The Instigator
LAZARUS77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lord10049
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Corruption of Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Lord10049
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,225 times Debate No: 45725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

LAZARUS77

Pro

Hello...
we clearly able to establish that the Bible we holding today is corrupted, changed and its not the same to what scriptures Moses and Jesus have. looking for intersting debate

R1 - Acceptance
R2 - Arguments
R3 - Rebuttals
R4 - Rebuttals + Conclusions

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
LAZARUS77

Pro

hey Lord10049, the muslim veiw (Islam) is that the Bible we have today is not the same what Jesus (New testment) had neither Moses (Old testment) had peace be upon them. 

Quran 2:79
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah (God)," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

So this is introduction to what i going to debate. Muslims believe that the originals scriptures of Moses and Jesus (p) are from God. but they have been changed through time.



first to mention is that we dont have the original manuscripts (new testment) its unanimously agreed christain & non christain scholars alike. what we have is copies of the copies of the copies of the copies....94% of the manuscripts comes from the 9th/10th century (800 years after jesus) .from the first century we have none. from the second
century we have only 1 piece the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. its size approximately 21 cm by 16 cm, a small piece like a card from the gospel of john. from the 3th and 4th comes the rest. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, not even 2 are identical with another, anything is different.
the amount of the manuscripts makes the problem more serious because the more you have, more discrepancies you get. and there is more variations among these manuscripts than words in new testment. So its makes it so difficult to know what was the original words.

secondly, transmission - copying was difficult because at that time you would not find a printers. all the written texts were hand writing. so obviously scribes did a mistakes all over the place,or they tryed to correct things. for examples -

unintentionally:
confusing similar sounding letters or similarly shaped letters.
some manuscripts contained notes or glosses in the margins from earlier scribes. These notes sometimes found their way into the text of the manuscript.
Word substitions: Errors could also occur when scribes trying to retain a line in their memory accidentally replaced some words with close synonyms.
repeating text or omitting text. They frequently occur when a word, phrase, or line begins with a similar string of letters (homoeoarcton) or ends with a similar string of letters (homoeoteleuton), causing the eyes to skip forward or backward.

Intentionaly
Harmonization: The wording of a particular phrase or sentence was sometimes altered to reflect the wording of another similar but more familiar one.
A scribe would sometimes make his copy using more than one manuscript. Where the wording of the exemplars differed from each other, a scribe would sometimes conflate both readings into one.
Some scribes to try to improve the style of a text.

Thirdly, if you pick the bible and check it, what you will see is the Titles "The gospel according to mattew/luke/john/mark". why "according to"? Because not a single one of the 5 thousand copies says nothing about the author. so they assuming that the gospels are according to "
mattew/luke/john/mark". so the authors are unknown, we dont know where they lived, how they write,when why and what source they picked from. like the author Book of Kings is unknown.

Plagiarism:
Plagiarism is a common amongst the anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. Matthew and Luke reproduce 85% or Marks text, why and how two different authors write the same work? 

language:
Jesus language was aramaic/hebrow. the manuscripts we have today is in greek, this is a paradox. changing or translation one lanuage to another is not 100% accurate and you will lost some meaning/content for synonyms.

Todays bibles:
the most familiar versions are the protastent and the catholics, catholics have 7 books more, anyway from the earliest manuscripts we can see many forgeries in today bibles. like:
John 7:53-8:12 - Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. its dont exist in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John
after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus.
John 5:7-8 the backbone of the holy trinity - is a forgery.

official canon:
There was no official Church orthodox cannon for centuries, you had several different Bible cannons for 400 years, different books claiming to be inspired, each Christian sect having their own Bible which they believed in.

the gospel of Jesus:
what we have today is the 4 gospels, not 1 is attributed to jesus.
1. "And Jesus went...preaching the gospel,... and healing every disease among the 
people." (Matthew 9:35)
2. "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save
it." (Mark 8:35)
3. "...preached the gospel..." (Luke 20:1)

Old testment:
In the first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and 
Deuteronomy - there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is NOT
the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these
books at random and you will see:
 "And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down..."
 "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come..."
 "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people..."
 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying..."
 "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the..."
It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They
indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.
Moses didnt write deut:
"So Moses ... DIED ... And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM
(Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet
SINCE in Israel like unto Moses ..." (Deut. 34:5-10). how can it be?


My sources are from Bart d. ehrman and Ahmed Deedat.
Now to you.

 

Lord10049

Con

First, let me thank you for the oppritunity for a great debate. I thank you for taking time out of your day to do this.

this is why the new testament was not written in Hebrew
http://www.ntgreek.org...

bible book dates
http://carm.org...

Moses did write the first 5 books
http://www.letusreason.org...

Obituary was added after Moses death, this in no way proves that he didn't have a hand in writing it as you have stated. Also just because it is not written in the first person does not alter the fact that Moses could have just written it in the third person for example.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Second, you claim that the Islamic view is that the bible we have today is not the same as the new testament that Jesus, or the old testament that Moses had. Saying that we don't have the same testaments that they had is an assumption. You must assume that Jesus and Moses had Bibles. Jesus couldn't have had A copy of the new testament, let alone a DIFFERENT copy, it hadn't even been written yet. What would the basis of the new testament be about if He did? It could say nothing about His death and resurrection because these events hadn't occurred yet. Same principle applies to Moses with the old testament. Also you are assuming that older the manuscript, the more accurate, and that is simply not the case. Being that the bible is much older than the Koran, does that mean it is more accurate than the Koran? If we both witnessed an event, and you went home right away and decided to lie because you you were ashamed of something you might have done, and I decided to write it down several years later for whatever reason but tell the truth about what happened, does that mean that because you wrote it down first you are right? Nope. Now imagine we both die and 500 years later people find both of the things we wrote. Is it fair then for them to assume that because yours was written down first, it must be more accurate or trustworthy? Again no. That is why there are "lost books of the bible". These "Books" were rejected because if all scripture is God breathed, and God is perfect (God can't make mistakes), so if they don't line up with what we KNOW actually IS God's word, then they must go. Now using the same analogy, If you and I had witnessed the same event and you went home and wrote down what you saw and I did the same, there would probably be minor discrepancies. This kind of thing happens in police reports all the time. Now does this mean that because there are minor differences that neither one is trust worthy? Absolutely not. If it is a minor detail like what you ate for breakfast or something that does not reflect where our stories agree about said incident. The same holds true to the four gospels. None of the gospels are attributed to Jesus because Jesus didn't write them. Each gospel gives quotes that Jesus said. Mark 8:34 is a preface to mark 8:35 where it is quoting what Jesus actually said. Each gospel is written from the point of view of the eye witness. That's why it says the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The part of certain bibles that states "the gospel according to", is not God breathed. It is simply an introduction indicating who wrote it, or whose perspective it is from. Also let me touch on the "translation errors" that you spoke of earlier. Let's say that we have a fragment of a scripture. And this scripture is missing one letter. Now we have to figure out what that missing letter is. This is the sentence. "The dog runs very fas_. I think that it is pretty obvious what the missing letter is. You can figure out some missing information based on the context of what you DO have. Now there are bibles that deal in word for word, thought for thought, and paraphrase translations. All can be accurate. It is conveying the same message. So are there differences in the oldest copies of the bible that we have when compared to what we have now? It really depends on what you mean by differences. Word for word? Maybe. Does it change the entire doctrine of what God was trying to convey? No. God has preserved His message to us. Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."The original written manuscripts were the inspired word of God, the copies are the preserved word of God. There is a difference. Meaning that His message will be told.

You are correct in saying that we don't have the original hard copies of the new testament. But this in no way falsifies the copies that we DO have. Furthermore if we don't have the originals, then how can we go one step further and claim that the ones that we do have are different from them?

I do not speak Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc. and I don't think that you do either. And even if you did, you have not read the oldest copies that we have, and neither have I. So basically we are taking various scholars words for it. I'm sure that we could find scholars that say that they have changed and scholars that say that they haven't. Ultimately we are reduced to taking someones word for it. We are both People of faith, you and I. Now if I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as I am sure you do with the Koran, then I must also believe that He can preserve the message within it. I have not seen any evidence that the Bible has changed. But I know that there are versions that differ slightly. But NONE of them change the basic doctrine of the Christian faith. So I suppose we would have to specify which translation we are speaking about in order to debate this topic further. You said that today's bibles have things in them that some of the older manuscripts don't contain. That is because they are translated from false texts. For instance the KJV is based off of the Byzantine manuscripts, where as most of the more modern translations are based off of the Alexandrian scripts. So before we continue we must first define which one you would like to debate on. I would prefer to talk about the Byzantine since roughly 90 percent of the known new testament manuscripts are Byzantine in nature, and Christianity is based off of the new testament and the life of Jesus.

case against the Alexandrian manuscripts

http://www.biblesupersearch.com...
Debate Round No. 2
LAZARUS77

Pro

Ok that was quick reply, lets analyse the case..

Con - "this is why the new testament was not written in Hebrew
http://www.ntgreek.org...;

Me - first it trying to explain why NT isnt in greek, and claiming that the desiples and Jesus himself spoke greek.
according to mainstream scholarship they didnt speak greek. their language was Aramaic or maybe Hebrow. obviously they were jews.

Con -bible book dates
http://carm.org...;

Me - this list gives us dates and authers evey book in the bible. but the problem is its according to tradition, if we analyse one by one we find that we actually dont know the authors of many books. for example who was Mark? Luke? John or Mattew? (if these names was their real name) because of that the writers put "according to" not "of" or "by"

Example:
(Matthew 9:9)
"And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at
the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM(MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS)
And HE(MATTHEW) arose, and follwed HIM (JESUS)."
the passage is in the third person writing from hearsay. if mattew wrote it he would say ("HE (JESUS) saw ME, Matthew,sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto ME...) - in first person.

Con - Moses did write the first 5 books
http://www.letusreason.org......

Me - The same goes to Moses In the first five books of the Bible, there are more than 700 statements that indecate Moses didnt write it or God. its in the thied person somebody writting about them. in the link you gave you can see clearly:

"Exodus 34:27-28 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights;..."

its clear
that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. if the lord spoke this he would say " I said to Moses" the same for Moses. its third person writing.

if Moses wrote the first 5 books how he can wrote this one:
"So Moses ... DIED ... And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM 
(Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet
SINCE in Israel like unto Moses ..." (Deut. 34:5-10) ?
 
Con- "Obituary was added after Moses death, this in no way proves that he didn't have a hand in writing it as you have stated. Also just because it is not written in the first person does not alter the fact that Moses could have just written it in the third person for example.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...;

ME -If it was added after Moses death, it shouldnt be there. have you seen one writing a letter to somebody in the third person?

About the discrepancies:
the problem is you have 5000+ manuscript and each one differs from another. how do you what is Originally said? who is right? its true that its about minor differences but we have some more problems:

1 - The copies we have are written hundreds of years after Jesus (94% from 9th century)so if the majoraty comes after 800 years how do sure thats came in before that? , from the 1th century there is none. from the 2th century you got only a small piece, 3th and 4th comes more few. so if we dont have originals how do we know how many changes occured and how the original looks like?

2 - the authers are anonymous, we dont know who wrote them, how when where and why. the names the tradition gives us are an assumptions. nobody knows who are they in the first place.

3 - the problem of Plagiarism. why Matthew and Luke reproduce 85% of Marks text, why and how two different authors write the same work word for word? it doesnt make sense. there is Q theory or Q source - The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second hypotheticaldocument called "Q" as a source. Q was conceived as the most likely explanation behind the common material (mostly sayings) found in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but not in Mark.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...

4 - today there are some versions of the bible like the protastent/catholics/Eastern Orthodox... who is right?


Con - I'm sure that we could find scholars that say that they have changed and scholars that say that they haven't.


Me - its unanimously agreed that the originals are changed. slightly or greatly. we dont have the originals.

Anyway you mention the KJV (King James Version), Ok lets debate on this one.



 
Lord10049

Con

I would like to point out that you claimed to be able to show that the bible is corrupted or changed. Being that this is the case, the burden of proof is on you.

I did not say one way or the other that Jesus spoke Greek. Jesus along with the apostles MAY have spoken Greek. My original point was that the new testament was written in Greek for a reason. Think about what the new testament is about. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ, yes, but Jesus was born to the earth so that Jew AND Gentile could be saved. Gentiles, or non Jews, did not speak Hebrew. Greek was the predominant language in that area at that time. Yes they spoke other languages as well but I wouldn't doubt that Jesus and the majority of the people in that area were either fluent or quite close to being so, in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Greek was the language of literature and philosophy. And the new testament falls into not just one but both of those categories. Also regardless of the authorship of the new testament books, you must also look at to whom they were written. Was it the Jews? No. Look at Paul's writings. They were written to various churches, and in order to reach the most people with any given message, you would then write the letter in the language of the person to whom you are writing. And the majority of people in that area spoke Greek. Also as you have stated previously in our debate, we don't have the originals. So how then do you know what language the original was in fact written in? We have copies of the new testament in Greek. We also have copies in Hebrew, and every other language imaginable. The new testament was translated from the oldest Greek manuscripts that we have. That in no way shows what language it was originally written in. Furthermore, just because Jesus was a Jew, does not prove that he only spoke one language. In the Christian belief, Jesus IS the Son of God. I'm quite certain that the Son of the Almighty would know a thing or two. Not to mention, that nothing was created without Jesus. Genesis 1:26 http://www.biblestudytools.com... Who is the "US" in that verse. It couldn't have been the angels, because angels were a creation. The creation cannot "Create". By create, I mean "something out of nothing". That leaves us with the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Colossians 1:16 http://www.biblestudytools.com... John 1:1-3 http://www.biblestudytools.com... Notice "WORD" is capitalized. That's because it is referring to deity. Jesus is the "WORD".

You are repeating most of the things you said in the first round. But perhaps I was not clear enough in the ways that I put it before. So I will try again.

First, I think this is a slight deviation from what this debate is supposed to be about. I fail to see how the authorship of the gospels pertains to the bible changing or being corrupted over time but still, I will try to address your point.

The "according to" part is not in all bibles. Nor is it changing anything about what theses books are saying. It is simply a preface to what you are about to read. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are writing down events that THEY saw. That is why it is "according to". Furthermore you had mentioned that 85 percent was copied from the gospel of Mark. Maybe the other apostles were there and witnessed that same event. Writing the same thing as someone else, when you witnessed the same event that they did is not uncommon. As I have stated before the bible contains literary manuscripts. If I wanted to write about something that happened to me in the third person, does that mean that I didn't write it? Or that the events didn't actually take place? No. You go on to say yet again, that there are more than 700 statements that show that neither God nor Moses wrote it. Again writing in the first, second, or third person, has nothing to do with whether they actually wrote it or not. Not to mention that it was quite commonplace for ancient historical books to be written that way. Here are some of the reasons that they might have written the gospels in the third person. http://ingridsnotes.wordpress.com... Also Moses knew he was going to die. So maybe he himself wrote about what was going to happen. Deuteronomy 32:50 KJV http://www.biblegateway.com...

You claim that we have over 5000 manuscripts and each one is different from another? Where are you getting your information from? Then at the end of your last round you go on to say and I quote, "its unanimously agreed that the originals are changed. slightly or greatly. we don't have the originals." I fail to understand what you are trying to convey here. You say that it is unanimously agreed that the originals are changed. Again we don't have the originals as I have stated before. So how can all these scholars, and you didn't mention any of them, UNANIMOUSLY agree that they have changed when we don't have the very thing that is supposed to have changed?! Then you go on to say that we don't have the originals.

Now I will move on to the reasons I personally believe that the Byzantine manuscripts are more reliable than the Alexandrian manuscripts. Here is a little bit of background information on the two. http://www.ecclesia.org... Alexandria is mentioned in the bible several times. And not for good things. So today we have the Byzantine and the Alexandrian manuscripts. Why would I read a bible that is translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts when the bible itself mentions bad things about the Alexandrians? Also, the Alexandrian text, (the minority text) is based mainly on just two manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph"). These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, (the Byzantine), but they disagree with each other. Modern bible translations are based off of about 5 of the more than 5000 manuscripts in existence. All of the remaining 5000 are Byzantine in nature. And many people, yourself included, have mentioned the amount of time between the originals and the oldest surviving copies that we have, and used that amount of time to try and discredit the information contained within. Older does NOT mean more accurate as I have previously demonstrated.

I will give an example of an inconsistency between these two texts. http://www.biblestudytools.com... You can see the other translations here as well. NIV vs. KJV. Who killed Goliath? Most people, Christian or not, probably know the story of David and Goliath. The answer is David. David killed Goliath. " Big difference between the NIV and the KJV right? But it goes on to say in the NIV translation in 1 Chronicles 20:5 http://www.biblestudytools.com... So which one is it? Did Elhanan kill Goliath, or the brother of Goliath? That is the reason that I would rather discuss the Byzantine manuscripts. Also I would like to say that the NIV and probably other translations have since corrected this specific mistake. I have provided a link with the NIV still containing this flaw. But what happens if someone picks up an old NIV bible and reads this mistake still in there? Then they may come to the conclusion that the bible couldn't possibly be preserved because it contains contradictions. But I must point out that this is not a contradiction of the bible, but simply a contradiction within that specific translation. And to judge all translations on the shortcomings of one, is the same thing as saying that because of September 11th, all Muslims must be terrorists, Every religion has members that act in opposite accordance to how they should, but it is important to remember that not ALL act in the way that ONE does. It comes down to hermeneutics. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
LAZARUS77

Pro

Rebuttals -
My question wasnt - "how then do you know what language the original was in fact written in?"
My question is how do you know what the original look like? what we have today is the copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the copies... and every coping has its mistakes,changing, adding, correcting,altering, cutting... and the next writer made his own mistakes like the predecessor and the next... like that it happend day after day, year after year... not even 2 of the 5000+ are the same. so how do you say that the original dont changed? even we dont have the original text of the writers - mark,luke,matthew and john - to know what changes were made. what is more problematic the earliest manuscripts have the most variations.

You mentioned the word "US" in Genesis. this is not the debate about but i will reply...
you looking at semetic language - Hebrow. in the Hebrow language there are 2 ways to express plurals:
1 - plural of numbers
2 - plural of respact

this is only plural of respact, the jews dont believe in trinity and stuff. for them there is only 1 God.

And yes im repeating the most things of the first round cuase you didnt answer it at all and i will repeate it again.

Con - I fail to see how the authorship of the gospels pertains to the bible changing or being corrupted over time
Cause if you dont know who wrote it its a HUGE problem. how do you know if they reliable? that source they used to write it? how can you trust somebody if you dont know them?

About the "According to"
The printers wrote "according to" becuase they trying to tell you they dont believe that these people are the authors, and the masses believe so they dont believe that this is the case. lets say you wrote a book. what will you write, According to Lord10049 OR By Lord10049?


First, second, or third person?
Ok have you seen one perosn here in Debate.org writing in third person? third person means hearsay. the actual person is not speaking it or writing it. why you didnt write in the third person here maybe it will be clarifying it.. for example in the bible you will find some passages God himself speaking in the first person but many many other things written in the 3person.

Moses death:
Con - "Moses knew he was going to die."

its impossible becuase:
"So Moses ... DIED (past) ... And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (past) 
(Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED
(past) ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses ..." (Deut. 34:5-10)

how he can wrote such a thing?

Con - Where are you getting your information from?
5000 in Greek. There are 24.000 in general latins+greek+... everybody telling you that. christains scholars or non christains.

And what scholars you want? Bruce metzger ? bart d. ehrman?

Con- Older does NOT mean more accurate as I have previously demonstrated.
more closer to the source the information within more accurate simple reasoning.

Con - but simply a contradiction within that specific translation.
its not simply a translation. There are many VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS. protestant bible has 66 books inside. the catholic has 73 books. Ethiopian Orthodox bible has 81 books. now thats not translation its a version.

by the way you prefer KJV.

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."

furthermore here debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman ( New Testament scholar) & Dr. Daniel Wallace (professor of New Testament) Studies) - Is The Original New Testament Lost?

https://www.youtube.com...

Lord10049

Con

http://www.patheos.com...

Bart Ehrman is mentioned in the link. It is about his book Misquoting Jesus and the reliability of the gospels.
As I have stated in one of my previous rounds, The words that the original writers of the bible wrote was the INSPIRED Words of God, all the copies that we have had, to date, are an attempt at PRESERVING the Words of God.

Here is a link to a video that talks about some of those variations we had discussed previously. Now this does NOT mean that I agree with everything that this guy says. But it does pertain to some of the objections that you had.

Now I understand what you are saying about us having copies upon copies etc. But you are still saying that the originals have changed. My point is that IF there was an error in the copying process, that still doesn't mean that the originals have changed. IF that is the case then that simply means that the COPIES have changed. The originals, if they even still exist, are buried somewhere or just haven't become public knowledge yet. But those originals still say the same thing that they said when they were originally written, because they are the ORIGINALS. So again it comes down to which manuscripts each bible version was translated from. Alexandrian is flawed. Furthermore, just because there are SOME bibles that have been changed, does NOT mean that ALL bibles have been changed. You go on to say that all the copies say different things without showing any proof whatsoever. The differences are between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine, or simply the Alexandrian and the Alexandrian being that they disagree with eachother. That is where the problem lies.

You said... You mentioned the word "US" in Genesis. this is not the debate about but I will reply...
you looking at semetic language - Hebrow. in the Hebrow language there are 2 ways to express plurals:
1 - plural of numbers
2 - plural of respact

I would respond by acknowledging that Jews believe in only 1 God. So do Christians. But the 1 God that Christians believe in has 3 parts. Or 3 distinct persons within Himself. That being the case, why would they have chosen to express the SINGULAR form of God with a PLURAL word? Why not just use the SINGULAR form? Also the fact that Jews only believe in 1 God, does not mean that that is the truth. Truth is NOT dictated by percentage of the population that believe in it. My point is that TRUTH exists independently of the belief. Just because someone believes in something, does not mean that it is true. In 1491 the majority of people believed that the earth was flat. Until it was discovered in 1492 that it was in fact round. Now did the truth change? No. The knowledge that we had pertaining to the truth changed. Was the earth flat when we believed that it was so, and then magically transformed into a round earth in 1492? Again No. It was round even when we believed that it was flat. So the Jews believing that the plural "US" in that verse was pertaining to a singular, has nothing to do with God possibly being a Trinity. My point is that IF God IS a Trinity, then He was a Trinity when that verse was written as well. Christians believe in 1 God, containing three distinct persons. A physical example of this would be water. Water has three distinct attributes. Steam, Ice, and liquid water. All three are still water just in different forms. The same principle holds true with the Triune God. Which I think better explains the "US" in that verse.

You said... "Cause if you don't know who wrote it its a HUGE problem. how do you know if they reliable? that source they used to write it? how can you trust somebody if you don't know them?"

I noticed that you sited Bart d. ehrman and Ahmed Deedat as your sources. Do you KNOW THEM? As I'm sure you don't, does that mean that you can't trust them? With that rational, you couldn't be a Muslim because you never Knew Mohammad. And if you never knew him, how could he be trusted? Saying that a source cannot be reliable unless you know them is ridiculous. No one could ever learn ANYTHING that was documented before their own lifetime, because we would have no way of knowing them. Do I have to know the person that invented math for the equations to still hold true? No. Do I have to know them to know that 5+5=10? No. Truth can be known through the testing of the information contained within. The same holds true with the gospels, and the bible as a whole for that matter.

First, If the printers didn't believe that they wrote it, then why would they ADD the according to? Why not just leave that part out, to ensure that it could never be attributed to them? And by the way the "Masses" DO believe that they wrote it. But either way, It simply doesn't matter what the "Masses" believe. Belief does NOT reflect truth. As to whether I would say according to, or by is irrelevant. I could write by, or according to, and the work would still be attributed to me. If the general idea behind it was about someone else ie, Jesus, then For a better story I would probably write in the third person. History shows us that it was commonplace in ancient texts for the writer to write in the third person.

When I asked where you were getting your information from you said... 5000 in Greek. There are 24.000 in general latins+greek+... everybody telling you that. Christians scholars or non Christians.
And what scholars you want? Bruce metzger ? bart d. ehrman?

Again I was not asking "WHO" you were getting your information from, but "WHERE", you were getting your information from. As in don't tell me there names, but go the extra mile and copy the link from the url and paste it into the debate so that you could, number 1 back up what you were saying, and number 2 make my and our readers lives easier so all we have to do is click said link to validate the things you were saying.

You said..."more closer to the source the information within more accurate simple reasoning." You would say simple reasoning to me, and I would say serious logical flaw to you. A copy of something regardless of the time between the original and itself, does not mean less accurate. If it contains the same information then it is just as accurate.

You said...its not simply a translation. There are many VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS. protestant bible has 66 books inside. the catholic has 73 books. Ethiopian Orthodox bible has 81 books. now that's not translation its a version.

I believe I was talking about the contradictions within the NIV. THAT would be a translation.

I don't care what the New Revised Standard Version of the bible says. Again more ancient does NOT mean more accurate. That bible was translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts. I thought we agreed to talk further on the Byzantine. The Alexandrian manuscripts that that translation is based on, all disagree with eachother. I showed you this in the links that I provided before. I wish you would have read them, as they spoke about this very thing.

You first said... we clearly able to establish that the Bible we holding today is corrupted, changed and its not the same to what scriptures Moses and Jesus have. looking for interesting debate

I do not believe that you were able to demonstrate that the bible was corrupted, or changed, let alone DIFFERENT from what they had, because they didn't have it. Moses didn't have a bible because most of the stuff in it was not written until after his lifetime, and the same applies to the new testament and Jesus. So I thank you for taking the time to debate with me, and discuss this most interesting topic. You made some points that I have never heard before so I thank you for that. Take care and may God Bless you.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
thanks dude:D
Posted by Lord10049 3 years ago
Lord10049
I'm really enjoying debating with you LAZARUS77. Writing 10,500 words for a rebuttal : 3 hours
Clicking submit only to find out that there is an 8000 character limit, and having to trim 2500 words off of your last round : PRICELESS Yeah that happened to me last round LOL
Posted by Lord10049 3 years ago
Lord10049
LOL It's no problem. Although I did have to copy and paste your argument to notepad to be able to read it ; )
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
Sorry for the small letter im wrting from 45in TV i didnt know if its that small lol
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
Tired..
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
lol you can open new debate anyway im tried now tomorow i will start :D
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
the_streetsurfer
Wow I wish I was here earlier
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
LAZARUS77Lord10049Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a lot of spelling and grammar errors so Con gets the points for spelling and grammar. Con seemed to be more elaborate in his arguments and seemed a bit more convincing so he get the points. (I couldn't really understand Pro too much was the issue).