Anyone here read NAILED?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2013, 06:37 PM
RE: Anyone here read NAILED?
I believe this formed the basis of the book:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 06:39 PM
RE: Anyone here read NAILED?
(06-06-2013 04:42 PM)cjs Wrote:  It's on my Kindle, just have not gotten to it yet.

How did you get it on Kindle? Amazon says "this title is not currently available for purchase" in the Kindle version. Did you buy it awhile ago?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 06:46 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 07:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Anyone here read NAILED?
Haven't read it. However Fitzgerald's videos from Skepticon are very interesting. As are Carrier's lectures on the historicity of Jebus, and the nature of the gospels.








Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2013, 11:15 AM
RE: Anyone here read NAILED?
Quote:I read somewhere the 'old testament' was rewritten at some point to better suit the new.

Astonishing that you'd write that and accuse me of believing the bronze age Bible instantly in the same thread.

1) I researched the Bible and studied it using itself and outside sources for some months before trusting Christ for salvation. I still today, 20 years later, take seriously each new objection or contradiction I here and study, think and research.

2) I'm glad you "read somewhere" the OT was redrafted at some point to satisfy the NT. There is no evidence for one verse of the OT changing in Hebrew or Aramaic between the Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek circa 250 BCE and TODAY. Not one verse.

I'm always amazed at how Atheists either 1) study fractional amounts about the Bible and preach the little they study from the rooftops while 2) immersing themselves in things that appeal more like Marxist dogma, Evolution, and other canards that most people in most places worldwide not only object to but abhor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: Anyone here read NAILED?
(07-06-2013 11:15 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I read somewhere the 'old testament' was rewritten at some point to better suit the new.

Astonishing that you'd write that and accuse me of believing the bronze age Bible instantly in the same thread.

1) I researched the Bible and studied it using itself and outside sources for some months before trusting Christ for salvation. I still today, 20 years later, take seriously each new objection or contradiction I here and study, think and research.

2) I'm glad you "read somewhere" the OT was redrafted at some point to satisfy the NT. There is no evidence for one verse of the OT changing in Hebrew or Aramaic between the Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek circa 250 BCE and TODAY. Not one verse.

I'm always amazed at how Atheists either 1) study fractional amounts about the Bible and preach the little they study from the rooftops while 2) immersing themselves in things that appeal more like Marxist dogma, Evolution, and other canards that most people in most places worldwide not only object to but abhor.

I never once said I believed that. what I do believe is that NT was reversed engineered to fit the old -- nonetheless it is what a some claim.

Now, having said that there were subtle changes in wording of some of the text of the OT. I don't know if these were to give a different intent or if they were accidental (simple translation errors). And this was from Jewish scholars making the case that christ wasn't the messiah or anything close to it and was not born of "atheism" as you might think.

So your claim that it hasn't changed at all -- 'not one verse' is rather disingenuous.

Change a few words and you can alter intent. For example, where it talks about the messiah being born to a virgin...it actually means young girl. Not a literal virgin artificially inseminated. Yet the word choice of "virgin" is preferred. Why? Because the NT was reversed engineered to host a "virgin birth."


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: