believes those words to be equally true, then you have what we see – a quagmire of disparate cults all arguing over the same thing. One person’s translation error becomes the official ‘version’ for millions, and we all see that truth all around us, so the distinction between a translation and a version is that, for all practical purposes so far as this bible is concerned, there isn’t one. EVERYONE, in every language, and often in the same language, has a different set of words attributed to the same source. What is the official Presbyterian Bible? The official Baptist Bible? The official Methodist Bible? Very few churches have "official" versions. You make it sound like every group that came out of the Reformation rewrote the Greek and Hebrew text to suit themselves. It just didn't happen. I have read from the following versions: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, JB, GNB, and Berkeley. IMO, there's very little difference between them.

This problem doesn’t even begin to address the deeper problem in structural linguistics, wherein the sign, signifier, and signified assigned to any abstract symbol (such as a word) is of needs filtered individually, and the same symbol may not necessarily connote the same meaning to each observer. The translators of all the major versions are very capable, and they do an excellent job.

As Nicholas Colas observed, “Human nature, as it turns out, is a veritable minefield of biases and distortions that push rational thought through emotional screens to the point where clearheaded thinking can mutate into irrational outcomes.” Consider any mass movement, and the clear reality of the mob mentality throughout history and it is easy to see that Mr. Colas’ observation holds water.

I will thank you for explaining what the Vulgate isn’t, since I have an English language copy on my shelf ... yet you were shocked that the original was in Latin, and you had no idea who Jerome was or when he wrote it.

... which is certainly not what the St. Jerome of myth and legend may or may not have written. And unless you have a copy of the original and can translate it in context then you also have no idea what the ‘Vulgate’ is or was. Your enlightenment is always welcome, however.

And nice try with the bluff, but we were not speaking of the Greek word for anything at all, but rather the mistranslation of the original Biblical Hebrew. You didn't make it clear what you were talking about. I quoted both Old and NT passages that used the word "religion", and you seemed unfamiliar with all of them. The fact that the Greeks were among the first to create the mistranslation is well noted. Are you talking about the NT or the Septuagint? (Do I need to explain what the Septuagint is?) Citing an error as a factual source is rather odd, but demonstrates the point I’ve been trying to make.

And, gentlemen, I thank you for the repeated insults, and the suggestions that I am in the ‘Twilight Zone’ and all the like, but I believe that it is you who walked into the ‘Atheist’ forum, not any of us who sought you out. I did not insult you, or resort to suggestions that you are somehow unhinged for thinking as you do. Again, not true. In your very first post in this thread (#103), you mentioned that the Bibles on our shelves were unread. Did you mean that as a complement? Or were you implying that Christians are brain dead automatons who just sit around and take marching orders from Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart? Then, you displayed an ignorance of the Bible that may have set a new standard. I did not accuse you of lacking a grasp of the facts, though you have not yet wielded a defensible one – you hurled that insult yourselves. I will thank you to conduct yourselves as intellectuals and as gentlemen rather than as a one-man inquisition. Be aware that your own tactics paint your entire sect in an unfavorable light, and one they are well known for.

And I agree with Greaserbilly that the Koine Greek is a dense and difficult bit of garlic to sort out, and it confounds even those who have devoted their entire careers to the study of it. No, Koine Greek is a common form of Greek. When I was in college, one Greek professor used the gospel of John as his basic text because he believed students could pick it up easier than much of the classical Greek. But are we going to then argue that Martin Luther had a stroke of inspiration, and got it right all by himself, thus setting those darned Catholics straight? Or that just because it is dense and difficult to decipher it must then be an accurate translation of the Old Hebrew? Or that because of all of these things it must prove the existence of God? Or are we once again dismissing the point in favor of derailing thoughts into only our own siding? Doesn’t much matter which, or whose, words you use. All you argue over is just whose nonsense is the most historically or linguistically accurate nonsense. Not a bit of it, at any time, in any language, has a bit of credible truth to back it up. You might as well translate a Harry Potter book into Urdu, then into Cyrillic, and then get on with arguing over which is the proper sentence structure. It is fiction.

Once more we devolve into an argument over words, since that is all you guys have. We can play semantic games all day long, and as you see, I’m happy to play, ... You've been losing -- badly.

... but you’ll still never be able to put a face to your names and actually demonstrate that the ‘apple’ you have a name for can be eaten. And, speaking for myself, I find no nourishment in the theoretical possibility of provender. I prefer things that are real. If something cannot be shown to exist, then it has no real authority to command my attention.

God did not make words, and words cannot make God.

 

[Greaserbilly]

Is that combination of words (GODISNOWHERE) in the original anywhere? Would it look anything like that in it's original language? What letters are before and after it? or is that a modern spin on words to make your point?

Maybe it means Go Di Snow Here?? betterbeonyourwaysoyoudontgetcaughtinthestorm.......

No, obviously GODISNOWHERE doesn't appear in the Koine Greek. Those "words" are English. But I'm not going to drag out a koine Greek string and point out where a word break and/or a sentence break can make a HUGE difference in the interpretation of a sentence.

I took a string of characters that could be parsed two ways - one of which is theist, one totally atheist, as an example.
And that IS a challenge for a Greek translator, because we don't even know where words begin or end, never mind what words belong in which sentence.

If you're interested in some of the issues with the Greek texts, find a book called "Misquoting Jesus" which is a not too scholarly treatise. You may disagree with his worldview, but it is illuminating to see how two translators have parsed exactly the same text and come up with two different theologies as a result.

Not a bit of it, at any time, in any language, has a bit of credible truth to back it up. You might as well translate a Harry Potter book into Urdu, then into Cyrillic, and then get on with arguing over which is the proper sentence structure.

That's actually been done. In trying to figure out some aspects of the Greek, we've gone to other language sources (same region/timeframe) and backtranslated. And in one famous case, some of the Vulgate was backtranslated into the Greek as a result of what was in essence a lost bet.

You're going to have to disambiguate "version"

Are you referring to a known original document, given that there are many, MANY differences in various copies of the old manuscripts?

Are you referring to a version/parsing of a given document, in which in one place someone broke the string one way, and in the other another? (using my made up example GOD IS NOW HERE vs GOD IS NO WHERE or even GODI SNOW HERE?)

Are you referring to newer English translations that try and shore up a given theology, give more insight into the original languages?

As for why people once taught the Earth was flat, well, that was their attempt to stitch together metaphors and such to build a literal cosmology.

 

[Greaserbilly]

No, Koine Greek is a common form of Greek. When I was in college, one Greek professor used the gospel of John as his basic text because he believed students could pick it up easier than much of the classical Greek.

Yup. It was the common man's Greek - the lingua franca of much of the world at the time.

Where I was going with difficulties is 1) one cannot argue semantically about specific words in an English translation (as I am guilty of having done in the past years ago) because the English translation doesn't necessarily give you sufficient ammo with which to do so. And 2) scriptio continua. Wow. That's also a problem.

 

[Asath]

There isn't much that is ambiguous about the word 'version.'

Synonyms include interpretation, rendition, style, account, and, yes, translation.

But in a context that is entirely word-specific, and has no verifiability other than arguments over the words themselves, it ends up striking one that it matters not a fig whether I call something a 'duck' or a 'goose,' since nobody actually saw anything at all. The KJV is now only 400 years old. 400. That is how recently this particular revision came into being.

St. Jerome is said to have lived roughly from 370 to 420 A.D. That puts about 1,191 years between St. Jerome and the KJV. A good long stretch, that is to say. So if we guess that he might have been, say, 30 years old when he decided to rewrite the whole bible, that would put him about 400 years after the most important of the NT events he labors to describe and illuminate. 400 years.

400 years ago, from today, was 1611. Anyone wish to step forward and narrate in the first person, with unerring authority, the events of that one year alone? Re-writing a whole bible must have taken quite some scholarly investigation, one would think, and perhaps all of the libraries and published documents and easy access to information that was available in 400 A.D. made that task a snap for this St. Jerome fella, so he had every original document he might need right at his fingertips. No doubt he was intimately versed in all of the various languages involved as well, what with the ready availability of international travel at the time, and all of the langauge schools and self-help tapes popping up all around. Probably he just Googled the necessary gaps and had the manuscript at the publisher before his deadline, sent by parcel post with a return receipt from the local Post Office . . . And no wonder the finished work took off as a popular phenomenon -- a mere thousand years or so later someone figured out how to print enough copies for folks to actually read. Several hundred years after that, quite a few people actually learned how to read. It was a best-seller waiting to happen. Right?

Placed in the proper context of 400 A.D or so, and with an understanding of the times, and with an understanding of the sheer magnitude of the undertaking even in modern times, one is forced to a simple conclusion -- nonsense. Just the same, given the wholesale, and very successful revisions and updating of previous fictions we see coming out of Hollywood today, it seems credible that a new version of an old tale is easier to swallow whole than a new version of a fact. Who was there to witness Batman's original car, after all? The new version is just as good as the old one, and maybe better . . .

Unfortunately this sort of 'historical' revisionism isn't so easy with genuine truth, so when some fools started rabble-rousing, and bandying about the idea that the Sun didn't really revolve around the Earth, and dangerously heretical ideas like that, those individuals had to be disposed of. Belief is the antithesis of truth, and has always been. We have a history of cherishing our fictions and rejecting our facts. Often in a provenly murderous fashion.

The problem here isn't an endless game of faux-scholarly analysis of words and languages and all the like, designed only to distract everyone, the problem is that the central point is political and (like all politics) fictional. Religion is nothing more than control-minded politics, designed entirely to get the unwashed, ignorant masses to snap to the demands of the self-anointed ruling classes. It has never been anything different. Much of the motivation behind the 'religious' leaders has been proper and well-intentioned. People are self-interested, barbaric beings, and left without something to fear civilization crumbles into chaos in mere moments. Many of us 'unsaved' heretics knew that already. Much of the motivation behind the 'religious' leaders has not been quite so altuistic and benign, and religions have authored some of history's worst tragedies. Which side of that debate one lands on is a matter of personal interpretation ('Your' version of belief), but the facts are inarguable, and the actual history is clear.

Whether one word is equivalent to another in this that or the other language is little more than a mental exercise that avoids the point -- not a single one of the stories holds a molecule of water as factual. The fact that the original Old Hebrew version of Genesis clearly uses the plural 'Eloi' a number of times in the first chapter alone is the stuff of intellectual debate, but avoids the idea that there cannot, nor has there ever actually been either a singular 'god' nor a plural 'gods.' Fighting over the exact meanings of ancient superstitions seems as absurd to the rest of us as arguments over the skin color of the aliens from outer space or the nature and habits of ghosts. We're sort of happy that it gives you something to do with your extra time, but we'll thank you to keep that brand of nonsense out of our legislatures.

We have enough real, factual, earthly problems to deal with, and keeping your ancient superstitions confined to your little cult headquarters rather than continually confronting the rest of us with it and demanding with increasing violence that we agree only with you would be considered a sign that the self-described mercy and tolerance and wisdom of the various monotheistic religious sects is actually true, rather than the thinly-veiled intolerance and arrogantly expansionist oppression it actually represents in practice. Your religions aim to conquer, by whatever means necessary, not to peacefully co-exist, and your histories and modern day practices demonstrate that more than any words you can ever create.

If you want to win, bring us facts, not bluster and filibuster. Is your god so shy that he cannot reveal himself, except through your own descriptions? If so, then by describing you take on the persona of that described, and deign to speak in the stead of your god, which seems to violate your own proscriptions. Shall we believe only you, because you believe?

 

[bullethead]

You've hit for the cycle now.