Atheist who is having a crisis of faith

[Brian37]

Yes but 3,000 years worth of research we have manuscripts more than any literature in history well over 10,000 and they all say the same thing for the most part, with some obvious little differences, if it was really made up wouldn't they of been changing it each time instead of just copying from one to another verbatim? if the christians were reajlly liars as u claim then why wouldn't they add stuff to make it even more believable instead of just leaving t he OT and NT the same all these years?

---

Why wouldn't each reader just start changing stuff if it was just made up by everybody? Or were there certain writers? Why wasn't it change

Um no they do not. 
The Hebrews in reality, were really nothing more than "Yahwehists" of the polytheism of the prior Canaanites who managed to take that character and promote it as the only god, when it started out in polytheism as a lesser deity under the head god El who was the top god of the "divine family."
No different than accepting the Rasta religion is a spin off of African Jewish/Catholic motifs.
And it doesn't always have to be about lying. Humans sell garbage all the time they truly believe in. You can truly believe what you claim and be dead wrong at the same time.
Just like when I was a kid, there was a time I'd tell you Santa was real, and truly believed it. But it didn't matter how much I wanted it to be true, I was still wrong.
Just like the ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years buying and selling claims of Ra and Osiris and Horus and Isis. All that success still did not make those gods real.
One can believe what they claim, and also be wrong at the same time.

[brewer]

@emilsein 

You might want to listen to some Bart Ehrman. (kudos to Min)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9O8xI...LxaM4HiMOQ

[Jehanne]

Yeah but there the same, I gotta say why didn't people change them? If you read our NT with a NT in Jesus time, well it's the same, doesn't sound like ppl lying. And the OT dates back 3,000 years ago and it's the same. Yes I know there textual variants, but I'm saying it's the most accurate piece of written down material that didn't change, well wouldn't you change it to fit Christ into the worldview to help your religion?

Changes were made; read Professor Bart Ehrman or download the free Audible app. Your first audio book is free; Dr. Erhman has several courses and many books!!

[Deesse23]

I need some good logic to convince me to stay an atheist or at least an agnostic.

Do you care if your beliefs are true? If so, then you should follow the evidence, examine your beliefs and correct them according to the evidence and not look for arguments to believe something you already have chosen to believe. If you find the bible so compelling, why arent you a theist?

That being said, exactly bcause of your very unreasonable approach on how to gain beliefs, which his very stereotypical for most theists (in disguise) who join this forum, i dont believe for a second you are an atheist. You are a theist pretending to be an atheist, but alas, while you can lie to us and pretend to have certain positions/beliefs, what you cant pretend having a sound epistemology and correct application of reason.

[emilsein]

I've already read Erhman and don't agree the changes are significant, I'm saying the stories have stayed the same, not little linguistics. And no the bible wasn't written in Latin, that's nonsense and you need a dunce hat. Also we do know when they were written b/c of carbon dating and other scientific dating as well as manuscripts at the time, otherwise how could we know? They say new testament was about 80 years AD or some shit like that, maybe less if I'm remembering correctly, still not sure who wrote it probably. Explain to me your theory of how it was written and let's see you debunk carbon dating, bam! I just won this and tuned this whole site into believers!

[arewethereyet]

I've already read Erhman and don't agree the changes are significant, I'm saying the stories have stayed the same, not little linguistics. And no the bible wasn't written in Latin, that's nonsense and you need a dunce hat. Also we do know when they were written b/c of carbon dating and other scientific dating as well as manuscripts at the time, otherwise how could we know? They say new testament was about 80 years AD or some shit like that, maybe less if I'm remembering correctly, still not sure who wrote it probably. Explain to me your theory of how it was written and let's see you debunk carbon dating, bam! I just won this and tuned this whole site into believers!

[emilsein]

I just don't understand why no one can answer some of my questions, it's like I scared you with the "Why didn't the Christians go further and plant evidence theory if Thallus and Josephus are liars? Why are some of you saying The Bible wasn't written 50 years after Jesus' death when we have carbon dating and radioisotope dating which if you think carbon dating isn't full proof that is a better option, and we have manuscripts from that time that show the NT has stayed the same mostly. People always think The Bible is something that was written many years by many people but according to the science, it was written shortly after the christ died, and do you know why Jesus can't eat m ms? They would fall through his hands, oh God!

---

Honestly I just want someone to explain and rationalize all my arguments and why they're wrong, I mean we have the dating methods, now of course that don't prove the bible is real but it does prove when it was written. I am honestly someone who is in fear of God who knows he's probably not thinking rationally but can't seem to stop the nonstop debate, b/c everytime you guys have a valid point my mind still has doubt and goes back to questioning this and that.

[LadyForCamus]

Trollololol.

[Fake Messiah]

. Also we do know when they were written b/c of carbon dating and other scientific dating as well as manuscripts at the time, otherwise how could we know? They say new testament was about 80 years AD or some shit like that, maybe less if I'm remembering correctly, still not sure who wrote it probably. Explain to me your theory of how it was written and let's see you debunk carbon dating, bam! I just won this and tuned this whole site into believers!

It's not carbon dating that is used to determine time when Gospels were written but other things, like what is written and how it's written. The oldest physical Gospels manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus and they are dated to the early-to-mid fourth century CE.

[emilsein]

I know this must smell of a troll and I get accused of it alot, I'm actually just looking for answers, I really thought this community could maybe poke holes in my theories but I have obviously hit a nail with this dating method of the NT, b/c one guy said earlier, "That's not when they were written"....well we know when they were written.

---

. Also we do know when they were written b/c of carbon dating and other scientific dating as well as manuscripts at the time, otherwise how could we know? They say new testament was about 80 years AD or some shit like that, maybe less if I'm remembering correctly, still not sure who wrote it probably. Explain to me your theory of how it was written and let's see you debunk carbon dating, bam! I just won this and tuned this whole site into believers!

It's not carbon dating that is used to determine time when Gospels were written but other things, like what is written and how it's written. The oldest physical Gospels manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus and they are dated to the early-to-mid fourth century CE.

I read that they used carbon dating and radioisotope dating on the NT, and that there are manuscripts from that tiem