The most amusing assertion here is the selfish bit. Nietzsche loathed Christianity for its altruism - selfishness isn't exactly a problem for Nietzsche. However, Nietzsche does tend to contradict him self...a bit...

Wow- taking it outside for real. Nice. ;)


I think you both have good points.

I agree totally, as I said previously with the master-slave morality, that churches/temples bring about sheep in a flock- people shut their ideas to the cold reality of the world and, instead of fixing it, live in the unconfirmed dream that the Church and doctrine provides.

Now, I am no atheist. I am, actually, Jewish, albeit loosely on the religious grounds (much more "ethnically" than "religiously" Jewish if you get what I mean, but I still value some things in Judaism, and why and why it's OK I'll say in just a moment) and I do agree- the church system (annd I use that to encompass temples, synagouges, mosques, etc.) has failed.

Why?

Just the first reason, as I'm sure many more will crop up as we go along- with the master-slave morality, and even if you put that to one side, the church system encourages and brings about a poor way to actually CARRY OUT and EXERCISE one's faith.

Kierkegaard thought Christianity was GREAT- but he hated the churches because it wasn't ACTIVE worship, active faith.

What's an example of active faith?

For me, it's parting the aters, for you, CrazyAnglican, it's walking on them.

I'm serious. One of my huge gripes about organized religion is the question of how do you know what you know- do you believe this idea in God because it is an inborn idea or an idea you discovered all by yourself with no prompting, or did someone TEACH IT TO YOU?

The former is how faith SHOULD be found, the latter how it it is found so often that it nearly has killed the first method.

What CAN we take away from the Bible then? If we accept that the Bible is just something we are taught, and thus not a truth in and of itself (you can say God wrote it until you're blue in the face- 2,000 years for one Testament and longer for another, and editing, the Bible at best is an EDITED account of God's word, at worst a corrupted manuscript that may bear little resemblance to its orignal form and ideas in places... the degree of corruption and alteration is unknown, but must be ackonwledged as a real possibility) then what can we accept on a non-"true" basis as "good" guidance?

David
Moses
Jesus

Those STORIES are important, they teach good ideas- even for someone like Nietzsche.

Those three are all Nietzschean Supermen- they went BEYOND the social/religious order to do what they felt had to be done for their cause/religion/people.

David slaying Goliath and rising up- Superman.

Moses summoning the leadership and courage to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, one way or another- Superman.

Jesus, who Nietzsche would like least of the three due to his submission (a big no-no for a Superman: Nietzsche might ask, and I agree, if Jesus could rid the world of evil or free the Christians from the Romans as Moses did with the Hebrews in Egypt, why submit and die, even if it is "for our sins?) still falls under the category of the Superman for standing up to the Rabbinical Order of the time as well as one of if not the most successful empire ever and not losing his faith or his courage.


Can you or I part seas or walk on water? No.

But we can perform great actions for our people and the people of the world-

And that'll NEVER happen if we're sitting around in an old building on Sunday instead of doing something...

The problem though is that would make (and has made) a brilliant sermon over the years. It is through works that beleif and faith gain meaning.

"Can you or I part seas or walk on water? No.

But we can perform great actions for our people and the people of the world-

And that'll NEVER happen if we're sitting around in an old building on Sunday instead of doing something..."

It's beautiful and meaningful and not at all inherently atheistic. Nobody (aside from our detractors) wants Christians to stay in church and pontificate. That weekly visit is to be a trip to the filling station that fuels our works for the week. How about some other supermen Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi? For them. their religion was no hinderance. Perhaps a Superwoman in Mother Theresa?

While this discussion has gone more in the direction of my personal beliefs, this is starting to sound far from Nietzschean. In fact, I'm pretty sure Nietzsche would laugh at the idea of people who subscribe to god-based morality (Apollonian) as being Uebermenschen.

@SteevoKun:

You're absolutely right- Nietzsche would've scoffed at a God-based morality... after all, he's Dead, right?

I said a MODIFIED version of Nietzsche's ideas- I'm not going to question the morality here just yet, as that will take up perhpas another thread, or at least many posts here. For now, I'm working off the "make your own morality" idea, and if for some that means allowing God into this... I'll play, for a moment, maybe acting more with Kierkegaard than Nietzsche.

But I agree.

@Crazy Anglican:

Those Supermen, Dr. King and Ghandi (Mother Theresa's bending the Superman TOO far- we might think she's a good woman, but to be sure Nietzsche would have laughed his mustache off, and never allowed someone like that to fit the Superman title... she really doesn't fit it...) are NOT super because of their faith.

Again, they are super because, like just about all Supermen, they:

-Superceded what "normal" men might do
-Went up against (and won) a stronger power
-Went up against authority
-Allowed for the mental/spiritual strengthening of mankind

Dr. King is essentially the Black Moses (and I mean that totally complementary to both, so please don't take that as offense or the wrong way- I admire both men immensely, and it's actually amazing how similar they are) and Ghandi...

Ghandi I can try and draw a Jesus parallel to (peaceful demonstrator, died for a cause, large following) and while Nietzsche didn't like Jesus too much, I think he saw him at least better than the churches (at least what he DID do something, although Nietzsche would likely argue not nearly enough if he can come back and free his people and yadda yadda yadda...)

The point is the Superman is super because of his actions and his PRACTICE of faith- the actual faith, to a great extent, doesn't really matter, because again, Nietzsche's operating under the idea morals are dead and all that, and thus if you believe it, and it's not racist or something detrimental to mankind, go ahead and believe- how cares, God's Dead (so sayeth the Man with the Mustache... me... I think there is a God or some controlling force, but who or what he is is a personal discovery, and we don't know "God" well enough to lay down nations and laws and commandments and kill for him... I agree with Nietzsche a good deal when it comes to metaphysics in that area- worry about becoming Supermen and bettering THIS world and humanity HERE first, and then we can think about beyond that, or die and find out that way...)

When you try to compare Moses, David or Jesus to the Nietzschian Ubermensch I fear you're totally missing the point the Bible is making.

MOSES was *not* equipped to the task. Read Exodus 3 and 4, where God calls Moses and he objects, with several good arguments. At which point God gives him solutions: if they don't believe you, throw your staff on the ground and it will become a snake. Moses didn't dare, didn't want to, had a record, was a bad speaker. And still God chose to use him, not because of his merits but because through him the power of God would become clear.

DAVID was a shepherd boy. His victory over Goliath is portrayed not as a strong man in armor defeating a mighty foe but a brave weakling who trusted upon God and had a lucky shot. Goliath could've just brushed him aside if he wanted.

JESUS may be the most perfect human being ever lifed, but even you hesitate to call Him an Ubermensch. This is because Jesus showed love and compassion in its ultimate form. To an Ubermensch love and compassion are signs of weakness and certainly sacrifice stands against all an Ubermensch would stand for. Nietzsche's disgust of the christian mind contrasts and highlights it: being good is not being able to have power, destroy, dominate and kill--but to use the power to help others.

The last Ubermensch must be a very sad person...

@obimanobiman - interesting that you say you are ethnically Jewish. The Jewish leadership doesn't recognize "Jew" as a race (or ethnicity if you will). And, in fact, the heritage of European (and most American) Jews is, on the whole, very distinct from most Middle Eastern (read Israeli) Jews. Jew isn't a race. Judaism is a religion. You may not be a prcticing Jew, but you will never EVER find "Jew" on a "ethenicity" question on any application or form.

Being Jewish isn't a race, but it's more than a religion. Once you're a Jew, always a Jew - whether by birth due to your mother being Jewish at the time of your birth or because you convert according to Judaic law.

Even if a born Jew has never believed in God or done any sort of Jewish religious observance he will always be Jewish.

But it isn't an ethnicity is my point. The closest I would say it comes to being an ethnicity is to say "Middle Eastern/Mediteranean Jew" or "European/Russian Jew" but even that is a misgnomer.

@Obiwanobiwanobiwan - You mention a "modified version of Nietzches ideas" and it seems you're looking for a form of existentialism with room for God. Have you ever read any Kierkegaard? I think he might be exactly what you're looking for.

Ha! Ok that's what i get for responding after just skimming, I see you've alreayd mentioned Kierkegaard.

Move right along... nothing to see here...

I have to admit that I really didn't start this as an addition to the Nietzsche discussion thread. I was more just taking up a tongue in cheek rebuttal to the post I copied from that thread.

Too bad I had to go to school and got excluded from my own thread Geez people, can't you wait!? I've got a lot to respond to here so this will takea while. I won't cover all of this today, so be just as patient as you've all been in waiting for the return of Jesus. I'll get back to you soon. Have some FAITH.

Studies have shown that members of religions and even cults are no less intelligent than anyone else, and that does fit my experience. Labeling them as sheep or just stupid is ignorant (Aside: anyone else always read that in Michael Jackson's voice these days?!)

On the other hand now that I think about it I have heard of conflicting studies, but there's definitely not a close correlation

I recall a study (which, alas I cannot remember the name of) that took samples from all the academic societies around the world. It supposedly indicated that as intelligence went up religious belief went down. However my lack of ability to actually cite the name of the study means it doesn't carry much weight...

I've heard of at least one of those studies (also can't cite at the moment). It was carried out as a survey sent to members of one of the science associations. It got a 15-20% return rate (pretty good for a mass mailed survey) and it did indeed indicate that of the respondents most did not identify religion as a major concern in their lives.

What it did not address was that, if we keep it in perspective, all it really said was that a significant portion of a particular small group (in this case I think it was members of an association of biologists) was of that opinion.
Taking it beyond the membership of that particular group is problematic. Even if one could go so far as to say that on average an atheist has a higher IQ than a theist (which cannot be reliably stated), you have the problem that the results are skewed (for instance people who are not capable of making the decision for themselves due to intellectual deficincy, autism, etc. will show up on the side of theists more often by sheer numbers). There is also the problem of people who claim themselves to be "not religious" or "No religious affiliation". These groups are abused quite regularly on both sides of the argument. At one point they are seen as atheists and another left out of the sample depending upon what the speaker wants to argue.

This is evident in the writings of Dawkins and Harris. At one point Harris embraces this group in stating that there is a trend toward atheism in America (basically a growing number of people identified themselves as having "no religious affiliation", which does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in God). It's gray area that he exploits. Dawkins, on the other hand, maintains that atheists are more law-abiding than theists. In his writings he excludes the "no religious affiliation" group. He has to do this, because while the people who identify temselves as atheists are quite law abiding the ones who identify themselves as having "no religious affiliation" are not. If Dawkins were to add them in to the mix it would look like atheists were three times more likely to commit a crime than theists. I'm sure that you see the game that's being played.

Part One for Crazy Angelican (nice name btw, I should change mine to burninginhell101 or flamingatheist pardon the pun):

I meant to say that religion was (and let's stick to the Judeo-Christian sphere) created for the purpose of controlling the actions of a more primitive and stupid people. You implied incorrectly that I think all religious people to be "stupid." I merely meant to say that it is intended for people easily controlled solely through an appeal to pathos, namely fear and self preservation. In fact your breakdown of my argument (which was way too intense in retrospect even for me on a normal day, though not entirely untrue) is rather twisted with its own false implications and assumptions. What I dislike about religion (and not all religions as I stated parenthetically fairly recently) is that it is too all-assuming and arrogant. It carries little liability, as does God. It uses too many lame excuses to cover up for God's excuses and gives very little credit to humans, when in fact most events in history should be credited solely to human influence. To your point on "good deeds," I just got back from volunteering at a LUTHERAN nursing home, and I'm an atheist. Don't assume that I think religion does no good (of course good, like God, is subject to human interpretation and is not absolute in its definition), I don't like the attitude it projects about morality and sin. At it's base I think religion and God are really means of a feeling of security against the uncertainty of death. Because the human mind cannot conceive very well its own demise, or lack of existence (try this if you don't believe me, or if you have not already) it creates an illusion of comfort in a loving God and a heaven. Later installments pending... (too much to write right now). I hold many views witnessed in Religulous by Bill Maher if you have any quesions while I'm offline, review this source.

"
What CAN we take away from the Bible then? If we accept that the Bible is just something we are taught, and thus not a truth in and of itself (you can say God wrote it until you're blue in the face- 2,000 years for one Testament and longer for another, and editing, the Bible at best is an EDITED account of God's word, at worst a corrupted manuscript that may bear little resemblance to its orignal form and ideas in places... the degree of corruption and alteration is unknown, but must be ackonwledged as a real possibility) then what can we accept on a non-"true" basis as "good" guidance?"

This stuff drives me crazy. It is obvious that you are just parroting arguments that you have heard here and have not done any study on textual criticism. The degree of correlation between different text families is really quite astonishing. The vast majority of variants among the manuscripts that we have are inconsequential. It would be like studying an ancient document that used the english word "color" If you found ten manuscripts that had it as "color" and ten that had it as "colour" you STILL know exactly what the correct word is...

There is not a single Christian doctrine that is in question from a textual-criticism standpoint.

To say that the Bible has been corrupted is misguided, misleading, and somewhat rather wishful thinking.

@ Jacob

I do find the idea the the Bible has been corupted by man (intentionally or by mere mistakes over the centuries) to be an oft repeated argument. The problem is that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are among the best preserved texts of any written. We have found documents lost for over a thousand years and the stories written upon them are remarkably similar to the ones we have now. Basically, we have evidence, in the form of a rich record of ancient texts, stating that the mishandling that one might assume would be likely, simply has not occurred.

OK, a lot of conversation (GOOD!)

So, one at a time:

@Ursa:

Yes, I know that the Biblical heroes I mention that a feel are CLOSEST to the Ubermensch- again, none are quite there as they all have varyting degrees of the reigious passion; while Nietzsche, contrary to popular belief, was NOT Anti-Semetic but rather staunchy pro-Jew (in "Beyond Good and evil" he calls them the toughest race in the world, even hinting his beloved German people could use some of that tenacity) and thus would have likely seen Moses and David in a generally favorable light, as he valued uniqueness and action such as was taken by those two, and though strongly disagreed with much in Judasim, he was far more sympathetic towards it than Christianity, which is far more in line with submission to Jesus as a Lord, whereas it is at least my interpretation of Judasim that as "Chosen People" (whether you believe that or not; I am a bit on the fence there...) they are ACTIVE workers, not submitting sheep.

Long story short- none of them ARE Supermen, the Supermen has yet to come, but Moses (who WAS equipped for the task; God gave him the power and confidence, but it is still the person Moses who served as strong leader, much as how even though he was given his troops and gained his confidence as he went, George Washington was always George Washington- and all that entails) and David (see previous parentheses) are I think the CLOSEST to his idea, and people Nietzsche would have at least in part honored. Jesus... Jesus is on the fence- the power of the Ubermensch if we take his miracles to be "true" (I don't as a Jew, and of course neither does Nietzsche) but certainly not the mentality; Moses and David showed compassion for their people through ACTION in the Nietzschean sense and thus fall under what I might call "Nietzsche-friendly compassion" whereas Jesus... you and I and everyone knows the argument there, so I won't state it again.


@Draugnar:

I said I was religiously LOOSELY Jewish- I honest don't CARE if the official Jewish Hegemony of Religion or whatever says Jews are not a race. I am proud of my Austrian-German side and my Polish-Russian side, but both sides ARE Jewish, and as just about any Jew will tell you, it IS somewhat of an ethnic thing, more so than Christianity and Islam, as while there were Christians all over Europe and were powerful and dittio with the Muslims in there areas, Jews, no matter where they were, were always a bit like outsiders (putting it VERY kidnly for some of those places- Egypt, Babylon, Germany and Russia and Europe at times... etc...) and thus formed a community. Ask an English Christian what he is ethnically- it is doubtful he will mention his Christianity, but just his English side (and whatever else is in there.) To a JEW, however, there's a a far greater liklihood they'll mention their being Jewish, as it's more ingrained due to all those thousands of years of Jews being packed in with Jews with no one to turn to but other Jews and the other outcasts wherever they were.

Just saying...


@DrOct:

Lol yes I've skimmed a bit of Kierkegaard and heard a couple lectures on him, but I know the most about Nietzsche, his "Human, All Too Human" and "Beyond Good and Evil" being the only two philosophy "texts" I've read cover to cover (started into philosophy in earnest late last year/early this; mid-way through began Nietzsche in earnest.) Right now I'm reading Plato's "The Trial and Death of Socrates" and like I said before- Nietzsche may call Plato a bore, but there's definitely some Platonic influence on some of his ideas, particularly how morals and good and evil are established and defined- or NOT defined. Someday I hope to get to Kierkegaard's work in earnest... "Either/Or" and "Fear and Trembling" both intrigue me...


@Jacob:

What can we take from the Bible? The stories- as STORIES! Just because we don't believe in Greek gods anymore doesn't diminish the meaning of "The Iliad" or "The Odyssey" as imprtant texts on Supermen and how to be great like them and what to do, what not to do, etc.

David and Goliath, Moses in Exodus, even some parts of Jesus (ok, maybe not that) can be accepted as good Supermen stories in Nietzsche-land.

Really, so do you think The Odyssey is also the revealed word of God? I hold that you are misguided by the social fact/indoctrination of the church. Attacking my ethos will get you nowhere. I believe there is no God (with as much credence as that I don't believe in pink unicorns and ghosts, etc) so obviously God didn't write or dictate the Bible. Humans wrote it through a collection of spiritual beliefs that came out of the thousands of different Roman religions. Christians almost assume that their belief springs out of the ground. The belief in a Christ figure is seen thousands of years before Christ's supposed birth in the Buddhist belief and in other Mediterranen cultures. IF HUMANS NEED A BOOK TO TELL THEM HOW TO ACT (AND THAT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB HASN'T IT? THOU SHALT NOT KILL, UNLESS FOR THY GOD/ cough cough SELFISH PURPOSES) THEN WE ARE FUCKED AS A SPECIES. Maybe as Carlin would say, Humpty Dumpty is just as good a book for moral comfort as the Bible, and it's at least semi realistic. To think that the Bible comes from nothing (ie God, I think I'll regret the phrasing of this later) is "wishful thinking" good sir. Instead of making up morality and the curses of an illusory heaven and hell, we should instead focus on the common threads that connect humans (we are one race that need to help each other to survive). If God is the energy and potential for love or hate between humans than great, there's a God! (but this is in the atman-brahman sense that the Hindus use). I believe in people. God is unnecessary, he fills no logical gap, and he is improper to use the connection with the elastic clause of the Constitution. He is therefore unconstitutional for the government of my mind, so I refuse to believe/accept God. Our realities are greatly different and they will rarely overlap, but still I wish you nothing but the best. As the Irish blessing says:
"May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
and rains fall soft upon your fields."

that last message was written right before you Obi I didn't see your post. nice similar reference to Homer's classic poems. =) It was meant for Crazy Angelican and Jacob

Sorry I hadn't gotten back to your earlier post and will have to do so at another time as it's rather late. I will address the latter one though. It seems to me you've assumed something that wasn't there. Jacob's statement is entirely on topic, well reasoned and appropriate. It was a rebuttal of the notion that The Holy Bible is a text corrupted by the people who preserve it. The rebuttal said plainly that when you have 1700 year old text and can read it alongside a contemporary one it would be easy to see what corruptions there are, and few serious ones have been found (sixteen additional verses from Mark, that's about it). So that argument is not a particularly valid indictment of Christian thought and practice.

As to the other supposed holes in Christianity, I’d challenge you to slow down a bit. Take one or two and make them stick. It’s far too easy to rattle off a hundred different accusations if you never have to support any of them, but it’s an entirely different thing to sit down and really show that any of them are warranted or appropriate. We’re in no hurry here. Instead of the mile wide and inch deep mentality that is so often a part of internet messages why not test your position against some real opposition. Neither of us is likely to budge on our beliefs but we can, as educated people, test and refine them in the face of opposition.

For instance, you’ve once again made the assertion that religion is a man made institution whose purpose is controlling stupid masses, but still you haven’t answered any of my challenges to that notion. Upon what evidence do you hold this assertion? Can it be proven, or are we just to take your word for it? Certainly you need no such evidence to reject religion, but you are entering into a debate in a public forum. You’ve stepped out of personal belief into publication, so in that respect, it’s entirely appropriate for me to ask you to defend your statement.

Oh and Anglican has nothing to do with angels. I'm a member of the Anglican (Church of England) Communion.

I likewise wish the best for you. I tend to wander in and out of these conversations from time to time as I teach persuasive writing. I find it interesting to see how people defend their stances and take the information back to my classes. I will occasionally mimic the tone of my opposition, but I'm seeing the debate as a game and nothing more. This is merely a forum to meet opposition and get a feel for their counter arguments.

@Crazy Anglican:

I'm not attacking holes in Christianity, but rather it's submissive whole (I liked the play on words, anyway.) ;)

But seriously, it IS such a submission-based religion... and what's worse, you are submitting based on a flawed idea, in my opinion, of what is "good" or "evil," and thus Nietzsche's desire to have his free spirits/Supermen go "Beyond Good and Evil."

To use something of Plato's that Nietzsche must certainly have been influenced by (or at leat the similarity IS strinking) from Plato's "The Trial and Death of Socrates" in the dialogue entitled "Euthyphro," I ask you, as Plato's character Socrates so plainly asked Euthyphro:

What is piety/good? What is impiety/evil?

Is it what is dear to God/gods or what they/he love/loves?

If so, that undermines your very idea- as Plato pointed out, what is dear to one God may be foul to another (the Greek gods wERE always fighting) and thus how can it be told what is right or wrong? Further, if we accept we are lower than gods, as is indeed necessary for gods to be considered superior to us in the manner in which we perceive and conceive of gods, then how can the morals of that which is higher extend to we, the lower denominator- the powers and beings are not equal, and thus the morals are not equal.

Even if we take the Judeo-Christian God, he, too, is conflicted in his morals- thou shalt not murder, and yet how many Biblical heroes did just that (Moses killed a man, and although we may jsutify that action as his killing a man to help his people, it still is taking away God's right to decide who lives if we follow doctine, and breaks the absolute Commandment, even if it had not been formally handed down yet.)

And then there is the true area in which that idea fails- the absolutes.

Again, using thou shalt not murder- suppose I am Hitler's doctor, and he is sick. He will trust me (let's just say he does for the sake of this thought experiment) to pump whatever chemicals I deem necessary to get him on his feet.

If I kill Hitler with poison in the needle, I've broken the absolute, and committed an "evil" act- yet how many would truly view killing Hitler an "evil" act, even if it does take away that right of God over life?

And suppose I DON'T kill him, that I FOLLOW, supposedly, the Commandment-

I have still, in fact, broken it- for now Hitler may continue killing millions of Jews, and as I had the opportunity to stop the killings by stopping Hitler (let's ignore the other Nazis, we're taking the streamlined view here of "No Hitler, No Holocaust," however historically troublesome that argument may become, that's the beauty of a thoght experiment) I am in fact COMPLICIT in the killings.


So I ask you, Crazy Anglican:

What is good? What is evil?

Because if the Christian morality is wrong or flawed...

@obiwanobiwan - you present the Hitler dilema as black and white; kill or let him continue what he was doing. There is a middle ground of stopping the man and his actions without killing him. Use a paralytic, put him in a coma, do something that makes him a blathering idiot/vegetable. Any of these don't violate that commandment and still save those he would have ordered put to death.

@obiwan and ottovan
I'd still like to hear you answer my argument rather than just jump to another topic. Are you willing to retract your assertions that the Biblical text has been corrupted? If not, then I challenge you to actually research textual criticism.

As for the "Thou shalt not murder" argument you are making it too simplistic. Even scholars who are staunchly anti-Christian would agree that the Bible differentiates between murder and judgment. Murder implies unjust killing. It's a somewhat complex issue which you aren't going to solve by trotting out your favorite (so-called) contradiction.

If you seriously intend to engage thoughtful Christians it would help if you had a better working knowledge of the Bible...

I don't know...I'm probably coming across as too harsh, but this kind of reasoning is sophomoric and displays a lack of actual study of the Bible :/

@Draugnar:

Your situation in itself creates a paradox: if we take that third option, then the same black and white issue of right or wrong can come up again, as God supposedly gave his creatures free will- who are we to restrain them in such a fashion? Not only does that lead into "Free will, or not free will- that is the question" and that's not a realm I want to go into (we're in a big enough realm now as it is! lol) but it leads to everyday dilemmas- prisons? captial punishment?

@Jacob:

To answer your question head-on: NO, I will NOT retract my saying eh Bible is corrupted and indeed corruptible. This is EASILY proven by:

-Translation: when you translate from one language to another, inevitably something is lost or altered, as linguists and philosophers agree that the words of each language have a certain "feel" and sometimes the right word just doesn't correspond in another language. Case in point- Ubermensch itself. "Superman" is the famous translation, and "Overman" is also used, but neither capture the essence of what is meant at the core of the "uber" in the word... there feel, the tempo, as Nietzsche would say, is just off, if even a little. And THAT's with languages that are relatively similar in some ways; English and German are not too different, and actually it can be argued are relatively close. Take two HUGELY different languages, Hebrew and Latin, which have different structures, tempos, and even different aphabets to work off of, and at the very start you have an issue; Latin to other languages, even more "lost in translation" with the tempo, and likely over those thousands of years and translations, ommissions or additions, bringing me to #2...

-Editing. We know that there are religious texts both Judaic and Christian that were ommitted from the Bible when it was put together- the Bible IS a SELECTIVE story, it does not tell the WHOLE story. The two Testaments both have their problems. The Old is perhaps the more "reliable" of the two in parts, as while both Testaments may conflict with science and sometimes even history in obvious ways (a miracle clashes directly with science as we know it) the Hebrew Bible was written and put together as the Hebrew story- NOT as a response to an oppressor. Still, that old, there's likely some corruption of story. The New Testament, younger, would seem to suffer less corruption of age- until we run into the problem of it's actual construction. The Christians wrote their Testament in their catacombs, under persecution from the Romans, and then later when they were the be-all and end-all in Europe in the Dark Ages... twisting of the story for propoganda? Vilifying Romans, making them seem even more brutal than perhaps they were (and they WERE brutal towards the early Christians, no dispute there, but still, a good folk story often includes some exaggeration...) to gain followers? Dare I say exxagerating miracles? And in later times- fitting villians into the story (JEWS?) to serve a religious-political purpose?

The Bible has been tampered with by so many for so many reasons, there are so many versions... and you think that there is a chance it is NOT corrupted?