Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[Okwaho]

Then again, oral history has no crediability as it can be invented easily by one generation or even one person. And, not to mention, it changes slightly everytime it's told. And if the Indians have been around millions of years like they'd like to think, those stories would have changed considerably.

No it doesn't change at all. From the time your a baby to the time you die it is told over and over and over again. If the orator was to change even one minute detail everyone would know! Some of our oral history is the same from Nation to Nation. If you watch the show Battlefield Detectives on Little Big Horn, archialogists proved that the Sioux oral history of the battle was dead on and the Americans written version was wrong! There was no last stand for Custer, he ran like the frightened coward he was.

If you know the legend of Custer, then you should also know Sitting Bulls Warning.

The natives will never get back what is theirs until everything stolen from the Soldiers is returned. Sitting Bull warned the natives of this, after his marathon dance where they plucked tiny chunks of flesh from his body. It was the same dance where he saw how to defeat the Army. He told the natives that they would be victorious but that they must not touch anything of the dead soldiers. The dead were robbed. So goes the legend that the natives will never get back what is theirs until everything taken from the soldiers that day is returned.

Yep! Abd that day has come!!! Custer's body was not mutilated but his ears were punctured so he could hear in the afterlife.

[jdobbin]

Why don't you prove that the bible have never been altered. I want details.

[Okwaho]

Why don't you prove that the bible have never been altered. I want details.

That would of course entail your having to read it. The links provided containing insignificant omissions has not altered the context of its origin one bit. Every thought and every notion are still in tact.

[jdobbin]

That would of course entail your having to read it. The links provided containing insignificant omissions has not altered the context of its origin one bit. Every thought and every notion are still in tact.

I doubt very much that you've read them.

And of course, you've dismissed out of hand the gospel that was left out of the bible altogether. What did you call it? Ah yes...obsure. And yet, it is being studied by many and brings into question the orgins of the bible and what they chose to leave out.

But enough fruitless discussions. Assert whatever you want. I don't why I bothered since it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Nor does it convince me of one thing or the other.

[Okwaho]

Here's one bible alteration:

Book of Exodus:

When moses parted the sea to flee Egypt, it said in the bible I grew up with, that he parted the RED SEA. It is commonly accepted that the passage should read the REED SEA which refers to an area in the Nile Delta. That is one alteration that has occured within the last decade. Since it is believed to have been a translation error, it would actually mean that it is the second time this same rather important occurance, has been altered in the bible.

Oh come on...is that the best you can come up with?

[Okwaho]

That would of course entail your having to read it. The links provided containing insignificant omissions has not altered the context of its origin one bit. Every thought and every notion are still in tact.

I doubt very much that you've read them.

And of course, you've dismissed out of hand the gospel that was left out of the bible altogether. What did you call it? Ah yes...obsure. And yet, it is being studied by many and brings into question the orgins of the bible and what they chose to leave out.

But enough fruitless discussions. Assert whatever you want. I don't why I bothered since it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Nor does it convince me of one thing or the other.

You are free to doubt anything you wish to. I could care less if it convices you one way or another or one thing or the other.

I simply rebutted a statement from and was having a discussion about it with River. You jumped into this voluntarily on your own!

[Okwaho]

Now, now Riverbend...your on spin cycle again!!! Go back and read the post I responded to and lets stick to the topic whether or not it is fictitious or true has nothing to do with: "Many events in the Bible actually occurred but the story has been altered over years and years of retelling -"

The earliest known copies of the gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ died. The story of Christ's life was altered over years and years of retelling between the time the events happened and when they were written down. However, once the Catholic church decided it had a story it liked it then ensured that only that story was written down and retold over the centuries.

The Mesianic (Hebrew and Aramaic) and the Septuagint (Greek) were written before the Latin Vulgate (Latin)which is what the early Catholics used. The first New Testament was written in Greek. They are all the same.

[Riverwind]

The Mesianic (Hebrew and Aramaic) and the Septuagint (Greek) were written before the Latin Vulgate (Latin)which is what the early Catholics used. The first New Testament was written in Greek. They are all the same.

37. Q and Thomas were composed during the period 50-60 C.E.

38. Mark was written about 70 C.E.

39. Matthew was composed about 85 C.E.

40. Luke-Acts was created around 90 C.E.

41. The signs gospel embedded in the Gospel of John was composed during the period 60-80 C.E.

42. The first edition of John appeared between 80 and 100 C.E.

The gospels were not even written until 30-40 years after Jesus died. We know the story of in the four approved Gospels not consistant with other documents uncovered (see the Gnostic Gospels). The fact that the church choose to exclude certain books about the life of Jesus and exclude others is evidence that the Church was very much interested in manipulating the story.

However, the definitive proof that the Gospels are not accurate is the stories in the Gospels themselves. Many stories describe events or occurances which are simply impossible based on modern science. i.e. walking on water, turning water into wine, healing leapers, etc. You could argue that the writer misunderstood what he saw and that there are mundane explainations for these events, however, you would be simply arging that the errors were a result of an ignorant observer rather than a manipulative one. They are still errors in any case.

[geoffrey]

River, be realistic, the Gnostic gospels are along the same lines. Did some people record Jesus saying slightly different things, yup. But do any of them change the core values of Chrisitianity? Not at all.

But this discussion isn't about the Bible.

[Riverwind]

River, be realistic, the Gnostic gospels are along the same lines. Did some people record Jesus saying slightly different things, yup. But do any of them change the core values of Christianity? Not at all.

You are asking a different question. The Christian belief system is not at all connected to the 100% accuracy of the Bible. I am sure no Christian's faith would be shattered if someone came up with definitive proof that Jesus never turned water into wine at a wedding. That is because the spiritual message of the Bible is still true even if most of the stories are complete fiction. However, there is a huge difference between saying that the essence of the spiritual message has stayed the same and saying that the Bible is a reliable historical document that can be used in court of law. That is why I think it is ridiculous to treat oral tradition as 'fact' - stories that contradicted the cultural or spirtual values of the tribe would be changed or forgotten. It is not intended to be a rigorous record of historical events and is subject to manipulation over time.