May 8, 20241 yr 11 hours ago, Mike31mt said: Wrong again old man. The language Jesus spoke is literally still in use today. We have original texts that are hundreds of years old, and hundreds of those texts in numerous languages. Its quite easy to cross reference. And for the nth time, go ahead and apply this same standard to any ancient historical record. Pretending the Bible was controlled by a handful of men/kings/whoever to change at their whim is egregiously false. Slipping over the "hundreds of years old” bit, you do realize those original texts are written in Hebrew and without vowels, right? That means that they are open for interpretation every single time they are read and translated into any other language like English. So it is impossible for any of those ancient texts that you’re reading to be the literal word of god because they have to be interpreted every single time they’re read.
May 8, 20241 yr The oldest collection of Christian texts dates to 4 centuries AFTER Jesus. 400 years. How many times were the original copied and recopied, and translated, and mistranslated. Like say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Should probably read, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
May 8, 20241 yr 12 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Like say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Should probably read, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Sounds like something a warlock would say
May 8, 20241 yr 10 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: Go ahead and tell me how many people go door to door pushing the good news about "any other ancient historical record,” and threaten others with eternal torture if you don’t agree with them. History is scrutinized plenty. No other ancient historical record that fails that scrutiny the way the Bible does, has people bending over backwards to try and convince the world that it’s true. It’s only rivals are the bibles of the other followers of the God of Abraham. Oh are you ok? Sounds traumatizing that people came to your door one time in probably 50 years to talk to you.
May 8, 20241 yr 10 hours ago, Toastrel said: Hundreds? Jesus was thousands, dude. Pretending the bible is the word of God, and not written, rewritten, and edited by man, is silly. Now, if you want to actually BE Christlike, I am all for it. To date, I see zero evidence that you follow any of his teachings. "Thousands" as in two. Hundreds can also be used in this context, which was obvious to any non-burnout. And again, you don't like Christ because you don't agree with most of his teachings. You just think you do because you think it makes you sound accepting.
May 8, 20241 yr 26 minutes ago, Toastrel said: The oldest collection of Christian texts dates to 4 centuries AFTER Jesus. 400 years. How many times were the original copied and recopied, and translated, and mistranslated. Like say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Should probably read, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Blatantly wrong, yet again. You're batting .000
May 8, 20241 yr 43 minutes ago, Imp81318 said: Slipping over the "hundreds of years old” bit, you do realize those original texts are written in Hebrew and without vowels, right? That means that they are open for interpretation every single time they are read and translated into any other language like English. So it is impossible for any of those ancient texts that you’re reading to be the literal word of god because they have to be interpreted every single time they’re read. The gospels were written in the first century and Hebrew wasn't the only language.
May 8, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Mike31mt said: "Thousands" as in two. Hundreds can also be used in this context, which was obvious to any non-burnout. And again, you don't like Christ because you don't agree with most of his teachings. You just think you do because you think it makes you sound accepting. Ooh, you can count. So hundreds of years old records of a two thousand year old fairy tale is the best you have. Nothing written by those that were there. Cool, glad you can admit to something.
May 8, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, Mike31mt said: Blatantly wrong, yet again. You're batting .000 I'm fine with batting .000 with a lying sack like you.
May 8, 20241 yr 12 hours ago, Toastrel said: Hundreds? Jesus was thousands, dude. Pretending the bible is the word of God, and not written, rewritten, and edited by man, is silly. Now, if you want to actually BE Christlike, I am all for it. To date, I see zero evidence that you follow any of his teachings. How dare you? he owns GUNS!
May 8, 20241 yr 56 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Ooh, you can count. So hundreds of years old records of a two thousand year old fairy tale is the best you have. Nothing written by those that were there. Cool, glad you can admit to something. See above, the gospels were written within the first century. Almost all historical records were written by people "who weren't there". Try to cope with reality.
May 8, 20241 yr Trump the Pedo. I screw guys. Big whoop, everybody does that. Yeah, but Daddy says I'm the best at it.
May 8, 20241 yr 3 hours ago, Toastrel said: The oldest collection of Christian texts dates to 4 centuries AFTER Jesus. 400 years. How many times were the original copied and recopied, and translated, and mistranslated. Like say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Should probably read, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." You might be referring to the first completed Bible that includes all the books of the Old and New Testament, that compiled all the the texts together. That was completed in the 4th Century. But the manuscripts themselves have been dated earlier. Scholars have dated the earliest New Testament writings to anywhere around 40-50 AD and most written in the 1st century. The "mistakes" in different transcripts have been studied, and they mostly amount to spelling, grammar and punctuation. If they were really going to "rewrite" and change the message, there's a lot they would have taken out that's controversial or confusing, and a lot they would put in to address debates. But they didn't.
May 8, 20241 yr 13 minutes ago, NOTW said: You might be referring to the first completed Bible that includes all the books of the Old and New Testament, that compiled all the the texts together. That was completed in the 4th Century. But the manuscripts themselves have been dated earlier. Scholars have dated the earliest New Testament writings to anywhere around 40-50 AD and most written in the 1st century. The "mistakes" in different transcripts have been studied, and they mostly amount to spelling, grammar and punctuation. If they were really going to "rewrite" and change the message, there's a lot they would have taken out that's controversial or confusing, and a lot they would put in to address debates. But they didn't. I’m not saying you are an apologist, but that is the defense apologists make. The oldest fragment of a New Testament manuscript is from the first half of the 2nd century. The fact is, no one can he sure of what was in the originals.
May 8, 20241 yr 13 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: Getting Tiddy F'ed for the Lord. Noah's motorboat
May 8, 20241 yr 28 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: I’m not saying you are an apologist, but that is the defense apologists make. The oldest fragment of a New Testament manuscript is from the first half of the 2nd century. The fact is, no one can he sure of what was in the originals. I guess the difference might be how the date the manuscripts. I've seen ranges from 40-60AD for the earliest. And that's just fragments or individual parchments it doesn't mean the entire book or letter. So it might be in dating the earliest known fragments vs the earliest known complete letter or book. They piece together manuscripts found over time. Scholars also say (which mike was mocked for saying) that there are a lot of historical and literature texts that we accept without any issue, that we don't have the originals and the manuscripts they have are dated much later from the origin than the New Testament. We have no idea what the originals are of many texts. But when a large number of manuscripts copied by many different scribes over time match mostly, with just some spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors it's weird to suggest that the originals are vastly different. If they wanted to hide something or change things I would think there's stuff they'd take out, or apparent discrepancies they'd fix. But they didn't.
May 8, 20241 yr 35 minutes ago, NOTW said: Scholars also say (which mike was mocked for saying) that there are a lot of historical and literature texts that we accept without any issue, as i said to mike, i believe we should question both. we give way too much credence to historical texts.
May 8, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, NOTW said: You might be referring to the first completed Bible that includes all the books of the Old and New Testament, that compiled all the the texts together. That was completed in the 4th Century. But the manuscripts themselves have been dated earlier. Scholars have dated the earliest New Testament writings to anywhere around 40-50 AD and most written in the 1st century. The "mistakes" in different transcripts have been studied, and they mostly amount to spelling, grammar and punctuation. If they were really going to "rewrite" and change the message, there's a lot they would have taken out that's controversial or confusing, and a lot they would put in to address debates. But they didn't. True. However, there are a lot more written books than are included in today's bible, and decisions were made, by men, on which to include, and which to toss aside. A divine book can't have mistakes. That would make it human.
Create an account or sign in to comment