h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have many many problems with your entry. But, I know most of them I will have no effect on anybody if I express, so I'll simply say this. You refute the Bible, and won't believe a word of it until it is proven to you. Yet, as one of you obviously very reliable sources, you site the Book of Thomas, which virtually nobody deems as fact. Why don't you go back and look at the reliability of your sources and let us know what makes them any more accurate than the Bible.

I've never made any claims that any of these books are reliable, or to be taken as fact. Especially the Bible. However...

"you site[sic] the Book of Thomas, which virtually nobody deems as fact." - Nor is it meant to be interpreted as fact. It's a collection of sayings. That's all. I find it more reliable than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for two reasons:

- The church dismissed it out of hand. Therefore, it was much less likely to have been edited for content. We *know* the gospels were edited, and they continue to be edited today, as anyone who has ever compared an NIV Bible to previous or more honorable translations.
- It predates the four gospels.

So, if you want to know what was *really* said by Jesus, check out Thomas. He's closer to the original than anything else we've got.

The NIV version differs from these "more honorable" translations because they were edited. The more recent versions, like the NIV, were taken, not as a perversion of say, the King James Version, but from the closest to the original texts as we have. They were taken from the old Greek and Hebrew texts, and retranslated with the knowledge we have now of those languages to be as close to modern language as they can get. The older translations are the "edited" versions.

The oldest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament date to the 4th century CE. There are no previous versions because they were edited at this time, by the Council of Nicea, and the originals were destroyed. Any translations done of the New Testament books is, by nature, already edited for content.

The NIV may have been an attempt to translate the oldest manuscripts, but at places where the originals have problems that have long been noted, the NIV changes the language to what they think the original writers meant to say. They commit the error of imposing their own views on the original texts. The KJV translators did this, too, but the NIV people did it on purpose.

I quote my source as a 1970's translation by the Catholics, who possess the originals. I know their version was as scrupulous as possible, because many of those old problem areas are still there. The attempts to impose their own beliefs onto the texts only occur in the footnotes, which is reasonable. They also acknowledge many aspects of bible scholarship that most would prefer to ignore... such as the fact that there are two entirely different, incompatible tales of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

*really trying hard not to get into *another* religious debate because they're pretty much cirtuitous*

The geneologies in Matthew and Luke don't match up for a reason. I don't remember which is which, but one traces Christ's geneology from Joseph's side (for those who think that the royalty in David's line only passed through the male, whether a natural child or not), and the other traces it through Mary's line to David (for those who followed through actual bloodlines). I have a feeling the first was Matthew and the second Luke (seeing as Luke was a physician). In other words, there's no way that His lineage could have been disputed.

Also, just as a side note... the very beginning of this disturbs me because you are judging Christianity by those who practice it-- though I know it shouldn't be this way, people are by nature imperfect and therefore you should judge nothing by what they do. And even those who practice are liable to fall, so I really feel any discussion in that realm is unfair to those of us attempting to be "Christ-like" as the name implys.

Oh, trust me, there are ways. For one thing, the argument that the Luke geneology traces through the female bloodline is an ad hoc argument. It's the only possible explanation for the difference in Joseph's parentage, which is Heli in one, and Jacob in the other. It is completely unproven, though. There are a few female sounding names in the Luke version (Joanna, Rhesa) along with masculine names (Joseph, Simeon, Levi), but that still doesn't explain the differences in generations, nor the commonalities. Matthew has only 27 generations from David to Jesus, while Luke has 42 (the answer?).

One thing that *is* clear is that Matt used Old Testament records to trace Jesus through the royal line, as the line was passed... from David to Solomon, all the way through all the kings of Judah, until the Babylonian Captivity... although he did take some license to protect his magic number 14 (1 Chronicles lists the generations from David to Captivity as 18). He also takes some license by ignoring the entire span of the Captivity... directly following the last king of Judah is Salathiel, father of Zerubabel, who restored the Temple of Jerusalem at the end of the Bablylonian Captivity. Zerubabel did so after Cyrus I of Persia conquered Babylon and set the Jews free. He was interested in the cultures of the people he conquered, and gave Zerubabel the resources to restore the temple.

We could *almost* accept that the difference in generations is because Matt ignored the Captivity. Unfortunately, Salathiel and Zerubabel are also included in the Luke lineage. From Zerubabel to Jesus in the Matt lineage is only 11 generations... in Luke, it's 20. To make this work at all, Matt's people would have had to been born as soon as possible, with a 16 year generation gap. Luke's same people would have had to have extended their generation gap to 30 years. That would have been his *average*... so, for every 20 year gap (very typical), they would have to have a corresponding 40 (old age in those days, and not likely to be survivable through what passed for medical science).

Let's also not forget to mention that the royal line traveled through the tribe of Judah, and Jews frowned on intermarriage between tribes. Jesus is named to be of the tribe of Judah, in accordance with this. The problem is, Zerubabel was a Levite... only natural, as the high priest. And he is named in *both* lineages.

If the Luke lineage is supposed to be Mary's, why is Mary not mentioned in it?

If Joseph is not Jesus' father, then why are both lineages traced through him?

No, I'm sorry, there are an *awful* lot of ways to dispute the lineages. I'm convinced that they're both fiction.

But Thomas was supposed to have gone to India for missionary work, and the St Thomas christians beliefs, although a little tainted by Hinduism, are remarkably similar to the rest of christianity although the two where separated for over a thousand years

I have never understood how the genensis argument can be used. They are right next to each other, did Moses write one then forgot he'd written it and write another. Maybe it's because if God told the world how the universe was really created they wouldn't understand so he used parables. Whatever the first is clearly a poem which talks of 'periods of time' and not days as thought

People misread them, I think... they're actually the same exact story, retold in different words and they *sound* like they're in different orders. The problem words are "plant of the fields", which means something like corn or wheat or whatever-- cultivated plants. (look up the Hebrew word that's actually used there). Likelihood is that those kinds of plants weren't created till Eden was "planted." At least that's how I see it.

They're very clearly *not* the same story, nor can they be reconciled. They're two different tales of creation, handed down to the chroniclers from two different sources. They reflect the oral traditions of the Yahwist and Elohist traditions, respectively. It is likely that the chroniclers felt that both had validity due to their ancient origins, and so included both versions.

As for the "poetic" feel of Genesis 1, people in those times were very literal minded. When they said plants were created in a day, that's what they meant. The structure matches that of other mythological accounts of creation. It's suggestive of the awesome power of the deity that such things could be accomplished in a 24 hour period (12, actually, since he rested at sunset). It wouldn't be very demonstrative if it took him billions of years to get plants right, would it?

Of course, that's been one of the favorite ad hoc arguments for creation... god didn't *mean* it took one day, it was just poetic license... never mind that he allegedly took direct control of his chroniclers, to ensure that his tale was told with the kind of accuracy only an omniscient being could generate...

I read in a biography of Isaac Newton that the Bible was rewritten in the fourth century (?) to include the Holy trinity. The Orthodox church split after a holy war.

Theres still that whole when you die you get forgiven and your decendants are absolved, unless you're gay then you and the next ten generations of your family are damned to hell.

Most religions still can't tell me why, they just try and tell you that something bigger said because.

What happened to Christianity in the 4th century is basically chronicled in this article. Emperor Constantine adopted is as the state religion, and invited the leading members to Nicea to codify the particulars. There were already many widely disputed points by then. The elders made decisions about those disputed points, and then edited the Gospels to reflect those points. Other Gospels were rejected out of hand. Bishops who disagreed too vehemently with the chosen dogma were killed as heretics.

It was from Nicea that the Catholic (which means "universal") religion was born. It's also why we have no copies of the books of the New Testament which predate the Council of Nicea.