The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda Options

[sadolakced acid]

we all know this book. we've at least seen it in hotel rooms. this is the book with tissue-thin pages, the book that was first printed. this is a book that people rally to.

and it is a political agenda.

in the early years of christianity, there were many, many sects that called themselves chistian. one sect decided they were the real christians, and condemned the rest as false sects.

this sect evolved into the church. In order to make all other sects wrong, they edited the bible. they threw out the parts they didn't like, added parts they liked. The bible is a manual for how to live your life- so, why not add in a bit about who you should give money to?

over the years, the bible evolved as it's editors saw fit. It was changed, in the case of the king james bible, to help conquer ireland.

It was rewritten to support values the political leaders wanted supported.

want a reason to allow slavery? put in a bit about cain and able.

want to be able to get precious farmlands in the middle east? put in a bit about that being the holy land.

the bible, it seems, is nothing more than a written propoganda tool; too far edited from it's original text to be considered anything more than a pamplet that's designed, not to ensure truth of history, and that all sides are protrayed, but to get the godless heathens to convert to christianity.


now; you can either flame me and tell me how i couldn't understand, and cite bible quotes and give me something to laugh at,
or you can prove me wrong with a bit of rational debate.

i'd enjoy it emmensly more if you'd pick the first one, although the second is nice.

have a nice day!

[sadolakced acid]

although, i have heard that they think they found noah's ark and that at the bottom of the red sea, where moses led the slaves to freedom, they have found bones and parts of chariots fromwhen the soldies chasing them were swept away.

that's funny. because the original hebrew text says something that more accuratly translates as "the reed sea". and that there was such a sea, and it was really more of a marsh, and the tide would fill and drain it. and that historians are pretty sure this is what the original text said.


hmm. i wonder why they found bodies and chariots in the red sea. i mean, it's not like boats carrying chariots could have sunk there...

and you ask me to prove where the bible's been changed.... here a simple translation error that makes a 'miracle' into something bigger, what else is there? a 'translation error' that makes blacks the inferiors and destined slaves of the whites?