Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[Drich]

25+ years and never found a real error.  It's confirmed guys, he's retarded.

That is the weak mind attitude i a talking about.

Seriously look at my initiall offering to the op.
EVERY Single issue resolved. none of it with any gymnastics. just contextual reading, or i shed the traditional understanding of a text and simply read what is on page which usally answers any paradox found.

Then after answering every single OP 'contradiction" I answered several follow up/ace in the hole question with again very simple on page answers.

I through God had also reconciled creation and evolution without changing either, just pointing out where the traditional reading presupposed a time line where none exists.

Which is what I men by a weak minded understanding. you see such a vast ocean of mistakes supposedly made by the bible, that you can not fathom that you have been lied to. The biggest lie is that the bible claims at any point to be infallible. Now again as the bible is I have yet to find one mistake. that does not mean I do not know of mistakes the bible once contained. whether they be translation, spelling or regional translations which put on a different spin..

One such example was the idea before the dead sea scrolls were found, one of the 10 commandment read you shall not KILL

After the dead sea scrolls where found we found several older examples that read you shall not murder.

The difference? To kill is the act of ending a human life despite the reason or authority given. Then marry that with the command, and the idea is no human life is to be taken ever at all, which contradicts several prime examples where God issues kill orders on entire clans/people.

Now after the dead sea scrolls.. The command has been changed to you shall not murder. The difference murder is to kill without authorization. Which means when Ever God gave the kill order those killings were justified. If one went off on his own and killed someone that would be a murder.

---

Scholars have, to a reasonable degree, reconstructed the original words of the New Testament.  Interpolations happened, some known, others unknown.  The consensus view is that around 20% of the Gospels contain authentic sayings of the historical Jesus, but his exact words and teachings were not preserved.

 

We have more hand written manuscripts of Christ than of any other figure in history nearly 25K different examples all of them consistent. No other figure in history comes close. to question the validity of Christ is to question every other person in that time period or rather what we think we know of them.

---

because of the preceive errors in it. again I have studied for 25 + years and never found a real error.

If a weak minded or weak willed person thinks the bible is supposed to be without error the first time the see the skeptic annodaed bible they will loose all hope.

That sounds hopeful.  If we can help even a few poor lost lambs find their way back to the natural world it will be a blessing.

Goats.. You will be leading goats.. (something God does not want in the fold anyway.)

[Jehanne]

Scholars have, to a reasonable degree, reconstructed the original words of the New Testament.  Interpolations happened, some known, others unknown.  The consensus view is that around 20% of the Gospels contain authentic sayings of the historical Jesus, but his exact words and teachings were not preserved.

 

We have more hand written manuscripts of Christ than of any other figure in history nearly 25K different examples all of them consistent. No other figure in history comes close. to question the validity of Christ is to question every other person in that time period or rather what we think we know of them.

---

"Twice nothing is still nothing."

Most of the manuscripts that scholars have are in Latin, which means that they are, at best, a translation from the original Greek manuscripts.  Of course, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and he and his disciples were all illiterate, which means that his words were written down by second or third generation Christians scattered about in the Roman Empire some 40 to 80 years after his execution.  Here's a list of all of the extant New Testament manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

As you can see, the earliest are in the 2nd century, over 100 years after Jesus' death.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

 

We have more hand written manuscripts of Christ than of any other figure in history nearly 25K different examples all of them consistent. No other figure in history comes close. to question the validity of Christ is to question every other person in that time period or rather what we think we know of them.

---

"Twice nothing is still nothing."

Most of the manuscripts that scholars have are in Latin, which means that they are, at best, a translation from the original Greek manuscripts.  Of course, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and he and his disciples were all illiterate, which means that his words were written down by second or third generation Christians scattered about in the Roman Empire some 40 to 80 years after his execution.  Here's a list of all of the extant New Testament manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

As you can see, the earliest are in the 2nd century, over 100 years after Jesus' death.

According to the biblical fairy tale Yeshua could read and write.  Some of his disciples were rich so they were probably literate as well.

[vulcanlogician]

Philosophers disagree about all kinds of things. Go here and read:
https://plato.stanford.edu/

After reading the entire Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, I have to agree with you. There is definitely some disagreement among philosophers.  But one thing they do seem to agree on is the viability of logic in leading us to better conclusions.

Philosophers aren't like theists. They are putting their interpretations of the universe out there to be tested not to be believed. If there isn't disagreement, then it isn't philosophy. When someone makes an assertion in philosophy, it is expected that it will be challenged. It's not just a matter of apply logic, then get a solution. Philosophers examine logical arguments. If the logic of an argument is sound, then one has to find a problem with its premises in order to express coherent disagreement.

In philosophy, one is encouraged to ask questions and consider alternatives. I'm not including you in this group, but many theists take offense to something as innocuous as a question. It seems like cowardice to me. I welcome scrutiny of my worldview.

If the Bible is accurate, then no, logic isn't better than faith, at least not for the most important things.

But if the Bible is not accurate, if it is just a collection of myths and stories, then those of us who use logic and evidence have figured something out that others haven't.

Faith in Krishna or the teachings of Mohammed may fix others with resolve so that they can accomplish great things. Are you talking about faith in general or your particular brand of faith?

Like many before you, you're trying to dress up a materialist philosophy as something more than it is.

I find materialism plausible, but I don't feel the need to dress it up as anything it isn't. I am fascinated by contrary metaphysical views. The mind/body problem is a lot deeper than many assume, even seasoned philosophers. If you want to talk metaphysics, let me know.

[Drich]

 

We have more hand written manuscripts of Christ than of any other figure in history nearly 25K different examples all of them consistent. No other figure in history comes close. to question the validity of Christ is to question every other person in that time period or rather what we think we know of them.

---

"Twice nothing is still nothing."

Most of the manuscripts that scholars have are in Latin, which means that they are, at best, a translation from the original Greek manuscripts.  Of course, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and he and his disciples were all illiterate, which means that his words were written down by second or third generation Christians scattered about in the Roman Empire some 40 to 80 years after his execution.  Here's a list of all of the extant New Testament manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

As you can see, the earliest are in the 2nd century, over 100 years after Jesus' death.

And after 1900 years they still tell the same story.

You guy start out with the idea that the bible is like playing a gme of "telephone" in grammar school where everyone is lined up and the first kid is told to pass the second kid a phrase down to the last kid to see how much has changed.

Now you've got 1800 years of consistency now you want to say they is not enough?? are you kidding? we have more original works of Christ that we do of William shake spear. no one doubts shakespear's works. because in the real world 132 to 150+ 2000 year old papyri are more than enough to establish "truth."

[downbeatplumb]

I have many problems with the nativity.
Not least of which is the requirement to go to their place of birth for a census instead of having it as a question on the form.

Is this how romans conducted census's.
I have checked and the answer is "no".

[Jehanne]

"Twice nothing is still nothing."

Most of the manuscripts that scholars have are in Latin, which means that they are, at best, a translation from the original Greek manuscripts.  Of course, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and he and his disciples were all illiterate, which means that his words were written down by second or third generation Christians scattered about in the Roman Empire some 40 to 80 years after his execution.  Here's a list of all of the extant New Testament manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

As you can see, the earliest are in the 2nd century, over 100 years after Jesus' death.

And after 1900 years they still tell the same story.

You guy start out with the idea that the bible is like playing a gme of "telephone" in grammar school where everyone is lined up and the first kid is told to pass the second kid a phrase down to the last kid to see how much has changed.

Now you've got 1800 years of consistency now you want to say they is not enough?? are you kidding? we have more original works of Christ that we do of William shake spear. no one doubts shakespear's works. because in the real world 132 to 150+ 2000 year old papyri are more than enough to establish "truth."

No mainstream scholar believes that the Gospels contain the verbatim words of Jesus.  Do you consider the following to have been spoken by the historical Jesus:

(112) Jesus said, "Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh."
(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

The Gospel of Thomas

If not, why not?

[John V]

After reading the entire Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, I have to agree with you. There is definitely some disagreement among philosophers.  But one thing they do seem to agree on is the viability of logic in leading us to better conclusions.

Agreeing that logic leads to better conclusions while reaching opposing conclusions through logic...is that logical? Also, we have the majority vote issue again. One thing theists tend to agree on is the existence of at least one god, but that doesn't mean much to you.

Philosophers aren't like theists. They are putting their interpretations of the universe out there to be tested not to be believed. If there isn't disagreement, then it isn't philosophy. When someone makes an assertion in philosophy, it is expected that it will be challenged. It's not just a matter of apply logic, then get a solution. Philosophers examine logical arguments. If the logic of an argument is sound, then one has to find a problem with its premises in order to express coherent disagreement.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Philosophers don't make up all secular thinkers, yet you compare them to theists in general. Theologians do the same thing as philosophers. And I've had plenty of secular educators who put things out to be believed rather than tested.

In philosophy, one is encouraged to ask questions and consider alternatives. I'm not including you in this group, but many theists take offense to something as innocuous as a question. It seems like cowardice to me. I welcome scrutiny of my worldview.

But if the Bible is not accurate, if it is just a collection of myths and stories, then those of us who use logic and evidence have figured something out that others haven't.

Point being that you've already asserted that logic is better than faith in such regard, but you don't know if it's true. The assertion just flows from your materialist worldview.

I find materialism plausible, but I don't feel the need to dress it up as anything it isn't.

You already have.

---

I have many problems with the nativity.
Not least of which is the requirement to go to their place of birth for a census instead of having it as a question on the form.

The bible doesn't say that was a Roman requirement. It says Joseph did that. We don't know why. 

If Luke were making this up and wanted the birth in Bethlehem, there were much simpler ways of accomplishing that than inventing an event which would have been public knowledge and would have shot his credibility right from the start if not accurate.

[Jehanne]

Luke wrote near the end of the 1st century, and so, there was little information that anyone could use to fact check anything, not that anyone (including Luke) who was even doing that.

[Drich]

And after 1900 years they still tell the same story.

You guy start out with the idea that the bible is like playing a gme of "telephone" in grammar school where everyone is lined up and the first kid is told to pass the second kid a phrase down to the last kid to see how much has changed.

Now you've got 1800 years of consistency now you want to say they is not enough?? are you kidding? we have more original works of Christ that we do of William shake spear. no one doubts shakespear's works. because in the real world 132 to 150+ 2000 year old papyri are more than enough to establish "truth."

No mainstream scholar believes that the Gospels contain the verbatim words of Jesus.  Do you consider the following to have been spoken by the historical Jesus:

(112) Jesus said, "Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh."
(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

The Gospel of Thomas

If not, why not?

GLEESH.. Where did I say the bible contains the word for word account of Jesus? or is this a distraction tactic for the weak minded?

I said there is consistency throughout the Recorded bible, with very little deviation from the 170 pages of 2nd century text to the later codacees to what is written in our modern bibles. Nothing compares. even from what is left of the written works of shakspear just a few hundred years ago can vary wildly from mnuscript to manuscript.

Because it has not prauvaunaunce outside the work found in 1945. All other gospels have been vetted through several source oint all of which agree with one another.

The gospel of Thomas could simply be one man's notes/take on Christianity. as it is only signed by one name a non-apostle.