Did the founders intend this to be a Christian nation?

[Fantasea]

You find lots of truths hard to believe, so what's your point? Here's a newsflash for you....Missionaries were sent to teach people religion AND how to read!

And to teach them to speak English, French, Dutch, or whatever was the native language of the missionary. Then, the missionary would conduct classes in theology so that the indigents could do bi-lingual interpretations of the meanings of scriptural passages. Now, that's quite an accomplishment, don't you think?

It's too bad we can't get some of those exceptionally skilled and dedicated missionaries to teach the indigents right here in some of our ghettos.

And, they worked for peanuts, too.

 

[26 X World Champs]

No, I was not putting words in your mouth. Rather I was continuing your argument to show you the flaw in it.

Huh? You weren't speaking for me....but you were continuing my argument? That's a lot of doubletalk, don't you think?

That it only makes sense that a compilation of archeological finds that confirm the Bible's validity might be found on a website devoted to archeological finds that prove the validity of the Bible. If there were no such archeological finds, then there wouldn't bloody well be a site devoted to them would there?

Your logic is of the "I can rationalize anything to make what I write true...in my mind." How come you can only find one site? If this "evidence" was so newsworthy how come it's not in the news? There are lots of sites devoted to little green men arrving on planet Earth but only one site about the theological finds of all time? Surely you jest?

And it is unfair that you ask me to research each of these finds seperately, as documented by another source, simply because you don't believe they existed because of they were discussed on a Christian web site. I do not understand why if you do not believe me that it cannot be you who simply does the research on a couple to verify this fact for yourself. But all that aside, I will at least find a few for you.

Why? Because if you're debating and you claim these things are facts shouldn't you have at least two documented sources? That's the standard for newspapers so why isn't it the standard for proof that there are artifacts from the bible? Anyone can stage facts, especially these days with PCs, Photoshop, etc. I again ask you if these are real how come there hasn't been universal press coverage of such a monumental discovery?

No, that is not correct. I am not arguing that there is no evidence to prove that they did happen therefore you should believe them. What I am arguing is that we do have artifacts and documents and other such findings that suggest that these stories did indeed happen as the Bible portrays them.

Please reread my last response, it applies to this claim too...

I am also arguing that there is not counter-evidence that would argue that these events did not take place the way the Bible said they did.

Doubletalk, again....If I uncovered a book from 3000 years ago that claims that Aliens landed in what is now New Jersey and started a swamp colony that is now the Meadowlands and that they brought with them God from their Alien world but they found the Earth grotesque and left it would be up to you to prove it didn't happen? Does that make sense?

You cannot prove the Bible wrong through evidence because the Bible is not wrong. You can prove the Bible is historically accurate because the findings of the Holy Land continuasly concord with the events as they are depicted in the Bible.

You keep making claims of what you believe is fact, but you have no proof other than your faith.

What on earth is the fixation with science that non-Christians hold. Do you not understand that there are millions and millions of things in this world that do not take place on the basis of scientific analysis. Emotions, history, mathmatics. None of these are scientific matters, but that does not make them void of existance does it?

Don't misunderstand what I'm writing, but that is just plain dumb! Science is what has made civilization progress. Science is the discovery of genius, the explanation for events that occur. It also disproves the myths that are created by mankind, it debunks things that are not true, and sometimes it's very hard for people to have things they believe to be fact disproved. The best example I can think of is that the world is flat! People were just as passionate about the world being flat as some people are about things like the bible....

 

[26 X World Champs]

And to teach them to speak English, French, Dutch, or whatever was the native language of the missionary. Then, the missionary would conduct classes in theology so that the indigents could do bi-lingual interpretations of the meanings of scriptural passages. Now, that's quite an accomplishment, don't you think?

It's too bad we can't get some of those exceptionally skilled and dedicated missionaries to teach the indigents right here in some of our ghettos.

And, they worked for peanuts, too.

Aha! So you admit now that they did bring coutless bibles with them! You're last post made the outrageously wrong generalization (how rare for you) that you said:

I find it hard to believe that missionaries would distribute huge quantities of Bibles to people in countries where the rate of illiteracy was close to 100% among those they were trying to reach. What could the recipients do with them?

Too bad you keep making generalizations to support your posts that are so wrong so often. Scientifically, you're way ahead of the laws of probabilities, it's almost mystical, how else to explain how you can be so wrong so many times...you're a freak of nature, you have to be touched by the hand of god, how else to explain you're beating the odds so consistently?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Huh? You weren't speaking for me....but you were continuing my argument? That's a lot of doubletalk, don't you think?

I was simply continuing the line of argumentation that you presented. I was following it to its end to show you that it was a ridiculous argument. I'm sorry I overestimated your ability to reason in that manner.

Your logic is of the "I can rationalize anything to make what I write true...in my mind." How come you can only find one site? If this "evidence" was so newsworthy how come it's not in the news? There are lots of sites devoted to little green men arrving on planet Earth but only one site about the theological finds of all time? Surely you jest?

Not at all. I am more than willing to admit mistakes when I make them. And I certainly never seek somthing that is untrue so that I can support a claim I have made. I do not wish to show you how I am rationalizing anything. I am trying to show you that the Bible as a historical record is accurate. That is the extent of the argument. As for more sites, I currently have a list of five six seperate sites, all from perspectives outside that of Christianity, and I will continue finding more so that I can show you that no matter how badly you would like to believe it, these archeolgists who are Christians are not lying about their finds. It is honestly hurtful, on a personal level, that you would accuse me of trying to provide false evidence to you in order to decieve you. But, so that you may know that it is not about me, but about you, I will go the extra mile to show you these finds are not false. But so you know, many of these have gotten universal press coverage at their discovery. Furthermore, there are many who would, regarldess of what is actually found, attempt hide such press or attempt to question the credibility of these archeologists who found these things, not based on their own belief, but rather simply based on the fact that such artifacts may prove there is truth in the Bible's claims.

Doubletalk, again....If I uncovered a book from 3000 years ago that claims that Aliens landed in what is now New Jersey and started a swamp colony that is now the Meadowlands and that they brought with them God from their Alien world but they found the Earth grotesque and left it would be up to you to prove it didn't happen? Does that make sense?

No. I am saying that if we have documented archeological finds that would prove that that event did in fact occur, and documentation of that account, and there was in fact no archeological evidence or existing documents that counter-argue these claims, on what basis do you have to logical argue that it did not happen?

You keep making claims of what you believe is fact, but you have no proof other than your faith.

But isn't this evidence that I am providing you enough to suggest that the accuracy of the Bible is not merely a faith statement?

Don't misunderstand what I'm writing, but that is just plain dumb! Science is what has made civilization progress. Science is the discovery of genius, the explanation for events that occur. It also disproves the myths that are created by mankind, it debunks things that are not true, and sometimes it's very hard for people to have things they believe to be fact disproved. The best example I can think of is that the world is flat! People were just as passionate about the world being flat as some people are about things like the bible....

I have absolutely no doubt that science is a very important discipline of our current life. However it is not the only crucial discipline of civilization or proof. It is scientifically impossible to prove that I was in class yesterday, because it is absolutely impossible to make that event occur in a controlled setting. It has already occured, therefore it is done and gone. So you cannot prove that I was in class yesterday. Does that mean I was not? I tell you that I was. You cannot use science for everything. And science can certainly not disprove the accounts of the Bible. Therefore, where does that leave us? We have to be able to prove it exists in some method right? We do so through historical evidence (not scientific, historic). We do so through logic, through archeology... I am sorry, but if you hold that science is the only way to prove that something IS then you will forever spend your life in a science lab.

 

[13th Justice]

The number is, of course an estimate. When one considers that it was the first book printed on the Gutenberg press, and is still in print, he certainly has had a long run. Whether the number of copies is six billion, three billion, or even down in the millions, it's still the top seller of all time.

I find it hard to believe that missionaries would distribute huge quantities of Bibles to people in countries where the rate of illiteracy was close to 100% among those they were trying to reach. What could the recipients do with them?

I find it equally hard to believe that a literate person would assert that 100% of the 3rd World was illiterate when Christianity landed upon its shores. In the 7th century, hundreds of years before Christianity ventured out from Europe, muslims were spreading literacy through the Koran to parts of Africa, the Middle East and even Asia. By the time the Christian's arrived, there were many people who could still read and write long after the muslim influenced had waned. So contrary to your belief, there was a vast population of literate people who were ripe for biblical brainwashing. And as we know Christianity has never passed up the chance to lay an indigenous population prostrate upon a cross to be crucified by the militaristic monopolist who prospered from human suffering.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
And to teach them to speak English, French, Dutch, or whatever was the native language of the missionary. Then, the missionary would conduct classes in theology so that the indigents could do bi-lingual interpretations of the meanings of scriptural passages. Now, that's quite an accomplishment, don't you think?

It's too bad we can't get some of those exceptionally skilled and dedicated missionaries to teach the indigents right here in some of our ghettos.

And, they worked for peanuts, too.

Aha! So you admit now that they did bring coutless bibles with them!

Foolish me. Thinking that you might be sufficiently sophicated to recognize a bit of sarcasm. I won't make that mistake again.

The point I was hoping you would understand is that given the fact that the recipients of bibles would first have to be taught to speak, read, and write the language of the missionary, an accomplishment that takes years in a modern school which is light years ahead of the primitive accommodations found in the impoverished countries in which missionaries labored, the odds of the indigents ever being able to read intricate biblical passages and then being able to discuss them in an articulate and meaningful manner is exceptionally remote. No, I don't believe that any great quantities of bibles were distributed by missionaries.

You're last post made the outrageously wrong generalization (how rare for you) that you said:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I find it hard to believe that missionaries would distribute huge quantities of Bibles to people in countries where the rate of illiteracy was close to 100% among those they were trying to reach. What could the recipients do with them?

Too bad you keep making generalizations to support your posts that are so wrong so often. Scientifically, you're way ahead of the laws of probabilities, it's almost mystical, how else to explain how you can be so wrong so many times...you're a freak of nature, you have to be touched by the hand of god, how else to explain you're beating the odds so consistently?

You huff, you puff, you hurl names and insults. But that seems to be the limit of your debating skills.

Was all that an effort to cover your unwillingness to answer the question I posed?

I'll repeat it. "I find it hard to believe that missionaries would distribute huge quantities of Bibles to people in countries where the rate of illiteracy was close to 100% among those they were trying to reach. What could the recipients do with them?"

Will you answer the question?

 

[Fantasea]

I find it equally hard to believe that a literate person would assert that 100% of the 3rd World was illiterate when Christianity landed upon its shores. In the 7th century, hundreds of years before Christianity ventured out from Europe, muslims were spreading literacy through the Koran to parts of Africa, the Middle East and even Asia. By the time the Christian's arrived, there were many people who could still read and write long after the muslim influenced had waned. So contrary to your belief, there was a vast population of literate people who were ripe for biblical brainwashing. And as we know Christianity has never passed up the chance to lay an indigenous population prostrate upon a cross to be crucified by the militaristic monopolist who prospered from human suffering.

Considering that missionaries and the indigents they sought to convert didn't speak, let along read and write the same language, distributing bibles printed in languages that couldn't be read by the recipients would have been a futile effort. At best, missionaries were limited to rote methods of teaching from catechismal texts, not bibles.

In many parts of Missionary Africa there was not even a written language, let alone the ability to read.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

http://www.digonsite.com/drdig/neareast/8.html
http://www.millikin.edu/staley/archives/cuneiforms.html (note number 9 on the list)
http://www.jewishmag.com/47mag/jerusalemtombs/jerusalemtombs.htm
http://members.aol.com/acoxon1274/tombs_archaevidence.html
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/verse21_20031121.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~revschaef/isaiah6archaeology.htm
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198701/ebla.to.damascus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._Leo_Oppenheim&action=edit
http://www.food.globeandmail.com/Stories/2002/11/14/53.asp

These were just a few I found... If you would like more, I will give you more.

 

[Pacridge]

Condoms have pores. These pores are small enough so that sperm can't get through. HIV organisms are much smaller than sperm. They get through just fine. There are other STDs that also get through fine.

That's why it says on the packadge that it doesn't prevent STDs.

The cardinal didn't lie.

Condoms have "pores?" Ok I'll bite. Where are you getting this info? Condoms are made out of latex, usually, and it does not have "pores."

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Condoms have "pores?" Ok I'll bite. Where are you getting this info? Condoms are made out of latex, usually, and it does not have "pores."

Thank you for biting.

http://dianedew.com/condom.htm

That's just something I googled. I could find a few more if you wish but...

The text at the top of the page reads as follows:

And industry officials admit condoms have holes 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus. In fact, the government withdrew a $2.6 million grant to study condom effectiveness because of the number of condom users who could become infected in such a study.

P.S. This a little off topic. I would enjoy discussing this elsewhere if you like.

 

[Fantasea]

http://www.digonsite.com/drdig/neareast/8.html
http://www.millikin.edu/staley/archives/cuneiforms.html (note number 9 on the list)
http://www.jewishmag.com/47mag/jerusalemtombs/jerusalemtombs.htm
http://members.aol.com/acoxon1274/tombs_archaevidence.html
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/verse21_20031121.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~revschaef/isaiah6archaeology.htm
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198701/ebla.to.damascus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w//title=A._Leo_Oppenheim&action=edit
http://www.food.globeandmail.com/Stories/2002/11/14/53.asp

These were just a few I found... If you would like more, I will give you more.

What is the number of the post you are rebutting?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

What is the number of the post you are rebutting?

That was all in response to post 159. They are non-Christian websites that note the acheological findings that the Christian website discusses.

 

[Fantasea]

That was all in response to post 159. They are non-Christian websites that note the acheological findings that the Christian website discusses.

I guess I wasn't thinking that far back.

It's quite interesting to note the historical detail available from secular sources which relates to biblical events.

Thanx for the effort.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Considering that missionaries and the indigents they sought to convert didn't speak, let along read and write the same language, distributing bibles printed in languages that couldn't be read by the recipients would have been a futile effort. At best, missionaries were limited to rote methods of teaching from catechismal texts, not bibles.

In many parts of Missionary Africa there was not even a written language, let alone the ability to read.

This was not always the case, of course. Many of my wife's family were missionaries, and her early years were spent in South Africa among the Zulus. Her younger brother spoke only Zulu until age five. One of two bibles in my house today is written in Zulu.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Considering that missionaries and the indigents they sought to convert didn't speak, let along read and write the same language, distributing bibles printed in languages that couldn't be read by the recipients would have been a futile effort. At best, missionaries were limited to rote methods of teaching from catechismal texts, not bibles.

In many parts of Missionary Africa there was not even a written language, let alone the ability to read.

This was not always the case, of course. Many of my wife's family were missionaries, and her early years were spent in South Africa among the Zulus. Her younger brother spoke only Zulu until age five. One of two bibles in my house today is written in Zulu.

Had you not responded, I would never have thought of "digging" into the subject. However, I did, and learned that you are, indeed correct, there is a bible written in Zulu.

This is of interest, if one examines it a bit further. Yes, the Zulu language has been reduced to writing. However, not by the Zulu people, and from what I deduce, not for the specific use of the Zulu people. My belief, and you may correct me, is that the mass of the Zulu people cannot read the Bible as written in Zulu.

It would appear that the missionaries, recognizing the language barrier that had to be overcome, using the Latin alphabet, invented a system of phonetics to capture the sounds of the Zulu language. This had to be truly a labor of love and the missionaries are to be commended for it.

There were probably two major reasons why this was done.

1. So that they would be able to transcribe what was heard in order that they would be able to exchange information with other missionaries who spoke the language.

2. So that they could transcribe material from their own language into the phonetic equivalent of Zulu so that missionaries who could not speak Zulu could, nevertheless, preach, or teach, by reading the texts aloud - much the same as an operatic diva, having memorized the lyric, might sing an aria in a language she does not understand.

I do not imagine that there was any significant number of bibles printed in the language devised by missionaries that were distributed to the Zulu people.

The source of my understandings is:

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/zulu.htm

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Had you not responded, I would never have thought of "digging" into the subject. However, I did, and learned that you are, indeed correct, there is a bible written in Zulu.

This is of interest, if one examines it a bit further. Yes, the Zulu language has been reduced to writing. However, not by the Zulu people, and from what I deduce, not for the specific use of the Zulu people. My belief, and you may correct me, is that the mass of the Zulu people cannot read the Bible as written in Zulu.<snip>

You are probably right about the literacy of the Zulu, at that time at any rate. How much help it would actually be to a missionary is questionable. The language evidently is importantly dependent on clicks and glottal stops. Here, just for general interest are the first few verses of "Igenesis"

1. Ekuqaleni uNkulunkulu wa dala izulu nomhlaba. 2. Kepa umhlaba wa u nge na simo, wa uze; ubumnyama ba bu sebusweni bolwandhle: uMaya ka Nkulunkulu wa e fukameme pezu kwamanzi. 3. Wa s'e ti uNkulunkulu, Ma ku vele ukukanya: kwa se ku vela ukukanya. :lol:

I suspect this all bears little resemblance to anything a Zulu would actually say. The latin alphabet can only be stretched so far. There is a Cherokee alphabet that was invented by a native genius that works much better, although it has not had the advantage of centuries of development like the Latin.

 

[13th Justice]

Considering that missionaries and the indigents they sought to convert didn't speak, let along read and write the same language, distributing bibles printed in languages that couldn't be read by the recipients would have been a futile effort. At best, missionaries were limited to rote methods of teaching from catechismal texts, not bibles.

In many parts of Missionary Africa there was not even a written language, let alone the ability to read.

Stop playing :lol:

I'm not talking about no Zulu clicking noises. Have you forgotten that Islam was spread from Egypt throughout Western Africa since in the 7th century? The empires of Mali, Ghana and Songhay were all literate muslim states where the study of the Koran was sometimes mandated upon the people by the Arab conquerors and traders. I refuse to believe that the Koran could be taught to indigenous Africans by Arab merchants yet Christian missionaries were as disabled in teaching the bible as you suggest. Your theory just doesn't make sense.

 

[Fantasea]

Stop playing :lol:

I'm not talking about no Zulu clicking noises. Have you forgotten that Islam was spread from Egypt throughout Western Africa since in the 7th century? The empires of Mali, Ghana and Songhay were all literate muslim states where the study of the Koran was sometimes mandated upon the people by the Arab conquerors and traders. I refuse to believe that the Koran could be taught to indigenous Africans by Arab merchants yet Christian missionaries were as disabled in teaching the bible as you suggest. Your theory just doesn't make sense.

It is not theory; it is fact.

The peoples you cite were far more advanced than the Zulus that were the subject of the discussion. When missionaries first encountered the Zulus, there was no written language. It was, in fact, missionaries in the mid 1800s who devised a way to transcribe the Zulu language. Below is an excerpt from this source: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/zulu.htm

"Zulu (isiZulu)
Zulu is one of the official languages of South Africa and is a member of the Bantu/Nguni family of languages. It is spoken by about 9 million people mainly in Zululand and northern Natal in South Africa and also in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland.

During the early 19th century Christian missionaries, including J W Colenso, S B Stone, H Callaway and Lewis Grant devised a way to write Zulu. The first Zulu Christian booklet Incwadi Yokuqala Yabafundayo was written by Newton Adams, George Newton and Aldin Grout between 1837-8 and explained the spelling of Zulu words and the history of the Old Testament. The first Zulu version of the bible was produced between 1845-1883 and in 1859 L. Grout published the first Zulu grammar book."

 

[13th Justice]

[/QUOTE]I do not imagine that there was any significant number of bibles printed in the language devised by missionaries that were distributed to the Zulu people.

The source of my understandings is:

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/zulu.htm[/QUOTE]

So do you mean to tell us that the Christian missionaries went through the arduous task of creating a Zulu alphabet, actually linking each of their strange sounds to a given letter and then after all this trouble the missionaries did not print up a "significant" amount of bibles to distribute? The missionaries went through all this work and did not carry out their mission? You make a grave accusation against these "humble workers in the Lord's vineyards". Shame on you.

Furthermore, if there are billions of bibles sold as you profess and there are only about 500-600 Americans and Europeans, then who the "hell" (pardon the pun :2razz: )purchased all those other bibles? The additional purchases had to be made by or on behalf of people in the third world in order for your numbers to work. This should be intuitive. Moreover, with the recent death of Pope John Paul II there has been much discussion in the media about the large third world contingent of the the church. There was even talk of there being a third world Pope to reflect this demographic shift.

So it is foolish to argue about the widespread distribution of bibles throughout the third world. The more interesting discussion is whether this third world distribution of the bible was volitional or coerced upon the indigenous populations.

 

[13th Justice]

It is not theory; it is fact.

The peoples you cite were far more advanced than the Zulus that were the subject of the discussion. When missionaries first encountered the Zulus, there was no written language. It was, in fact, missionaries in the mid 1800s who devised a way to transcribe the Zulu language. Below is an excerpt from this source: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/zulu.htm

The Zulus may be a unique case but I was discussing the bible in the third world not just to the Zulus and it would be unfair to extend Zulu illiteracy to the rest of the third world. So I stand by my original proposition that the third world was ripe for Christian proselytizing and the huge amount of bibles sold is a somewhat disingenuous number because of the large number of self-serving purchases made by the church for missionary purposes. Its like Bill Gates spending his huge fortune to buy his own software and then declaring his company the largest seller of software in the world. I sure you can see the problem with the numbers you cited.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I do not imagine that there was any significant number of bibles printed in the language devised by missionaries that were distributed to the Zulu people.

The source of my understandings is:

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/zulu.htm

So do you mean to tell us that the Christian missionaries went through the arduous task of creating a Zulu alphabet, actually linking each of their strange sounds to a given letter and then after all this trouble the missionaries did not print up a "significant" amount of bibles to distribute? The missionaries went through all this work and did not carry out their mission? You make a grave accusation against these "humble workers in the Lord's vineyards". Shame on you.

I think you have a firm grasp on the wrong end of the stick. I suggest that you let go and grab the other end.

All I accuse missionaries of is being selfless, dedicated servants of the Lord who sacrifice their lives in the furtherance of His work. That seems like a compliment to me.

What I espressed was the thought that since there had been no written Zulu language, no reading ability was present among the Zulu people. The purpose, asI see it, in devising a written Zulu language by means of using the Latin alphabet to transcribe the sounds of the spoken language was not to teach the Zulu people to read. The purpose was twofold:

1. To facilitate the ability of missionaries to communicate Zulu information to each other.

2. To publish information, including the Bible and other religious instructional materials in a manner so that missionaries could preach and teach a uniform doctrine to the Zulus.

The mission was to preach and instruct matters of religion. This was done in the most effective way, considering the size and limitations of the audience. First having to teach the Zulus to write and read, a concept heretofore unknown to them, before any preaching or instruction could begin, would have delayed the process immeasurably.

The most efficient method of religious instruction would have been as was done in the early Christian Church, preaching to groups as large as could be assembled, 'to the multitudes', as it were. Then, as interest was exhibited, to smaller groups, and to individuals.

What could possibly have been a benefit of distributing huge quantities of any printed materials, let alone Bibles, to people who were unable to read? Given the limited budgets of missionary organizations, the money needed for production and transportation costs of printed materials could be employed to better advantage.

Furthermore, if there are billions of bibles sold as you profess and there are only about 500-600 Americans and Europeans, then who the "hell" (pardon the pun :2razz: )purchased all those other bibles? The additional purchases had to be made by or on behalf of people in the third world in order for your numbers to work. This should be intuitive.

I did not profess anything with respect to quantity. I merely cited published information which was classed as an 'estimate'. How could there ever be an accurate figure when the Bible has been in print for some five hundred years in countries world-wide?

Moreover, with the recent death of Pope John Paul II there has been much discussion in the media about the large third world contingent of the the church. There was even talk of there being a third world Pope to reflect this demographic shift.

Speculation runs rampant among those who have no input to the situation yet feel that it is, nevertheless, encumbent upon them to render opinions. When the Cardinals of the Church are next called to coclave, who can say which among them will emerge as Pope?

So it is foolish to argue about the widespread distribution of bibles throughout the third world. The more interesting discussion is whether this third world distribution of the bible was volitional or coerced upon the indigenous populations.

Proselytizing has ever been pro-active. Whether one chooses to agree, or not, missionaries take to heart these words, among others:

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; PREACH THE WORD; be instant IN season, OUT of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2nd Tim 4:1-5)

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/zulu.htm

So do you mean to tell us that the Christian missionaries went through the arduous task of creating a Zulu alphabet, actually linking each of their strange sounds to a given letter and then after all this trouble the missionaries did not print up a "significant" amount of bibles to distribute? The missionaries went through all this work and did not carry out their mission? You make a grave accusation against these "humble workers in the Lord's vineyards". Shame on you.

If you will take a look at the URL Fantasea provided, you will see that what the creators of the Zulu "alphabet" did was more of an encoding operation. They used latin letters and combinations of letters to represent sounds. You could do the same thing with English by transcribing the words into the odd little phonetic characters at the bottom of the dictionary page. An literate anglophone would not be able to read that without considerable practice.

 

[Stinger]

Perhaps someone will cite a few of the US laws that are not based upon the tenets of one of the ten commandments.

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Association
Right to Habeas Corpus
Right to Vote
Freedom of Religious beliefs
Right to keep and bear arms
Right to own property accumulate wealth and be secure in our homes
Right to trial by jury
Right to a speedy trial
Right to confront ones accuser
Right to be free from enslavement and indentured servitude
Right to be free from discrimination due to gender or creed
Right to profit from intellectual property and to secure said property

Can you point to where these are located in the 10 commandments or explain how they are founded on "Christian principles"?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps someone will cite a few of the US laws that are not based upon the tenets of one of the ten commandments.

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Association
Right to Habeas Corpus
Right to Vote
Freedom of Religious beliefs
Right to keep and bear arms
Right to own property accumulate wealth and be secure in our homes
Right to trial by jury
Right to a speedy trial
Right to confront ones accuser
Right to be free from enslavement and indentured servitude
Right to be free from discrimination due to gender or creed
Right to profit from intellectual property and to secure said property

Can you point to where these are located in the 10 commandments or explain how they are founded on "Christian principles"?

I don't believe that you have cited a "law". Would you care to try again.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps someone will cite a few of the US laws that are not based upon the tenets of one of the ten commandments.

I don't believe that you have cited a "law". Would you care to try again.

The constitutuion is the law of the land. And several of those I cited are direct laws, copywrites, enslavement and discrimination for example. And I noted you did not show where any of those I cited are mentioned in the Ten Commandments let alone anywhere in the Bible.

But since you asked here are some more.

Laws against breaking the speed limit.
Laws against insider trading of securities.
Laws against entering the country illegally.
Laws against kidnapping.
Laws against violation of copywrites and patents.
Laws against carry a weapon on an airplane.