Questions For You Non Believers

[The Grand Nudger]

A straw man? Hardly. Someone asked you about two adult homosexuals and you responded with a little anti-islamic jab about pedophilia. I simply mentioned that this is entirely common behavior from fundies. Take a look at our boards, it's almost inevitable when the subject of homosexuality comes up that some asshat will respond by way of reference to pedophilia. You're continuing that grand tradition.

If you don't like getting called on it, pro-tip...don't do it.

[Aractus]

You might try reading some Biblical scholarship. Try Bart Ehrman.

Like Joseph Atwill, Abelard Reuchlin, Evan Powell etc. If what Ehrman has to say is anything like Atwill and the people before him in terms of alleged forgeries then the evidence they all point to to assert their arguments is clearly fabricated and easily refuted by any serious theologian. The idea that only they know the real truth because only they could join the dots is totally absurd, it isn't new it's just a continuation of old ideas that have consistently failed to gain the evidence required to successfully assert them.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Serious" looks to be code for "credulous". Magic has been horseshit since it was first proposed Daniel, that train left the station long before christianity was a twinkle in some con artists eyes.

[Aractus]

When I say 'fabrication', I mean that the stories themselves are untrue or based on untruths, not necessarily that they were written or altered later (though it is impossible to believe they were not over thousands of years).

Show me how the 27 NT books were fabricated then. Show me the evidence for systematic alteration to them. Simple.

---

A straw man? Hardly. Someone asked you about two adult homosexuals and you responded with a little anti-islamic jab about pedophilia.

I simply gave an example of an illegal marriage. Get past it.

[Chas]

When I say 'fabrication', I mean that the stories themselves are untrue or based on untruths, not necessarily that they were written or altered later (though it is impossible to believe they were not over thousands of years).

Show me how the 27 NT books were fabricated then. Show me the evidence for systematic alteration to them. Simple.

So, you are not going to read what an actual Biblical scholar has discovered? Bart Ehrman (and others) show evidence that the texts of the Bible have been changed over the years.

---

A straw man? Hardly. Someone asked you about two adult homosexuals and you responded with a little anti-islamic jab about pedophilia.

I simply gave an example of an illegal marriage. Get past it.

Same-sex marriage is legal in many places. Get past it.

[Aractus]

So, you are not going to read what an actual Biblical scholar has discovered? Bart Ehrman (and others) show evidence that the texts of the Bible have been changed over the years.

Then why don't you quote his evidence? I can't speak for Ehrman specifically, but Atwill certainly pulls a fast one time and time again citing his own fabrications as evidence for his position. It's like an extremist conspiracy theory. What he pulls out of his arse he presents to atheists as some brand new fundamental understanding of the origin of Christianity - one man's shit is another man's truth!

Define "texts of the Bible" that you are claiming have been "changed over the years", and while you're at it define "change" in the context you're applying it. If by change you mean small insignificant changes in spelling or wording (for instance "Christ Jesus" becomes "Jesus Christ" and vice-versa in certain places), then I'm not interested in that. If by change you mean systematic alteration to first century texts for the purpose of an outside agenda, then produce some evidence already will you?

[Chas]

So, you are not going to read what an actual Biblical scholar has discovered? Bart Ehrman (and others) show evidence that the texts of the Bible have been changed over the years.

Then why don't you quote his evidence? I can't speak for Ehrman specifically, but Atwill certainly pulls a fast one time and time again citing his own fabrications as evidence for his position. It's like an extremist conspiracy theory. What he pulls out of his arse he presents to atheists as some brand new fundamental understanding of the origin of Christianity - one man's shit is another man's truth!

Define "texts of the Bible" that you are claiming have been "changed over the years", and while you're at it define "change" in the context you're applying it. If by change you mean small insignificant changes in spelling or wording (for instance "Christ Jesus" becomes "Jesus Christ" and vice-versa in certain places), then I'm not interested in that. If by change you mean systematic alteration to first century texts for the purpose of an outside agenda, then produce some evidence already will you?

I refer you to Bart Ehrman's works, especially Misquoting Jesus. He details insertions of text, incorrect translations, and other issues, as well as the major fact that we have no original texts. None whatsoever. Only copies of copies of copies ...

[Aractus]

We don't have the original texts of the works of Josephus either. We only have tiny fragments left of the Hexapla (a work believed to have never been duplicated in whole). The Jews "retired" their old Biblical manuscripts by burying them once they were well worn, they didn't see the use in keeping the oldest texts they had. Let me remind you that even without the Levites, even with the "temple scrolls" being taken or destroyed not just once but twice (with the destruction of the corresponding 1st and 2nd temples) that the Jews - specifically the Masorites - still managed to preserve the 22 scrolls exceptionally well, and that the argument that they didn't is refuted with the Qumran scrolls that prove there was no intentional alteration to the texts between 2BC and 1000AD to the present. The Book of Daniel switches from Hebrew to Aramaic back to Hebrew, which the critics used to say proved the book was originally written in Aramaic and then altered to contain Hebrew. The Great Isaiah Scroll proves that Isaiah was not modified like the critics said it was. Isaiah 7:14 reads עלמה (almâh) even though the sceptics said that the Christians modified it!

Your theory is nothing new. The fallacy in your argument is that you assert that there "should be" original manuscripts. Show me all these other ancient manuscripts you have originals of and not copies?

We have 19 NT manuscripts from the first and second centuries (only one of those is from the first century). Of the 19, about 6 were discovered only about a year ago. Between the 19 manuscripts, they contain more than 40% of the text of the NT. Not a single one contains an addition to the text not found in the later manuscripts.

Try again.

[Ryantology]

Show me how the 27 NT books were fabricated then. Show me the evidence for systematic alteration to them. Simple.

They were fabricated in that they tell the story of a lunatic who thinks he was the son of God and invented stories about walking on water and turning it into wine.

I do not know if the texts have been altered and I don't care if they haven't been. I'm not trying to prove that they have. The story itself is impossible, so what difference does it make what has been changed?

[Chas]

We don't have the original texts of the works of Josephus either. We only have tiny fragments left of the Hexapla (a work believed to have never been duplicated in whole). The Jews "retired" their old Biblical manuscripts by burying them once they were well worn, they didn't see the use in keeping the oldest texts they had. Let me remind you that even without the Levites, even with the "temple scrolls" being taken or destroyed not just once but twice (with the destruction of the corresponding 1st and 2nd temples) that the Jews - specifically the Masorites - still managed to preserve the 22 scrolls exceptionally well, and that the argument that they didn't is refuted with the Qumran scrolls that prove there was no intentional alteration to the texts between 2BC and 1000AD to the present. The Book of Daniel switches from Hebrew to Aramaic back to Hebrew, which the critics used to say proved the book was originally written in Aramaic and then altered to contain Hebrew. The Great Isaiah Scroll proves that Isaiah was not modified like the critics said it was. Isaiah 7:14 reads עלמה (almâh) even though the sceptics said that the Christians modified it!

Your theory is nothing new. The fallacy in your argument is that you assert that there "should be" original manuscripts. Show me all these other ancient manuscripts you have originals of and not copies?

We have 19 NT manuscripts from the first and second centuries (only one of those is from the first century). Of the 19, about 6 were discovered only about a year ago. Between the 19 manuscripts, they contain more than 40% of the text of the NT. Not a single one contains an addition to the text not found in the later manuscripts.

Try again.

It is neither mine nor a theory. These are facts discovered by good Biblical scholarship.