Dead Sea Scrolls To Go Digital On Internet 324
mernil writes to mention that the Dead Sea Scrolls are headed for the internet. The Israel Antiquities Authority, custodians of the scrolls, plan on digitizing the 900 fragments to make them available to the public via the internet. Unfortunately they are claiming the project will take somewhere in the neighborhood of two years to complete.
Dead Sea Scrolls were proprietary for decades (Score:5, Interesting)
Access to the Dead Sea Scrolls was carefully guarded for decades. Think proprietary database formats.
Back in the '80s or '90s, a scholar published a very detailed index. It was so detailed that other scholars were able to reverse-engineer the text of the scrolls, breaking the data monopoly for those scholars who were only interested in the text on the scrolls rather than the scrolls themselves.
Since then, the keepers of the scrolls have been much more, what is the work I'm looking for, open.
Re:Edifying (Score:2, Interesting)
The size of the Multi-verse (as physics assume now that the universe is only a subset of multi-verse. Is infinite so the probability that any particular event that isn't happening an infinite number of time is 0. So however we exist so there forth we couldn't have come here from probable chance of events. So the concept of a God who in some way willed the circumstances of what exists is just a good answer to the paradox of Math as anything else.
Then there is pascals rational.
There are these possibility.
No God
Angry God (you dammed no matter what)
Neutral God (No heaven or hell but God exists)
Picky God (save those who follow the correct way of life)
Loving God (you are in heaven no matter what)
If No God if you are Right about being No God nothing is gained or loss in the universal scale you are just a series of chain of events.
Angry God you will lose no matter what if you are right or wrong the same event will happen.
Neutral God does care if you beleve in it or not still no effect of your destiny
Picky God If you follow the ideals of No God, Angry God, Neutral God, and Loving God you are loosing you chances of living the way Picky God wants you to live. By choosing a religion you at least may hedge your bets of doing what picky God wants you to do.
Loving God. You will gain no matter what.
So the Picky God is a good idea for a belief structure to follow. While it may not be correct you have a better probability for the afterlife.
The rest of the choice will either increase your negative effect or just be neutral.
Then there is the infinite complexity of the universe. As scientist study the universe in big and small more the more complex it gets and the more questions that come up. If we are an just a scientific process then I would suspect the Universe at some point should really start explaining itself and get simpler when gets smaller but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Also there is question of Prove to me that there is No God. If I can't prove to you that there is a God, I haven't disproved the existence of God. So either I will need to find a better proof of God or find a way to Disprove God. Otherwise the concept is unproven either way so If you believe in God or Not is outside the realm of science. The best I have defuncts the literal translations of religions but not the core parts of the faith itself.
Re:Edifying (Score:5, Interesting)
Listen, there are a LOT of reasons to criticize religion. Take your pick. Hateful violent groups, both internally and externally. In many cases religions encourage people to turn away from knowledge and discovery. Blah blah blah. There are many fruitful, and many flame-ish discussions you can have about religions. But, one of the things they have a very good track record on is maintaining the integrity of their key books.
So, for instance, there are fairly minor differences (generally several letters different) in the First 5 books of Moses, between the Bible that the Ethiopian Jews, and the rest of the Jews had, in spite of these groups having virtually no contact for several thousand years.
Now, the Ethiopians had in their cannon several books the rest of the Jewish world has as Apocrypha (I.E. they largely ignored). And, they did not have many later books, or traditions of the rest of the Jewish world.
Different groups have been funny about how they pick and choose which books get INTO (or taken out of) their cannons.
And there are a whole mess of interesting things that come up when a religion starts TRANSLATING texts.
But to just say that religions have had their primary texts re-written many times? Well that is just wrong. And wrong from a hateful disposition (assumed from tone) really doesn't belong in an exchange of knowledge. Propaganda? Sure, but an educated conversation? No. Shame on you, and anyone modding you up. If you want to decry the wrongs of religion, there really are enough out there to pick on. Disseminating untruths is really unnecessary.
Re:Edifying (Score:2, Interesting)
For one who truly believes, they'll take it to heart. For someone who uses their belief for selfish motives, they'll abuse it.
Matthew 7:1-2 [biblegateway.com]
Re:Edifying (Score:5, Interesting)
There are only two serious flaws in your argument:
1. Jesus said He is the Son of God. You will have to refute Jesus' own description of Himself, or challenge the writings that make that statement and the authors thereof. You are, you know, challenging the veracity of men who went to their deaths to defend that point. They may have been lying, but read Romans 5:7 and consider that. Several died for Jesus' name.
2. God, if He is what and who He claims to be, need not be fair or even just, though he claims to be. As Creator, we are His do with as He pleases. Looking around, He has pretty much left us alone to do as we wish, wouldn't you agree? Reading the Old Testament, God pretty regularly (if not always) declared why He caused disaster or punishment on Man. You may not believe God is who He says He is, and that's fine. But to then challenge His actions according to your interpretation of who and what you think He should be isn't intellectually honest, to me. Dismiss God as not real, I can tolerate that as your opinion. Try to redefine God according to your standards, that doesn't work for me. You and I do not get to decide 'who' God is.
And if you "find the idea of "a god" far more reasonable than the extremely elaborate justification for the story of how Jesus came to exist", I'm interested. If God does exist, and He is who HE says HE is, what's so hard about sending His son as He did? God as Creator can do pretty much anything. A virgin birth is trivial, compared to creating the Universe. Picking and choosing the attributes of God or Jesus leads you down the road of intellectual dishonesty. Don't be lukewarm. Be a believer or not, but don't pick out the parts you like and toss the rest you have a difficult time with. Challenge. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Test everything. Hold on to the good."
I'll leave it to you to discern what is good.
And if you want to dismiss the Bible as hopelessly inaccurate, I can tolerate that as your opinion as well. But doing so leaves you with nothing to base your judgement of what or who God is, since you've dismissed what is considered by His followers as His word. Remember, if God is who He says He is, he could change the Bible to be what He wanted it to be. It is what it is, and He has allowed it. Christians should remember that He may indeed have left it imperfect. We should stop nitpicking the details and focus on the truth.
While I would love to convince you of the truth of Jesus as our Saviour, I'm really just trying to convince you to be either fully atheist or not. Don't get trapped in the middle, thinking Jesus was a 'great teacher' but dismissing some of His own words. If you need to deny Jesus' own claim to being God's Son, you need to pretty much ignore His other words too. He's either right or wrong.
And I'm grateful that I will some day be able to examine and understand the Dead Sea scrolls, with the help of many many scholars. So far as I know, as we research more the Bible is upheld as correct, and is confirmed as accurate historically. We may never settle every issue, but that isn't necessary for me. For you, that I can't be the judge of.
Please accept my offer of blessing in His name.
Re:Edifying (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, you're talking only of the post-State Religion phase of Christianity.
Forget not that pre-State Religion Christianity was one of many sects of Judaism (could be said there were "many Christianities" at the time) that were nearly all eliminated with prejudice by Rome. This changed marginally when Constantine couldn't deny the popularity of the movement anymore and co-opted it. Maybe the first instance of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in recorded history.
-Matt