Why do you believe?

[Gooders1002]

This maybe a late reply but:
Firstly, eye witness testimony is unreliable as details can get warped and mixed up, especially over time and considering in order to get these accounts down it would have take months of a scholars time (as only about 4% (correct me if I am wrong) at that time could read or write) the account could have been warped over time, and eye witness testimony is contested for use in courts even today.

Finally someone with an intelligent conversation. And not goofy remarks.
I agree that over time accounts can be altered. But do you agree that the bible even if it was loss in the second century could be re-written by the mass documents of the early church fathers? That's something to think about. So many documents that the early fathers wrote that agreed with the new testament it would be hard for you to refute it.

I also agree that even eye witness in court is also contested at times. But most of the times its accepted and often more times than none.

Not really, it all comes down to A. the reliability of the witness B. were there judge well except the testimony and even then they need more evidence to back the claim

Secondly, in order to get a copy of the Bible in those times a scholar would have had to write out the whole book out from scratch from beginning to end (it was a full time job) and was highly susceptible to Chinese whispers effect were the original said 1 thing but the copy may have been slightly different either though miss reading or deliberate change and when translated the change of being miss interpreted is even greater as you have to take into cultural language norms into account and there grammar, is was not a straight copy and even for a text that size there was a high chance of mistakes, misinterpretation and deliberate change to suit the scholar.

Great argument but this is where we can turn to faith. Besides the scholars of those times only wrote what the disciples told them to write. The gospels was written only decades after the resurrection and the early church fathers actually knew the disciples personally so this could also have easily been refuted as well.

I am sorry to say faith has no academic merit or can it be used as evidence, but I will let it slip this once. the accounts of Jesus even if the disciples had given accounts directly they would have been old ad memories warp over time (this is why back in the first point about reliability of the witness, time of a key factor) and thus may not be what really happened. Also again the original text my have been closer to the true but time and scholar error/ deliberate change over 2000 years can greatly chance the story.

Thirdly, the language were Jesus was supposedly born was (and he spoke) Aramaic and is very difficult even today to translate into ancient Greek (the language of the first bibles) because of the many differences between words and grammar and stricter between the two languages so many things could have been mistranslated when put in Greek.

This could be true but it's still an opinion not fact. Again we know that the church fathers knew not only the written words of the apostles but also the oral words also. So they would have easily known if there were any falsification.

The church fathers were Aramaic, is was only later when the different texts were made and the change from Aramaic to Greek became a problem. also the Bible in total is missing 13 books because they were voted out of canon (can somebody help me reference this) and some books total a more interesting twist on the Jesus/Yahweh story.

Lastly, It is now contested that the town of Nazareth (were Jesus was supposedly born) did not exist until 4 CE/AD, 400 years after his supposed death. And what might have been there was in fact at most a small sentiment of about 7 farming families at most.

This has recently been refuted let the evidence speak for it self

 It is no wonder that Nazareth was not mentioned by historians:
John 1:46 -- And Nathaniel said to him (Philip): "Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth ?"
This implies that Nazareth is a lowly, poor and backward place where it will never produce any person of significance....

Historians write about kings and emperors; not about people in rat holes...

The evidence that Nazareth DOES existed in Jesus' time came from the finding of a list in Aramaic (Jewish language) describing a number of famlies of priests that were no longer needed in 70 AD.
It is the custom to select priests from every town and city to serve in the temple ,

When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priests were no longer needed....

Archaeologists have discovered a list of 24 families of priests who were relocated after the temple's destruction and one of the family was registered as having moved to .... you guessed it.... Nazareth !

So Nazareth does exist in 70 A.D. !

Recently, a Roman bathhouse from 2,000 years ago - the time of Christ - was found in Nazareth
A first century temple was also found that dated back to the first century

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Ar...intro.html

Firstly is was Catholic Archaeologists that did the digging. Why is this important?
Well Christianity would be complete destroyed if Jesus's home town did not exist, so they could 'edit' what they found to keep there faith in tacked and since (ironical) this place is mostly Arabic if Jesus did not exist they loss a profit and what does that say for the rest of the Quran. so both had a big steak in it.
And because its sacred no Non-religious Scientist will ever get a look.
Also The bible says the town of Nazareth not the hamlet of Nazareth which it is more likely to be. Also if there was a settlement there it was not renamed Nazareth until 135 CE/AD. Also not in the gospel of Philip (one that got voted out of the bible) Jesus is not Jesus of Nazareth but Jesus of Nazarene (or Nezer) or Truth (or even Branch/flower derived from the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'))
You can look deeper for yourself @ http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
Sources are at the bottom of the page.

I'm sorry I had to comeback you were the only one who gave me any type of intellectual argument. Your statements were thought provoking. To bad there aren't many of atheist like you around the truth!!!!

I try to be fair as work debatable on friendly terms, like you I seek the true, no matter what it really is and as long as its accurate with evidence then I will support it. I hope it keeps being thought provoking .