What's up everybody! Just a quick message. We will be relaunching AllHipHop.com with the goal of keeping the community front and center. I have worked with Jamal and select moderators, to make sure The Illl Community's needs are being addressed as we evolve. We are encouraging you to use the new platform.

We will NOT be closing the current community, but we will be porting user data over to the new system over time, so please get used to using the new community!

We will be working on it every single day until it's exactly what you want!

Please feel free to join now, test, as we are in beta:

https://www.allhiphop.com

No evidence of modern forgery in ancient text mentioning ‘Jesus’s wife’

123457»

Replies

  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    So, why aren't the stars counted as lights too?

    the light of the day is governed by the sun which means that the major light we see during the day is the sun at night the major light we see in the sky is the moon. not that the moon is creating but at night you look up and the major light you see is coming from the moon. I don't see why this shit is so hard to understand??
  • BIGG WILLBIGG WILL Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    Okay. The Bible says that god created two great lights in the sky to separate day from night. The sun produces light but the moon does not. I guess God saw the moon in the sky and mistook the reflected light as the moon producing its own light.

    The moon reflects light so it would look like there is another light in the sky this is not an error depending on what your perspective is.

    yeah, from the perspective of someone who knows better, the moon is not a light.

    YEAH but if you wanted to explain something to a primitive person you just might say that it's a light.

    but its not a light. So if you are willing to admit god is a liar, go ahead and say so cuz the Bible says he isn't which would be another mistake.

    It's not a lie through because the moon does reflect light so in a sense it is giving off light like i said earlier it just depend on your perspective.

    It is a lie. The Bible says the moon IS a light, not that it looks like a light or that it reflects light. However, the moon IS NOT a light, no matter how you slice it. It is not a light.

    The bible never says the moon is a light it says god put two lights in the sky and he did

    God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars

    That is correct . It's not saying that the moon is creating light only that there are two lights in the sky the moon at night and the sun at day.

    See, you are reaching too far. If its not making any direct mention of the Moon creating light, its also, not making any direct mention of the Sun creating light either.


    You only raise more questions trying to take that route.

    My Porcelain sink reflects light too, but only some one stupid enough to believe what you are spewing would call my sink a Light...
    acv3md.jpg


    2gse8vd.jpg
    Bodhi
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    moonlight is a reflection so its ultimately one light, not two.
    “Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
    -- Bruce Lee
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    The Bible claims bats are birds but we all now know that they are not.

    They classified things differently in the past.

    so god used to classify bats as birds but now he doesn't? Why not?

    It's just a translation issue
    Bodhi
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    The Bible claims bats are birds but we all now know that they are not.

    They classified things differently in the past.

    so god used to classify bats as birds but now he doesn't? Why not?

    It's just a translation issue

    no, it definitely lists bats as birds
    “Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
    -- Bruce Lee
    zombieBIGG WILL
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    So, why aren't the stars counted as lights too?

    It just says god made them. That is it, that is what god wanted us to know genesis

    says nothing about us counting the stars as being light or not.
    Bodhi
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    moonlight is a reflection so its ultimately one light, not two.

    it's the same source but it's still two lights one we see as coming directly from the sun the other we see reflected off of the moon.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    So, why aren't the stars counted as lights too?

    genesis

    says nothing about us counting the stars as being light or not.

    yes it does.
    “Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
    -- Bruce Lee
  • BIGG WILLBIGG WILL Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    So, why aren't the stars counted as lights too?

    the light of the day is governed by the sun which means that the major light we see during the day is the sun at night the major light we see in the sky is the moon. not that the moon is creating but at night you look up and the major light you see is coming from the moon. I don't see why this shit is so hard to understand??


    So, the Moon that doesn't create its own light is a light, but the stars that actually creates their own light are NOT considered lights?

    Tell God to get a Ghost Writer next time.

    Aiight, that was the last one.
    acv3md.jpg


    2gse8vd.jpg
    zombie
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    Okay. The Bible says that god created two great lights in the sky to separate day from night. The sun produces light but the moon does not. I guess God saw the moon in the sky and mistook the reflected light as the moon producing its own light.

    The moon reflects light so it would look like there is another light in the sky this is not an error depending on what your perspective is.

    yeah, from the perspective of someone who knows better, the moon is not a light.

    YEAH but if you wanted to explain something to a primitive person you just might say that it's a light.

    but its not a light. So if you are willing to admit god is a liar, go ahead and say so cuz the Bible says he isn't which would be another mistake.

    It's not a lie through because the moon does reflect light so in a sense it is giving off light like i said earlier it just depend on your perspective.

    It is a lie. The Bible says the moon IS a light, not that it looks like a light or that it reflects light. However, the moon IS NOT a light, no matter how you slice it. It is not a light.

    The bible never says the moon is a light it says god put two lights in the sky and he did

    God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars

    That is correct . It's not saying that the moon is creating light only that there are two lights in the sky the moon at night and the sun at day.

    See, you are reaching too far. If its not making any direct mention of the Moon creating light, its also, not making any direct mention of the Sun creating light either.


    You only raise more questions trying to take that route.

    My Porcelain sink reflects light too, but only some one stupid enough to believe what you are spewing would call my sink a Light...

    I think you are the one thinking too much at night you look up you see the light reflecting off the moon That it is. So the bible is correct when it say there is a light in the sky at night but it says there is a great light so that cannot be the stars it can only be the light that is reflected off the moon.
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2014
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    So, why aren't the stars counted as lights too?

    the light of the day is governed by the sun which means that the major light we see during the day is the sun at night the major light we see in the sky is the moon. not that the moon is creating but at night you look up and the major light you see is coming from the moon. I don't see why this shit is so hard to understand??


    So, the Moon that doesn't create its own light is a light, but the stars that actually creates their own light are NOT considered lights?

    Tell God to get a Ghost Writer next time.

    Aiight, that was the last one.

    read close what it says, are the stars great lights?? no.

    when compared to the moon at night, the greatest light you see at night is reflected off the moon
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2014
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    BIGG WILL wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Bodhi wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    people knew what reflections were. not to mention if the word of god is unreliable then what value does it have?

    A reflection of light is what?? still light.

    the bible does not say the moon was a light it says that god put two lights in the sky. The bible does not detail the physics of the universe but it does not lie, It's really just god trying to talk to mankind

    if the moon is only reflecting light, there is essentially only one light. The bible, though, says there are two lights.

    moon light is a reflection but it's still light so when the bible says god put two lights in the sky it is correct there are two lights in the sky

    So, why aren't the stars counted as lights too?

    genesis

    says nothing about us counting the stars as being light or not.

    yes it does.

    ok yes it does but i was focused on the great lights i meant that they are not counted as great lights
    Bodhi
  • SneakDZASneakDZA damn, am I a sinner? Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    guys... guys...


    there's plenty of other mistakes in the bible that need explaining. let's not get stuck on just this one.
    BIGG WILLBodhizombie
  • zombiezombie Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    guys... guys...


    there's plenty of other mistakes in the bible that need explaining. let's not get stuck on just this one.

    The first one that was mentioned was not a fucking mistake so lets hear what other examples you confused souls are going to come up with
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    I really think we underestimate the influence of perspectives in how we interpret things. Most of us come to the Bible already having preconceived notions on what we think life is all about. We have presuppositions and viewpoints that set the tone for how we end up reading the Bible. For example, I made a point about how the Bible was perceived as a means to enslave...as well as liberate during the troubles in the American South. How could a KKK clans man perceive something totally different from someone like a MLK given they were reading the same Bible? There must have been something about the life they've lived that set the tone for these drastic conclusions...otherwise the Civil Rights Movement would have been greatly hindered. We hear of the great scandals that happen in churches preaching the Bible and yet you have the "Mother Teresa"'s of the world preaching from the same Bible. The fact that there are good and bad outcomes as a result of reading should say that the issue is not with the Bible. It is with ourselves.
    al-is-so-wack: Deplorable for hire.
  • KLICHEKLICHE Posts: 5,061 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If Jesus is God, and Jesus is like man, then why would it be wrong for him to marry.. I mean he slept, ate, drank, urinated etc just like the humans around him..

    where did all the talk of his having intercourse come about??? Maybe he did just that only, got married.

    HArdly sounds disrespectful toward him to think of.

    By the way, Alhamdu lillahi rabbil alamin. Peace
    formerly known as J.K.SHAKUR before 2010 on AHH

    tumblr_n06dt22t491rqd0kpo1_r1_400.gif
  • VIBEVIBE Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    SneakDZA wrote: »
    guys... guys...


    there's plenty of other mistakes in the bible that need explaining. let's not get stuck on just this one.

    The first one that was mentioned was not a fucking mistake so lets hear what other examples you confused souls are going to come up with

    What about

    "No one has seen the face of god" (stated a few times)

    "I seen the face of god" (also stated a few times)

  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    food for thought since i could honestly care less about this story:

    New clues cast doubt on 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife'
    Opinion by Joel S. Baden and Candida R. Moss, special to CNN

    (CNN) – It seemed real; it seemed fake; it seemed real again; now we’re back to fake.

    "It” is the controversial little scrap of papyrus, written in Coptic, that seems to have Jesus referring to “my wife,” in contrast to the traditional stance that affirms Jesus’ perpetual bachelorhood.

    The quick backstory: In 2012, a Harvard professor, Karen King, brought this papyrus to the attention of scholars and the public.

    Both the material and the script looked authentically ancient at first glance, and though the notion of Jesus having a wife was remarkable, these “lost” Christian writings, such as the Gnostic Gospels, are full of unorthodoxies.

    It was good enough for King, who is widely respected in the scholarly world.

    From the beginning, there were doubts, however, beyond the unlikelihood that the tiny scrap that survived the centuries would happen to be the one that contained the reference to Jesus’ wife.

    The papyrus, along with a few other ancient papyri of lesser novelty, had been passed to King by an anonymous figure.

    Anonymity, in the world of antiquities, is often a bad sign, compounding the inherent uncertainty when dealing with texts that are bought and sold rather than discovered in a firm archaeological setting.

    Then there were aspects of the text itself that seemed suspicious.

    For a fragmented scrap of papyrus, it seemed to have an awful lot of important content on it. Not only did Jesus refer to “my wife,” he also potentially described a certain Mary – perhaps Mary Magdalene? – as “worthy” and capable of being a disciple.

    It is (almost) too good to be true.

    At the same time, the handwriting seemed surprisingly sloppy.

    Then again, other scholars noted that just because a scribe has poor handwriting and a text is informative does not make it a forgery. Perhaps we just got lucky this time.

    More specific issues arose in the perceived familiarity of the document.

    The text of the Jesus’ wife fragment is remarkably close to published editions, available online, of another Coptic Christian text, called the “Gospel of Thomas.”

    So close, in fact, that one of the typographical errors in an online edition of the “Gospel of Thomas” is replicated, uniquely, in the Jesus’ wife fragment.

    What are the chances of that?

    Yet some would say that the fact that there is considerable overlap with the wording of the “Gospel of Thomas” isn’t a problem: Christian authors regularly copied word-for-word from other texts.

    The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke, for example, reproduce much of the Gospel of Mark, with only slight alterations. And the vocabulary used in the papyrus is remarkably common.

    The most compelling argument for authenticity is the flip-side (or verso) of the manuscript.

    There are faint traces of ink on this side that have been worn away, suggesting that they are truly ancient.

    It would be highly unusual for a modern forger to get his hands on an ancient papyrus written on only one side and equally difficult to imagine how the verso might have been made today.

    Yet for all the arguments and efforts, there was no smoking gun - on either side.

    And so the papyrus was submitted for testing: carbon-dating of the papyrus itself as well as chemical testing of the ink. Just last month, those test results came back.

    It turns out that the papyrus is genuinely ancient. The ink has the chemical composition of ancient ink. The news spread, including here, that the papyrus was the real McCoy.

    Of course, tests like those can’t really prove authenticity; they can prove only potential authenticity. And they are hardly foolproof.

    Once we started carbon-dating papyrus, forgers started using authentically ancient papyrus. Once we discovered how to identify ancient ink by its chemical composition, forgers started creating precisely the same ink.

    Like steroids in sports, it’s safe to assume that the best bad guys are always one step ahead of the science.

    And yet, the dating of the papyrus and ink did shift the burden back on to the doubters. And just this past week, they seem to have discovered something as close to proof as we can really expect in cases like this.

    Although we knew in 2012 that there were other papyri in the same group that included the “Jesus' wife” fragment – the batch the anonymous donor gave King - none of them had been seen.

    That changed with the release of the test results, which used some of these other papyri for the purposes of comparison.

    One of those papyri was a fragment of the canonical Gospel of John. For all the uncertainty about the Jesus’ wife papyrus, this text of John evoked no such indecision. It is a forgery.

    How do we know? This Gospel of John purports to be a version in a relatively rare ancient dialect of Coptic known as Lycopolitan.

    Just such a Lycopolitan version of John was published in 1924 and is now available online. And this newly revealed gospel fragment just so happens to look awfully similar to the 1924 (now-online) version of John. How similar? Here’s how similar:

    Herbert Thompson's "Gospel of St John," page 7 (left); Coptic John fragment recto (right), illustrating how a forger could have copied every second line of this text.

    Whoever created this new Gospel of John fragment simply copied the beginning of every other line from the online version.

    Turns out that if you check the other side of the fragment against its online parallel, the same thing is true (though with the end of every line rather than the beginning, logically enough).

    Add to this the fact that the carbon dating of the John papyrus puts it in the seventh to ninth centuries, but Lycopolitan died out as a language sometime before the sixth century. No one wrote anything in Lycopolitan in the period in which this text would have to be dated.

    So what does it matter to the Jesus’ wife fragment that this scrap of John is forgery?

    Well, it’s never a good sign for a text of doubtful authenticity to be found in the company of a sure forgery.

    More directly: Multiple experts agree that the fragment of John and the Jesus’ wife papyrus are written in the same hand, using the same ink and even the same writing instrument.

    Simply put: If one is a forgery, they’re both forgeries.

    Although 100% certainty is never achievable in such cases, given everything we know now (lab tests included), the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” never existed — or, rather, it never existed, for all intents and purposes, before 2012.

    There are no great revelations to be gleaned from this text, no astounding new information about Jesus or Mary.

    What the entire episode does, rather, is remind us — scholars included — that science might not always have all the answers.

    This forgery was detected not through lab analysis but through good old-fashioned humanities-based detective work. This was Sherlock Holmes, not "CSI."

    There remains no substitute for deep, thorough, scholarly expertise in ancient languages and texts.

    Even in a case that ended up wasting such time and energy in the academic community, that community, and its collective body of knowledge, have rarely been more valuable and necessary.
123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.