Real Christianity vs Modern Christianity

[sealybobo]

primarily because the claim isn't based on accurate historical evidence, but merely on atheist' accusations.....

uh huh. So because someone points out that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew he must be an atheist, huh? Brilliant. Whatever.

either that or they've fallen for an atheist's false claims.....

Proof a person believes what they want to believe.

I posted a story earlier of how parents/churches brainwash kids before they are smart enough to reason and think logically, rationally and scientifically and how/why even later in life when that very same person can reject Jewdaoism, muslim, mormon & jehova because you weren't born into those religions, but even though you can rationally figure out those cults are fos, you can't do the same with yours. Virgin birth, miracles, rise from the dead after 3 days. Impossible yet you still believe. Amazing. Fascinating. Irritating.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the way, differences in translations of the Bibles, or even the fact that the Catholic Church includes different books in the Old Testament, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The attempted deflection was fun though, so feel free to throw another one in if you are of a mind to.

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

 

[PostmodernProph]

uh huh. So because someone points out that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew he must be an atheist, huh? Brilliant. Whatever.

either that or they've fallen for an atheist's false claims.....

Proof a person believes what they want to believe.

well obviously.....you even think you posted something that was rational......

 

[sealybobo]

By the way, differences in translations of the Bibles, or even the fact that the Catholic Church includes different books in the Old Testament, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The attempted deflection was fun though, so feel free to throw another one in if you are of a mind to.

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

Can you show us that modern textual criticism says it wasn't? Usually a claim like this would come with some back up.

 

[sealybobo]

By the way, differences in translations of the Bibles, or even the fact that the Catholic Church includes different books in the Old Testament, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The attempted deflection was fun though, so feel free to throw another one in if you are of a mind to.

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

 

[PostmodernProph]

By the way, differences in translations of the Bibles, or even the fact that the Catholic Church includes different books in the Old Testament, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The attempted deflection was fun though, so feel free to throw another one in if you are of a mind to.

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

modern textual criticism says thank God we eliminated all those errors in translation hundreds of years ago......

 

[PostmodernProph]

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

except no......no.....and no.....but no.....not true.....no........wrong......no.....sorry no........incorrect.....and no.......

 

[sealybobo]

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

except no......no.....and no.....but no.....not true.....no........wrong......no.....sorry no........incorrect.....and no.......

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author. Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle, most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work

John 21:24 identifies the author of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee.[91] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31.[92] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,[70][93] and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.

You didn't know? Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

except no......no.....and no.....but no.....not true.....no........wrong......no.....sorry no........incorrect.....and no.......

Lets see if Matthew wrote Matthew...

Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus,[80] but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness.[81] Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus.[82] Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings.[83] Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[84] and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE[85] using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.[86]

Looks like no......no.....and no.....but no.....not true.....no........wrong......no.....sorry no........incorrect.....and no.....

 

[sealybobo]

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

except no......no.....and no.....but no.....not true.....no........wrong......no.....sorry no........incorrect.....and no.......

How about Luke? Nope, Luke didn't write Luke either.

There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus.[87] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[88]

According to tradition the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.[89] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

uh huh. So because someone points out that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew he must be an atheist, huh? Brilliant. Whatever.

either that or they've fallen for an atheist's false claims.....

Proof a person believes what they want to believe.

I posted a story earlier of how parents/churches brainwash kids before they are smart enough to reason and think logically, rationally and scientifically and how/why even later in life when that very same person can reject Jewdaoism, muslim, mormon & jehova because you weren't born into those religions, but even though you can rationally figure out those cults are fos, you can't do the same with yours. Virgin birth, miracles, rise from the dead after 3 days. Impossible yet you still believe. Amazing. Fascinating. Irritating.

I wasn't raised as a believer, my parents never took me to church. Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

Can you show us that modern textual criticism says it wasn't? Usually a claim like this would come with some back up.

Usually a claim that the sun rises in the East doesn't require proof.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's more than just differences in translation. It's completely different things being said. In 1701 a theologian at Oxford named John Mill published his work Novum Testamentum (actually the full title is much longer but that's how it is commonly referred to). What Mill did was to write the New Testament in Greek which he did on the top half of every page and on the bottom he referenced and recorded all the differences he found when looking at copies of manuscripts. Mill looked at 100 copes of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (keeping in mind that there are roughly 5,500 copies in Greek in existence) and in just those 100 copes he found 30,000 differences. If you extrapolate that over all 5,500 copies there would be more differences than words in the New Testament as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, most of them are completely irrelevant but some of them are quite significant indeed. For example in the beginning of Mark (I believe) there is a story about Jesus healing a man on the side of the road. The man asked to be healed and the modern Bible reads that Jesus felt "compassion" and reached out and healed him. But Mill noted that in several of the very early copies it says Jesus felt "angry" with him and reached out and healed him.

This is not a case of someone mis-writing a word by accident (the ancient version of a typo). This is another example of a deliberate change. Either someone changed it from Jesus being compassionate to being angry (which is unlikely) or someone changed it from Jesus being angry to being compassionate. The latter is far more likely because a) the earlier copies say "angry", and b) it's more likely that someone copying the text would say "why would Jesus be angry at a man asking for healing? That doesn't make sense. Let's just switch it around so it more closely resembles the patient, loving Jesus that we think of".

Face it dude....the Bible has been changed...usually by accident but sometimes intentionally. Usually in a manner that is irrelevant, but sometimes in a manner that is significant

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

And?

 

[sealybobo]

either that or they've fallen for an atheist's false claims.....

Proof a person believes what they want to believe.

I posted a story earlier of how parents/churches brainwash kids before they are smart enough to reason and think logically, rationally and scientifically and how/why even later in life when that very same person can reject Jewdaoism, muslim, mormon & jehova because you weren't born into those religions, but even though you can rationally figure out those cults are fos, you can't do the same with yours. Virgin birth, miracles, rise from the dead after 3 days. Impossible yet you still believe. Amazing. Fascinating. Irritating.

I wasn't raised as a believer, my parents never took me to church. Want to try again?

I knew some dumb ass would say that. I was going to address that idiots who grow up muslim and become christian or visa versa or people who weren't raise religious but find it in their 20's. That's usually when young people find god, even if their parents never raised them religiously. I've seen a lot of people who are innocent and gullible find god in their 20's. So what? You have less of an excuse as to why you are stupid. My theory says people are brainwashed from birth. What is your excuse? Want to explain that to us? How did a grown person believe a fairy tale? Were you frightened by the idea of hell or do you wish for heaven? What was your wishful thinking reason(s)? I don't want to put you in a box. Sorry fucktard.

 

[BluePhantom]

Let me get this straight, the guy claims to have found 30,000 differences in 100 different copies of the Bible that no longer exist, and you think that proves the Bible was changed, even though modern textual criticism says it wasn't.

Makes sense to me.

Can you show us that modern textual criticism says it wasn't? Usually a claim like this would come with some back up.

Usually a claim that the sun rises in the East doesn't require proof.

In other words he can't Sealy. Oh I imagine he can probably come up with a link from a Hal Lindsey, Ron Wyatt, James Snapp type (i.e. a nut), or perhaps he can come up with some crap from a Christian Evangelical website, but the reality is that the vast majority of scholarship (i.e. people who actually know what they are talking about) agree with us.

So far all I have seen any of them give is "we're right because we say so" or "lies of Satan!" frankly it's not worth my (or your) time except that it's so incredibly amusing to watch

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you show us that modern textual criticism says it wasn't? Usually a claim like this would come with some back up.

Usually a claim that the sun rises in the East doesn't require proof.

In other words he can't Sealy. Oh I imagine he can probably come up with a link from a Hal Lindsey, Ron Wyatt, James Snapp type (i.e. a nut), or perhaps he can come up with some crap from a Christian Evangelical website, but the reality is that the vast majority of scholarship (i.e. people who actually know what they are talking about) agree with us.

So far all I have seen any of them give is "we're right because we say so" or "lies of Satan!" frankly it's not worth my (or your) time except that it's so incredibly amusing to watch

Are you confusing me with the guy that claimed the Bible was rewritten after it was canonized?

 

[Avatar4321]

Proof a person believes what they want to believe.

I posted a story earlier of how parents/churches brainwash kids before they are smart enough to reason and think logically, rationally and scientifically and how/why even later in life when that very same person can reject Jewdaoism, muslim, mormon & jehova because you weren't born into those religions, but even though you can rationally figure out those cults are fos, you can't do the same with yours. Virgin birth, miracles, rise from the dead after 3 days. Impossible yet you still believe. Amazing. Fascinating. Irritating.

I wasn't raised as a believer, my parents never took me to church. Want to try again?

I knew some dumb ass would say that. I was going to address that idiots who grow up muslim and become christian or visa versa or people who weren't raise religious but find it in their 20's. That's usually when young people find god, even if their parents never raised them religiously. I've seen a lot of people who are innocent and gullible find god in their 20's. So what? You have less of an excuse as to why you are stupid. My theory says people are brainwashed from birth. What is your excuse? Want to explain that to us? How did a grown person believe a fairy tale? Were you frightened by the idea of hell or do you wish for heaven? What was your wishful thinking reason(s)? I don't want to put you in a box. Sorry fucktard.

Odd, most of our converts are older. And range from all ages.

Probably because people humble themselves and become open to learning at different times in their lives. I wish more people in their twenties would listen. But we have a very close minded generation rising. Usually because of ignorant sophistry

 

[PostmodernProph]

blah, blah, blah and blah....

sorry, despite the high qualifications of your anonymous wiki author.....no, no, no, and uh.....no.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Can you show us that modern textual criticism says it wasn't? Usually a claim like this would come with some back up.

Usually a claim that the sun rises in the East doesn't require proof.

In other words he can't Sealy. Oh I imagine he can probably come up with a link from a Hal Lindsey, Ron Wyatt, James Snapp type (i.e. a nut), or perhaps he can come up with some crap from a Christian Evangelical website, but the reality is that the vast majority of scholarship (i.e. people who actually know what they are talking about) agree with us.

So far all I have seen any of them give is "we're right because we say so" or "lies of Satan!" frankly it's not worth my (or your) time except that it's so incredibly amusing to watch

nine out of ten atheist "theologians" agree......