First off, let's just pretend that this crackerjack theory you read somewhere had any merit to it what so ever (which it doesn't, but I'll pretend for your sake). Some older-than-time bible that no real historian has ever heard about has female DNA on it. That means only that sometime in the last
2000+ years that at some point, a woman has come in contact with it. It doesn't mean that some woman sat down and went all Charlotte Bronte and wrote the whole thing by herself. And somehow, "the making of" was included with this older-than-time woman's bible, so everyone can know that the writer drew little pictures of god in addition to her writing career, and then gives a poignant posthumous story of how she died and what everyone around her decided to do afterwards. How convenient. And
bullsh!t.
Actually their is a trace of the first bible,its just the media or sociaty has brainwashed your stupid thinking."Codex sinaticus"that didnt come out first.First of all the first language was spoken in a indigiues way so that word couldnt be the name,plus tell me where your getting the facts from.200-300AD?wtf come on man science traced that female DNA way bakk before they even had timelines or dates record go search it up.
http://www.bl.uk/news/2005/pressrelease20050311.html
An ambitious international project to reinterpret the oldest Bible in the world, the Codex Sinaiticus, and make it accessible to a global audience using innovative digital technology and drawing on the expertise of leading biblical scholars is officially launched today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4739369.stm
A manuscript containing the oldest known Biblical New Testament in the world is set to enter the digital age and become accessible online.
A team of experts from the UK, Europe, Egypt and Russia is currently digitising the parchment known as the Codex Sinaiticus, believed originally to have been one of 50 copies of the scriptures commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after he converted to Christianity.
But yeah, the BBC is just screwing with people, right? It's just left wing spin-doctoring by one of the world's largest and most trusted news agencies. That must be it. It's also just domb luck that when you google search "oldest known bible", your cute little story is nowhere to be found. That's a pretty in depth cover-up, how did you crack it?
The Dead Sea Scrolls are technically the oldest known
verifiable biblical writings in existance today, but since it's just a collection of various works from that time period of 200 BC-61 AD, it's not really considered a "bible" in the regular sense of the word. It contained many books not in the bible, and didn't have many of the most important ones. The earliest thing we have that resembles the bible as it is today is, as I said before, the Codex Sinaiticus which includes most of the text from both the New and Old Testament.
Then who wrote it?It was written by a human being who was in living in a time of MEN's world,science arleady have traced the DNA of that person who wrote the ancient scripture of the bible,and it traced to a young(could define her race)female around mid 20s who got killed bye her husband.
My point is that it was not written by
one single person, but compiled from the writings of hundreds of people over many centuries. This woman killed by her husband crap is a total fallacy. Quote your source, let's see where you pulled this stuff from.
scientifically proven the first bible was written by a woman they found her DNA on it too and it matched everything she even drew a picture of A GOD but she got killed so nobody knows were the picture is.
So this was supposedly from "way bakk before they even had timelines or dates record", but somehow they know her age, who killed her, what she sketched in her spare time (even though they don't know where the picture is), the conversation her husband had about her after she died, and all that stuff? They can know all of that, but they can't come up with a date? Please.
Christian blog,hhhah good one first of all this is applying to all religion not only Christian,GOD is not for christian belifies he/she is also for muslism but different meaning.
Yeah, see here's the thing. You can't apply "all religion" to a discussion about the bible, because the bible is a Christian thing, with the Old Testament being shared with Judaism and Islam (the Abrahamic religions). All of the rest of the religions of the world don't use the bible. Satan/Lucifer is an Abrahamic ideal. It's not Buddhist, it's not aboriginal, it's not Oriental. It's Abrahamic. Sure some others have a parallel ideal, but Satan/Lucifer is exclusively Abrahamic.
You don't want to play this game with me, I minored in Religious Studies. You will lose.
