Bible Discussion: An Atheist, Or Humanist, Falsehood By Pro-Humanist Freelover

An Atheist, Or Humanist, Falsehood By Pro-Humanist Freelover
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Didymos
2003-08-05 14:33:20 EST
A poster identifying him- or herself only as Pro-Humanist Freelover, posted
the following outright falsehood in the thread "Re: For consideration of the
likelihood that Jesus was a mythical creation ..."

"The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It
consists of a few passages from an unknown gospel. Another ancient
manuscript, a portion of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about 125 CE.
Remaining manuscripts date to the third century CE or later."

There are falsehoods in those sentences. First, The "unknown gospel" which
"dates from about 125 CE" can only be the Egerton Gospel, or more properly,
Papyrus Egerton 2, Fragment 1and Papyrus Köln 255, and this gospel is hardly
"unknown." Good photographs of Papyrus Egerton 2. Fragment 1 can be found
at http://alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Egerton/eger-1-verso.jpg . A good
photograph of Papyrus Köln 255 is at
http://alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Egerton/egerkoln-v.jpg. I encourage you
to view these pages and count the lines. I did. To me, "few" is not truly
an accurate representation of at least 18 lines on verso 1 and of 20 lines
on recto 1 of Papyrus Egerton 2, Fragment 1. And then of course, there are
the 6 lines on verso 1 and the 6 lines on recto 1 of Papyrus Köln 255.
Perhaps I am being persnickety, but 50 lines seems more than merely "a few."

And then, of course, there is the use of the pronoun "unknown" that
Pro-Humanist Freelover saw fit to use to modify the noun gospel. What is
unknown about the Egerton Gospel? Anyone with even a passing familiarity
with New Testament or Early Christian studies knows of the Egerton Gospel.
Geez . . . There have been chapters of books written about it, scholarly
and popular articles abound, and web sites are abundant. Is this merely the
careless use of an adjective, or is there some other agenda in play here, or
is it merely an outright lie told to further a cause?

Pro-Humanist Freelover's last sentence is an outright falsehood if posted in
ignorance, and an outright lie if Pro-Humanist Freelover actually does know
what he or she is discussing. In any case, "Remaining manuscripts date to
the third century CE or later," is wrong, inaccurate, demonstrably false,
misleading, disingenuous, and a prevarication. And that is not what one
expects from someone whose signature element contains the words:
"Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty, Openness, Verity,
Enlightenment, & Rationality." Perhaps this "Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality" can
explain to us exactly how posting blatant falsehoods contributes to "Verity,
Enlightenment, & Rationality." Or does "Expressive Liberty" include the
right to lie to promote one's cause?

I do have a question for Pro-Humanist Freelover and anyone else who cares to
enter the debate. What is the dating and provenance of, say, the eight
oldest manuscripts of any non-Christian work of antiquity describing events
of the first century? Kindly provide the same data for your answer as I
provided for the six sources I list below. What is good for the goose is
good for the gander, is it not? Thank you. Now do your homework before
running off at the fingers . . . I recommend that paster dave, Christ Devol,
John W. and a few others remain silent. This is about historical evidence
and sources, and you guys, quite frankly, do not understand the concepts. I
encourage you to read and study and learn. That is good advice, even if
uttered by one you consider your enemy.

Ah yes, the evidence. I copied the following from my original reply to the
original thread. I stand by it absent new evidence.

" Pro-Humanist Freelover asserted that, 'Remaining manuscripts date to the
third century CE or later.' Oh really? May I suggest you find a more
reliable source than
religioustolerance.org? You referrred above to the Egerton Gospel and P-52,
did you not? And then you passed on the rather silly and false assertion
that 'Remaining manuscripts date to the third century CE or later.' Do you
not check your information before you post it? I will provide just a few
more manuscripts from the 2nd century including the papyrus catalogue
number, date, summary of contents, provenance, and where they are currently
housed. I encourage you and everyone else to check my assertions for
accuracy."

"P4/P64/P67; 150-175 A.D.; verses from the Gospels of Luke and
Matthew, found at Coptos, Egypt; P4 and P64 are currently at Bibliotheque
Nationale, Paris, while P67 is Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, Barcelona"

"P23; ca 200 A.D.; verses from James; found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt;
at University of Illinois, Urbana, IL."

"P32; Second half of second century; verses from Titus; probably found at
Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; at John Rylands University Library, Manchester, UK."

"P46; ca 150 A.D; most of Paul's epistles; the Fayum, Egypt or church ruins
near Atfih; at Special Collections Library, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI."

"P66; ca 150 A.D.; 78 leaves of Gospel of John; Jabal Abu Mana, Egypt; at
Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland, but one leaf is housed
at Insitut fur Altertumskunde der Universitat zu Koln, Cologne, Germany."

"P75; late second century; 72 leaves of Gospels of Luke and John; Jabal Abu
Mana, Egypt; at Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland."

"I can go on, but I believe I have made my point. Web sites are often
inaccurate sources, most especially those with an axe to grind . Why not
use real books by knowedgable scholars in the field wherein the information
has
been vetted? I thought you steely-eyed atheist types never made an
assertion not founded in hard physical evidence. And here you post this
bilious drivel. Certain of the lunatic fringe, fundamentalist so-called
"Christians" hereabouts are famous for their blather and nonsense. Wait a
minute, you aren't some loony fundamentalist trying to make atheists and
humanists look silly and unknowledgable, are you?"

"Do you care to perhaps do a bit of real research somewhere other than
biased
web pages and reconsider the accuracy of the information you posted?"

Might I also suggest that Pro-Humanist Freelover or anyone else contact the
owner of the web page, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm,
where this drivel was apparently obtained and suggest the owner of the web
site actually check this data?

Reproduced below is my reply to Pro-Humanist Freelover that appeared in the
original thread, including the header data:

Path:
newsmaster1.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
From: "Didymos" <me@privacy.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.christnet,alt.bible
References: <3f25c451_2@news.ghg.net>
<*2@posting.google.com> <3f270b25_1@news.ghg.net>
<*a@posting.google.com> <3f29878d_2@news.ghg.net>
<*7@posting.google.com> <3f2a014c_2@news.ghg.net>
Subject: Re: For consideration, A Bit Free With "Facts," Mr Pro-Humanist
Freelover?
Lines: 111
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <cDRXa.1418$Q63.88329@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:15:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.91.204.43
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1060103752 64.91.204.43 (Tue, 05
Aug 2003 10:15:52 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:15:52 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.religion:170263
alt.religion.christian.baptist:494089 alt.christnet:810143 alt.bible:814797
X-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:15:52 PDT
(newsmaster1.news.pas.earthlink.net)


"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:3f2a014c_2@news.ghg.net...
> "John Kelley" <jkelley@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:ce9e95d1.0307312015.be6fae7@posting.google.com...
> > "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:<3f29878d_2@news.ghg.net>...
> > > "John Kelley" <jkelley@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:ce9e95d1.0307310032.4972dbda@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:<3f270b25_1@news.ghg.net>...
> > > > > "John Kelley" <jkelley@zoomnet.net> wrote in message
news:ce9e95d1.0307291431.c4f5af2@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:<3f25c451_2@news.ghg.net>...
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > http://www.ghg.net/phf/disbelief/jesus_doubt_file.htm
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > or rather:
> > > > > > http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > The Jesus Puzzle
> > > > > (Top Posts - History - 061403)
> > > > > http://www.ghg.net/phf/history/jesus_puzzle.htm
> > > > >
> > > Ancient Salvation Cults
> > > > > (Top Posts - History - 061403)
> > > > > http://www.ghg.net/phf/history/ancient_salvation_cults.htm
> > > > >
> > > > Those assume a very late date for the gospels,
> > > > which is really not warranted, especially for
> > > > the Synoptics.
> > >
> > > The generally agreed on dates for the synoptics are
> > > from 70 C.E. (earliest, for Mark) to 100 C.E. (earliest,
> > > for John).
> >
> > On gospel dates and authors:
> > http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm
> ... All of the original copies of the gospels have been
> lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are
> an unknown number of replications removed from the
> originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel
> dates from about 125 CE. It consists of a few passages
> from an unknown gospel. Another ancient manuscript,
> a portion of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about
> 125 CE. Remaining manuscripts date to the third century
> CE or later.
>
Pro-Humanist Freelover asserted that, "Remaining manuscripts date to the
third century CE or later."
Oh really? May I suggest you find a more reliable source than
religioustolerance.org? You referrred above to the Egerton Gospel and P-52,
did you not? And then you passed on the rather silly and false assertion
that "Remaining manuscripts date to the third century CE or later." Do you
not check your information before you post it? I will provide just a few
more manuscripts from the 2nd century including the papyrus catalogue
number, date, summary of contents, provenance, and where they are currently
housed. I encourage you and everyone else to check my assertions for
accuracy.

P4/P64/P67; 150-175 A.D.; contains verses from the Gospels of Luke and
Matthew, found at Coptos, Egypt; P4 and P64 are currently at Bibliotheque
Nationale, Paris, while P67 is Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, Barcelona

P23; ca 200 A.D.; contains verses from James; found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt;
at University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

P32; Second half of second century; verses from Titus; probably found at
Oxyrhynchus, Egypt; at John Rylands University Library, Manchester, UK

P46; ca 150 A.D; most of Paul's epistles; the Fayum, Egypt or church ruins
near Atfih; at Special Collections Library, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI.

P66; ca 150 A.D.; 78 leaves of Gospel of John; Jabal Abu Mana, Egypt; at
Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland, but one leaf is housed
at Insitut fur Altertumskunde der Universitat zu Koln, Cologne, Germany.

P75; late second century; 72 leaves of Gospels of Luke and John; Jabal Abu
Mana, Egypt; at Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland.

I can go on, but I believe I have made my point. Web sites with an axe to
grind are lousy sources. Why not use real books wherein the information has
been vetted? I thought you steely-eyed atheist types never made an
assertion not founded in hard physical evidence. And here you post this
bilious drivel. Certain of the lunatic fringe, fundamentalist so-called
"Christians" hereabouts are famous for their blather and nonsense. Wait a
minute, you aren't some loony fundamentalist trying to make atheists and
humanists look silly and unknowledgable, are you?

Do you care to perhaps do a bit of real research somewhere other than biased
web pages and reconsider the accuracy of the information you posted?

<huge snip becasue information is not reliable and poster is losing
credibility>
> ~~~
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://www.ghg.net/phf
> (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> Expressive Liberty, Openness,
> Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
> ~~~
>
>
>



Tiger
2003-08-05 16:00:47 EST
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:QLSXa.1492$Q63.92909@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:

> <huge snip becasue information is not reliable and poster is losing
> credibility>
>

You misspelled "lost all credibility several months ago."

--
Tiger

"Flowing water never stagnates."
- Chinese proverb

Didymos
2003-08-06 10:49:43 EST

"Don" <calldonREMOVE@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:upd0jvsvif80gsrq71ds6l8pc1npc0d3vi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:22:59 GMT, "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tiger" <jef@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns93CEA2E963C49jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42...
> >> "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> >> news:QLSXa.1492$Q63.92909@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > <huge snip becasue information is not reliable and poster is losing
> >> > credibility>
> >> >
> >>
> >> You misspelled "lost all credibility several months ago."
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tiger
> >>
> >> "Flowing water never stagnates."
> >> - Chinese proverb
> >>
> >Hmmmm . perhaps so. . . . .fingers being recalcitrant yet again . . . .
>
> What's that sound? WHOOSH!!
>
> Look, up in the sky. It's a truth. It's a cliche. No,
> it's...it's...oh...I can't see...it's over my head.
>
> D*
>
>
>
>
>
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves,
> but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russell
>
> I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
> Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
Yes, interesting observations, but hardly, new, eh?


Libertarius
2003-08-06 11:25:23 EST


Didymos wrote:

> "Tiger" <jef@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93CEA2E963C49jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42...
> > "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> > news:QLSXa.1492$Q63.92909@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >
> > > <huge snip becasue information is not reliable and poster is losing
> > > credibility>
> > >
> >
> > You misspelled "lost all credibility several months ago."
> >
> > --
> > Tiger
> >
> > "Flowing water never stagnates."
> > - Chinese proverb
> >
> Hmmmm . perhaps so. . . . .fingers being recalcitrant yet again . . . .

===>For how long were they calcitrant?



Didymos
2003-08-06 15:20:30 EST

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F311DE3.3E5C5F0A@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
>
>
> Didymos wrote:
>
> > "Tiger" <jef@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93CEA2E963C49jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42...
> > > "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in
> > > news:QLSXa.1492$Q63.92909@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> > >
> > > > <huge snip becasue information is not reliable and poster is losing
> > > > credibility>
> > > >
> > >
> > > You misspelled "lost all credibility several months ago."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tiger
> > >
> > > "Flowing water never stagnates."
> > > - Chinese proverb
> > >
> > Hmmmm . perhaps so. . . . .fingers being recalcitrant yet again . . . .
>
> ===>For how long were they calcitrant?
>
Forever, or so it seems. . . .

Did you check any of the sources I listed that tend to prove the falsehood
of Pro-Humanist Freelover's post?


Don
2003-08-06 17:21:01 EST
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:58:54 GMT, "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> Your post was an
>embarrassment to your supposedly "humanist" and atheist dogma. I consider
>myself a humanist, and your ignorance and falsehoods embarrassed me.

I bet you know everything, don't you?

> In standard American English, the word
>"Christian" is always captialized, as are Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim, Jew, and
>etc.. Any educated person knows that.

I bet you are educated, aren't you?

> Maybe some day when you grow up you will obtain sufficient
>education. Aim high.

I bet you aimed high, didn't you? That's why you are so smart.

>Go read some real books by authors who
>actually have some expertise in the subject area.

What if you don't agree with the books?

> Web pages are
>notoriously unreliable sources.

A smart person like you would know that!

>You obviously are not familiar with my record.

In which police department is it located?

>Would you care to discuss
>the New Testament of Erasmus and the sources he used? Do indicate which
>edition of Erasmus' you desire to concentrate on. Shall we include a
>discussion of the Ximenes Polyglot Bible as a standard of comparison? How
>about the work of Theodore Beza and Robert Stephanus?

I went to high-school with Robert Stephanus.

> And actually, Sir or Madam. my little bit of knowledge far exceeds yours.

See, I KNEW you were smart.

>Do you have sufficient training, education, and experience to discuss the Greek
>grammar, syntax, and usage to criticize the translation of the King James
>Bible?

Do you? Do you think anyone cares?

>Go home and read a few books and come on back, sonny, and we will discuss
>this as adults from a basis of knowledge.

I bet he appreciates your giant wisdom and condescending
encouragement.

>You are ignorant, but that is not fatal because that flaw can be readily corrected by training and education.

When do you plant to get some "training and education?"

>I have addressed the manuscripts and the translation of these manuscripts
>into what we call the King James bible in hundreds of posts.

You must be impotent?!?

>Pro-Humanist Freelover, you are free to criticize anything you choose. But
>when you post absurdity and nonsense and outright lies and blatant
>falsehoods and bilious blather, I am going to call you on it.

That's because:
1) You are SO smart.
2) You obviously have a personal agenda
3) You obviously have no social life.

>What is the point of taking up all this bandwidth by posting the drivel
>below? Anyone with any education or training in the bible or the
>intertestamental era knows that stuff. Don't you have any original thoughts
>on anything? Why are your posts mostly copy and paste jobs?

What is the point of taking up all this bandwidth by ranting and
raving like you are doing here? Don't you have anything else to do?

>By the way, I am assuredly not some fundamentalist bible thumper, nor even a
>Christian. But neither am I an atheist.

Do you want applause or a merit badge?

>WOW!! What erudite scholarship!

ZZZzzzz....


D*

PS.
These comments are meant to offend everyone equally. If, for some reason you are not offended, please write me with a description of
yourself including your name, race, weight, religious views, political party, strong opinions, physical disabilities and anything else that you are
touchy about, and I will try to offend you in a future comment. Complaints should be emailed to: biteme@likeiactuallycare.com

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2003-08-06 21:37:08 EST
See message news:3f313be1_2@news.ghg.net
for detailed introduction to manuscript issues, and
refer to the following for refutations of what has been
presented to most christians in the modern day as
the christian bible, with various claims made for the
66 books contained therein (more if you wish to in-
clude the Apocrypha).

Among the claims are that the books are the word
of God, words written by humans as led by the Holy
Spirit, actual historically relevant documentation of
real people and events, and ...

... (by some liberal christian theologians along with
skeptics and others) books full of authoritarianism,
errors, contradictions, myths, and anti-humanism
juxtaposed against positive statements used to
seduce children and the gullible into living their lives
as if selected versions of Supernaturalism = Truth ...

--

Archaeology and Biblical Skepticism
http://www.ghg.net/phf/history/archaeology_and_biblical_skepticism.htm
Significant discoveries in archaeology have altered
the perceptions generally held on bible historicity
prior to recent times.

--

The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy,
by C. Dennis McKinsey
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879759267
"This important new volume is the most comprehensive
critique of the Bible ever written. McKinsey strives to
tell both the good and bad of biblical writings with this
thoroughly-researched expose of the Bible's errors,
contradictions, and fallacies. McKinsey believes that
it is important that the Bible's inadequacies and negative
teachings be exposed."

--

The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with
a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence
of an Historical Jesus, by Earl J. Doherty
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
>From the Back Cover: " Why are the events of
the Gospel story, and its central character Jesus
of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament
epistles? Why does Paul's divine Christ seem
to have no connection to the Gospel Jesus, but
closely resembles the many pagan savior gods
of the time who lived only in myth?

Why, given the spread of Christianity across the
Roman Empire in the first century, did only one
Christian community compose a story of Jesus'
life and death-the Gospel of Mark-while every
other Gospel simply copied and reworked the
first one? Why is every detail in the Gospel story
of Jesus' trial and crucifixion drawn from passages
in the Old Testament?

The answer to these and other questions surrounding
the New Testament will come as a shock to those
who imagine that the origins of Christianity and the
figure of Jesus are securely represented by Christian
tradition and the Gospels. With the arrival of the
third millennium, the time has come to face the
stunning realization that for the last 1900 years,
Christianity has revered a founder and icon of the
faith who probably never existed.

--

The Jesus Mysteries : Was the 'Original Jesus'
a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/060960581X
http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/09/21/jesus.mysteries/index.html
"This astonishing book completely undermines
the traditional history of Christianity that has been
perpetuated for centuries by the Church. Drawing
on the cutting edge of modern scholarship, authors
Tim Freke and Peter Gandy present overwhelming
evidence that the Jesus of the New Testament is
a mythical figure.

Far from being eyewitness accounts, as is traditionally
held, the Gospels are actually Jewish adaptations of
ancient Pagan myths of the dying and resurrecting
godman Osiris-Dionysus. The supernatural story of
Jesus is not the history of a miraculous Messiah, but
a carefully crafted spiritual allegory designed to guide
initiates on a journey of mystical discovery.

A little more than a century ago most people believed
that the strange story of Adam and Eve was history;
today it is understood to be a myth. Within a few
decades, Freke and Gandy argue, we will likewise
be amazed that the fabulous story of God incarnate
-- who was born of a virgin, who turned water into
wine, and who rose from the dead -- could have
been interpreted as anything but a profound parable. ..."

--

Deconstructing Jesus, by Robert M. Price
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573927589
Robert M. Price summarizes many recent scholarly
trends, providing sympathetic criticism, and then
takes up where scholars like Burton L. Mack and
John Dominic Crossan leave off. Putting many
puzzles and scholarly debates in a surprising new
light, this volume is filled with new textual insights
that pave the way for a new reconstruction of
Christian origins.

An excellent introduction to today's debates about
the historical Jesus and early Christianity. Price
illustrates a new paradigm linking the approaches
of F.C. Baur, Walter Bauer, Helmut Koester, and
James M. Robinson with the neglected work of the
Christ-Myth theorists of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, providing a valuable bridge
between two distinct camps of biblical analysis.
Price's incorporation of neglected gospel parallels
from Islam, the Baha'i faith, and Buddhism result
in a refreshing cross-fertilization of principles."

--

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark,
by Dennis R. MacDonald
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300080123
"MacDonald argues that the author of Mark
consciously emulated Homeric epic. He begins
by describing the common Greco-Roman custom
of teaching prose composition through mimesis
(Greek) or imitatio (Latin) and by pointing out
several examples of their practice in pagan, Jewish
and later Christian texts.

He then proceeds to make the controversial case
that large portions of Mark draw either directly
on the texts or indirectly on the topic of Homer.
The argument is compelling and meticulously
constructed."

--

Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making
of Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186
"I am very selective about books I choose to buy
and display; I prefer those that can really make a
difference or illustrate a method or a new perspective.
Mack's book does an excellent job of debunking
and explaining the Christian myth and deserves
widespread reading. If superstition and myth can
be recognized and understood as such, society
will be strengthened and enriched. It is like the
Emperor's New Clothes - someone has pointed
at the Emperor and written an accessible and
enlightening book on the subject."

--

Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The Old and New
Testaments/Two Volumes in One, by Isaac Asimov
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/051734582X
"If you are really interested in a critical and accurate
review of the most misused book in history, the bible,
the work and writing of Asimov, in these volumes as
well as in his other science materials, is a must. If you
fear a challenge or need the comfort of myth, legend
and superstition, don't read this book, or Sagan, they
may make you think."

--

The X-Rated Bible : An Irreverent Survey of Sex
in the Scriptures, by Ben Edward Akerley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0922915555
"Incest, rape, adultery, exhibitionism, prostitution,
homosexuality, abortion, mate swapping, bestiality
-- it's all there in the book held sacred by three of the
world's major religions. Originally published to reveal
the hypocrisy of fundamentalists' attempts to censor
and suppress the kind of material found throughout
their own scriptures, The X-Rated Bible quickly
became the American Atheist Press's most notorious
and best-selling book."

--

The Born Again Skeptic's Guide To the
Bible, by Ruth Hurmence Green
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1877733016
"Many theists are taught only selected portions of
the Bible. They conveniently gloss over the more
horrific aspects. Ruth takes all passages into
account, those where God is shown to be grand
and those where he's spiteful, cruel and morally
repugnant. What makes the Born Again Skeptics
Guide entertaining is Ruth's healthy dose of humor
on almost every page. These comments are intended
to show the absurdity of the Bible while maintaining
the reader's interest."

--

The Bible Tells Me So : Uses and Abuses of
Holy Scripture, by Jim Hill, Rand Cheadle
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385476957
"A study of the Bible's often contradictory role in
human morality demonstrates how the Bible has
been used throughout history as a tool to justify
harmful control, superiority, discrimination, and
murder."

--

Who Wrote the Bible?,
by Richard Elliott Friedman
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353
"Focusing on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, Friedman draws upon biblical
and archaeological evidence to make a convincing
argument for the identities of their authors."

--

Bible in History : How Writers Create a Past,
by Thomas L. Thompson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712667482
"It is generally accepted, that there is very little
archaeological or historical evidence to confirm the
stories of the Bible. In this lucid and fascinating book,
Professor Thompson - who has been at the forefront
of the international debate for many years - shows
that we misunderstand the Bible if we read it as
history. Combining literary criticism of biblical texts
and detailed analysis of ancient history, he shows
that we have to look at the Bible as a body of
literature that reflects the philosophical and moral
views of its authors."

--

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
"Online annotated version of King James Bible,
loaded with eye-opening criticisms."

--

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://www.ghg.net/phf
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~




Didymos
2003-08-06 22:15:39 EST

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:3f31ad40_1@news.ghg.net...
> See message news:3f313be1_2@news.ghg.net
> for detailed introduction to manuscript issues, and
> refer to the following for refutations of what has been
> presented to most christians in the modern day as
> the christian bible, with various claims made for the
> 66 books contained therein (more if you wish to in-
> clude the Apocrypha).
>
What "detailed introduction to manuscript issues" was that? Do you mean
that hodge-podege of web pages and reader comments from Amazon? Is that
really your idea of a "detailed introduction to manuscript issues"? Why not
Metzger's "Text of the New Testament" or Vermes "Complete Dead Sea Scrolls
in English" or Comfort's and Barrett's "Text of the Earliest New Testament
Greek Manuscripts," or even the Introduction by Kurt Aland, et al. to the
1993 4th rev. edition of 'The Greek New Testament"? There are other books
by scholars who really do know the business. Who authored the web pages
that you claim provide a "detailed introduction to manuscript issues"?

Or do you customarily only read those authors who you judge are likely to
support your prejudices? Your lists of books and web pages indicates
exactly that.

Why do you never answer questions? Are you incapable of debating the
information you post?

> Among the claims are that the books are the word
> of God, words written by humans as led by the Holy
> Spirit, actual historically relevant documentation of
> real people and events, and ...
>
> ... (by some liberal christian theologians along with
> skeptics and others) books full of authoritarianism,
> errors, contradictions, myths, and anti-humanism
> juxtaposed against positive statements used to
> seduce children and the gullible into living their lives
> as if selected versions of Supernaturalism = Truth ...
>
All of this is most intersting, but what does any of it have to do with
anything? How does this post support your blatant falsehoods or refute the
information I provided?

Some good books you list below. Have you read them all?
> --
>
> Archaeology and Biblical Skepticism
> http://www.ghg.net/phf/history/archaeology_and_biblical_skepticism.htm
> Significant discoveries in archaeology have altered
> the perceptions generally held on bible historicity
> prior to recent times.
>
> --
>
> The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy,
> by C. Dennis McKinsey
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879759267
> "This important new volume is the most comprehensive
> critique of the Bible ever written. McKinsey strives to
> tell both the good and bad of biblical writings with this
> thoroughly-researched expose of the Bible's errors,
> contradictions, and fallacies. McKinsey believes that
> it is important that the Bible's inadequacies and negative
> teachings be exposed."
>
Says who?
> --
>
> The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with
> a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence
> of an Historical Jesus, by Earl J. Doherty
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405
> http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
> From the Back Cover: " Why are the events of
> the Gospel story, and its central character Jesus
> of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament
> epistles? Why does Paul's divine Christ seem
> to have no connection to the Gospel Jesus, but
> closely resembles the many pagan savior gods
> of the time who lived only in myth?
>
> Why, given the spread of Christianity across the
> Roman Empire in the first century, did only one
> Christian community compose a story of Jesus'
> life and death-the Gospel of Mark-while every
> other Gospel simply copied and reworked the
> first one? Why is every detail in the Gospel story
> of Jesus' trial and crucifixion drawn from passages
> in the Old Testament?
>
> The answer to these and other questions surrounding
> the New Testament will come as a shock to those
> who imagine that the origins of Christianity and the
> figure of Jesus are securely represented by Christian
> tradition and the Gospels. With the arrival of the
> third millennium, the time has come to face the
> stunning realization that for the last 1900 years,
> Christianity has revered a founder and icon of the
> faith who probably never existed.
>
> --
>
> The Jesus Mysteries : Was the 'Original Jesus'
> a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/060960581X
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/09/21/jesus.mysteries/index.html
> "This astonishing book completely undermines
> the traditional history of Christianity that has been
> perpetuated for centuries by the Church. Drawing
> on the cutting edge of modern scholarship, authors
> Tim Freke and Peter Gandy present overwhelming
> evidence that the Jesus of the New Testament is
> a mythical figure.
>
> Far from being eyewitness accounts, as is traditionally
> held, the Gospels are actually Jewish adaptations of
> ancient Pagan myths of the dying and resurrecting
> godman Osiris-Dionysus. The supernatural story of
> Jesus is not the history of a miraculous Messiah, but
> a carefully crafted spiritual allegory designed to guide
> initiates on a journey of mystical discovery.
>
> A little more than a century ago most people believed
> that the strange story of Adam and Eve was history;
> today it is understood to be a myth. Within a few
> decades, Freke and Gandy argue, we will likewise
> be amazed that the fabulous story of God incarnate
> -- who was born of a virgin, who turned water into
> wine, and who rose from the dead -- could have
> been interpreted as anything but a profound parable. ..."
>
> --
>
> Deconstructing Jesus, by Robert M. Price
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573927589
> Robert M. Price summarizes many recent scholarly
> trends, providing sympathetic criticism, and then
> takes up where scholars like Burton L. Mack and
> John Dominic Crossan leave off. Putting many
> puzzles and scholarly debates in a surprising new
> light, this volume is filled with new textual insights
> that pave the way for a new reconstruction of
> Christian origins.
>
> An excellent introduction to today's debates about
> the historical Jesus and early Christianity. Price
> illustrates a new paradigm linking the approaches
> of F.C. Baur, Walter Bauer, Helmut Koester, and
> James M. Robinson with the neglected work of the
> Christ-Myth theorists of the nineteenth and early
> twentieth centuries, providing a valuable bridge
> between two distinct camps of biblical analysis.
> Price's incorporation of neglected gospel parallels
> from Islam, the Baha'i faith, and Buddhism result
> in a refreshing cross-fertilization of principles."
>
> --
>
> The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark,
> by Dennis R. MacDonald
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300080123
> "MacDonald argues that the author of Mark
> consciously emulated Homeric epic. He begins
> by describing the common Greco-Roman custom
> of teaching prose composition through mimesis
> (Greek) or imitatio (Latin) and by pointing out
> several examples of their practice in pagan, Jewish
> and later Christian texts.
>
> He then proceeds to make the controversial case
> that large portions of Mark draw either directly
> on the texts or indirectly on the topic of Homer.
> The argument is compelling and meticulously
> constructed."
>
> --
>
> Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making
> of Christian Myth, by Burton L. Mack
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186
> "I am very selective about books I choose to buy
> and display; I prefer those that can really make a
> difference or illustrate a method or a new perspective.
> Mack's book does an excellent job of debunking
> and explaining the Christian myth and deserves
> widespread reading. If superstition and myth can
> be recognized and understood as such, society
> will be strengthened and enriched. It is like the
> Emperor's New Clothes - someone has pointed
> at the Emperor and written an accessible and
> enlightening book on the subject."
>
> --
>
> Asimov's Guide to the Bible: The Old and New
> Testaments/Two Volumes in One, by Isaac Asimov
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/051734582X
> "If you are really interested in a critical and accurate
> review of the most misused book in history, the bible,
> the work and writing of Asimov, in these volumes as
> well as in his other science materials, is a must. If you
> fear a challenge or need the comfort of myth, legend
> and superstition, don't read this book, or Sagan, they
> may make you think."
>
> --
>
> The X-Rated Bible : An Irreverent Survey of Sex
> in the Scriptures, by Ben Edward Akerley
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0922915555
> "Incest, rape, adultery, exhibitionism, prostitution,
> homosexuality, abortion, mate swapping, bestiality
> -- it's all there in the book held sacred by three of the
> world's major religions. Originally published to reveal
> the hypocrisy of fundamentalists' attempts to censor
> and suppress the kind of material found throughout
> their own scriptures, The X-Rated Bible quickly
> became the American Atheist Press's most notorious
> and best-selling book."
>
> --
>
> The Born Again Skeptic's Guide To the
> Bible, by Ruth Hurmence Green
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1877733016
> "Many theists are taught only selected portions of
> the Bible. They conveniently gloss over the more
> horrific aspects. Ruth takes all passages into
> account, those where God is shown to be grand
> and those where he's spiteful, cruel and morally
> repugnant. What makes the Born Again Skeptics
> Guide entertaining is Ruth's healthy dose of humor
> on almost every page. These comments are intended
> to show the absurdity of the Bible while maintaining
> the reader's interest."
>
> --
>
> The Bible Tells Me So : Uses and Abuses of
> Holy Scripture, by Jim Hill, Rand Cheadle
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385476957
> "A study of the Bible's often contradictory role in
> human morality demonstrates how the Bible has
> been used throughout history as a tool to justify
> harmful control, superiority, discrimination, and
> murder."
>
> --
>
> Who Wrote the Bible?,
> by Richard Elliott Friedman
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353
> "Focusing on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
> and Deuteronomy, Friedman draws upon biblical
> and archaeological evidence to make a convincing
> argument for the identities of their authors."
>
> --
>
> Bible in History : How Writers Create a Past,
> by Thomas L. Thompson
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712667482
> "It is generally accepted, that there is very little
> archaeological or historical evidence to confirm the
> stories of the Bible. In this lucid and fascinating book,
> Professor Thompson - who has been at the forefront
> of the international debate for many years - shows
> that we misunderstand the Bible if we read it as
> history. Combining literary criticism of biblical texts
> and detailed analysis of ancient history, he shows
> that we have to look at the Bible as a body of
> literature that reflects the philosophical and moral
> views of its authors."
>
> --
>
> The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB)
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
> "Online annotated version of King James Bible,
> loaded with eye-opening criticisms."
>
> --
>
> ~~~
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://www.ghg.net/phf
> (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> Expressive Liberty, Openness,
> Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
> ~~~
>
>
>


Didymos
2003-08-07 18:25:20 EST

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:3f31c36c_1@news.ghg.net...
> "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote ...
> >
> > "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in
> > message news:3f31ad40_1@news.ghg.net...
> > > See message news:3f313be1_2@news.ghg.net
> > > for detailed introduction to manuscript issues, and
> > > refer to the following for refutations of what has been
> > > presented to most christians in the modern day as
> > > the christian bible, with various claims made for the
> > > 66 books contained therein (more if you wish to in-
> > > clude the Apocrypha).
> > >
> > What "detailed introduction to manuscript issues" was that? [...]
>
That is not terribly "detailed" as I understand the word. Would you like a
bibliography of real readings on the subject? Do you expect me to agree or
disagree with those extracts? Do you wish to debate them? What if we
agree?
> - - -
>
> Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.shtml
>
> Excerpts:
>
> The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate
> books (Note: Catholic Bibles include an additional seven
> books, and additions to several other books, which together
> are known as the Apocrypha. ... The Council of Trent in
> 1563 finally settled the Catholic Canon; The Westminster
> Assembly in 1647 affirmed the Protestant Canon.)
>
> ... No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not
> one book which survives in anything like its original form.
> There are hundreds of differences between the oldest
> manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate
> that numerous additions and alterations were made to the
> originals by various copyists and editors.
>
> Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has
> been named, that name has sometimes been selected by
> pious believers rather than given by the author himself.
>
> The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are
> examples of books which did not carry the names of their
> actual authors. The present names were assigned long
> after these four books were written.
>
> In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars
> are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the
> Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an
> eyewitness to his ministry.
>
> Although some books of the Bible are traditionally
> attributed to a single author, many are actually the work
> of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples
> of multiple authorship.
>
> Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction.
>
> For example, private conversations are often related
> when no reporter was present. Conversations between
> God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric
> events are given in great detail.
>
> When a story is told by more than one author, there are
> usually significant differences.
>
> Many stories--stories which in their original context are
> considered even by Christians to be fictional--were
> borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own
> purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared
> to be fact.
>
> The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation.
> Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in
> Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and
> eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each
> time the story was used again, it was altered to speak
> of local gods and heroes. ...
>
> - - - end excerpts - - -
>
> Which Bible?
> http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/6/976which.html
>
> Excerpts:
>
> When somebody says that the Bible is inerrant, a good
> reply is to ask "Which Bible?" The first task of translators
> of the Bible into English is to decide which verses they
> want to put into each of the 27 New Testament books.
>
> There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not
> one has the same collection of verses as any popular
> English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript
> before A. D. 800 which has 27 books in its New Testa-
> ment. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about A. D. 350,
> comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barn-
> abas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
>
> How did this textual variety come about, and what
> significance does it have?
>
> The King James Version was produced on the basis
> of relatively few late manuscripts. Since then, many
> early manuscripts have been found. The impression
> is often given that these early manuscripts help us get
> back to what the authors originally wrote. Instead, they
> reveal that we can only guess what was originally written
> and that what was written was changed within decades,
> often for purely doctrinal reasons.
>
> ... The evidence of the earliest manuscripts is that
> Christianity was split into many factions. Orthodox views
> did not win out until the fourth century or later. Until then,
> people wrote and rewrote the New Testament books,
> trying to put the correct spin on the texts. ...
>
> - - - end excerpts - - -
>
> ~~~
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://www.ghg.net/phf
> (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> Expressive Liberty, Openness,
> Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
> ~~~
>
>
>
>
>


Monkey_boy
2003-08-08 16:01:34 EST
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<klAYa.1620$M6.123944@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in message
> news:3f31c36c_1@news.ghg.net...
> > "Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > > "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <phf@ghg.net> wrote in
> > > message news:3f31ad40_1@news.ghg.net...
> > > > See message news:3f313be1_2@news.ghg.net
> > > > for detailed introduction to manuscript issues, and
> > > > refer to the following for refutations of what has been
> > > > presented to most christians in the modern day as
> > > > the christian bible, with various claims made for the
> > > > 66 books contained therein (more if you wish to in-
> > > > clude the Apocrypha).
> > > >
> > > What "detailed introduction to manuscript issues" was that? [...]
> >
> That is not terribly "detailed" as I understand the word. Would you like a
> bibliography of real readings on the subject? Do you expect me to agree or
> disagree with those extracts? Do you wish to debate them? What if we
> agree?
> > - - -
> >
> > Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems
> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.shtml
> >
> > Excerpts:
> >
> > The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate
> > books (Note: Catholic Bibles include an additional seven
> > books, and additions to several other books, which together
> > are known as the Apocrypha. ... The Council of Trent in
> > 1563 finally settled the Catholic Canon; The Westminster
> > Assembly in 1647 affirmed the Protestant Canon.)
> >
> > ... No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not
> > one book which survives in anything like its original form.
> > There are hundreds of differences between the oldest
> > manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate
> > that numerous additions and alterations were made to the
> > originals by various copyists and editors.
> >
> > Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has
> > been named, that name has sometimes been selected by
> > pious believers rather than given by the author himself.
> >
> > The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are
> > examples of books which did not carry the names of their
> > actual authors. The present names were assigned long
> > after these four books were written.
> >
> > In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars
> > are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the
> > Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an
> > eyewitness to his ministry.
> >
> > Although some books of the Bible are traditionally
> > attributed to a single author, many are actually the work
> > of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples
> > of multiple authorship.
> >
> > Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction.
> >
> > For example, private conversations are often related
> > when no reporter was present. Conversations between
> > God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric
> > events are given in great detail.
> >
> > When a story is told by more than one author, there are
> > usually significant differences.
> >
> > Many stories--stories which in their original context are
> > considered even by Christians to be fictional--were
> > borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own
> > purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared
> > to be fact.
> >
> > The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation.
> > Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in
> > Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and
> > eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each
> > time the story was used again, it was altered to speak
> > of local gods and heroes. ...
> >
> > - - - end excerpts - - -
> >
> > Which Bible?
> > http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/6/976which.html
> >
> > Excerpts:
> >
> > When somebody says that the Bible is inerrant, a good
> > reply is to ask "Which Bible?" The first task of translators
> > of the Bible into English is to decide which verses they
> > want to put into each of the 27 New Testament books.
> >
> > There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not
> > one has the same collection of verses as any popular
> > English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript
> > before A. D. 800 which has 27 books in its New Testa-
> > ment. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about A. D. 350,
> > comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barn-
> > abas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
> >
> > How did this textual variety come about, and what
> > significance does it have?
> >
> > The King James Version was produced on the basis
> > of relatively few late manuscripts. Since then, many
> > early manuscripts have been found. The impression
> > is often given that these early manuscripts help us get
> > back to what the authors originally wrote. Instead, they
> > reveal that we can only guess what was originally written
> > and that what was written was changed within decades,
> > often for purely doctrinal reasons.
> >
> > ... The evidence of the earliest manuscripts is that
> > Christianity was split into many factions. Orthodox views
> > did not win out until the fourth century or later. Until then,
> > people wrote and rewrote the New Testament books,
> > trying to put the correct spin on the texts. ...
> >
> > - - - end excerpts - - -
> >
> > ~~~
> > Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> > http://www.ghg.net/phf
> > (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> > Expressive Liberty, Openness,
> > Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
> > ~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >




http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

(for a more 'christian' view of the scriptures)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

(for Pascal's wager)
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron