Rewriting the bible

[ManMachine]

I'm not really interested in what you said but your signature lines intrigue me. Does God actually speak to you or are you putting words in his mouth (i.e. "Friedrich Nietzsche is dead... god") which I'm fairly sure under your religion is a sin.

Still, Hypocrisy is rife in Christianity, why would you be any different?


MM

[dimaniac]

The thing is, the story is utter nonsense.

God created logic so he doesn't have to follow its laws

[abaris]

God created logic so he doesn't have to follow its laws

Admins, please take this gem to the hall of shame, where it can have a well earned place of honor.

[Godscreated]

I'm not really interested in what you said but your signature lines intrigue me. Does God actually speak to you or are you putting words in his mouth (i.e. "Friedrich Nietzsche is dead... god") which I'm fairly sure under your religion is a sin.

Still, Hypocrisy is rife in Christianity, why would you be any different?


MM

Nothing sinful in my signature, and yes God speaks to me, if He didn't I would have something to worry about. The hypocrisy lives only in your mind.

GC

[Esquilax]

The thing is, the story is utter nonsense.

God created logic so he doesn't have to follow its laws

If god created logic then that means prior to the creation of logic then reality was illogical, meaning that, in your worldview, the universe really could pop into existence from nothing, no god required. That, and god would have popped out of existence too; after all, there was a whole eternity there without any laws of logic, so anything could happen, over a time frame which ensures that anything would.

You have just refuted your own worldview.

[dimaniac]

God created logic so he doesn't have to follow its laws

If god created logic then that means prior to the creation of logic then reality was illogical, meaning that, in your worldview, the universe really could pop into existence from nothing, no god required.

That means that Universe is illogical and since atheism is based on science and science is based on evidence that means that atheism is illogical too.

[Minimalist]

Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Mattew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

Two can play this game.

Thank you for strengthening my position, it's apparent you have no idea what those verses mean.

GC

Meet G-C...who thinks they mean anything at all!

[Esquilax]

If god created logic then that means prior to the creation of logic then reality was illogical, meaning that, in your worldview, the universe really could pop into existence from nothing, no god required.

That means that Universe is illogical and since atheism is based on science and science is based on evidence that means that atheism is illogical too.

That is why I wrote that bolded line.

Yours is the only view in which the universe is illogical sans the magic of a space wizard. You're the only one who has asserted that.

That's the point; your own worldview is self refuting, but I don't believe the universe requires magic to exist, nor do I believe logic requires that. I am free from the contradictions of your worldview because I don't believe as you do. Try reading properly next time.

[Aractus]

1) The bible contains forgeries
2) The bible has had many errors in translation
3) The bible has been censored, edited and compiled (by men)

...

In short, the book has been being edited for 2000 years.

I hate to be the one agreeing with Drippy, but he's right. Every one of your main points is fundamentally flawed to the point of being either completely wrong or intentionally deceptive on your part.

1. Forgeries?

It's true that around half of Paul's epistles and the two Petrine epistles are thought to be pseudonymous by a majority of New Testament biblical scholars, however if you removed those books from the Bible it would not change the Christian doctrine or any fundamental Christian beliefs. So the influence of "forgeries" is very small.

2. Errors in Translation.

The texts are all available in their original languages, so this argument need not apply. There are other ancient documents for which only the translation exists, but this is not true for the 66 biblical books.

3. The biblical texts were systematically edited over the centuries and even millennia.

This argument is refuted by the ancient manuscripts themselves. If we assume that the OT was written around 700 BC, then there was only around 5-8 centuries between then and and the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it's quite possible some were edited in this time, we now know from the evidence of the DSS that they were not ever methodically modified after that time.

The textual agreement between the ancient DSS and the less-ancient Leningrad codex letter for letter is around 95%. When it comes to content it's about 99.5%. While there are a few words or even lines here and there missing in the later text, I'm aware of no later additions ever being identified in the Masoretic Text. So there is solid evidence that the OT was not intentionally modified between the 2nd century BC and the present.

On the case of the NT the evidence against modification is even stronger. There are over 5800 ancient Greek manuscripts, the average size is 400 pages - in total 2.6 million pages (i.e. 1.3 million individual leaves). That's just in Greek, there's a lot more than that in Latin and other languages, in total there's at least 20,000 ancient NT manuscripts and possibly as many as 26,000. Aside from the Comma Johanneum, there is no addition identified in the NT that occurred after the 2nd century AD. There are a few small additions that occurred before this time, but none that occurred afterward. Generally, biblical scholars are certain they have the exact meaning for the NT in 99.9% of the NT, with around 99.5% word-for-word accuracy. This is substantially higher than for the OT. Most of the word-for-word inaccuracy is word order which has no influence on the meaning ("Christ Jesus" vs. "Jesus Christ", etc., and of course the use of nomina sacra which also constitute a wording change even though the word itself is the same).

[Minimalist]

I think you had best read Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus," Danny. You are way off base.