Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[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.

Proof?

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

You have gullibility. And a rigid marxist worldview. And yes thats enough to kill a mind.

 

[DOTR]

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.

Then why did it happen only once? So at the very least we now it is a slim chance. Basically unique. In 4.5 billion years. Like life itself.

 

[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.

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.

So now you're moving the goalposts?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why did it happen only once?

Who says 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?

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.

So now you're moving the goalposts?

Addressing your original goalpost of the Bible being altered. Claiming a meaningless verse was altered validates my point.

 

[james bond]

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?

Wasn't Darwin an expert? Wasn't Sagan an expert? Wasn't Hawking an expert? Isn't Dawkins an expert? 3/4 have died and it's my creatopm scientific opinion that they were wrong.

Darwin - wrong about ToE.
Sagan - wrong about aliens
Hawking - wrong about multiverses
Dawkins - wrong about Christianity and God; won't repent

It's my religious opinion that they will suffer the most in Hades like it is said Lazarus is suffering. Most of the wrong will be sleeping, but these guys won't have any rest. Horrible.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Wasn't Darwin an expert? Wasn't Sagan an expert? Wasn't Hawking an expert? Isn't Dawkins an expert? 3/4 have died and it's my creatopm scientific opinion that they were wrong.

Darwin - wrong about ToE.
Sagan - wrong about aliens
Hawking - wrong about multiverses
Dawkins - wrong about Christianity and God; won't repent

It's my religious opinion that they will suffer the most in Hades like it is said Lazarus is suffering. Most of the wrong will be sleeping, but these guys won't have any rest. Horrible.

Why project your vindictive religious perspectives on others?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am here to tell you that the flood happened, just like it said in the Bible. It happened in 2005 in New Orleans, It was just a little time line error.

 

[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.

We know of exactly one system with life, it seems premature to say this is the only type that could ever support life. If we find life on other planets or other solar systems would that falsify your belief in God. I'm sure it wouldn't so without being falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.

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

This is true today but probably not true for the early solar system when the planets were being assembled.

 

[alang1216]

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.

So now you're moving the goalposts?

Addressing your original goalpost of the Bible being altered. Claiming a meaningless verse was altered validates my point.

I may be been unclear but if you followed the link you'd have seen that I was referring to Mark 16, verses 9-20. Many Christians considered, e.g., Paul, considered the resurrection to be the most important fact about Jesus. These added verses reinforce His resurrection having been witnessed by more people than just a few women.

 

[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.

You have gullibility. And a rigid marxist worldview. And yes thats enough to kill a mind.

I'm a capitalist thank you very much. It is ignorance that's enough to kill a mind. Show your knowledge of your own holy scripture by answering my question.

 

[alang1216]

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?

Wasn't Darwin an expert? Wasn't Sagan an expert? Wasn't Hawking an expert? Isn't Dawkins an expert? 3/4 have died and it's my creatopm scientific opinion that they were wrong.

Darwin - wrong about ToE.
Sagan - wrong about aliens
Hawking - wrong about multiverses
Dawkins - wrong about Christianity and God; won't repent

It's my religious opinion that they will suffer the most in Hades like it is said Lazarus is suffering. Most of the wrong will be sleeping, but these guys won't have any rest. Horrible.

Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean everything they've done is wrong. Even the founding fathers of Christianity, Jesus and Paul made mistakes.

 

[DOTR]

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.

You have gullibility. And a rigid marxist worldview. And yes thats enough to kill a mind.

I'm a capitalist thank you very much. It is ignorance that's enough to kill a mind. Show your knowledge of your own holy scripture by answering my question.

You are right. It’s mine. I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything. It’s opaque to non-believers.

Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.

 

[alang1216]

I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything. It’s opaque to non-believers.

Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.

Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone. It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.

The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology. It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.

What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?

 

[james bond]

We know of exactly one system with life, it seems premature to say this is the only type that could ever support life. If we find life on other planets or other solar systems would that falsify your belief in God. I'm sure it wouldn't so without being falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.

No, it won't change our faith but it will cause problems for the Bible as God did not send his only son Jesus to save aliens. In terms of science it would show that life is rare but could still exist in another place in our galaxy or universe. It may mean we could be multi-planetary.

That said, the evidence is for no aliens as enough time has passed despite the search. Will you admit there are no aliens if none is discovered by 2025?

Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean everything they've done is wrong. Even the founding fathers of Christianity, Jesus and Paul made mistakes.

No, but in science it means they failed in one of the major things they were working on. The multiverse scientists have wasted their lives on it. Likely, the string, superstring, and multi-dimension scientists will have wasted their careers, too.

It's just like if the Bible was contradicted. Disproving Jesus' resurrection would destroy the religion. Aliens not as much, but it would put a blemish on the Bible. The same with the other things Antibiblists believe in such as evolution, abiogenesis, old Earth and universe, an so on.

In terms of religion, if one fails then it means they disobeyed God's one commandment like Adam and Eve, but this time end up in the wrong final destination.

 

[DOTR]

I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything. It’s opaque to non-believers.

Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.

Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone. It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.

The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology. It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.

What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?

So if you really wanted to study It you would be reading Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Turtullian. Try the Didache for an opening. It’s short.

Just bible thumping is getting you nowhere in your attacks on Christianity.

And in your shallowness and conformity you all think yourself original. So bounce over to Justin Martyr and read his first century destruction of the already ancient argument about Isaiahs prophesy.


Study your bible all you like. You have been taught by puritans and sadducees well. But when it comes to Christianity the Bible reflects and results from what we believe. It came second.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything. It’s opaque to non-believers.

Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.

Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone. It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.

The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology. It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.

What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?

So if you really wanted to study It you would be reading Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Turtullian. Try the Didache for an opening. It’s short.

Just bible thumping is getting you nowhere in your attacks on Christianity.

And in your shallowness and conformity you all think yourself original. So bounce over to Justin Martyr and read his first century destruction of the already ancient argument about Isaiahs prophesy.


Study your bible all you like. You have been taught by puritans and sadducees well. But when it comes to Christianity the Bible reflects and results from what we believe. It came second.

Or, just ditch the Bible entirely. I am sure that any of your beliefs worth having can be derived without it.

 

[DOTR]

I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything. It’s opaque to non-believers.

Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.

Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone. It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.

The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology. It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.

What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?

Well did you get started? Being a bible scholar and all and "studying the people who wrote it" I would think you have been hard at. What do you think Of Justin Martyr's response to Trypho's question about misinterpreting Isaiah? (something that had already been under discussion...and satisfactorily answered... for at least 350 years by 150 AD when this was written).

Youve got one source. Ehrman. Talk about a late source! Hes made a living from attacking the Bible. You should expand your horizons and weigh the words of people who wrote contemporaneously and were intimately familiar with the language and culture.

How about a quote from an even earlier writer who personally knew the Apostle John...

"But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin..."
Ignatius

(That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)

 

[james bond]

I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything. It’s opaque to non-believers.

Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.

Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone. It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.

The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology. It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.

What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?

Well did you get started? Being a bible scholar and all and "studying the people who wrote it" I would think you have been hard at. What do you think Of Justin Martyr's response to Trypho's question about misinterpreting Isaiah? (something that had already been under discussion...and satisfactorily answered... for at least 350 years by 150 AD when this was written).

Youve got one source. Ehrman. Talk about a late source! Hes made a living from attacking the Bible. You should expand your horizons and weigh the words of people who wrote contemporaneously and were intimately familiar with the language and culture.

How about a quote from an even earlier writer who personally knew the Apostle John...

"But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin..."
Ignatius

(That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)

alang1216 still uses those believers who became unbelievers as his sources, so he's never been a believer. Yet, he answered what was God's greatest commandment? What I was thinking was for him the first commandment. Two negatives make a positive.

 

[james bond]

Or, just ditch the Bible entirely. I am sure that any of your beliefs worth having can be derived without it.

We can't. See the above discussion on commandments. However, nothing against you ditching the Antibible of evolution. It won't affect your life in the slightest; it may improve it.

Maybe it will help you with that large asteroid falling on your head or from drowning in the tsunami it causes.