A question about original sin.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Have you ever wondered why I don't accept scripture as evidence?

Because you don't care for the truth that it claims to, you only seek what satisfies you. I can discern difference in all things even to the point of ignorance but what is true will always be true. Do you know what is true? Do you know what is important?

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is "true". It exists. That doesn't make it true. It has to have an independent source to prove it's credibility. And since there are no autographs extant to support one scripture contained therein, besides the fact that an alleged compilation of the "Words of god" were edited and elected to be bound and contained within what was determined to be a man made "closed canon", it is simply no more and no less than a book authored by at least 40 different authors who one can believe were "inspired" by god but since god has never been proven to exist, as all religions are a matter of faith, the one certain factor in that equation remains the authors were fallible humans. And as such so too is the book they contributed to authoring over a period of many years compiled from resources such as manuscripts, scrolls and papyrus.

Thus the Bible is not an original document, it's authors are in question to say the least, it contains as what is posited as "god's breath" and yet if a perfect supreme being, a holy spirit, inspired the Bible chapter and verse it would be impossible to then contain errors, contradictions, misrepresentations and outright lies. Especially when modern science can prove the errancy contained therein. And all of this can be proven as such. Thus, it is impossible for a perfect supreme being to humans, to "write" an errant book.

The work of Professor Bart Ehrman, and other Biblical scholars, prove the authors of the gospels are not those men who's names imply each of the apostle's for which each gospel book is written, was it's author. (As another thread in this forum outlines) The gospels can even be proven to have been written decades, between as much as 50 to 70 years after the mythical Jesus ascended unto Heaven.

Most of the new testament was written by Paul who was considered the apostle to the Gentiles. And much of what he wrote in letters and accounts of what he wanted to persuade the reader to be his personal experience of Jesus, when he never met the man in the flesh but instead through a hallucination after JC rose from the dead, was written in Greek. Most Jews in 1st century did not speak Greek.

Besides that, which can all be discounted as valid by the most committed Fundy, the Bible itself isn't a credible source for the word of god. You remember, right? So says...the Bible!
Maybe a Christian can help.

"(sic)...God's Word was, is, and always shall be with God. God created all things through his Word. His Word was spoken to the patriarchs. Moses said that the Word of God was in the hearts and mouths of the people of Israel; this same Word came to the prophets. God sent his Word to earth in the human form of his Son, Jesus Christ, who preached that Word and personified it, who lived in the flesh and died on the cross and was raised to life. That same Word of God now sits on the right hand of God and speaks in the hearts of Christ's followers and will judge all things. There is no scriptural basis for the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, for the scriptures do not exalt themselves, but they testify to Christ. From time immemorial people have tried to fit God into forms that they could touch, hold, study, classify, and finally control. People are still trying to do this by clinging to the unscriptural view that the Word of God is a book." (Source: Scriptural Evidence that the WORD OF GOD is not the Bible)

---

Saying he is using the Bible to prove the Bible is just committing equivocation.

Did you seriously just use Bart Ehrman as an authority on textual criticism? The atheistic skeptic who makes his living off of pushing his anti-biblical agenda? Or am I think of a different Bart Ehrman? Shucks, I didn't know we were allowed to use such biased sources.