Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[alang1216]

We have an NT from 300AD.
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.

I'd appreciate a link if you would. What I know:

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​

No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.

Right where, in the KJV? That was not the language of the NT. I think you are blissfully ignorant.

Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We have an NT from 300AD.
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.

I'd appreciate a link if you would. What I know:

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​

No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.

Right where, in the KJV? That was not the language of the NT. I think you are blissfully ignorant.

Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

I thought I linked to your ‘version’ theory?

There are no significant differences between any historical copies.

 

[alang1216]

There are no significant differences between any historical copies.

So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?

 

[DOTR]

We have an NT from 300AD.
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.

I'd appreciate a link if you would. What I know:

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​

No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.

Right where, in the KJV? That was not the language of the NT. I think you are blissfully ignorant.

Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

 

[alang1216]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

 

[DOTR]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

yeah...sure it did.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are no significant differences between any historical copies.

So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?

Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed. Got them?

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

Proof?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you it makes your ego feel better to claim victory

What the fuck are you whining about, now? I specifically answered your questions. And you ignored every word, just as I said you would. You don't know what you are talking about, and you don't want any factual information. That's why you are in the corner with your fraudulent nonscientists, whining that nobody believes you.

 

[james bond]

The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon. It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more. The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day. For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon. You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.

All you have is twisting facts to fit your theory. It doesn't even make sense overall as there is no connection to the big bang, how Earth came to be, sun came to be, the sun, Earth, and moon relationship came to be, etc. Look at the Darwin timeline (see graph) and Earth, sun, moon, relationship were already a given. Besides, it's atheists peer reviewing another atheist.

Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.

Where else in our solar system have we witnessed this? Then the Earth had a ring like Saturn of meteors. Your theses do not even follow from big bang which was impossible according to physics. It doesn't even follow Darwin's timeline. Not enough detailed explanation and too much planetary bodies popping into existence to fit your false theory of no God.

 

[james bond]

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

Why was a virgin birth important? What about Joseph, her husband? If his beautiful wife wasn't a virgin, then it would be adultery. Where is your brain? Your explanations need to follow the times, the circumstances of Baby Jesus, and not just focus on criticizing the supernatural. You have the Satan supernatural next to the natural, as well.

Even Jesus had recognized he would be maligned by many, 'He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”' Matthew 16:15

Before Jesus had to become the coming Savior, who was he? Let's look at the forest and not just the trees.

 

[Hollie]

The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon. It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more. The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day. For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon. You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.

View attachment 312250

All you have is twisting facts to fit your theory. It doesn't even make sense overall as there is no connection to the big bang, how Earth came to be, sun came to be, the sun, Earth, and moon relationship came to be, etc. Look at the Darwin timeline (see graph) and Earth, sun, moon, relationship were already a given. Besides, it's atheists peer reviewing another atheist.

Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.

Where else in our solar system have we witnessed this? Then the Earth had a ring like Saturn of meteors. Your theses do not even follow from big bang which was impossible according to physics. It doesn't even follow Darwin's timeline. Not enough detailed explanation and too much planetary bodies popping into existence to fit your false theory of no God.

You continue to lie about what you cut and paste. That is not Charles Darwin's timeline. Do your gods allow Taqiyya?

 

[alang1216]

There are no significant differences between any historical copies.

So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?

Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed. Got them?

Mark 9-20 Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.

 

[alang1216]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

yeah...sure it did.

Your lack of curiosity to know the truth is hardly surprising. I find most Christians have no real interest in understanding the Bible and how it came to be. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

 

[alang1216]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

Proof?

Proof is for math. I only have logic, reason, and evidence. That is usually enough for me.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are no significant differences between any historical copies.

So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?

Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed. Got them?

Mark 9-20 Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.

OK. So let’s skip the issue of its originality right now.

“So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.”

How exactly does that change anything within the faith? It doesn’t.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

Proof?

Proof is for math. I only have logic, reason, and evidence. That is usually enough for me.

No, you have faith.

 

[alang1216]

It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon. It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more. The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day. For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon. You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.

What fine tuning. Are you saying that life could not exist on Earth if the day was 20 or 30 hours long? You look at the only planet we really know about and say everything here is absolutely critical for life. I doubt that is true but it's likely I'll never know for sure.

 

[alang1216]

Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.

Probably true today. Probably not true 4.5 billion years ago.

 

[DOTR]

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.

Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.

yeah...sure it did.

Your lack of curiosity to know the truth is hardly surprising. I find most Christians have no real interest in understanding the Bible and how it came to be. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Like most anti-Christians you are an expert on christianity. Weird that. Its your puritan upbringing which leads to your bible thumping.