New World Order

fredcaudle

New Member
but you get your info on jesus from the church....


so when the church is worng on something, the faith isn't wrong, its just that we have the wrong understanding of gods word?
you rely on man - not me.

I get my info from the Old and New Testament - its called the Bible. Faith is not in church - faith is in Jesus Christ, the anointed of God to bring salvation into the world. Without faith in Jesus Christ - one is not part of God.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
which was written by man.

so you too, rely on man.

The authenticity of the Bible has been discussed prolifically on this very forum. You don't accept that the Bible is divinely inspired, that is not a Christian's problem.

Here is an excerpt.
The oldest manuscripts of ancient writers like Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus (among other) amounts to a small number of copies that were made a thousand years or more after the originals were written. There are no more then ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, and the oldest copy of that was written over 900 years later than the original. Scholars accept these documents as adequate representations of the originals.

Why not the Bible?

The earliest portions of The New Testament date to within just 25 years of the originals. Some nearly complete books of the new testament date to within one century or less from the originals. And we're not even talking about a handful of copies that can be compared with one another to determine accuracy or consistence. There are nearly 25,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament, with more than 15,000 that date to before the 7th Century A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer). These include 5,300 copies in the original Greek, over 10,000 in Latin Vulgate, 4,100 Slavic translations, 2,000 Ethiopian translations and about 1,000 other early translations.

Further, in the first centuries after Christ, thousands of letters, and other documents were written in which people quoted from other documents that would later be assembled into what was to become the New Testament.. These quotes are so extensive that even if there wasn't a single Bible in existence, you could go back to those letters and documents and using only those written within 250 years after the death of Christ, you could find every word of the New Testament, with the exception of 11 verses.

There are small differences in all those manuscripts - however, all these differences, most are a matter of spelling or word order changes that were made as the styles changed over the ages. In fact a total of only about 200 words, or 1/10 of 1 percent of the entire new testament are subject to more than trivial differences. And no single doctrine of Christianity in all it's denominations throughout history depend on a piece of disputed text.


As for the Old Testament, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that in over 2,000 years those who copied the Old testament were so meticulous that no significant changes were made to the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.
 

wxtornado

The Other White Meat
2ndAmendment said:
The oldest manuscripts of ancient writers like Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus (among other) amounts to a small number of copies that were made a thousand years or more after the originals were written. There are no more then ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, and the oldest copy of that was written over 900 years later than the original. Scholars accept these documents as adequate representations of the originals.

Why not the Bible?


One's immortal soul doesn't rest on claims made by Aristotle or Caesar, does it?

The bible makes claims that it is FROM GOD. When did any work of Aristotle do that?

You offer a dead end argument (that you thiests consistently refuse to accept). By saying, "But of course there's no originals of many books, so it is with the bible..."

...YOU ARE PUTTING THE BIBLE IN THE CATEGORY OF "PATENTLY HUMAN IN ORIGIN."

Which is correct. It is exclusively a human document which - surprise! is why it is subjected to human fallibility - like translation errors and lack of provenance.

Thus, we have proven it is not in any way shape or form the true result of divnity, which by definition would NOT be tamperable by mere human meddling. Yes indeed, by making this argument and admitting the bible is subject to the same dreary problems as any work by any other mere mortal, you have conveniently helped to PROVE the bible is - human in origin. :howdy:
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
One's immortal soul doesn't rest on claims made by Aristotle or Caesar, does it?

The bible makes claims that it is FROM GOD. When did any work of Aristotle do that?

You offer a dead end argument (that you thiests consistently refuse to accept). By saying, "But of course there's no originals of many books, so it is with the bible..."

...YOU ARE PUTTING THE BIBLE IN THE CATEGORY OF "PATENTLY HUMAN IN ORIGIN."

Which is correct. It is exclusively a human document which - surprise! is why it is subjected to human fallibility - like translation errors and lack of provenance.

Thus, we have proven it is not in any way shape or form the true result of divnity, which by definition would NOT be tamperable by mere human meddling. Yes indeed, by making this argument and admitting the bible is subject to the same dreary problems as any work by any other mere mortal, you have conveniently helped to PROVE the bible is - human in origin. :howdy:

What a fallacious post.

No Christian that I know of has ever said the Bible was not written by men. What we say is that the Bible was not Authored by men. The Author of the Bible is God. Men just put the words to paper.

You won't believe it, so I'll not debate it. Merry Christmas.
 

Starman3000m

New Member
Can any of you theists produce an ORIGINAL biblical manuscript?

Well, actually the "originals" were broken by Moses and discarded. The second copy of the "Original Commandments" to mankind are said to be hidden in an undisclosed location and will turn up when the Third Temple of God is built.
Anyway, here is what was written in the orginal manuscript which has been copied several times and remains in effect:

1. I am the Lord thy God who have brought thee out of the house of bondage.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods besides me.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy Father and Mother.
6. Thou shalt not murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10.Thou shalt not covet.

of course there are some variations - but the message remains the same throughout. Which do you not agree with?
 
Last edited:

fredcaudle

New Member
sure. I wouldn't waste time trying to convince you that the ocean is purple either.
I thought you were twisted enough to actually believe the ocean is purple...

Ooops.. sorry, that was judgmental. It's okay if your ocean is purple, equal opportunity here.
 

fredcaudle

New Member
Can any of you theists produce an ORIGINAL biblical manuscript?
it wouldn't matter... they would say it was made up. Their whole world crumbles if the Bible is true.

Historically, we only have hundreds of manuscripts... no originals. Not even historical literature of same age has that many manuscripts. But whose counting...
 

fredcaudle

New Member
One's immortal soul doesn't rest on claims made by Aristotle or Caesar, does it?

The bible makes claims that it is FROM GOD. When did any work of Aristotle do that?

You offer a dead end argument (that you thiests consistently refuse to accept). By saying, "But of course there's no originals of many books, so it is with the bible..."

...YOU ARE PUTTING THE BIBLE IN THE CATEGORY OF "PATENTLY HUMAN IN ORIGIN."

Which is correct. It is exclusively a human document which - surprise! is why it is subjected to human fallibility - like translation errors and lack of provenance.

Thus, we have proven it is not in any way shape or form the true result of divnity, which by definition would NOT be tamperable by mere human meddling. Yes indeed, by making this argument and admitting the bible is subject to the same dreary problems as any work by any other mere mortal, you have conveniently helped to PROVE the bible is - human in origin. :howdy:
thanks for sharing... your human which means you are fallible... ie. what you just wrote is not true...

This is your logic against the Bible. So, if you think that argument works to your wisdom, understand it works against you too. Non-believing people have a dismal outlook... nothing can be trusted for it is all man written and subject to change with each passing generation... No thanks to joining that club.
 
Top