This is not the forum you're looking for

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

Parent: Religion and Dinosaurs

  1. #195602012-03-24 06:33:52 *NGH said:

    @Trev

    Which text is right

    Just about anything considered canon.

    What about the translation errors?

    That's really up to the individual to do their own research and find a proper translation. I can't deny that some versions have errors, and even liberties, and I myself tend to avoid those at any cost. But when you find a near-direct translation there is no issue.

    Which scribe is reliable and which isn't?

    I'm answering believing you mean ancient scribes. Jewish scribes were very careful with what they considered to be sacred documents. They were famous for their consistent accuracy, really.

    Enjoy some copypasta from wikipedia. This is the sort of stuff you'd have to read in history books to know about, though.

    1. They could only use clean animal skins, both to write on, and even to bind manuscripts.
    2. Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
    3. The ink must be black, and of a special recipe.
    4. They must say each word aloud while they were writing.
    5. They must wipe the pen and wash their entire bodies before writing the most Holy Name of God, YHVH every time they wrote it.
    6. There must be a review within thirty days, and if as many as three pages required corrections, the entire manuscript had to be redone.
    7. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.
    8. The documents could be stored only in sacred places (synagogues, etc.).
    9. As no document containing God's Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a genizah.

    Are there any books that managed to sneak into every canon that are just straight made up?

    The canon has been tested by historians hundreds and thousands of times since their conception. As of yet, no evidence has been found to support that theory.

    What about Esther? It's not even among the Dead Sea Scrolls

    Not sure what you mean by that. It's been discovered in historical documents plenty of times. After all, it's been canonized in the Jewish bible hundreds of years before Christ was even born.

    Are the inaccuracies about the stay of the Israelites in Egypt divinely inspired? Are the dicked up genealogies divinely inspired? Are the historical inaccuracies about the Romans divinely inspired?

    The response to this is very difficult to phrase so I'll just lazily copypaste these two links.

    Ah okay my brain is mush at this point. I can't believe I'm discussing this again.