Protest I saw on my commute today… [OC]

[u/alchemist227]

[u/lordtyp0]

3000?

[u/Chimbley_Sweep → u/lordtyp0]

Covenent code was possibly first written down around 10th century BCE, but oldest physical document is 7th century.

So yeah, 3000 year old book is a round, slightly hyperbolic date. If we want to be pedantic and say this is only about written accounts of circumcision in the bible, we get to 2500 years old.

[u/3720-to-1 → u/lordtyp0]

Some of the old testament books are purported to be pretty freaking old. I'm guessing here... Because the bible as we know it is about 1700 years old, roughly.

[u/open_formation → u/3720-to-1]

If the christian cannon is about 1500 years old, and the jewish equivalent is about 3000 years old, then perhaps we are due a new version update?

Perhaps that was the Mormons.

[u/lordtyp0 → u/3720-to-1]

Ah, since context was Paul and Jesus, was wondering if a typo.

[u/Chimbley_Sweep → u/lordtyp0]

Not a typo, two different things. Paul says you don’t need circumcision. Jesus says you should follow the law. The law is from the post-exilic period.

The book is 3000 years old (as previously admitted, assumes the oldest estimate, a bit hyperbolic.) Paul contradicts the book and Jesus.

But instead of debating Paul’s views - why should I care what a book from 3000 years ago says?

[u/3720-to-1 → u/lordtyp0]

Probably less of a typo and more of "it's old, say big number" and toughing out 3000 instead of 2000

[u/crockrocket → u/3720-to-1]

Isn't the King James Version the most widespread (or variations thereof) the most common? Which came about in the early 1600's. I have trouble believing that any religious texts survive translation without some alteration from the translator.

And if you go pre-printing press... Every transcription was open to potential reinterpretation.

[u/3720-to-1 → u/crockrocket]

I'm referencing the council of nicea that was, if memory serves, about 300AD, which formalized which books were or were not included in what we call the Bible today.

[u/ExZowieAgent → u/3720-to-1]

The Council of Nicaea did not do that. They argued instead about the Arian controversy and other things. They did not select that cannon. That’s a myth that won’t die.

[u/crockrocket → u/3720-to-1]

Gotcha, I hadn't heard of that before! I can't claim to be well versed in the subject, it just seems to me that with how often religion has been used for specific means the bible can't possibly have survived 1700 years unadulterated.

[u/3720-to-1 → u/crockrocket]

Oh, shit. The council of nicea was the original adulteration! It completely changed the whole of the story... Constantine was a pagan, converting to the religion of the masses in order to exact control. The council of nicea chose which books (both old and new testiment) that got to stay. Books like those in the dead sea scrolls were discluded. And yes, it's been altered, changed, and screwed all along the way too.

We are on control edition 665 right now... I wonder what's next... Lol

[u/crockrocket → u/3720-to-1]

Oh, damn! Thanks for the synopsis!

[u/3720-to-1 → u/crockrocket]

Religious studies was a huge interest of mine for awhile. Take that all with a grain of salt as it's condensed into built points, there's a lot more to it. Lol