Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Sinai bible disproves Christianity

Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:28:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The discovery of the Sinai Bible was the death blow to any historian claiming the legitimacy of modern versions of the Bible. The following is taken from:

http://www.vatileaks.com...

It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine"s Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles.

With the Sinai Bible, Christian history is traced back as far as it can conceivably go, but it was still written, at best, more than 350 years after the time the Vatican says Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine. The "Catholic Encyclopedia" agrees to this extraordinary late composition of the world"s oldest Bible:

"The earliest of the extant manuscripts [relating to Christianity], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD".

("Catholic Encyclopedia", 1909, "Gospels")

Hand-written on animal skins in a dead Greek language, the Sinai Bible was purchased by the British Museum from the Soviet Government in 1933 and is now displayed in the British Library in London. Sometime after its purchase, English-language translations were published (Manuscript No. 43725 in the British Library) and extraordinary new information about the earliest story of Jesus Christ became available to the world. The great comparative value of the Sinai Bible as the world"s oldest available Bible is today universally accepted, and its discovery provided great embarrassment for the Church"s modern-day presentation of Jesus Christ, for it revealed that newer Gospels are the depositories of large amounts of fabricated narratives and intentional perversions of the truth.

One of the most significant facts revealed by the Sinai Bible is that the Book of Mark, the oldest gospel book, did not include any account of Jesus"s resurrection, only that the tomb that he was placed in was discovered to be empty (See Reason #33). Also, the Sinai Bible contained two New Testament books that are not included in today"s Bibles (the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas). The shear number of alterations (14,800) made to modern Bibles should end any argument about the Bible being either inerrant, the word of god, or an accurate historical account. It has revealed that the Bible is the equivalent of a graffiti filled wall in Harlem.

A detailed list of the edits, interpolations, distortions, omissions, additions, and forgeries can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Biblical inerrancy is a fantasy held by many misinformed evangelical Christians who remain blissfully ignorant of the current state of Biblical scholarship. We now know that the Bible is not what we would call in today"s vernacular an historical account of history.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:32:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
It is rarely known outside of priesthood circles and among those who attain divinity degrees that there was a massive amount of distortion, both additions and deletions, performed on the Gospel of Luke in the Middle Ages. The following is taken from:

http://debatingchristianity.com...

Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.

Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totalling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6: 45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today"s versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarised from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke"s version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)

What we are seeing here may just be the tip of the iceberg because the oldest intact Bible, the Sinai Bible, is itself a product of the Fourth Century, meaning that many previous insertions and omissions may have affected its authenticity as well. There simply is no way to know for sure what the original authors wrote, and further whether they were also distorting and making up stories at that time. All of this dramatically belies the idea that a god set in motion a doctrine that must be accepted at the penalty of torture when the message itself is so emphatically muddled.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:49:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?

You are really good at hearing what you want to hear.

No, the bible isn't a "fraud" with "no divine influence".

Seeings how the bible is predominantly about God, it would be rather ignorant to make the claim that it is devoid of divine influence.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:55:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:49:23 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?

You are really good at hearing what you want to hear.

No, the bible isn't a "fraud" with "no divine influence".

Seeings how the bible is predominantly about God, it would be rather ignorant to make the claim that it is devoid of divine influence.

So the claims Paul made are not the views of God? If so how did this piece of scripture get into the bible?

If they are the views of God why would he hold them?

If he holds those views and wanted them in the bible why would he not expect or want women to abide by them?

If he does not care If women abide by the instructions in this verse why is it in the bible?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:55:22 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:49:23 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?

You are really good at hearing what you want to hear.

No, the bible isn't a "fraud" with "no divine influence".

Seeings how the bible is predominantly about God, it would be rather ignorant to make the claim that it is devoid of divine influence.

So the claims Paul made are not the views of God? If so how did this piece of scripture get into the bible?

If they are the views of God why would he hold them?

If he holds those views and wanted them in the bible why would he not expect or want women to abide by them?

If he does not care If women abide by the instructions in this verse why is it in the bible?

Wrong topic
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:09:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:49:23 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?

You are really good at hearing what you want to hear.

No, the bible isn't a "fraud" with "no divine influence".

Seeings how the bible is predominantly about God, it would be rather ignorant to make the claim that it is devoid of divine influence.

I apologize for the mistake. While the bible claims to have been influenced by God in reality the numerous fabrications, contradictions, omissions and additions prove it is not really influenced by God. You have merely been tricked into believing the bible is influenced by a God like 2. 2 billion other people. Because your parents are Christian and you live in a predominantly Christian society your Christian. If you were born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents you would be a Muslim. Belief in Christianity and religion in general is entirely illogical. Any rational person can easily see that.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:14:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:09:59 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:49:23 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?

You are really good at hearing what you want to hear.

No, the bible isn't a "fraud" with "no divine influence".

Seeings how the bible is predominantly about God, it would be rather ignorant to make the claim that it is devoid of divine influence.

I apologize for the mistake. While the bible claims to have been influenced by God in reality the numerous fabrications, contradictions, omissions and additions prove it is not really influenced by God. You have merely been tricked into believing the bible is influenced by a God like 2. 2 billion other people. Because your parents are Christian and you live in a predominantly Christian society your Christian. If you were born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents you would be a Muslim. Belief in Christianity and religion in general is entirely illogical. Any rational person can easily see that.

Well, if you believe "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.", it's pretty obvious that everything is influenced by God.

But that aside, it sounds to me that you have a lot of prejudices of your own. You certainly don't understand my faith, yet you presume to. If you understood my faith, you wouldn't be so bold as to claim it to be illogical. My faith is very logical. You don't understand my faith, I can see this. It is apparent.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:14:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:09:59 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:49:23 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:44:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:38:06 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:34:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:15:01 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:58 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:04:36 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:01:56 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 9:43:31 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
So basically, you are saying that because a really old bible was discovered with slight textual variations, this disproves Christianity? The variations ultimately don't even really have a profound effect on theology either.

Not convinced.

How do you know your bible contains the truth when it contradicts with other bibles?

If an earlier bible than yours exists is it not logical to assume it is yours that contains the forgeries, contradictions and alterations and the Sinai bible is closer to the truth and the original word of god?

Earlier does not mean better or more accurate. It was just as easy to make textual alterations then as any other time.

That said, if you actually understand what the bible is saying, you aren't going to place it as an idol before God.

So tell me, why would God allow humans to make textual alterations to what is supposedly the truth? If you acknowledge textual alterations occur regularly how can you give any credibility whatsoever to the bible?

Sounds to me like you have an idolatrous understanding of the bible, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

However, I can give credibility to the bible because I understand the point of scripture.

It's beyond reasonable dispute the bible is full of contradictions, forgeries, insertions, omissions and alterations. It is an entirely illogical to believe the particular version of the bible your denomination currently uses is the unaltered word of god.

I don't think you even know what "Word of God" means.

Here, I'll give you a scripture. It's right at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

We are obviously not talking about the pages of a book here.

So you admit the bible is a huge fraud with no divine influence?

You are really good at hearing what you want to hear.

No, the bible isn't a "fraud" with "no divine influence".

Seeings how the bible is predominantly about God, it would be rather ignorant to make the claim that it is devoid of divine influence.

I apologize for the mistake. While the bible claims to have been influenced by God in reality the numerous fabrications, contradictions, omissions and additions prove it is not really influenced by God. You have merely been tricked into believing the bible is influenced by a God like 2. 2 billion other people. Because your parents are Christian and you live in a predominantly Christian society your Christian. If you were born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents you would be a Muslim. Belief in Christianity and religion in general is entirely illogical. Any rational person can easily see that.

Well, if you believe "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.", it's pretty obvious that everything is influenced by God.

But that aside, it sounds to me that you have a lot of prejudices of your own. You certainly don't understand my faith, yet you presume to. If you understood my faith, you wouldn't be so bold as to claim it to be illogical. My faith is very logical. You don't understand my faith, I can see this. It is apparent.

I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
idoubtit
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:13:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Just a quick point of view from an agnostic

1) The discovery of an older bible proves absolutely nothing. It could be a condensed version of yet an older bible.
2) Lack of written material from the actual time of Jesus doesn't mean there never was any. It could have long turned to dust, or simply not been found yet.
3) Insertions and changes over the centuries still doesn't negate the original content. Any such insertions and changes have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the original is valid.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:10:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:13:38 AM, idoubtit wrote:
Just a quick point of view from an agnostic

1) The discovery of an older bible proves absolutely nothing. It could be a condensed version of yet an older bible.
2) Lack of written material from the actual time of Jesus doesn't mean there never was any. It could have long turned to dust, or simply not been found yet.
3) Insertions and changes over the centuries still doesn't negate the original content. Any such insertions and changes have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the original is valid.

Obviously no society would try to prevent the word of their gods crumbling to dust.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:42:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:13:38 AM, idoubtit wrote:
Just a quick point of view from an agnostic

1) The discovery of an older bible proves absolutely nothing. It could be a condensed version of yet an older bible.
2) Lack of written material from the actual time of Jesus doesn't mean there never was any. It could have long turned to dust, or simply not been found yet.
3) Insertions and changes over the centuries still doesn't negate the original content. Any such insertions and changes have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the original is valid.

You are missing the point.

The contention is that the bible if the infallible word of an all-powerful omniscient God.

If it can be establish that no reliable version of the bible exists today, that poses grave problems to the contention:

1. If said God authored the bible as a vital message to mankind, why didn't He make sure an unadulterated copy survived until the modern age?

2. Given that He could foresee the future and realize many flawed translations and transcriptions would dot the centuries, why didn't He embed a textual mechanism so that anyone would be able to verify the authenticity of the document? Just to offer an example of such a mechanism, in the old days of assembly programming language, programmers used to include a checksum at the end of a block of code that allowed the person typing in the code to verify he had entered it correctly. Why didn't the omniscient God think of something analogous?

3. Does all this historical haphazard suggest divine direction or, on the contrary, rather mundane human intervention?

I will also add:

4. Why is it that the Bible is written in such an ambiguous way that Christians don't sem to be able to agree on anything? Just go through the threads around here an watch as Christians bicker on and on about how theirs is the correct interpretation, how this or that verse proves them right and their fellow Christian from another denomination opponent wrong.

This is problematic as is but is rendered even more problematic because Christ promised The Holy Ghost would be helping and guiding believers throughout the centauries. Yet, all the Holy Ghost has managed to secure is an increasingly more divided and sectarian religion, one that with the passing of each year grows in number of denominations, each one separated from the adjacent by a split theological hair.

You missed all of these implications.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:51:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

Similarly, if someone were to tell you that the sky is not red, would you even bother to listen? No, I doubt it. Despite having factual evidence placed in front of you, you insist on defending a very futile position. Despite whichever bible you choose to believe, it is still a collection of translated texts written by author or authors unknown hundreds of years following the alleged events. There is not one, I repeat, not one, I repeat again, not one piece of text that confirms the bible's protagonist, namely God.
And yet you are still stubborn enough to keep your eggs in the same basket, the one that has no hope of hatching even one single chicken.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 11:43:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

Ah, yes, the "Truth".

Given that Chloe here has demonstrated that what you are referring to for "The Truth" is a complication, redaction, alteration, revision, and addition, which parts are you wanting to call "The Truth"? The redaction, the alteration, the revision, or the addition?

What is not being said because I feel people are being polite is due to these additions, revisions, redactions, alterations etc. its pretty clear that its getting made up as it goes along to better comport with itself and reality.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:50:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

If someone demonstrated factual evidence proving something of course I would accept the truth.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
lightseeker
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:02:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
normally its not possible to prove something like this with only one evidence.

if numerous different version of a book (like Bible or Quran ... ) found and those versions are verified by neutral third parties to be legitimate, then this kind of claim that you're making can be somewhat proved.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:17:17 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:50:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

If someone demonstrated factual evidence proving something of course I would accept the truth.

The Gospel is about the truth. What does "Gospel" mean? It means "Good News". The "Good News" is that "The Truth shall set you free". Salvation of The Ultimate Reality. That is the meaning of The Name.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 7:03:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:17:17 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:50:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

If someone demonstrated factual evidence proving something of course I would accept the truth.

The Gospel is about the truth. What does "Gospel" mean? It means "Good News". The "Good News" is that "The Truth shall set you free". Salvation of The Ultimate Reality. That is the meaning of The Name.

So why do you tell lies?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 11:34:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:17:17 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:50:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

If someone demonstrated factual evidence proving something of course I would accept the truth.

The Gospel is about the truth. What does "Gospel" mean? It means "Good News". The "Good News" is that "The Truth shall set you free". Salvation of The Ultimate Reality. That is the meaning of The Name.

Obviously like every religion Christianity claims to hold the truth. A claim is not proof. I could claim I'm God but without proof it's just an unsubstantiated claim.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
idoubtit
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:47:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:42:35 AM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:13:38 AM, idoubtit wrote:
Just a quick point of view from an agnostic

1) The discovery of an older bible proves absolutely nothing. It could be a condensed version of yet an older bible.
2) Lack of written material from the actual time of Jesus doesn't mean there never was any. It could have long turned to dust, or simply not been found yet.
3) Insertions and changes over the centuries still doesn't negate the original content. Any such insertions and changes have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the original is valid.

You are missing the point.

The contention is that the bible if the infallible word of an all-powerful omniscient God.

If it can be establish that no reliable version of the bible exists today, that poses grave problems to the contention:

1. If said God authored the bible as a vital message to mankind, why didn't He make sure an unadulterated copy survived until the modern age?

2. Given that He could foresee the future and realize many flawed translations and transcriptions would dot the centuries, why didn't He embed a textual mechanism so that anyone would be able to verify the authenticity of the document? Just to offer an example of such a mechanism, in the old days of assembly programming language, programmers used to include a checksum at the end of a block of code that allowed the person typing in the code to verify he had entered it correctly. Why didn't the omniscient God think of something analogous?

3. Does all this historical haphazard suggest divine direction or, on the contrary, rather mundane human intervention?

I will also add:

4. Why is it that the Bible is written in such an ambiguous way that Christians don't sem to be able to agree on anything? Just go through the threads around here an watch as Christians bicker on and on about how theirs is the correct interpretation, how this or that verse proves them right and their fellow Christian from another denomination opponent wrong.

This is problematic as is but is rendered even more problematic because Christ promised The Holy Ghost would be helping and guiding believers throughout the centauries. Yet, all the Holy Ghost has managed to secure is an increasingly more divided and sectarian religion, one that with the passing of each year grows in number of denominations, each one separated from the adjacent by a split theological hair.

You missed all of these implications.

Nope, I haven't missed any implications. I'm simply not interested in trying to discredit the Christian religion. Neither the absence of antique books nor the presence of differing copies of antique books proves anything. Both old and new testaments were put in writing by men, the words of the deity being quoted. No one has ever claimed that the deity physically wrote it. Given that humans wrote it all down, there could be numerous errors. And it still doesn't prove one way or another whether or not a deity actually came and contacted them. Archeology can't answer everything, because for any one thing they find, thousands of others are never found.

And yes, I've seen the arguments between atheists and other religions (note that I regard atheism as a religion). Both sides make very good points. Which is why I'm agnostic.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 2:33:45 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 11:34:50 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 2:17:17 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:50:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:41:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 7/11/2016 11:21:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I know the truth about Christianity. It's a creation of superstitious bronze age men modified over thousands of years into the religion we see today. Obviously you have been tricked into believing in a false religion so its not surprising you claim I'm wrong when I tell you the truth. Just like a Buddhist, a Jew or a Hindu would when I tell them the truth about their false religions.

You sure do have a lot of faith in your current understanding.

If I told you that you were very wrong, would you even bother to humor me long enough to hear the truth?

If someone demonstrated factual evidence proving something of course I would accept the truth.

The Gospel is about the truth. What does "Gospel" mean? It means "Good News". The "Good News" is that "The Truth shall set you free". Salvation of The Ultimate Reality. That is the meaning of The Name.

Obviously like every religion Christianity claims to hold the truth. A claim is not proof. I could claim I'm God but without proof it's just an unsubstantiated claim.

It's not about telling you what is true, it's about having reverence for what is true.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 9:26:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 12:47:08 AM, idoubtit wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:42:35 AM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:13:38 AM, idoubtit wrote:
Just a quick point of view from an agnostic

1) The discovery of an older bible proves absolutely nothing. It could be a condensed version of yet an older bible.
2) Lack of written material from the actual time of Jesus doesn't mean there never was any. It could have long turned to dust, or simply not been found yet.
3) Insertions and changes over the centuries still doesn't negate the original content. Any such insertions and changes have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the original is valid.

You are missing the point.

The contention is that the bible if the infallible word of an all-powerful omniscient God.

If it can be establish that no reliable version of the bible exists today, that poses grave problems to the contention:

1. If said God authored the bible as a vital message to mankind, why didn't He make sure an unadulterated copy survived until the modern age?

2. Given that He could foresee the future and realize many flawed translations and transcriptions would dot the centuries, why didn't He embed a textual mechanism so that anyone would be able to verify the authenticity of the document? Just to offer an example of such a mechanism, in the old days of assembly programming language, programmers used to include a checksum at the end of a block of code that allowed the person typing in the code to verify he had entered it correctly. Why didn't the omniscient God think of something analogous?

3. Does all this historical haphazard suggest divine direction or, on the contrary, rather mundane human intervention?

I will also add:

4. Why is it that the Bible is written in such an ambiguous way that Christians don't sem to be able to agree on anything? Just go through the threads around here an watch as Christians bicker on and on about how theirs is the correct interpretation, how this or that verse proves them right and their fellow Christian from another denomination opponent wrong.

This is problematic as is but is rendered even more problematic because Christ promised The Holy Ghost would be helping and guiding believers throughout the centauries. Yet, all the Holy Ghost has managed to secure is an increasingly more divided and sectarian religion, one that with the passing of each year grows in number of denominations, each one separated from the adjacent by a split theological hair.

You missed all of these implications.

Nope, I haven't missed any implications. I'm simply not interested in trying to discredit the Christian religion.

To each his own.

Neither the absence of antique books nor the presence of differing copies of antique books proves anything.

Obviously, we disagree. The stakes are higher when it comes to the Bible, and a lot hinges on its attestable dependability.

Both old and new testaments were put in writing by men, the words of the deity being quoted.
So you believe the Bible is a collection of divine quotes?

No one has ever claimed that the deity physically wrote it.

And that would be why I have no idea why you're bringing this up.

Given that humans wrote it all down, there could be numerous errors.

That is the point you keep missing.
If God authored the Bible, it seems reasonable to expect the omniscient omnipotent Creator would have made sure no such error occurred.

And it still doesn't prove one way or another whether or not a deity actually came and contacted them.

Proof and strong indication are two different things. Errors in transcription and translation are a strong indication of human authorship and absence of divine guidance, as far as I see it.

Archeology can't answer everything, because for any one thing they find, thousands of others are never found.

This is too vague a statement to dispute. You'd need to be more substantial.


And yes, I've seen the arguments between atheists and other religions (note that I regard atheism as a religion). Both sides make very good points. Which is why I'm agnostic.

To each his own.