The dark age is coming back - Page 9

The Avon Lady · 10-30-06, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You hate disagreement enought to try to invoke moderator action against those that disagree with you.

And his prayers to the forum gods were not acceded to.

:p

Gizzmoe · 10-30-06, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Now explain to me how an entire nation accepted as fact the above verses if they were introduced to them "after the fact", with no continuity that anyone beforehand ever heard of? I wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. Would you? I assume not.

Again, think about it. :hmm:

I honestly can´t answer that. But in a religion where I am not allowed to eat things like shrimp cocktails, pork chops, lobster thermidor, cheeseburger, prosciutto or salami pizza, smoked eel, sturgeon caviar or steak smothered in cream gravy everything is possible. Think about it!

Sorry...

In which year did the first complete version of the Torah appear? How old is the oldest existing Torah?

VON_CAPO · 10-30-06, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You hate disagreement enought to try to invoke moderator action against those that disagree with you.

And his prayers to the forum gods were not acceded to.

:p

I think you and your troupe got into the right place. :p

EDIT #1: Now everybody is going to play by the book.
General topics's dirty tricks... no more. :p:p:p

EDIT #2: The prayers had been fulfilled, the moderator is here "in person".

The Avon Lady · 10-30-06, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Now explain to me how an entire nation accepted as fact the above verses if they were introduced to them "after the fact", with no continuity that anyone beforehand ever heard of? I wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. Would you? I assume not.

Again, think about it. :hmm:

I honestly can´t answer that. But in a religion where I am not allowed to eat things like shrimp cocktails, pork chops, lobster thermidor, cheeseburger, prosciutto or salami pizza, smoked eel, sturgeon caviar or steak smothered in cream gravy everything is possible. Think about it!

Sorry...

We just finished thick shoulder steaks for supper.

Quote:

In which year did the first complete version of the Torah appear?

About 3500 years ago, on the last day of Moses' life:

"Then Moses wrote this Torah, and gave it to the priests, the descendants of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel."
- Deuteronomy 31:9

Quote:

How old is the oldest existing Torah?

About 650 years old.

The leather parchments deteriorate and the ink fades and cracks, rendering the Torah invalid. Writing a Torah requires exactitude. One mistake, even the ink of 2 letters touching one another, invalidates the Torah from being used for obligatory readings. That's how demanding we are in accuracy.

Gizzmoe · 10-30-06, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

About 650 years old.

So there´s roughly 2850 years between the oldest existing Torah and the "original" one. Guess what comes next...

In 2850 years a lot of things can happen, how can you be sure that no one actually changed parts of it to their liking at one point? That wouldn´t be the only scripture where that happened...

The Avon Lady · 10-30-06, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

About 650 years old.

So there´s roughly 2850 years between the oldest existing Torah and the "original" one. Guess what comes next...

In 2850 years a lot of things can happen, how can you be sure that no one actually changed parts of it to their liking at one point? That wouldn´t be the only scripture where that happened...

Please explain how come there has never been a major discepancy anytime in the 1000's of years of Jewish history between Torahs throughout the world?

If someone slipped something in:

1. How did it get everywhere else, where the text was not like that (and again, there never has been such a case - scoure the almost 2 volumes of both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, which quibbles over the smallest legal differences and you won't find a single instance of a major disgression between Torah texts anywhere.

2. How did everyone accept what it said when that's not what it said the day before and when it clearly states that it's referring to their ancestors who came out of Egypt? This was the original point made a few post's back (i.e., neither you nor I would stand for this).

Gizzmoe · 10-30-06, 01:42 PM

I can´t answer any of that. All I´m saying is that 2850 years are a bloody long time, and though it doesn´t automatically mean that something was changed, it is kinda likely that at one point someone or a group of people actually changed parts of the scripture, by adding or removing something or whatever. If you would tell me that 2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs then it would be indeed very unlikely that something was changed, but still not impossible.

The Avon Lady · 10-30-06, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

I can´t answer any of that. All I´m saying is that 2850 years are a bloody long time, and though it doesn´t automatically mean that something was changed, it is kinda likely that at one point someone actually changed parts of the scripture, by adding or removing something or whatever. If you would tell me that 2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs then it would be indeed very unlikely that something was changed,

2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs.

Quote:

but still not impossible.

Is the inverse of that "probable"?

:hmm: You said it, not me.

Gizzmoe · 10-30-06, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Is the inverse of that "probable"?

:hmm: You said it, not me.

I have enough for today...

Laila Tov!

Yahoshua · 10-30-06, 02:29 PM

I beg to differ in that there is the competing accuracies between the Masoretic texts, the LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does this subject need another thread or is it fine right here? (gtg school, lunch is over).

SUBMAN1 · 10-30-06, 03:14 PM

Wow! Why are so many people concerned about religion? Believe it, or not. That is the answer. Choose wisely!

-S

VON_CAPO · 10-30-06, 09:48 PM

Legislating Violations of the Constitution:

From: ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...55.html?sub=AR

By Erwin Chemerinsky
Special to washingtonpost.com
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University.

""" With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees.

The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

The attorneys' fees statute has worked well for almost 30 years.

Lawyers receive attorneys' fees under the law only if their claim is meritorious and they win in court.

Unsuccessful lawyers get nothing under the law.

This creates a strong disincentive to frivolous suits and encourages lawyers to bring only clearly meritorious ones.

Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution.

Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal.

The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal.

The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights. """

ASWnut101 · 10-30-06, 09:58 PM

So? If you and the WP are so sure that the bill will be turned down, why are you complaining? I have yet to find this on any other site though.

Ducimus · 10-30-06, 10:00 PM

^

Hookay, thats scary. Since im uneducated in this, what was this bills name and did it make it through the senate? Article is a month old.

August · 10-31-06, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

^

Hookay, thats scary. Since im uneducated in this, what was this bills name and did it make it through the senate? Article is a month old.

No it hasn't passed the senate.

10-30-06, 02:29 PM	#130
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I beg to differ in that there is the competing accuracies between the Masoretic texts, the LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does this subject need another thread or is it fine right here? (gtg school, lunch is over). __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

10-30-06, 03:14 PM	#131
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Wow! Why are so many people concerned about religion? Believe it, or not. That is the answer. Choose wisely! -S __________________

10-30-06, 09:58 PM	#133
ASWnut101 Admiral Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,021 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	So? If you and the WP are so sure that the bill will be turned down, why are you complaining? I have yet to find this on any other site though. __________________

10-30-06, 01:42 PM	#127
Gizzmoe Silent Hunter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 3,668 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	I can´t answer any of that. All I´m saying is that 2850 years are a bloody long time, and though it doesn´t automatically mean that something was changed, it is kinda likely that at one point someone or a group of people actually changed parts of the scripture, by adding or removing something or whatever. If you would tell me that 2500 years ago there were like thousands of Torahs then it would be indeed very unlikely that something was changed, but still not impossible.

10-30-06, 09:48 PM	#132
VON_CAPO Samurai Navy Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 588 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Legislating Violations of the Constitution: From: ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...55.html?sub=AR By Erwin Chemerinsky Special to washingtonpost.com Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University. """ With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The attorneys' fees statute has worked well for almost 30 years. Lawyers receive attorneys' fees under the law only if their claim is meritorious and they win in court. Unsuccessful lawyers get nothing under the law. This creates a strong disincentive to frivolous suits and encourages lawyers to bring only clearly meritorious ones. Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution. Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal. The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal. The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights. """

10-30-06, 10:00 PM	#134
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	^ Hookay, thats scary. Since im uneducated in this, what was this bills name and did it make it through the senate? Article is a month old.