responding to common objections to bible

[Rhyfelwyr]

Big Bang posits no need for God.

While that may be your conclusion, you should acknowledge that arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument are at least logically consistent and do offer a valid theory on something that we do not yet (and may never) know the answer to. The same cannot be said for invisible floating leprechauns, hence your comparison is entirely unfair (although I suppose it was never meant for anything more than ridicule).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

could you support your claims, please show what evidence your referring to.
" demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with"

Your refusal to engage with my arguments in a previous thread, or Sugurd's

translation
I think you misunderstand, i never said every translation is perfect, in fact no english can really be 100% perfect from herbre/greek. Please reread op.

Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.

variable canons
please provide what you are referring to, apocrypha?. Also who cares if some see some books as more important? variety of doctrine in many books all have their fav etc.

I direct you to the Council of Trent, the Council of Carthage (Provincial) and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, wherein you will find differences of opinion on what the "Bible" is.

mark
i think its generally accepted that marks ending was added on. The ordinal bible is there in full.

Except that until about a hundred years ago the longer Mark was the more widely read. Only recently has that determination been made - for most of the last 1500 years most Christians having been working from a corrupt text.

orange bible? what is that, not to mention my op is on original bible, not any and all transitional of the bible. Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

Certain passages are so corrupt that they cannot be recovered from examination of dozens of anciant authorities. The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that no true 'original' exists? Or are you just saying that they have been corroputed over time? If it's the former, then it is only true for parts of the Bible, if it's the latter, then I don't see why that would necessarily invalidate the original version (or those closest to it) as a final authority.

The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

Now that is heretical.

Why would you be thankful that a great source of inspiration in the Christian faith has (supposedly) become so corrupted over time?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that no true 'original' exists? Or are you just saying that they have been corroputed over time? If it's the former, then it is only true for parts of the Bible, if it's the latter, then I don't see why that would necessarily invalidate the original version (or those closest to it) as a final authority.

We could postulate an Ur-text all day, the fact is we don't have one - and God has made no effort to preserve one for us. My conclusion is that he worries much less about the content of the Bible than we do.

Now that is heretical.

Why would you be thankful that a great source of inspiration in the Christian faith has (supposedly) become so corrupted over time?

Is not the Gospel graven on men's hearts, rather than in a book? May I remind you, you went through a phase of idolising the Bible as a Book, you used to pray with is clasped to your chest.

Ooooooh - my black period is over!

Yipppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

*Goes off to sing corny Christians songs.*

"Carry on my wayward son...."

[Jolt]

jolt you have not given one piece of any evidence against my op or even against god, just unsupported claims. Would you debate me 1v1 in the fight club at twc?

Why would I waste time debating someone who's major argument is that "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". That is what people with pathological delusions say.

I agree the modern age people are the most gullible yet,they believe anything there told. But i think the belief in magic etc is more know than ever, aliens, witchcraft, horoscopes etc etc. But would we really aspect christian doctrine to arise know? i don't see that as any way possible as it already arose, not sure your point on that.

Only that I never made the point that this generation was the most gullible.

So, you agree that a generation which is far in advance the most instructed of human history, taught to think for themselves, is the most gullible generation in history and that we believe anything we're told? More than when you had the whole continent worshipping an invisible man, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers willing to execute massacres and die in the name of something they never saw?

Magic belief strong than ever? Haha, you do not that the precise definition of magic is a force that does not exist right? Belief in whatever god was the required norm of Western societies. You think everyone is believing in aliens, or in witchcraft or in horoscopes, all of which have around the same level of proof of existance with your God (Only that supposedly alien ships have been sighted thousands of times throughout the world - far more times than any god - and in the age where you need to see something to believe it in, it obviously gives a greater cause for belief then your "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". The other two come from a placebo effect. Nevertheless, the simple fact that you are making such a statement based on a percentage of folks who believe in magical things to then claim it as a "whole generation that believes in magic" shows you have a pretty distorted view of reality. Which isn't surprising.

I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all.

It's not a claim. A claim would be "I think I'm the smartest man alive.". The lack of proof in something unprovable is only a logical fact. A bothersome fact that ultimately contributed to the downfall of religion in parts of the world where people are not constrained by the tradition of forcing kids to believe in something.

The fact you have been idocrintaed so bad to believe it is not my fault. As far as learning Portuguese and being a idiot for not learning....i guess we all have our opinions. But to claim the language has anything to do with biblical history or needed to understand shows your lack of knowledge of the area.

Yes, I admit it. I have been indoctrinated by my own experience and self-meditation and arriving at my own metaphysical conclusions, without anyone else forcing their own visions, their own dogmas and their own gods down my throat.

well if that is your unsupported opinion i care not, it holds zero weight with me, this is for people who object to bible for reasons given on op, if you think there not common read my other thread, over a dozen times they say cant trust bible it was not translated right etc etc. As i said, whenever i answer a objection it turns into something else fast.

The bible in itself has no value besides as an historical and philosophical document. The fact that the bible is mistranslated is just another nail in the coffin.

well i would say your wrong given what i have said and tried to reference to you, but this just shows your unwillingness to think outside your own worldview.

Never forget your position in relation to me. You're the one that is talking about invisible men here.

only if we ignore your last post.

Nope, with or without my last post.

besides having much evidence for creator [another thread] what proof do you have for no god? than it must just be your imagination.

Are you seriously repeating the same fallacy as in the previous reply? There is no proof that it exists. Your proof consists of becoming crazy and needing to start imagining stuff, otherwise, I'll never be able to find that one god you're talking about.

lol, nice dodge, know we cant remember owr own imagination, good way to protect your worldview.

Hahaha. A guy who consistently employs fallacies, quotes fallacies, and ultimately believes in an invisible man that only talks to those who believe in him, thinks I'm protecting my world view. :D As to your "we can't remember our own imagination", without even going into the semantics of it, it is wrong on a great many different levels.

i think you have posted on wrong thread, or replied to wrong one.

Nah, you have your own God, that communicates to you because you believe in him. I have my magical fairies that help me out in my tasks in Valhalla, and I go there on my white diamond unicorn. You can also get a similar set if you accept them.

[Brenus]

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” So you are ignorant of the Councils of Latran followed by Trento (the series of).
From a quick research in internet: “According to the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, in a local Synod in France in the year 585 one or more bishops expressed the view that the word "homo" (meaning mankind) did not include the female gender, and that a woman is not an authentic person in the sense the male is. It was thought by some that she did not possess the divinely-imaged soul of her male counterpart. The belief goes back to the creation story in the Bible, as you described it (and other references in the Bible which indicate the female is not equal to the male).”
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.

[Husar]

He's a protestant extremist, I would think he considers Catholics to be satanic...

As he should. You get to heaven by accepting Jesus as your saviour, not by good deeds. Your sins are forgiven by Jesus, not by praying a certain number of prayers. Everybody who says otherwise is a false prophet trying to lure you into the arms of satan.

[spankythehippo]

I think it's futile arguing with this guy. He either responds with a massive wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for the future thread".

Can't we all just cast aside our differences and pursue our own goals without impeding on anyone else's? Or is that too much to ask?

[Kadagar_AV]

I think it's futile arguing with this guy. He either responds with a massive wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for the future thread".

Can't we all just cast aside our differences and pursue our own goals without impeding on anyone else's? Or is that too much to ask?

Nailed it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We could postulate an Ur-text all day, the fact is we don't have one - and God has made no effort to preserve one for us. My conclusion is that he worries much less about the content of the Bible than we do.

Well naturally we cannot know for certain whether our earliest manuscripts might be the original, divinely inspired version. Except in those cases when they are not in what we would expect to be the original language.

Still, it's worth considering that even if we treat the Bible as a historical document, what we see in the New Testament shows that Jesus and the first Christians regarded the scripture as extremely important (though by scripture they obviously meant something resembling the Old Testament). So God does care about the scripture.

And like I said earlier, it is preserved far better than any other text of a similar age or length. That indicates that God cares.

Is not the Gospel graven on men's hearts, rather than in a book? May I remind you, you went through a phase of idolising the Bible as a Book, you used to pray with is clasped to your chest.

You have a good memory. When you are new to the faith you tend to latch onto things like that. Maybe some Protestants like myself do (or did) venerate the Bible to the point of idolatry.

We're human, over time we hopefully learn better, rather than trying to justify past errors. For a while now I haven't identified with the idea of Sola Scriptura, since I recognise the value of general revalation, as well as special revelation.

None of that changes the fact that the Bible remains a great example of God's special revelation to men, and for you to rejoice in its manipulation by men seems well out of order. Maybe you could explain exactly what you meant by it?

[Husar]

Can't we all just cast aside our differences and pursue our own goals without impeding on anyone else's? Or is that too much to ask?

Too much to ask from someone who thinks you are a sinner and go to hell. And who additionally thinks his lord and saviour wants him to love you and to do his best to make you see the light so you can go to heaven, too. After all the only reason you try to resist is because the devil is trying his best to prevent you from seeing the truth.

On the other side of the argument you have the people who think that this behaviour is the root of all evil on this planet and if only they can convinve religious people with rational, scientific argumentation, they can purge the world of this problem and make it better, more rational place.

Unfortunately rational, scientific thought is a way of thinking invented by the devil so people cannot see the truth from/of god. No, I didn't make that up, I heard a whole sermon about it once.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.

I'd suggest posting them anyway. Even those who lack fluency in a language can often work through [with translation tools and/or school-child knowledge] enough of a text to corroborate for themselves that you are using the source in a valid manner and that the source is based on credible methods/expertise etc. That is the point of citing them after all, so that we can see that your point is based on decent evidence.

[HoreTore]

I'd suggest posting them anyway. Even those who lack fluency in a language can often work through [with translation tools and/or school-child knowledge] enough of a text to corroborate for themselves that you are using the source in a valid manner and that the source is based on credible methods/expertise etc. That is the point of citing them after all, so that we can see that your point is based on decent evidence.

....or just wait for PVC or Sigurd to comment, I guess...

[total relism]

Your refusal to engage with my arguments in a previous thread, or Sugurd's



Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.



I direct you to the Council of Trent, the Council of Carthage (Provincial) and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, wherein you will find differences of opinion on what the "Bible" is.



Except that until about a hundred years ago the longer Mark was the more widely read. Only recently has that determination been made - for most of the last 1500 years most Christians having been working from a corrupt text.



Certain passages are so corrupt that they cannot be recovered from examination of dozens of anciant authorities. The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

i will ask again, please provide one specific place you are referring to.



not at all, unless your unwilling to learn or watch debates, and ignore what you dont want to hear, read op/watch debates posted on op.



so if i decide to write a book called the gospel of total relism, than that proves we dont have the original bible?


that may be true,does not refute what i said, we have all the original bible. if you read my op, you would see i said that.



please provide any evidence.

Why would I waste time debating someone who's major argument is that "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". That is what people with pathological delusions say.



Only that I never made the point that this generation was the most gullible.

So, you agree that a generation which is far in advance the most instructed of human history, taught to think for themselves, is the most gullible generation in history and that we believe anything we're told? More than when you had the whole continent worshipping an invisible man, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers willing to execute massacres and die in the name of something they never saw?

Magic belief strong than ever? Haha, you do not that the precise definition of magic is a force that does not exist right? Belief in whatever god was the required norm of Western societies. You think everyone is believing in aliens, or in witchcraft or in horoscopes, all of which have around the same level of proof of existance with your God (Only that supposedly alien ships have been sighted thousands of times throughout the world - far more times than any god - and in the age where you need to see something to believe it in, it obviously gives a greater cause for belief then your "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". The other two come from a placebo effect. Nevertheless, the simple fact that you are making such a statement based on a percentage of folks who believe in magical things to then claim it as a "whole generation that believes in magic" shows you have a pretty distorted view of reality. Which isn't surprising.



It's not a claim. A claim would be "I think I'm the smartest man alive.". The lack of proof in something unprovable is only a logical fact. A bothersome fact that ultimately contributed to the downfall of religion in parts of the world where people are not constrained by the tradition of forcing kids to believe in something.



Yes, I admit it. I have been indoctrinated by my own experience and self-meditation and arriving at my own metaphysical conclusions, without anyone else forcing their own visions, their own dogmas and their own gods down my throat.



The bible in itself has no value besides as an historical and philosophical document. The fact that the bible is mistranslated is just another nail in the coffin.



Never forget your position in relation to me. You're the one that is talking about invisible men here.



Nope, with or without my last post.



Are you seriously repeating the same fallacy as in the previous reply? There is no proof that it exists. Your proof consists of becoming crazy and needing to start imagining stuff, otherwise, I'll never be able to find that one god you're talking about.



Hahaha. A guy who consistently employs fallacies, quotes fallacies, and ultimately believes in an invisible man that only talks to those who believe in him, thinks I'm protecting my world view. :D As to your "we can't remember our own imagination", without even going into the semantics of it, it is wrong on a great many different levels.



Nah, you have your own God, that communicates to you because you believe in him. I have my magical fairies that help me out in my tasks in Valhalla, and I go there on my white diamond unicorn. You can also get a similar set if you accept them.

so i take that as a no, me thinks you know you just make claims and cant back them up, a 1v1 debate would show that clearly and you dont want that. But if my evidence and arguments are only what you say they are, why not debate me you could make us believers look so stupid with the kind of arguments you have assured me i will use.



I disagree 100%, i feel people are indoctrinated to the fullest, they are taught to spit back info they have been fed and not taught to think challenge etc, this has been the agenda of the liberals and atheist for decades and it is know installed. In fact i would love to show how you are a victim if you debate me 1v1. Ask for some info next post i will provide.


as i said people believe in forces that dont exist more than ever,ghost,aliens,horoscopes,mother earth etc etc many beliefs. the rest is great example of your faulty logic and indoctrination.

here is my offer, 1v1 debate on the evidence for god vs evidence for atheism. otherwise i will take as your own self admit ion you just say what you want and are not willing to back up as you cant, and you dont want to face evidence contrary to your own faith, and have your beliefs challenged. Of course you could just wait as it is future thread.



asumtions not backed up easily refuted [look to debate offer above] indoctrinated.



we will see if you debate me, if this is true than you should be able to defend your beliefs and have no internal contradictions.



based on your beliefs that are easily refutable [look to debate offer]


same again.



only if you ignore my last post.



lhmm, i repeated your false logic to show it false, im glad you can see it if another uses your own logic.




i think twice you have missed me using your logic to show it false, yet both times you see it as false when i use it.



ill debate that.

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” So you are ignorant of the Councils of Latran followed by Trento (the series of).
From a quick research in internet: “According to the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, in a local Synod in France in the year 585 one or more bishops expressed the view that the word "homo" (meaning mankind) did not include the female gender, and that a woman is not an authentic person in the sense the male is. It was thought by some that she did not possess the divinely-imaged soul of her male counterpart. The belief goes back to the creation story in the Bible, as you described it (and other references in the Bible which indicate the female is not equal to the male).”
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.

instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.

[Hax]

I hate atheist sites, they're usually really vocal about their beliefs.

[Kadagar_AV]

evidence for atheism

Really? No, really? I mean... Really??

[InsaneApache]

It's like trying to reason with a brick.

[Brenus]

“instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.”
Dear, dear, dear, these are NOT atheist sites but ARE Religious one.

www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html

Decisively the proof you don’t check or want to have dialogue, but just you telling others…

To ask a Catholic Site to tell that in the middle ages the Catholic Church is the same that to ask a Neo-Nazi Authors to prove that the Nazi killed more Jews than it was alleged before



And I can understand why when I can see from your answer how deep is your ignorance of the history of Religions…

For your general knowledge: When you will have read it then understood it I will provide more about the reasons of these decisions (catholic site). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

But I doubt you want to know more, as it might give you matters for thinking, so doubts might crawl...

[total relism]

“instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.”
Dear, dear, dear, these are NOT atheist sites but ARE Religious one.

www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html

Decisively the proof you don’t check or want to have dialogue, but just you telling others…

To ask a Catholic Site to tell that in the middle ages the Catholic Church is the same that to ask a Neo-Nazi Authors to prove that the Nazi killed more Jews than it was alleged before



And I can understand why when I can see from your answer how deep is your ignorance of the history of Religions…

For your general knowledge: When you will have read it then understood it I will provide more about the reasons of these decisions (catholic site). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

But I doubt you want to know more, as it might give you matters for thinking, so doubts might crawl...

not sure if you read my last post, i said can your provide original source from council of Catholics that said so.


you claim i dont want dialogue because i ask you to back up your claim with source, you claimed a catholic council said these things at council of trent, i want evidence for your claim with original source. Until you do so its a false to me.


you say i dont know about "religious" history, assuming that is true, but that does not make your claim any more true. Not to mention what you know of "religious history" is prabley just what your liberal teachers have told you, witch is all that is bad about christian history.


Great you linked me to a catholic site on Trent, know just support your claim and show me were it says anything on woman not having souls.

[Jolt]

I was going to reply again, but then I read:

evidence for atheism.

and decided some people are just too dumb and consistently illogical that it's a waste of precious time.

EDIT: Just something I'll do for my own research, and maybe you guys can point me in the right direction: Is there any provable historical supernatural phenomenon that is not inside a religious book, and cannot be explained or theorized upon by use of science, physics and logic, and can easily be explained by any religion?

[Rhyfelwyr]

For all the abuse that total relism gets, the stuff some other people are coming up with here is comedy gold.

Everybody is rubbishing his (admittedly rubbish) sources, and then with a straight face they come out and quote Landover Baptist Church as a reliable source on Christian doctrine.

For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.

But don't let me get in the way of the circle-jerk...

[The Stranger]

i think it was only brenus, and from my one encounter with him, he might be the atheist version of Total Relism... so ye XD

[Brenus]

“For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.” I was not aware of this (why should I?) as what is said there looks really like is said but non parodying Evangelical Protestants.
Still, the place of women in the middle Age by the church is developed by the theologian Thomas Aquinas: males are the perfect form and female children are simply defective males. Or Read St Augustin.

“i think it was only brenus, and from my one encounter with him, he might be the atheist version of Total Relism... so ye” When? I don’t remember any encounter with you, but I might have, so can you give details, please…

[Rhyfelwyr]

“For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.” I was not aware of this (why should I?)

The fact that you couldn't tell that it was a rather outrageous parody site sums up how much you know about Christian doctrine.

btw you also never delivered when I asked you for those quotes earlier. You seemed quite confident with the rhetoric but if this is the quality of your sources I think it was a bit misplaced.

[Hax]

Why do you feel a need to defend him? Idiocy might be contagious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hypocrisy is worth pointing out.

[Brenus]

“The fact that you couldn't tell that it was a rather outrageous parody site sums up how much you know about Christian doctrine.” I know enough of the “Christian” doctrine to know that there is more than one. You, on contrary, seem to think there is only one. The place of women in the history of the multiple aspect of this generic religious movement can be easily seen, without even a careful and long attention.
And to be really open about it, the stupidity of this text that matched what I can watch on Evangelist TV (the rare time when I by chance listen -shortly-) so I didn't doubt it was an authentic site, a little bit like the one from the guy who wanted to burn some samples of the Koran. This will teach me a lesson.

“btw you also never delived when I asked you for those quotes earlier. You seemed quite confident with the rhetoric but if this is the quality of your sources I think it was a bit misplaced.” I am confident as I studied Religions. I didn’t felt the need to answer as, as I said before, you do not need careful, long and painful studies to acknowledge the place of the women in societies under “Christian” rules, whatever the “doctrine” says. The opinion and statement of the Religious Politicians as Tertullien (using St Paul), St Augustin (Who has a woman turns away from God) and Thomas Aquinos do not need vast exegeses. Remember Eve…
She was the temptation to which the man who finds it difficult to resist. She, herself, is tempted by the devil in the form of snake, serpent associated with sex and demonized by the Church. The woman is worthy of hell for the Church that does not forgive her to succumb to the temptation of the forbidden fruit consumption and so to have result in loss of the garden of Eden.

You want reference: In French
« saint Paul, le théologien favori du Vatican (surtout aujourd'hui ), d'écrire que « la femme est un corps sans tête », et à saint Jérôme de dire que « la volupté avec une femme est un crime à classer juste après l'homicide ». Même au cours du XIXe siècle, pourtant plus éclairé, le prêtre catholique Lamennais a affirmé que « la femme est une statue vivante de la stupidité parce qu'en la faisant d'un reste de limon, Dieu en a oublié l'intelligence »
St Jerome : Rien n'est plus infâme que le mari qui aime sa femme comme une maîtresse : il commet le péché d'adultère »
In English:
Saint Paul, favorite theologian of the Vatican (especially today), to write that "the woman is a body without a head", and St. Jerome said that ' the voluptuousness with a woman is a crime to classify just after the killing. Even during the 19th century, yet more enlightened, the Catholic priest Lamennais stated that "the woman is a living statue of stupidity because by of a rest of silt, God have forgotten intelligence". St Jerome: nothing is more infamous than the husband who loves his wife as a mistress: he commits the sin of adultery. Women take from God the love of her husband…

Now, you can say that these people who spoke and wrote Latin, and most of them Greek, were not as good as you are to define the real meaning of Christianity…
You might be right.
But the fact is the reason why during the Council of Trent the Catholic Dogma reinforced and imposed the Single Status of the priests, the fact that Women couldn’t give the Holly Sacraments and couldn’t be priest was based on their opinion and their analyse on the texts they were able (most of them) to read in the original copy in Greek or Latin.

We do know now that the Eve and the Snake story is a copy of a Sumerian Legend, Enki and Ninhursag, 1500 before the Bible. We do know now that Yahweh’s actions looked very similar to the one of the Goddess Ninhursag.
From the Encyclopedia Encarta, used by thousands students in France:
"The biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve differs only in a few details of many other similar myths of the ancient Middle East and elsewhere. Similar themes also appear in ancient Mesopotamian sources such as the epic of Gilgamesh, dating from about 1800-1700 BC.”

But they didn't.

[Hax]

Remind me, why do we care so much about the so-called plagiarism in Christianity? Every​ religion does this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....or just wait for PVC or Sigurd to comment, I guess...

Is that a compliment?

I can't tell.

Regardless,

Many of the things that have been said about Christians are so much chaff - from the allegations of baby-eating onwards the Cultic nature of Christianity has left it open to ridicule by people on the outside.

I don't believe it's ever been an official doctrine of the Catholic (wider historical) Church that women are without souls - there have been various riffs on the theme of them being natural temptresses, because they not only fall into Sin but because of Eve's curse they naturally lead others to it.

[Brenus]

“Remind me, why do we care so much about the so-called plagiarism in Christianity? Every religion does this.” Err, because this one is one the pillar of the religion: Original Sin... It is not a so-call, it is a pure and simple real copy and paste exercise that had a powerful effect on 3 monotheistic religions (in their main streams, at least).
TR question is about the Bible. If the Bible appears to be more and more as a collection of Myths and Legends (and it is more and more likely) for the Mesopotamian Region and surroundings, with so-called Prophets who just put together a digest of all they could find in order to sustain their own beliefs, the question of the legitimacy of the Religions derived from it is on the table.
The bases of the Bible are de facto Pagan Myths, as later the annexation of Pagan Myths of the Medieval Ages Europe will be added to the liturgy. Nothing wrong with that until you claim that was the words of a God.
The long effects of these choices are visible in nowadays societies, and the added holiness of it makes changes very difficult.
As explained, the choice to put on Eve (or Lilith) the blame for the loss of the Paradise shaped the reflexion of Theologians all the past centuries, and still does. You can’t brush aside this fundamental question just with a “who care”, because wars and killing were based on these texts. Do you know what the differences between Serbs, Croats and Muslim are? Religions. Not ethnicities, or language or clothing or brand of coffee they drink, no, they are divided by the interpretation of the Bible…