Another "I saw Jesus" claim

[KevinM1]

I don't know why this is such a big deal.  Jesus plays for the Mariners.  Tons of people see him every summer.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

That's an obvious fake written centuries after it was supposed to have originally been written.  For one thing it makes use of paragraphs and headings.  Such refinements were not used in ancient manuscripts.  On top of that it's written on paper as well as being out of focus so that it can't be examined in detail.  

Conclusion:  It's pure BS.  Do you have anything else?

1) I provided 4 separate nearly complete copies of the Old/New Testaments that date to or prior to the 5th century. You talk as if your brain only has the ability to process the existence of one. Derp.
2) Find me one accredited scholar, or really anyone besides yourself, who doubts the authenticity of either of the four I linked to. I mean someone who can provide actual arguments supported by facts and not simple assertions as believers such as yourself are keen to do. You, like your fellow fundamentalists, usually fail to cite even a single credible piece of evidence for your claims. It's not interesting. Therefore, I---as any sane, rational person would agree---can justifiably ignore them.
3) Your original claim is that the English wrote the Bible in the 14th (?) century, yet there are thousands of references to the Bible and direct quotations from numerous other writers for over a millennia before that. Therefore, like a young earth creationist, or worse, you're literally just denying reality because it doesn't conform to your blind faith.
4) You're getting to be very boring, and quickly.

As I've pointed out several times none of your links actually show anything in detail.  They are just assertions that the documents were written as claimed.  If the documents are legit why can't you provide links that show all of their pages in fine detail?  

An English committee wrote the Codex Amiatinus as a gift to Pope Gregory II but he croaked before he got his copy.  The Bible as a complete book didn't exist before then.  

The modern Bible format wasn't completed until around 1550 with the verbiage being broken down into numbered verses.  The idea about putting the fairy tale into chapters had been introduced around the 1220s.  

I'm looking forward to your links that will show some fine details of your original Bibles.  
  

[Randy Carson]

How come they always see jesus and not the devil?  Just once, I'd like them to come back and say they saw flames and suffering.

Google it.

[Mudhammam]

As I've pointed out several times none of your links actually show anything in detail.  They are just assertions that the documents were written as claimed.  If the documents are legit why can't you provide links that show all of their pages in fine detail?  

An English committee wrote the Codex Amiatinus as a gift to Pope Gregory II but he croaked before he got his copy.  The Bible as a complete book didn't exist before then.  

The modern Bible format wasn't completed until around 1550 with the verbiage being broken down into numbered verses.  The idea about putting the fairy tale into chapters had been introduced around the 1220s.  

I'm looking forward to your links that will show some fine details of your original Bibles.  
  

Once again dolt, http://atheistforums.org/thread-32354-page-5.html contains such a link... in fact, the very first one, to the Codex Sinaiticus

Usually when a tab says "See the manuscript," it means you can look at the "fine details" ...of a very ancient copy... not an "original" Bible. Gawd you fundamentalists are dumb.

I'm apologizing to myself for wasting my time trying to explain simple facts (which your friends at Google can assist further) to a brain dead religious nut so don't expect any more replies until you provide something substantial that corresponds to either points 1-4.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As I've pointed out several times none of your links actually show anything in detail.  They are just assertions that the documents were written as claimed.  If the documents are legit why can't you provide links that show all of their pages in fine detail?  

An English committee wrote the Codex Amiatinus as a gift to Pope Gregory II but he croaked before he got his copy.  The Bible as a complete book didn't exist before then.  

The modern Bible format wasn't completed until around 1550 with the verbiage being broken down into numbered verses.  The idea about putting the fairy tale into chapters had been introduced around the 1220s.  

I'm looking forward to your links that will show some fine details of your original Bibles.  
  

Once again dolt, http://atheistforums.org/thread-32354-page-5.html contains such a link... in fact, the very first one, to the Codex Sinaiticus

Usually when a tab says "See the manuscript," it means you can look at the "fine details" ...of a very ancient copy... not an "original" Bible. Gawd you fundamentalists are dumb.

I'm apologizing to myself for wasting my time trying to explain simple facts (which your friends at Google can assist further) to a brain dead religious nut so don't expect any more replies until you provide something substantial that corresponds to either points 1-4.

Oh, you mean those illegible scraps of something, probably soaked in acid, is supposed to be the real deal?  
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript...omSlider=0

I have to say that a person has to be really gullible to believe that "evidence".