Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[TheBeardedDude]

Personally, the fact that no two "divinely-inspired" texts agree with one another is a great example of how human these texts are and how lacking they are in divining inspiration. You'd think a god would ensure that the method that they chose to communicate with humans with was at least more reliable than a game of "telephone."

So for you spelling error's during copying is a deal breaker?
Also, the evidence seems to show that it is not equivalent to the telephone game, so I am curious what you base this conclusion on?

---

Read Misquoting Jesus.  You have much to learn.  I have an E-book somewhere if you don't want to go to your library or buy it.  I'd be glad to send it to you.

"Jesus Interrupted" is another good one.

If there is a place to get the E-book for free legitimately then I will have a look.  Otherwise, what is it, that you think that I need to learn?   You seemed to avoid the questions I asked.  

Perhaps you could summarize some of the arguments, or share some of the evidence for the claims.  If you can give me a reason to, I'll buy the book.   However, you are going to need something more than spelling errors.

"So for you spelling error's during copying is a deal breaker?

Also, the evidence seems to show that it is not equivalent to the telephone game, so I am curious what you base this conclusion on?"

Spelling errors? No, I'm talking about full-on differences in translations whereby meanings become so skewed that one can interpret scripture nearly any way one wants. 

Theist 1: "It's metaphorical" 
Theist 2: "No, it's literal!"
Theist 3: "It's clearly an allegory."
Theist 4: "Well, it's not literal but not entirely a metaphor and...blah blah blah."

I mean that a god chose to knowingly communicate with imperfect beings and through a medium by which there are guaranteed to be major discrepancies. 

And then on top of this, you have texts that directly contradict themselves. Old Testament contradictions, such as how many gods are there ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me" plus some of the earliest versions of OT texts actually name other gods within them, later translated all to the same god). 

It is a more holistic issue with the biblical texts, their translations and issues, and contradictions. It reads as one might expect a text written by numerous authors (who were largely ignorant of the world) and edited by numerous more (who were also largely ignorant of the world and who may have also had a clear agenda when translating the texts).

---

lol

Okay. So let me get this straight. You believe that neither the Romans nor Paul are responsible for the Christian Church being around? [1] I think you might need to rethink what the important steps were for your religion to ever become anything more than a series of isolated cults wandering around the Middle East. [2]

1. You got it straight!!
2. Except that Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians are not in the Middle East. Thomas went to India and there have been Christians there ever since. It seems you are confusing the Catholic Church with the plain church that started on day 1--they are not the same thing. Granted the Catholic church affected history to a tremendous degree, but it is simply not true that the Catholic Church was necessary for Christianity.

I'm almost willing to bet you also think these people's names were literally Peter, Thomas, Jesus, and Paul.