Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Scholar'.
Found 2 results
You’ve probably seen the interview here of Professor Dao, aka, Livia Kohn. If not I am sure you are familiar with Livia’s incredible work, both her original translations and many commentaries. Livia may be the most influential Taoist influence in the United States today. She should be, IMO, as she seems to be the best informed. Moreover she is the rare academic scholar PhD who is also a sincere practitioner. I can’t wait to meet Kohn in the afternoon of September 15th in Winter Park, Florida. You are invited to join with me, meet her, experience for yourself her energy, her practitioner skills. She has agreed to speak and show us a few things. It will be a small private group, first come first serve, but we may have some gates. Spontaneous community gatherings with senior practitioners like this are a rare opportunity to connect with the Dao. Contact me for more information.
Misquoting Jesus Textual critics have proven many parts of the modern bible were not originally a part of it. One example is the story of the woman who was about to be stoned to death but Jesus saved her by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's been proven that this was added in hundreds of years after the NT texts were first written down, and the original texts didn't have this story. Koester notes: Someone arguing that it was originally in there has to explain why it does not appear in the most early accounts--why would they all delete? Why would it appear in the wrong gospel? Bart Ehrman Interview on "Misquoting Jesus" http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-14-2006/bart-ehrman Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', with audio interview- Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' : NPR The book of Bart- The Book of Bart Historians don't consider the KJV to be historically as authentic or original as some other versions Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which there are differences of some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from. The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not found until after the KJV was already written, so they are older and more original. They are considered to be examples showing just how much a bible can change over time. The Masocretic texts that the modern bible is based on are obviously historically inferior to Sinaticus and Vatinicus which are far older. Here are 5, out of hundreds, of modern interpretations of scripture that can objectively be proven false- 1. The story of the woman who was to be stoned but was saved by Jesus, never happened and was not originally in the bible 2. The Trinity did not exist in the original texts 3. Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus- Jesus the Nazarene means Jesus the Essene, not Jesus of Nazareth 4. Mary Magdalene being a prostitute rather than the head disciple of Jesus 5. The Resurrection as people today understand it was not in the oldest texts If you've played the "telephone game" as a kid where you whisper a phrase into someone's ear who then whispers it to the next kid and so on down a whole line up of kids. The phrase ends up something unrecognizable to the original. Now add that with whole texts that are supposed to come together as a complete story, different languages being translated, and different people doing different parts. I don't know that we can examine each change individually, but if you think about what the odds are....the odds are there are significant changes The bible of today is still a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, and obscure teachings and often originally oral traditions