Pat Robertson warned Bush! (Apparently Bush didn't listen to God afterall)

[Toxick]

As time has gone on the Bible has changed. The bible has been translated so many different times into many different languages, that what you are reading today may not be what it really said in ancient times. The catholic church also had the Bible edited to better fit the Pope's Administration. That's why I say the Bible is a good book of fiction. How could God's book have been edited? Why would God have a Bible written just to have had it with incorrect information that needed edited????

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 reprentations 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 consistancy. 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 tranlations, 2,000 Ethiopian thranslations 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 there no single doctrine of Christiantiy in all it's denominations througout history depend on a piece of disputed text.

As for the Old Testament, the discovey 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 represetn a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C.(E.) to 68 A.D (C.E.) Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.

You can take that for what it's worth, but I see no reason to argue that the bible has changed a zillion times, or that it is subject to so much red-penciling through the centuries.




And yes, I can site all of the facts and figures in the above article, if you think I'm pulling it all out of my ass.

 

[UrbanPancake]

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 reprentations 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 consistancy. 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 tranlations, 2,000 Ethiopian thranslations 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 there no single doctrine of Christiantiy in all it's denominations througout history depend on a piece of disputed text.

As for the Old Testament, the discovey 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 represetn a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C.(E.) to 68 A.D (C.E.) Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.

You can take that for what it's worth, but I see no reason to argue that the bible has changed a zillion times, or that it is subject to so much red-penciling through the centuries.




And yes, I can site all of the facts and figures in the above article, if you think I'm pulling it all out of my ass.

But who wrote the Bible? God didn't. People did. Many different people according to you. So how can we truely tell what is God's word, if people wrote it? To be honest with you I haven't seen any body latley kill Giants, or walk on water, or perform any other magic. If all of these stories are true then why aren't any of these "miracles" happening today? Most of these stories have been changed to include new cultures that the church wanted to expand in and control. Think about that. Religion was originally developed to control people and unite them behind a leader(The Pope in modern times). The same goes for Christianity.

 

[Toxick]

But who wrote the Bible? God didn't. People did.Many different people according to you. So how can we truely tell what is God's word, if people wrote it? To be honest with you I haven't seen any body latley kill Giants, or walk on water, or perform any other magic.

I'm not a literalist. There are many stories in the Old Testament which read like mythology and narrative. I believe that many of these stories - particularly those of law and creation - are symbolic in nature and probably only bear a passing resemblance to actual events.

I'm not especially interested in the Old Testament, except those parts where it focuses on the prophecies relating to Christ. So if you're expecting me to argue the voracity or the literal substance of the Old Testament, you're going to be disappointed.

The New Testament was written by the Apostles. Those who were there. Writing about what was going on right there in their home town.

If all of these stories are true then why aren't any of these "miracles" happening today?

Most miracles are called "scientific breakthroughs" now. And these are invariably dismissed by skeptics. They may not be dazzling like changing water to wine, or raining frogs, but I think the abundance of miracles is so overwhelming these days that we take them for granted.

I do not have any intention of arguing semantics, however. If you don't believe that a child getting a heart transplant and a chance at life is a miracle, or that grampa going into remission when they said he only had 6 months to live is a miracle, then arguing with you about will be less than useless.

Most of these stories have been changed to include new cultures that the church wanted to expand in and control. Think about that.

Yeah - ok. I'll think about that.


Meantime I'd like you to think about this: I didn't just suddenly decide, "Hey that bible's a good lookin' book, I believe I'll blindly do what it says". I spent a good deal of my teens and twenties as an agnostic. I've been studying and thinking about the bible longer than you perhaps believe.

Therefore I find it very difficult to and frustrating to argue with someone who obviously is repeating the same old arguments, and with someone who dismisses everything I say out of hand. If they bother to read it at all.