Google Brings the Dead Sea Scrolls To the Digital Age 202
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the nothing-is-dead-on-the-internet dept.
from the nothing-is-dead-on-the-internet dept.
skade88 writes "Google has been working to bring many old manuscripts to the internet at high resolution for all to see. From their announcement: 'A little over a year ago, we helped put online five manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls—ancient documents that include the oldest known biblical manuscripts in existence. Written more than 2,000 years ago on pieces of parchment and papyrus, they were preserved by the hot, dry desert climate and the darkness of the caves in which they were hidden. The Scrolls are possibly the most important archaeological discovery of the 20th century. Today, we're helping put more of these ancient treasures online. The Israel Antiquities Authority is launching the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, an online collection of some 5,000 images of scroll fragments, at a quality never seen before.'"
Where do they put all of those digitized works? (Score:2)
Re:Where do they put all of those digitized works? (Score:5, Funny)
You do recaptchas in ancient Aramaic?
Re:Where do they put all of those digitized works? (Score:2)
look man, I've got no time for details. I just type what I see.
Some extra info (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't find the percentage of identified vs. unidentified, but among the identified scrolls:
40% are copies of text from the Hebrew Bible
30% are copies of texts not canonized in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. fanfiction) from the Second Temple Period like the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, and additional psalms
30% are "sectarian manuscripts" - texts that describe rules or a set of beliefs held by certain groups within Judaism.
Re:Some extra info (Score:3)
30% are copies of texts not canonized in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. fanfiction) from the Second Temple Period
For using the expression "fanfiction" to describe Dead Sea scrolls, you sir deserve a mod point I don't have.
Disclaimer: I opted out of the moderation system because I do not trust collective wisdom.
Re:Some extra info (Score:5, Insightful)
30% are copies of texts not canonized in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. fanfiction)
I don't think you can characterize ancient texts that way. Canonization is a complex "theopolitical" process, and what gets in and what is left out doesn't necessarily have much to do with its quality, or who wrote it, or when (unless of course it was written after the canonization process was complete.) It's mostly a matter of whether the influential people in the society that does the canonization think a document supports their views or conflicts with them.
Re:Some extra info (Score:2)
Re:Some extra info (Score:2)
Sounds pretty much like what happens with, for example, Star Wars books, cartoons, etc. If you've got official sanction, either pre- or post- production, you're canon. Otherwise, you're not, and the compatibility of your work with the head honcho's vision is a major factor in the decision. Admittedly, with modern publishing and production money changes hands... oh, no, that's another probable similarity.
Re:Some extra info (Score:2)
There are multiple Codices and Roman records that state that a guy by the name of jesus was executed by crucifixion in the first century AD during the reign of Tiberius.
I don't think this is correct. You have Tacitus and Josephus, but that's non-contemporary historians rather than "records". Both are to some extent problematic as to authenticity as well.
See Wikipedia for more.
However, we still know that Pontius Pilatus ordered the execution, and that there is temple records and the briefings that were sent to Tiberius. And Tiberius was the emperor that officially recognized Christianity as a separate religion.
I'd like to know more about the temple records and briefings, if they actually exist. The claim that Tiberius asked the Senate to recognize Christianity is from Tertullian, a Christian writer born in 160 CE. However, Tiberius died in 37 CE, long before the Romans got the difference between Christianity and Judaism sorted out.
See Wikipedia for more.
so In all likelihood, Jesus was a real man. There is too much historical info to state otherwise.
There actually is room for doubt, and AFAIK no actual contemporary evidence. And though I'm not in the "he definitely did not exist" camp, I can't help but notice that if you subtract out all the mythical archetypes, wisdom sayings, and miracle stories, you aren't left with very much of substance. And theologians have to jump through hoops to make the primary literature seem self-consistent.
Re:Some extra info (Score:2)
Why are you ignoring the fact that the "Book of Enoch 1" was the 3rd most popular book in the Dead Sea Scrolls??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls#Biblical_books_found [wikipedia.org]
Besides, Enoch is quoted in Jude 14.
Re:Some extra info (Score:2)
And here I thought all of it, canonized or not, was fan fiction of a sort. It's certainly mostly fiction, historical fiction in some cases but fiction nonetheless.
Re:Some extra info (Score:3)
You mean, "The Gospel According to Mary Sue"?
Pooh. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Scrolls are possibly the most important archaeological discovery of the 20th century.
Atlantis was discovered hundreds of times during the 20th Century. Surely that adds up to more than a single discovery of some scrolls.
On a serious note, I'm skeptical of the claim anyway. We discovered entire civilizations we never previously knew existed, and a great number of unknown texts, entire unknown languages and writing systems, etc.
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
The Scrolls are possibly the most important archaeological discovery of the 20th century.
Atlantis was discovered hundreds of times during the 20th Century. Surely that adds up to more than a single discovery of some scrolls.
On a serious note, I'm skeptical of the claim anyway. We discovered entire civilizations we never previously knew existed, and a great number of unknown texts, entire unknown languages and writing systems, etc.
Back up your claims with links, otherwise this is a humor post.
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
The Scrolls are possibly the most important archaeological discovery of the 20th century.
Atlantis was discovered hundreds of times during the 20th Century. Surely that adds up to more than a single discovery of some scrolls.
On a serious note, I'm skeptical of the claim anyway. We discovered entire civilizations we never previously knew existed, and a great number of unknown texts, entire unknown languages and writing systems, etc.
Back up your claims with links, otherwise this is a humor post.
Perhaps I erred by mixing humor and not-humor in one post, but if you're actually interested it will take you about 30 seconds to get a list started using Google. I mentioned a few in another branch of this thread.
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
Link?
I'm guessing that it won't quite fit in the margin.
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
Considering that most modern Western societies used Jewish law as a starting point to subsequently build and develop their own law systems, considering that many non-Western societies have had their law systems influenced somewhat by Western societies, and seeing as the Dead Sea Scrolls shed some light on those legal systems and belief and in some ways challenge some of the previously held beliefs, then yes I'd say they're much more important than a society that is "unknown" and thus left no mark on the modern world. Ozymandais may have been great in his time, but the modern world couldn't care less.
You illustrate the problem of identifying "top" very well. It depends on who you are and what you think is important.
I doubt that many people in China would come to the same conclusion that you do.
A westerner of non-mainstream religious affiliation might set the Nag Hammadi library against the Dead Sea Scrolls. A secularist might name the decipherment of the Mycenean and Hittite scripts, Manu Pichu, Tutank's treasure, etc. If you consider hominid finds to be "archaeology", I would say that that stuff trumps all the rest by a huge margin.
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
Forgot that little Code of Hammurabi thingy.
But the topic promises a pleasant evening of browsing on the internet.
Re:Pooh. (Score:2)
Quality... (Score:3)
"...at a quality never seen before.'"
With the exception of when I saw them at the Royal Ontario Museum.
At a quality never seen before *online* maybe
Lots of uninformed opinions about the scrolls (Score:3)
It might be worth at least skimming a translation of the scrolls before forming a strong opinion about their content and value.
Yeah I know what site this is, and I'm not new here.
Something I think is worth keeping in mind....Just as there is ignorance now that rivals ancient ignorance, there was also intelligence in ancient times that rivals the best the modern world has to offer. Though its true that religious writings are largely fiction, a lot of very intelligent people worked on them, and there is significant understanding mixed in unevenly with the nonsense.
Modern academics are very good at understanding subjects where the same observations consistently yield the same statistical distribution of results. They're even better at studying things that can be perturbed in a controlled way, and dynamics that can be modeled well mathematically. They're generally very bad at understanding anything else. Many go so far as to assert that if a phenomena can't be modeled in a predictive way then for practical purposes it doesn't even exist. In this manner they ignore everything they're not good at solving. In my experience some ancient scriptures describe discoverably real aspects of life that modern experts are mostly ignorant of.
I didn't find much of interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but a lot of that is just me personally, it doesn't mean there's nothing there for anyone. Other old writings such as in the Nag Hammadi discovery have a lot of interesting content though, notwithstanding that they're not trustworthy as standards of truth. And I don't mean interesting from a historical perspective, I mean there is insight there that can not be found elsewhere.
Re:Lots of uninformed opinions about the scrolls (Score:2)
"In my experience some ancient scriptures describe discoverably real aspects of life that modern experts are mostly ignorant of."
Got some examples? I'm serious... curious whether you're referring to miracles and such or some of the philosophically valuable material. If the latter, I probably disagree that modern experts are ignorant of it, but agree that what passes as an "expert" currently may well be.
Re:Lots of uninformed opinions about the scrolls (Score:2)
OK. I mean both, and can give different kinds of examples.
In Patanjali's yoga sutras, we're told that we can obtain definite knowledge on subjects through contemplation. This contrasts to the modern method of reasoning about sensate experience, performing experiments, and checking results. As I see it, that belief amounts to a kind of appeal to authority, an 'inner' authority, corroborated by the authority historically accepted religious teachers. So its a self-reinforcing belief system, and when they're wrong about stuff they're not very good about recognizing it and correcting it. So I'd write it all off as bullshit. Trouble is, I thought about this stuff with an open mind for about five years before I recognized it was largely bullshit, and it changed me somehow. Section III of the sutras describe mystic powers that a person can supposedly obtain through mental control. I have some of that now, not enough that I can prove it in a rigorous, publishable scientific sense, but enough to produce sufficiently objective results to know that I'm not delusional or seeing patterns where there aren't any. One aspect of this involves some kind of extra-sensory information about things that will happen, and its not information that can be extrapolated from past experience. One example I sometimes give is I dreamed of the airplane bird-strike and landing on the Hudson river during a nap a few hours before it happened, and I e-mailed the dream to someone before the event occurred. For the past several years this kind of thing happens to me almost daily, but usually not in relation to public events. And often the subjective or metaphorical aspect is strong enough that it doesn't sound very convincing to a skeptic. For example, on the morning of the school massacre last week, I woke up with the words "I hunt, therefore I am" in my head, from the song "Of Wolf and Man" from ~1990. At that moment I felt that I'm unhappy in life because I'm not true to my nature, which is to kill. Later in the day I recoiled from the predatory feeling after finding out what happened in Connecticut. That experience, having felt that aggression first, then its consequence, changed me a little bit in a way that I would not have changed otherwise. This subjective aspect of the experience is more valuable to me than something more objective like predicting a train wreck, because I can do something with it that makes a small difference. You can look at yourself and believe that you should be better than you are, but that only goes so far. When you feel and understand what something is in the same part of yourself that is that way, then you can move something.
I know that many other people have these kinds of experiences also. But usually they're prone to partially fabricating their experiences, or drawing unsupportable conclusions from them, and so are viewed as untrustworthy. Or they're more scientific and objective and keep their mouths shut because they don't want to be considered crazy. And a lot of people just ignore stuff that they don't know how to process, and don't explore such subjects enough to open the door very much to start with.
Second example: Gospel of Thomas, which the next poster quoted from. It contains a lot of cryptic stuff about reconciling and integrating the masculine and feminine parts of one's psyche. And it states that very radical results follow. The 'experts' mostly interpret this as advocating some kind of asceticism, and maybe that's even what it meant to the people who wrote it. But that's not what it means to me at all. I guess this is similar to the jnana yoga example. I think that the vision of escaping nature, which is central to Buddhism and similar Vedic doctrines, is wrong, and that the standard doctrine of karma is largely wrong. But if you do this thing of developing the capacity to feel, and relating that capacity to your will and other aspects of your mind, and not shrinking away from the difficult things you find out about yourself, it does do something significant
People are fuzzy here about who and what God is... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of comments here are dismissing the entire idea of God but they don't seem to have really wrapped their head around 'God.' Generally, God, as known in the old and new testament, is a being...a force...a 'father' who transcends the world and the entire universe and has existed forever and will always exist. God created everything that we see including all of the laws and relationships that define our understanding of 'science.' It is the 'actions' of God that define our understanding of him in the old testament. This is the God who delivered miraculous military victories in the face of overwhelming enemies, who caused bushes to burn but not be consumed, who delivered plagues and pestilence upon enemies, who parted the sea allowing escape, and who fed a people wandering in the desert, gave them a code to live by, and provided a new land for them to live in. We can dismiss all of these events as 'fables', secure in our scientific understanding that tells us such things are 'impossible' but we cannot deny that these events were very real to people who claimed to have experienced them. Similarly, there was a man who lived in what is now Israel approximately 2,000 years ago and performed a variety of miraculous actions before returning to life following a cruel execution. We cannot deny that the events that occurred 2,000 years ago were so amazing to the people who experienced them that their lives were transformed forever and they began living according to a new 'code' that has persisted to the present and is, coincidentally, the basis for most of our current civilization and law. Finally, we cannot deny that a significant portion of the entire population of the world believes in the principles taught by that man and follows them in their daily lives. So those dusty scrolls from 2200 to 1900 years ago, found in those old caves, represent documents produced during a time of religious ferment and upheaval. We are no different than those people were. If there were a religious figure today who was giving sight to the blind, curing uncurable diseases, causing paraplegics to give up their wheelchairs, changing water into wine, multiplying food at the local Safeway by 1000x, teaching us to love others, and then returning to life to walk among us after being beheaded by evildoers, we would be just as impressed as those people were then. Of course, those who were not actually present would be just a little skeptical and their descendants even more so...but, with the power of God, they would recognize the truth for what it was...and so do we.
Hi there, I've published on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Score:5, Informative)
I also have a Master's degree in New Testament and Early Christianity from Harvard where I spent a lot of time studying them as well. I thought I would just repost what I did last year when slashdot ran an almost identical story. The questions that seem to arise when something like this is posted are perennial so I hope this answers some of yours or clarifies some things, and, as before, feel free to ask any questions you might have and I'll do my best to give a scholarly answer:
It's taken this long to publish partly for bureaucratic reasons, but mostly because there are thousands of fragments that are basically shredded wheat that had to be put back together, reconstructed, translated, categorized, edited, and published. This was also around the time the State of Israel was formed, and the cluster**** that was caused a lot of delays and red tape.They have not been kept secret, they have been steadily published in the DJD series (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert) for the last 50 years as this tremendous task has been accomplished. As someone said above, yes people were not very careful with them by today's standards, people smoked around them, drank coffee, and used the handiest invention that had just come out-"scotch tape"- to piece them together. All that said, with the exception of fragments in private collections, the last of the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in the early 90's.
This is not publishing anything new, or secret. It is being scanned and put online for the public, who doesn't have a clue what to do with them, can look at them. Scholars have known how to look at them, in the DJD, and in a half a dozen other widely available publications that have been around for decades.
Facts the dilettantes have said in these comments that have made me [face_palm]:
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS hereafter) were composed in Qumran, not Jerusalem. (some of the stuff is clearly copies of other documents that circulated elsewhere however)
The Qumran community responsible for the scrolls existed between the 2nd century BCE and ca 70CE during the Roman war.
There is nothing in the DSS about Jesus
There are, however, certain strong affinities between things we find in the DSS and the New Testament, including the method of scripture interpretation, some apocalyptic ideas, as well as the stuff you would expect people with the same basic religion, ethnicity and geography to share
There is nothing damaging or threatening to the modern religions of Judaism and Christianity. To be sure, the DSS are of tremendous importance for contextualizing their origin and telling us what life was like back then, but this is not a conspiracy to keep them hidden.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2, Informative)
Iron Age.
FIFY
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
More like bronze age, actually. Mideast bronze age ends 1200BC, as opposed to 600BC in Europe... Jewish scriptures changed tremendously during the Babylonian captivity, which indeed occurred around 600BC (it basically blended in ideas from Zoroastrianism, chiefly the ideas of angels, demons, hell, and basically morality and good vs evil; and its final written form got written around then), but the general ideas of judaism had been around for far older than the end of the mideast bronze age.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
They also adopted Zoroastrian monotheism. Prior to this, Yhvh was the local tribal patron god, in a monopolar paganism. The term is henotheism.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
They also adopted Zoroastrian monotheism. . . . . The term is henotheism.
The proper term is rubbish [jewishbible.org].
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a clear concept here at Slashdot--unless the topic is religion. In that case, any broad correlation is fully sufficient to demonstrate that Worldview X "stole" its concepts from Worldview Y.
But, let's get serious. Cite your primary-source documents, showing even the level of correlation, so that the evaluation of independent individuals, rather than your dogmatic posturing, can evaluate their relevance within the context of -overall- similarity.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
It's occasionally helpful to pop a wiki page before ranting mindlessly
Most scholars believe[26] that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology influenced the Abrahamic religions.
i visited that Wiki page, and here is what I found. The phrase you quote is sourced (26) to:
"ZOROASTRIANISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com" [jewishencyclopedia.com]. jewishencyclopedia.com. Retrieved 23 February 2012
I then went to the page linked and found this:
Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians. But, on the other hand, the late James Darmesteter advocated exactly the opposite view, maintaining that early Persian thought was strongly influenced by Jewish ideas. He insisted that the Avesta, as we have it, is of late origin and is much tinctured by foreign elements, especially those derived from Judaism, and also those taken from Neoplatonism through the writings of Philo Judæus.
Now, here is the interesting thing: Note the source - The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia [jewishencyclopedia.com]
Here are the dates from the Bibliography: 1904, 1897, 1905, 1899, 1902, 1803, 1866, 1881, 1878, 1893, 1891, 1897, 1898, 1901, 1902, 1902, 1904, 1903.
Radio carbon dating was invented in 1949. [wikipedia.org] Computers for use in textual analysis probably weren't used until the 70s.
The scholarship is about 110 years out of date, and was conducted without two of the key tools of modern investigation into the past, at least one of which would be almost certain to have a major impact on the work.
Although there are no doubt people today who hold to that view, even at the time it was written the view expressed wasn't universal as you see in the fuller passage I quote above. I'm inclined to stick with more current scholarship on this question: ZOROASTRIANISM AND BIBLICAL RELIGION [jewishbible.org]
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Although there are no doubt people today who hold to that view, even at the time it was written the view expressed wasn't universal as you see in the fuller passage I quote above. I'm inclined to stick with more current scholarship on this question: ZOROASTRIANISM AND BIBLICAL RELIGION [jewishbible.org]
Thanks for the reference. It was interesting. :-)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jewish scriptures changed tremendously during the Babylonian captivity, which indeed occurred around 600BC (it basically blended in ideas from Zoroastrianism, chiefly the ideas of angels, demons, hell, and basically morality and good vs evil; and its final written form got written around then), but the general ideas of judaism had been around for far older than the end of the mideast bronze age.
When you write, "Jewish scriptures changed tremendously," that is a bit misleading. There were new books added to the Jewish scriptures, including prophetic works during that period. But did the nature of the Jewish faith and scripture change in the manner you indicate? It doesn't look like it. Although the snippets I quote below are instructive, the whole paper is relatively short and informative.
ZOROASTRIANISM AND BIBLICAL RELIGION [jewishbible.org] - CHARLES DAVID ISBELL
. . . as Eichrodt insists, "the idea that the eschatological resurrection hope, in the form attested in the Old Testament, was influenced by Persian conceptions, can be shown by any reasonably detailed comparison to be inadmissable."
To this point, I have spoken of Persian or Zoroastrian matters as if they themselves were composed during and reflective of the Persian era of contact with the exiled Judahites (fifth-fourth centuries BCE). But they were not. In fact, the severe deficiencies in the written sources of Zoroastrianism make accurate analysis virtually impossible. No modern scholar dates Zoroaster earlier than ca. 1400 BCE, and while both Arabic and Avestan29 traditions date Zoroaster to the sixth-fifth centuries BCE, most scholars are more comfortable with a date between the two extremes; the date 1000 BCE is most widely presumed. But scholars of written literature are faced with a problem that has yet to be solved. No written materials are linked to the era of Zoroaster regardless of when he lived, and even scholars who argue that early Iranian texts are linked to ca. 1000 BCE, admit that these Gathas ["hymns" (of Zoroaster)] are so difficult that their meaning can be grasped, "only with the help of the later Zoroastrian scriptures."30
Iranian priests of the early first millennium actually rejected the use of writing for their holy beliefs, and the fact is that these beliefs existed only in oral form until the sixth century CE! And yet these written texts are the ones which Persian scholars are required to use in interpreting the teachings of Zoroaster, who lived between 1000 and 2000 years earlier. Shaul Shaked has framed the matter accurately and concisely:
All arguments about possible contacts between Israel and Iran come to the stumbling block of the problem of chronology. All detailed accounts of any aspect of Zoroastrian theology exist no earlier than in books compiled during the Sassanian period [third - seventh centuries CE] or later, after the Arab conquest of Iran.31
In short, the texts being examined in comparison to the Bible were written more than 1000 years later than the Persia with which Judahites came into contact.
Still, the larger problem with the written sources of Zoroastrianism is not their late date of composition, but rather the fact that even these late written sources present very few close parallels to biblical ideas.
In light of this chronological difficulty, it would seem to make more sense to compare Zoroastrian religious texts with talmudic literature. And even here, Neusner, the scholar with the greatest knowledge of Babylonia during the era of Sassanid rule, has concluded that what the rabbis of the Talmud knew of Zoroastrianism amounted to virtually nothing at all.
. . . Yet, it seems obvious that the claims for Zoroastrian influence on biblical doctrines have been vastly overstated. . . . it should follow that the use of late, very late, written sources of Persian theological tenets must be ruled out as evidence of any significance whatsoever regarding biblical texts. 33
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hard to believe, but many, many people still believe the stories told in these documents are the literal word of God
I don't know a lot of religions where the sacred book is advertised as containing the literal word of God. Most are (allegedly) God-inspired. The closer you get from the "source" is with the Q'ran because it was never translated - however it was written from memory by followers of Muhammad so if this was a CSI episode one would have to admit that the chain of evidence is somehow broken.
In any event by suggesting that those books are *not* inspired by God (which according to current scientific knowledge may or may not exist) you are taking a position that is not supported by established facts, therefore promoting yourself a "fable". If you want to drape yourself in the cloth of Science make sure you follow its basic tenets. Hypothesis are only the 2nd step in the scientific method.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
I don't know a lot of religions where the sacred book is advertised as containing the literal word of God.
I don't know of a lot of religions, but I sure know a lot of people that believe that.
Plenty of preachers state this (Score:3)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh oh, turning burdens of proof around again!?!
I say the Easter Bunny wrote all those books! But he stole most of it from the FSM. All just as plausible as any other fairy tales. Without proof of existence all the gods are just like any other imaginary character.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
First would be defining God. Probably 300 million definitions just in America. Locally God is traditionally defined as a Western Red Cedar (Arborvitae) tree which obviously does exist, can supply many actual needs and will smite you if you don't show the right respect when cutting one down. So as long as we all agree that God is a Cedar tree you're right that God is a fact and the vast majority of people when confronted by a tree will agree that it exists.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2, Insightful)
The burden of proof with respect to the existence of God is always on the theist, not the atheist.
And no, I am not an atheist.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
The closer you get from the "source" is with the Q'ran because it was never translated - however it was written from memory by followers of Muhammad so if this was a CSI episode one would have to admit that the chain of evidence is somehow broken.
Not quite. The verses of the Quran was in fact transcribed word for word during the time of Muhammad. It was later compiled and the script standardised after Muhammad's death.
So the story goes. (Score:3)
"Transcribed word for word" is what the book claims it is. There are many fantasy novels that also claim to be the literal diary or words of a (fictitious) person. Robinson Crusoe comes to mind, as an example. There is no original manuscript written in verified samples of Muhammad's hand writing to directly link the contents of the book to at least his writing, be it original or a copy of previous work by someone else.
The statement that "it was later compiled and the script standardized" implies redacting by the person/people doing that very work. It may very well be that 95% of it is actually rather literal transcript of what Muhammad dictated, but we don't know which parts may, or may not be and more important, which parts have been left out. He may very well have dictated other texts that should have been part of the Q'ran in his mind, that never made it into the "final transcript".
This may sound rather heretic to any modern Muslim, but take one look at how newspapers, magazines, and books are made. Ask anyone that has been interviewed by a reporter or that dictated stories for their (auto)biography to a (ghost)writer. You can tell a story one way, but it gets published totally different, usually. That is a well known fact and it happens while people are still alive. Stories about them and what they said after they died, usually tend to be way more moral and way less literal, unless there's a funny anecdote or some "hand picked quotes" that can be used to prove a point. Things that other people write down, tend to be their interpretation of what you say, especially if you can't verify that they wrote it down correctly. If those things also get redacted, they tend to be the interpretation of what the redaction wants to get out into the world of the interpretation of someone that may or may not have written down what you have said, but probably not what you have meant to get across.
Before someone gets angry and declares a Fatwa on me (what would Jesus do?), this is my personal opinion and interpretation. I wasn't there when Muhammad dictated the Q'ran or when it was redacted after his death. It may just happen to be the full, true and literal words he wanted to be in there. I just happen to think it's not very likely that it is. Regardless of that, you should judge the book on it's contents, not on who allegedly wrote it. For the last few thousand years, that seemed to have worked just fine for Islam, so why bother with someone that questions it's author, but not it's contents?
No, I did not read the Q'ran, so no, I'm not judging it's contents. I don't think that would be fair, although it would fit the SlashDot tradition just fine. ;)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
completely incorrect
Science
fact
These words do not mean what you think they mean.
... generous interpretation I can come up with.
I love systems that give rise to emergent behaviour at sufficient levels of complexity. I have no problem seeing the interactions of people as giving rise (having already started to give rise?) to something like this. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a 'spirit of consciousness', but it's the most
In any event calling that 'god' is ignoring the very different definition of that word that most people have and comes across as dishonest. I would be interested in a citation or link to what you are claiming as 'fact'.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Funny)
It seems that you have some form of belief in supernatural beings of some form or another, such as angels, demons and gods.
Taking from my comment that I believe in God is like saying the ACLU is in favor of pedophilia because they defended NAMBLA. It's simplistic and wrong.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
With the Bible, the things are even worse. Nobody knows who actually wrote the core part, the gospels.
The other half of the NT, Paul's writings, which predate the gospels by a few decades, dont even mention that Jesus was somebody who actually existed outside of Paul's visions and theological concepts.
How the gospels were written and how the new testament was put together is a fascinating subject. There is a scholar named Bart Ehrman who did tons of book about early Christianity, the historical elements of the gospels, etc. Unfortunately this topic is a very delicate matter because many people apparently don't see a difference between a genuine historical interest and religious fanatism and lose their sh*t when the word "bible" comes up, so talking about gospels on this forum is counter-productive, which really is too bad.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. If these fragments were truly the word of god, then surely they would contain useful information that would increase our knowledge of the world/universe and would remain true even today. Instead, we get re-worked fables plagiarized from other sources, tribal customs codified into law, doomsday prophecies, and rants against various enemies (all of which the old testament is full of).
[emphasis mine]
Your claim probably makes sense to a lot of people in modern industrialized societies, but actually depends on a lot of assumptions about what a god would want.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Funny)
god wants steak.
oh wait, that's dog. I confused the owt.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Is goat skin really that expensive in a goat herding society?
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
I thought your comment started out with people writing on especially expensive meat (given the comment you were replying to it made sense.)
As I read your comment anyway I may as well reply. A good example is the pork/shellfish restrictions in the bible. It was very important for the people back then to not eat these as they quickly go bad in the desert and will make you very sick. These days we have refrigeration readily available so it's not so much of a concern. We should be preserving this knowledge and applying it to the way we choose to live our lives, but we should be doing that in the context of all the knowledge we've gained in the intervening millennia.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2, Funny)
god wants steak.
oh wait, that's dog. I confused the owt.
Have you heard the one about the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac who lies in bed awake at night wondering is there is a dog?
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your claim probably makes sense to a lot of people in modern industrialized societies, but actually depends on a lot of assumptions about what a god would want.
It may well be that the god in question is an aquatic creature whose only interest lies in counting numbers from 0 to infinity and enjoying the silence of depths. Such a god would indeed command us to do things that we'd never guess. However what use such a god would be for us if we do not share anything with him? If he commands us to go and jump into the water, shall we?
In practice, most (if not all) gods are somewhat homomorphic, and they pretend to be either the parents of the humankind or at least someone who is related to us. They exhibit human characteristics like anger and jealousy. This means that a modern god should be somewhat understandable by his believers. Even the Christian god is declared to be all-loving and such, as if anyone could know for sure. All the facts are, actually, against such a theory - the loving god has a very strange way of expressing his love, from fields of war to schools in small towns. You will find far more miracles in the old Star Trek, where they don't matter, than in real life - where they do.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
God wants peace
God wants war
God wants famine
God wants chain stores
What God wants God gets
God wants sedition
God wants sex
God wants freedom
God wants semtex
What God wants God gets
God help us all
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I have experienced vivid audio and visual hallucinations (from lack of sleep and severe dehydration), I have no doubt "god talks" to people.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
If these fragments were truly the word of god, then surely they would contain useful information that would increase our knowledge of the world/universe and would remain true even today
The geek's notion of "useful information" usually translates as "isolated facts devoid of all meaningful connections."
The geek ought at least to know that a great of truth is embedded in the stories we tell and teach to our children. They do not survive three millennia without a reason.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
So the Iliad or Odyssey should be taken on the same level as the Bible (or more so, since they are actually older than the Bible)? Or the works of Plato and Aristotle? I'd rather actually have Plato and Aristotle over the Bible, less blood, less violence, and at least an attempt at reason. Not to be antagonistic, Homer, Plato, and Aristotle don't endorse archaic tribal mores to the extent that the Torah/Old Testament do.
Age and survival isn't proof of truth. Sure, there probably is some lasting content we can connect to, but that doesn't really mean the contents have a basis in reality. And just because a belief is held for a long time, doesn't mean it is more likely to be true, there were ideas from Aristotle that survived for millennia, that were later proven to be unequivocally untrue.
Yes, the Bible has some interesting morals, but not more so than hundreds of other texts that are contemporaneous, or predate it. And, sadly, there are also bits which are nothing but harmful (fueling hatred).
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod parent up. If these fragments were truly the word of god, then surely they would contain useful information that would increase our knowledge of the world/universe and would remain true even today.
I disagree. Look at what the world was like during the time the Bible was written. Look at the level of technology, the politics, the treatment of human of human life in general. What's more important for those people: Learning how to harness the atom, or how to live a healthy and fulfilling life? What would the Romans have done with nukes? Were they at the right stage of social advancement that they would rightly fear their use? I would imagine universal themes--brotherhood, love, all that jazz--are more important than mathematics or physics. I also don't think God--if such a being even exists--would care too much about our technological progression.
Besides, there definitely are things in the Bible that still hold true to this day. Don't steal, don't murder, love thy neighbor, etc.
(Disclosure: I'm not religious, and probably never will be. I do know a lot of religious people, though, and have some devout Christians in my immediate family. No, they don't think the Bible was written by God.)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent up. If these fragments were truly the word of god, then surely they would contain useful information that would increase our knowledge of the world/universe and would remain true even today. Instead, we get re-worked fables plagiarized from other sources, tribal customs codified into law, doomsday prophecies, and rants against various enemies (all of which the old testament is full of).
And what do you have on offer? Rants against the Bible, spurious theories already disproven [jewishbible.org], unsupported assertions, and nonsense. That isn't an improvement. . . . it isn't even competitive.
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;
When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. -- Proverbs 17:28
Let your foot rarely be in your neighbor’s house,
Or he will become weary of you and hate you. -- Proverbs 25:17
It is better to live in a corner of the roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman. -- Proverbs 25:24
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him. -- Proverbs 26:4
Like an archer who wounds everyone,
So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by. -- Proverbs 26:10*
A fool always loses his temper,
But a wise man holds it back. -- Provers 29:11
And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” -- Matthew 19:17-19
* How far we have fallen - this seems contrary to the governing philosophy and practice of most corporate and government projects.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
In the US, as of 2011, 3 in 10 people [gallup.com] believe the Bible is the literal word of God [wikipedia.org]. 49% believe it is inspired by God.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Literally two thirds of the people you meet have no idea how to use that word correctly.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:5, Interesting)
An ethical code is probably more important in some ways than a lot of scientific knowledge. Granted the ethical code may be messed up. However the emphasis of what is important or not is a tough subject in itself.
While we don't need religion to tell us that murder is wrong, perhaps we do need something to tell us other things. For instance, what tells us that charity is good? I have coworkers who have told me that I'm stupid for giving money to charities, which says to me that it's basic ethical ideas are not clear to even modern people in modern societies. Even something simple like "treat others how you'd like to be treated yourself" is a new concept to far too many people today.
Look at new testament for other examples, where instead of just saying that murder is wrong it says that even thinking about murder is also wrong, one's internal actions can be just as important as external actions. Other religions and ethical structures also have the same idea. Modern psychology could also tell us this but I don't think it would have as big an impact.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
While we don't need religion to tell us that murder is wrong,
Although arguments have been made regarding humanity's innate moral sense, I still have to ask, are you quite sure about that?
Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism? [nationalgeographic.com]
Human sacrifices 'on the rise in Uganda' as witch doctors admit to rituals [telegraph.co.uk]
Four held for kidnapping kids for human sacrifice [telegraph.co.uk]
Nigeria: Prevalence of ritual murder and human sacrifice and reaction by government authorities (March 2000-July 2005)" [unhcr.org]
Evidence found of human sacrifice in North America [examiner.com]
"Chilling" Child Sacrifices Found at Prehistoric Site [nationalgeographic.com]
Many in the West cannot conceive of things being different in any way if foundations of its morality and culture are destroyed, but that is an epic mistake. Things will change, and many of the possibilities make for something that may not be nice [freerepublic.com] at all.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
By useful information, I meant something that would helped helped people living in that era improve their quality of life. For instance, scientific or medical information (cures for common diseases would have been nice)...
And if God came to you today and told you that curing cancer is as simple as inverting the deflector dish and using a tachyon pulse generator connected to a Heisenberg compensator to reverse the quantum polarity of the cancer cells, would that be helpful?
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ritualistic stuff in Leviticus was to insure it got taught to the next generation as it made it seem important to their souls survival in the afterlife, and there was a lot in there about health for example the ban on pork could be so tha they would not get trichinosis. It also banned marring of close relatives which is definitely good thing for genetic diversity and over all populations health, (that one was obviously good I mean look a pharaonic Egypt where the ruling family married siblings and cousins to keep a pure bloodline which left them with debilitating health problems). It baned polygamy and sex out side of monogamous marriage which is great for a society that lack condoms and has no other way to stop std's from spreading let alone detect or treat them. Leviticus also contains much in the way of basic sanitation and on personal hygiene, very useful for bronze age society that lacks soap that had recently escaped enslavement where they were treated like animals. It also implemented a justice system and basic legal structure and common system of shared ethics that we can all agree on (don't steal don't murder). all necessary for the building blocks for "modern" society.
if you tried to explain any of the real causes behind diseases or give them medical/scientific information they would think you a nutter. (you tell them the water down stream of the latrine has little bugs in it that will get inside of them and make them sick the would look in the water not see bugs and say your crazy, you make it a decree that their immortal soul is in the balance and the will pay attention)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
The ritualistic stuff in Leviticus was to insure it got taught to the next generation as it made it seem important to their souls survival in the afterlife
Judaism didn't have an after life when Leviticus was written. It was all about not offending the spiteful, jealous god that they worshiped back then.
While some things made sense such as the ban on pork, other things seem to have just been whimsical such as the ban on wearing cloth made out of 2 different plants (fibers). There could also have been rules against unhealthy things such as shitting close to your drinking water.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
as i recall the first five are said to be written by Mosses before the kings of Israel and before therefore the split into Judah and Israel after Solomon died thus long before the conquest of the southern kingdom
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
You should tell that to the Pharoahs or any other dynasty. Clearly they did not get the message.
Most "civilized people" really have no clue what is natural and what pure instinct will allow for. It would blow their uptight little minds.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you've got the basic ethical principles (don't steal, don't murder, etc.) but then you've got things that their value is not apparently obvious such as don't eat pork. Why pork? Well for one undercooked pork can more easily make you sick than many "kosher" animals. For another pigs aren't exactly the best animals to keep in the desert because they tend to need a lot of water and are best kept in the mud, two things that the Middle East doesn't exactly have a lot of. You've got prohibitions against marrying family members, a pretty good idea to help strengthen genetic diversity at a time when genes were not understood. You've also got basic sanitation. You've got prohibitions against eating animals that could carry diseases. You've got quarantining of people who could carry diseases. Etc.
If you read through Leviticus you can see a whole lot of useful things for the Jews during that era. Of course it isn't presented as "don't eat pork because you'll get Trichinosis" but its all quite useful.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Or, maybe things like the "quality of life" are actually not as important as we think they are.
That would depend on what your definition of 'quality of life' is. For some it's having material possessions. Others, helping fellow humans or animals. Might mean discovering the unknown for some. Or to be happy. Some take a lifelong pursuit of the divine. Whatever floats your boat.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Agreed with your first point 100%.
To comment on the your second point. It is a fact that the Torah was "plagiarized" from other sources:
* The Noahic flood comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
* The 10 commandments come from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, chapter 125. That is 9 out of the 10.
But who cares _where_ a _good_ law comes from if it is for the benefit of society. Only arm-chair critics! We have had the wheel for thousands of years but people don't get into a pissing contest about who invented / discovered it.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Funny)
We have had the wheel for thousands of years but people don't get into a pissing contest about who invented / discovered it.
its either apple or samsung. one of those.
(what??)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
hehe ;-)
The iPod wheel was brilliant.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Hard to believe, but many, many people still believe the stories told in these documents are the literal word of God, rather than things that our Bronze Age ancestors cooked up to explain things they didn't understand and keep the population in line. Hopefully, at some future point, we will evolve beyond such fables and things like this will be an archeological curiosity, and nothing more.
Even harder to believe that an A/C passed up on an opportunity for a First Post for some mere boilerplate trolling.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:4, Informative)
To answer your question:
"The easiest form of parochialism to fall into is to assume that we are smarter than the past generations, that our thinking is necessarily more sophisticated. This may be true in science and technology, but not necessarily so in wisdom."
That quote is from the introduction to this brilliant essay: "Macaulay on Copyright"
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329 [kuro5hin.org]
> Hopefully, at some future point, we will evolve beyond such fables ...
Stories will never go away. Why? What is the purpose of a story? To teach a moral -- it doesn't matter if the story historically happened or not IF you learn the lesson.
Besides, the disciple Peter already commented on how scriptures should be used that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continues to ignore:
The allegorical nature of scipture:
The contradictions in the scriptures:
The prophets were sent to the spiritual immature minded:
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
Depends on which subset you are referencing. Origen of Alexandria, as one of the "fathers" of the Christian Church, was arguing for allegorical interpretation of Genesis in the second century AD. I wouldn't form your notion of the demographics based on Bishop Ussher's 17'th century error and the subsequent Straw Men characterizations issuing lately primarily from Dawkins et al. History simply isn't one of science "stepping in" and correcting the supposed universal Christian error of Young Earth Creationism. History just didn't happen that way.
Overall, though, interesting post.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3)
I am quite well aware of Origen's position. :-) Sadly, too many modern-day Christians think they know the gospel better then a 2nd century scholar!
For the benefit of other readers you are referring to:
- Origen - Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142
This theme is repeated over and over by those who understood the literal, allegorical, and spiritual multi-dimensional nature of the scriptures:
Paul states that "their minds were blinded" by God, "for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament⦠even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart" (2 Cor 3:14-15 KJV).
Theologians Moses Maimonedes says the same thing:
And more importantly, Rabbi Simeon:
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Mostly Aramaic. Hebrew in the older stuff.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:3, Informative)
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
You don't need to speak Hebrew - everything has been translated and annotated. It's an easy Google to get the documents online, Penguin Books has a 7th edition of a complete translation. There isn't anything in the scrolls that would be of special interest to sci-fi (at least, no more than a standard Old Testament/collection of apocrypha).
Lost in translation (Score:3)
The whole idea is that you learn the language so you can understand the subtleties of it yourself. Many things get lost in translation and interpretation, so you would gain by learning the language.
If you wouldn't do that, you could just as well buy any modern bible and state "it's exactly the same". Given the enormous amount of religions based on stories in these scrolls, they are relevant to a large amount of people. Remember that these religions differ and have gone to war about the interpretation of the stories in these scrolls for the last two thousand years or so. Stating that you don't need to learn the original language because "everything has been translated and annotated" is, in my opinion, the worst advice you could give to someone regarding these scrolls. Their discovery and the discussion about their translation has been one of the most controversial "scientific" discussions in the last few decades of several related religions, Christianity and more precise, Catholicism.
Re:Lost in translation (Score:2)
But what you're saying would only apply if there were variations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and modern texts. Perhaps people could understand the evolution of the documents, and a greater understanding of the bible.
However these are exact copies of texts that are already commonplace. Wikipedia says, 40% Old Testament, 30% Apocrypha (that were already known), and 30% religious commentaries by some unknown Jewish or Christian sect.
They aren't at all controversial, they say basically nothing about Catholicism. For the most part, they're just really old copies of a book. If you found a 1,800 year old copy of Virgil's Aenid, that would be pretty neat, but it wouldn't have anything new or controversial to say about the epic.
Re:Are we any smarter than we were 2000 years ago? (Score:2)
Why is it that most successful people believe in God
I wouldn't call myself entirely unsuccessful - and I don't believe in gods of any sort. I know other people who are also doing OK, and they have no need for an invisible man in the sky to guide their hand. IMO, successful people are successful not because they pray a lot but because they work a lot. This independence is an obstacle for many religious notions. The typically high IQ of successful people is yet another problem for religionists.
But if you have some specific religious and successful people (self-made, not inheritors!) in mind, then they have to face the Pascal's Wager. Those guys have a lot to lose. But a small candle and 15 minutes as a gratitude for another $1B in profits or for another year of good health is a small price to pay.
Re:Not interesting.... (Score:2)
Rather than reading fables, I would prefer to see some of the manuscripts from Leonardo Da Vinci. Now, that would be something interesting and worth spending my time with!
And I want to see The Illustrated Perils of Gwendolyn, but sometimes you have to take what you get.
Re:Not interesting.... (Score:2)
You had to bring that up. I still haven't gotten over the fact that Tawny Kitaen didn't win an Oscar for her performance.
Some wounds just don't heal, you know.
Re:Not interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about throwing pearls to the pigs... You must be one of those entitled Gen-Y.
Here is an idea that would be "worth your time" [1]: why don't you build an internet company that is worth billions of dollars then use some of the profits to fund a project where Leonardo Da Vinci's manuscripts are being found (or made available), digitized and published online for all to see?
I suspect that the day you accomplish that, your opinion about the Dead Sea scrolls will have a bigger impact. Meanwhile feel free to tweet about it, I'm sure your 8 followers will be delighted, you may even get a Like if posted on Facebook.
[1] with those quotes around "worth your time" I hope to convey how annoyed I get by reading the part of your comment where you talk about things that are worth spending your time with.
Re:Not interesting.... (Score:2)
You are not very good at insulting people because you lack empathy, which is another tell-tale sign of a Gen-Y entitled brat.
What makes me nauseous is not the God/no-God part of the discussion; it's the fact that you stated that those scrolls that were written 2000 years ago and that Google was kind enough to digitize for everyone to see are not *worthy* of your time.
Instead of being amazed that you have access (for free) to such valuable historical artefacts (a privilege that was limited to a very small number of people until now) you come out and complain that you'd rather see documents from Leonardo Da Vinci - themselves written at a time where those unworthy Dead See scrolls were already about 1500 years old.
A vast majority of the emails sent worldwide since the last time you charged your iPod are gone forever; yet there is a bunch of documents written 2000 years ago on goatskin and papyrus that have survived (in part) until today. How can you not find that fascinating? These documents could be a wine merchant inventory and it would still be awesome.
Pearls to the pigs. 'Nuff said.
Re:Not interesting.... (Score:2)
Are you two done yet?
Gramps, you forgot, Get off my lawn.
Gen-Y'r, you don't have to care, but this is history, regardless of it's religious value to some religions.
otherwise, Happy Holidays.
Re:Sixty years to scrub them (Score:2)
I assume that any interesting scrolls (that say, for example, that Mary had a husband) have been hidden safely away from the public by now.
Considering that the very first book of the New Testament says the following "Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary." Why would a manuscript saying that Mary had a husband be hidden?
Re:Sixty years to scrub them (Score:2)
Seeings as those "religious zealots" as you called them are Jewish, they would be more than happy to publish any docs that said Jesus was not who he claimed to be. Oh and he Marry did have a husband his name was Joseph (he is usually the guy to the right of Mary in the nativity scenes the one not holding a sheep or a tacky jewelery box) the four gospel all admit that. Also the weren't hidden away I personally went and saw them on display at the Seattle Science Center a couple of years ago. Troll harder next time.
Re:Sixty years to scrub them (Score:2)