Re: OT, and religeous

Pascal wrote:
> > Many parts of the Old Testament existed already way before the advent
> > of Jesus and stuff, and were only slightly modified for inclusion.
> > [...] The original bible texts were changed uncounted times by whoever
> > was currently in power at the church to express just what what they wanted
> > it to express, going along with intentional misinterpretation.
Actually, all the evidence suggests that in the 900 years or so
separating the Dead Sea Scrolls and the first available Medieval
codices, the actual texts changed almost not at all -- so little,
that most of the changes are explainable in terms of occasional
and slight spelling errors. So, if you mean 'church' in its normal
sense, then you're flatly wrong on this point.  (I just came back
from seeing the real Dead Sea Scrolls at an exhibit in Houston,
so I'm up on the facts.)

Steg wrote:
> What's this obsession with the church?  The texts commonly referred to
> as the "Old Testament" had their own milieu, religion, and significance
> before Christianity ever came along.
This is true. There are many people who speculate about huge changes
that occurred to the documents around the time of the Babylonian
Captivity, but these can be no more than speculations until someone
actually unearths a codex with Bible fragments on it from the sixth
or seventh centuries BC.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier	       "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637