The Bible has been changed ( rewritten )

reply to post by superman2012


IF YOU WOULD READ THIS , YOU WOULD SEE it has NOT been re written.




Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

The HOLY Spirit works through men. I guess you havnt read the Bible very much. So it doesnt matter how uneducated the man is or educated. God can use him.


Perhaps the greatest and most obvious testimony to the accuracy of Biblical prophecy is provided by the people and nation of Israel. The Jews went without a homeland for 1900 years, just as God had promised numerous times in the Old Testament, as a reluctant judgment on His rebellious chosen people. Moses warned Israel that if they corrupted themselves, then "the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other (Deut 28:64, KJV)". Remarkably, this century God restored the Jews to their ancient homeland, fulfilling many other specific Old Testament prophesies3.


This was written 2500 years ago, and also consider that this was written at a time when Jerusalem was in complete ruins:

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it... For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle (Zech 12:2-3, Zech 14:2-3 KJV)."

"All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him (Ps 22:7-8)"
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (Isa 53:5)"
"Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me (Ps 41:9)."
"They have pierced my hands and my feet (Ps 22:16)."
"Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isa 53:12)."
"They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son (Zech 12:10)."


The Old Testament contains 333 prophesies regarding the Messiah, most of which were fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ. Even the most liberal critics acknowledge that these prophesies were written at least 400 years before Christ. Mathematicians have easily shown that the odds of all these prophesies being fulfilled by chance in one man is greater than the number of atoms in the universe many times over.


The Bible contains over 2000 prophesies that have been fulfilled, many with very specific details. One must ask himself why he would remain skeptical in light of this incontrovertible evidence. It would seem that if someone was honestly seeking the truth, it would certainly be a worthwhile effort to to at least investigate a handful of these prophesies. Psalm 22 would be a good start - it contains several prophesies describing Christ's crucifixion, a method of execution that wasn't invented until several centuries after King David wrote about it. A Bible and an encyclopedia is all one would need to verify the prophetic accuracy of Psalm 22.






There you go , 2000 prophecies for you look up.


Re post since this is a new page , and is very important to me , and people constantly ignore the argument and continue argue about things i have just answered in the post.

I'm still trying to cope with the fact that someone who hides their screen name. Because it Jelly fish brrains called me an idiot.

reply to post by randyvs


Well, Randy,

Has the information presented so far, as to the likelihood of the Bible being rewritten or changed in ways significant enough to have aquired different meaning from the original texts, changed your outlook?

For myself, I have already come across most of these refutations and found them still somewhat less persuasive than the weight of historical knowledge and, quite simply, the content & intent of the Bible.

Awaiting your response.

reply to post by milkyway12


If you would read through the whole thread, you would see that it either has been re-written, mistranslated or parts added in later or omitted.

reply to post by chr0naut


What you just typed , you focused on trying to use big words you actually made it difficult to understand what you are thinking. As Refutation can mean to discredit / error or can mean to prove through facts....

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by randyvs

 

Well, Randy,

Has the information presented so far, as to the likelihood of the Bible being rewritted or changed in ways significant enough to have aquired different meaning from the original texts, changed your outlook?

For myself, I have already come across most of these refutations and found them still of somewhat less than persuasive than the weight of historical knowledge and, quite simply, the content & intent of the Bible.

Awaiting your response.

I know this was for Randy so I do apologize, but, quite frankly I have seen no arguments from the other side that have made me question my belief either. So do we just agree to disagree and walk away friends or keep trying to persuade eachother on their own beliefs? Besides, we all know the following is the only Book that matters!!!!

It's easy to prove the bible was altered over the generations, notice how it says that the use of gems isn't allowed?
Yeah, big red flag right there...especially considering so many temples were demanded to be made out of gold and other gems.
It was altered because precious gems enhance the ability of the all-seeing eye, and you can't have the plebs using that.

Jesus never said that he was god...that was altered over the years. In fact, Jesus forbid the worship of men and instead called himself a prophet.

reply to post by superman2012


If you read what i just posted you would see it matches with exactly what was written in the time corresponding to when Jesus died which knocks that out of the ball park , it was confirmed by the letters sent to other churches during that time period and the original text themselves during that time period. The modern text is the same as then by 99.5% if you read the post.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by chr0naut

 

What you just typed , you focused on trying to use big words you actually made it difficult to understand what you are thinking. As Refutation can mean to discredit / error or can mean to prove through facts....

Sorry, I need to tighten my headband.

reply to post by milkyway12

The Bible contains over 2000 prophesies that have been fulfilled, many with very specific details.

Umm well you completely avoided my initial question. Then claim over 2000 prophecies came true and expect me to look up instead of backing up your initial claims. The burden of proof is not on me, you claimed these prophecies are coming true but you wont point out any examples? Then you rehash more biblical text that does not correlate to any proof either. How am i suppose to take you seriously?

Really

It disappoints and saddens me that so many believe in a man who
stood and proclaimed himself to be God, or an interpreter for God.

To me, this premise is ludicrous--the idea that an omniscient God
would take an animal form (only once) and provide as proof that he
is/was/and always will be God a few scant miracles. And that he would
do this in a fairly uneducated part of our world, for the briefest
period of time, and leave as his only proof a legacy of men's writings
is wholly absurd.

And, although I do understand how the human brain, during its formative stage
can be programmed for such belief, and that such programming, reinforced
by peer approval, can be nearly impossible to retract. it still saddens me
that most who have been programmed in this manner have not the
capacity, courage, and/or trust in their own intellect to realize that what they
have been taught is so highly improbable as to be fantastic.

All men have faith in a foxhole (except me). I choose freewill and I choose
to believe in truth. That life has behind it some force that we cannot perceive,
and that this force may be God. And even that is superstitious...

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


I posted 3 just then ... you have google. Type into Google does the Bible really have 2000 prophecies?

Im not your baby sitter. Look it up , or leave it.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by superman2012

 

If you read what i just posted you would see it matches with exactly what was written in the time corresponding to when Jesus died which knocks that out of the ball park.

Ok, where exactly did Jesus say he was the Son of God? I think that would "knock it out of the ballpark".

PS- This still doesn't exempt you from reading through a whole thread, actually digesting the material before making a couple of posts and then claiming to be Babe Ruth.

1827 - Thomas J. Conant of the American Baptist University of Rochester envisioned that the Bible should be thoroughly revised. Dr. Conant introduced the issue of translating "baptizein" as "immersion" in order to polarize the Baptists and employ the dialectical process in the field of Bible translation. "This chapter can scarcely be closed more appropriately than by a brief notice of four devoted Baptists, translators of the sacred Scriptures, in whose work and worth the denomination may feel an honest pride. The veteran translator, Thomas J. Conant, D.D. . . Since 1857 Dr. Conant has devoted himself almost exclusively to the great work of his life, the translation and revision of the common English version of the Scriptures. He became thoroughly convinced as far back as the year 1827, on a critical comparison of that version with the earlier ones on which it was based, that it should be thoroughly revised, since which time he has made all his studies subsidiary to that end. . . his revision of the Bible, done for the American Bible Union, is the invaluable work of his life. . . This comprises the entire New Testament with the following books of the Old, namely: Genesis, Joshua, Judges, I. and II. Samuel, I. and II. Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs and a portion of Isaiah. Many of these are accompanied with invaluable critical and philological notes, and are published with the Hebrew and English text in parallel columns. His work known as 'Baptizein,' which is a monograph of that term, philologically and historically investigated, and which demonstrates its uniform sense to be immerse, must remain a monument to this distinguished Oriental scholar, while men are interested in its bearing on the exposition of Divine truth." [Armitage, p, 914-15] The Hegelian Dialectic: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. "The thesis is an intellectual [or spiritual] proposition. The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis. The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition." (Answers.com) 1830 - The American Bible Society funded Adoniram Judson's Burman Bible which changed "baptism" to "immersion." "As early as 1830 [the American Bible Society] made an appropriation of $1,200 for Judson's 'Burman Bible', through the Baptist Triennial Convention, with the full knowledge that he had translated the family of words relating to baptism by words which meant immerse and immersion, and down to 1835 the Society had appropriated $18,500 for the same purpose." [Armitage, p. 893] 1835 - American Bible Society rejected any foreign version not consistent with the common version [Authorised Version (KJV)] - such as Bengali New Testament. "In 1835 Mr. Pearce asked the Society to aid in printing the 'Bengali New Testament,' which was translated upon the same principle as Judson's Bible. The committee which considered the application reported as follows: 'That the committee does not deem it expedient to recommend its appropriation until the Board settle a principle in relation to the Greek word baptizo.' Then the whole subject was referred to a committee of seven, who, November 19, 1835, presented the following reports: 'The Committee to whom was recommitted the determining of a principle upon which the American Bible Society will aid in printing and distributing the Bible in foreign languages, beg leave to report, 'That they are of the opinion that it is expedient to withdraw their former report on the particular case and to present the following one on the general principle; 'By the Constitution of the American Bible Society, its Managers are, in the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, restricted to such copies as are without note or comment, and in the English language, to the version in common use. . . 'The subscriber, as a member of the Committee to whom was referred the application of Messrs. Pearce and Yates, for aid in the circulation of the Bengali New Testament, begs to submit the following considerations: '1. The Baptist Board of Foreign Missions have not been under the impression that the American Bible Society was organized upon the central principle that baptizo and its cognates were never to be translated, but always transferred, in all versions of the Scriptures patronized by them..." [Armitage pp. 894-5] 1836 - American & Foreign Bible Society formed by Baptist churches to circulate Bengali New Testament and other versions that would translate "baptize/baptism" as "immerse/immersion." "The Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, which met at Hartford, April 27th [1836], had anticipated the possible result, and resolved that in this event it would 'be the duty of the Baptist denomination in the United states to form a distinct organization for Bible translation and distribution in foreign tongues' and had resolved on the need of a Convention of Churches, at Philadelphia, in April, 1837, 'to adopt such measures as circumstances, in the providence of God may require.' But the meeting in Oliver Street thought it wise to form a new Bible Society at once, and on that day organized the American and Foreign Bible Society provisionally, subject to the decision of the Convention to be held in Philadelphia. This society was formed 'to promote a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures, in the most faithful version that can be procured.' In three months it sent $13,000 for the circulation of Asiatic Scriptures, and moved forward with great enthusiasm." [Armitage, p. 897] In this year, Mayer Amschel Rothschild purchased land in Palestine. “In 1836, [Zevi] Kalischer appealed to Mayer Amschel (...Rothschild) to buy out completely the land of Israel or at least Jerusalem and particularly the Temple area in order to ‘bring about the miraculous redemption from below’. Zevi Kalischer said the salvation promised by the prophets of old could come only gradually and by self-help from the Jews.” - 211:63 1838 - President of the American & Foreign Bible Society, Dr. Spencer H. Cone, sought immediately to revise the English Scriptures, however, the American and Foreign Bible Society voted against it. Dr. Cone's plan was thwarted for 14 years during which much pressure for revision was exerted and a revised AV was published. "After a year's deliberation the great Bible Convention met in the meeting house of the First Baptist Church, Philadelphia, April 26th, 1837. It consisted of 390 members, sent from Churches, Associations, State Conventions, Education Societies and other bodies, in twenty-three States and in the District of Columbia. . . "A constitution was then adopted and officers chosen by the Convention itself. It elected Spencer H. Cone for President... "...At its annual meeting in 1838 its constitution was so amended as to read: 'It shall be the object of this Society to aid in the wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures in all lands.'. . . "From the first, many in the new Society, led by Dr. Cone, desired to proceed at once to a revision of the English Scriptures, under the guidance of the principles applied to the Asiatic versions made by the Baptist missionaries. But in deference to the opposition of some who approved of the Society in all other respects, at its annual meeting in 1838 it 'Resolved, That in the distribution of the Scriptures in the English language, they will use the commonly received version until otherwise directed by the Society.' Whatever difference of opinion existed amongst the founders of that Society about the immediate expediency of applying the principle of its constitution to the English version, its ultimate application became but a question of time, and this action was postponed for fourteen years. Meanwhile, this measure was pressed in various directions, in addresses at its anniversaries, in essays published by various persons, and in the Society's correspondence. In 1842 Rev. Messrs. David Bernard and Samuel Aaron issued a very able treatise on the need of 'Revising and Amending King James Version of the Holy Scriptures.' They also procured and published in that year, through the publishing house of J. B. Lippincott, of Philadelphia, a revised version of the Old and New Testaments, 'carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars.' This they say they did 'in accordance with the advice of many distinguished brethren, the services of a number of professors, some of whom rank among the first in our country for their knowledge of the original languages and Biblical interpretation and criticism, have been secured to prepare this work.' Amongst these were the late Prof. Whiting, Prof. A.C. Kendrick and other leading scholars who still live and have labored on other revisions. [Armitage, pp. 897-900] David Bernard and Samuel Aaron, who produced a revised version of the Bible, denied the divine preservation of Scripture. "The vast majority of those who read the English Bible are entirely ignorant of the Greek; of the non-translation of baptizo — and its signification... As to our being 'left without a standard', through the multiplicity and variety of translations, we have only to say that there can, in the nature of things, be no perfect standard but the Hebrew and Greek originals; these, being written by inspired men, are infallible, while all translations by men uninspired must be more or less imperfect. The number of translations cannot affect the original." [Samuel Aaron & David Bernard, The Faithful Translation (1842) pg. 30] 1849-50 - American and Foreign Bible Society removed restriction to use common version (Authorised Version). "The American and Foreign Bible Society held its annual meeting in New York May 11th, 1849, and, on the motion of Hon. Isaac Davis, of Massachusetts, after considerable discussion, it was 'Resolved, That the restriction laid by the Society upon the Board of Managers in 1838, 'to use only the commonly received version in the distribution of the Scriptures in the English language,' be removed.' This restriction being removed, the new board referred the question of revision to a committee of five. After long consideration that committee presented three reports: one with three signatures and two minority reports. The third, from the pen of Warren Carter, Esq., was long and labored as an argument against altering the common version at all. In January, 1850, the majority report was unanimously adopted in these words: 'Resolved, That, in the opinion of this board, the sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ought to be faithfully and accurately translated into every living language. 'Resolved, That wherever, in versions now in use, known and obvious errors exist, and wherever the meaning of the original is concealed or obscured, suitable measures ought to be prosecuted to correct those versions, so as to render the truth clear and intelligible to the ordinary reader. 'Resolved, That in regard to the expediency of this board undertaking the correction of the English version, a decided difference of opinion exists, and, therefore, that it be judged most prudent to await the instruction of the Society.' A most impassioned debate ensued. Drs. Cone and Wyckoff of the American and Foreign Bible Society publish "The Bible Translated" to defend their action. Revisionists issue sample revised N.T.. Those opposed to revision call for many to 'rebuke this metropolitan power' to crush the revisionist movement forever. "On the publication of these resolutions the greatest excitement spread through the denomination. Most of its journals were flooded with communications, pro and con, sermons were preached in a number of pulpits denouncing the movement, and public meetings were held in several cities to the same end, notable amongst them one at the Oliver Street Church, in New York, April 4th, 1850. This feeling was greatly increased by the two following facts: Mr. Carter, an intelligent layman, but neither a scholar nor an able thinker, having submitted a learned and elaborate paper as his minority report, which occupied an hour in the reading, and believing that it was inspired by an astute author in New York who had opposed the Society from the first, and was then a member of the Board of the American Bible Society, Dr. Cone and William H. Wyckoff, President and Secretary of the American and Foreign Bible Society, published a pamphlet over their names in defense of the action of the board, under the title, 'The Bible Translated.' The second fact arose from the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Scriptures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings. Deacon William Colgate, the Treasurer, said that he approved of this suggestion, and if Brethren Cone and Wyckoff would procure and issue such an edition as a personal enterprise, he, as a friend of revision, would personally pay the cost of the plates and printing. This was done, and in their preface they stated that by the aid of 'eminent scholars,' who had 'kindly co-operated and given their hearty approval to the proposed corrections,' they submitted their work, not for acceptance by the Society, but as a specimen of some changes which might be properly made, and that the plates would be presented to the Society if they were desired. This was sufficient to fan the fire to a huge flame; much stormy and uncalled for severity was invoked, and a large attendance was called for at the annual meeting to 'rebuke this metropolitan power' and crush the movement forever." [Armitage, pp. 900-1]

Considering it is Babe Ruth? Use Google and read some material. Do your own research. I have done mine.



THE BIBLE matches the VERY exact original text to 99.5%.

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

How well I know this about evil, my friend. We may choose, and then there may be an appearance of our choice. I have read Malachi, and every other book you could name. And what I find slightly offensive is you think I have not, need to be informed, do not know the science that supports. But all these are tools by which many will be turned away, as turned to.... And faith, in fact, is the apperance of what does not appear.

As to what another poster said, no, it is not he said she said. For if we are to discern what is true, we must first read and consider and over and under and sideways stand what is here, for some of it is there to inform and assist and some to lead us forever down. Yes, we must discern light from dark, for these are time defined by more occult than anything, and in the occult goodness is evil, and vice versa. And i only responded to a thread like this because the absolutes it represents are clearly meant to mislead

Even in the occult (Hidden / Esoteric), we can see the exoteric of religion.

"When after ages of struggle and many victories the final battle is won, the final secret demanded, then you are prepared for a further path. When the final secret of this great lesson is told, in it is opened the mystery of the new way—a path which leads out of all human experience, and which is utterly beyond human perception or imagination. At each of these points it is needful to pause long and consider well. At each of these points it is necessary to be sure that the way is chosen for its own sake. The way and the truth come first, then follows the life."

We compare notes and we see the same. The Eastern way and the truth of philosophy and virtue. These are all rooted in the same source. The source is the Word that created it all.

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

We can consult the Hebrew Mystics and see the same:

Future bliss can neither be imagined, explained, nor described. We know nothing of its nature, form, greatness, or beauty, its quantity or quality. This much one should know, the phrase, "the world to come," does not imply that it is a world yet to be called into existence; it exists already, but the phrase is employed to describe the life into which those who are in the present stage of existence will be transposed when they throw off this mortal coil.

We can consult any source and know the source by its fruit. You and I can see this clearly from each perspective we examine. This does not change the root wisdom or the source it originates from. Denying the Bible is denying the sages of old and where this historical revelation has brought civilization. Barbarism is encroaching at the door as we speak, just as the Bible say. Verified.

"The world contains many creeds and faiths, but one central truth should not be overlooked: The flow of all we know is made up of many branches from the same stream, a great river divided many times over. The raging torrent of this river may be blocked by disbelief, but the main body of the flow emanating from the source will never be confined in one place for long. Realizing the initial first cause that governs the universe is the preliminary step for navigating the stream. All scholarship throughout history is a struggle against this flowing current as it meanders its way back to the original spring of creation." LINK

Pride stand above this wisdom in image only. Truth is another matter.

LOL, what a crap post. No star, no flag. Bah!! The "Bible" and the fable it portrays is nothing but a control mechanism for the weak minded like YOU.. Some Romans 13 anyone???

Originally posted by randyvs
So many people choose to believe this poppycock and It's easy to see why. It makes their lives so much more convienient, when they just don't have to deal with the authority our Creator has over us. They can't understand that the wages for not following Gods law (Sin) is death. They also can't see that those laws are in place for our own good.
They refuse to see that sin has ruined our relationship with him and so he has stepped back and let us have at it.
So that automatically cursed us to have to toil the ground ( farm ) just to survive. When we did have a relationship with him he looked after us. I belive we were even immortal because it isn't Gods nature to create things that die.
Anyway if you choose to push this lie that says God isn't capable of procuring a message he wants us to have ?
When he can create a whole universe ? That's cool, but if you really want truth or truly believe this is a lie and the Bible has been changed ? I challenge that and ask you to prove it. No one should be allowed such a lie IMO.
But people are going to do, what they want to do. If the Bible has been changed it should be as easy as pie in your all seeing eye to prove. So don't just spray it when you say it. Prove it.

As I said you can choose to support this outward lie. Just the same as I will continue with the truth.

Gods word is indestructable.

edit on 27-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Quite the opposite is true. If you read back, the OP is substantiated on the level of physics, common sense and historical evidence. The original video posted has enough in it to demonstrate this handily. The myth is seeing the image of energy in reality as accident. To say that God is not the designer, expressed best by the Bible, then we are missing any evidence against.

Umm historical evidence you say? Well if i write a book based on truths and half truths and claim this is the holy gospel of god then the half truths are taken to be factual what would that make me? Like i said earlier i believe some things are true in the bible as it was based on some historical events. But the same practice is used when you mix the truth with lies... this way with seeding lies with truth then people never get the real story. That is how disinformation works., the Bible imo is the greatest work of disinformation ever written.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by randyvs

 

Well, Randy,

Has the information presented so far, as to the likelihood of the Bible being rewritted or changed in ways significant enough to have aquired different meaning from the original texts, changed your outlook?

For myself, I have already come across most of these refutations and found them still of somewhat less than persuasive than the weight of historical knowledge and, quite simply, the content & intent of the Bible.

Awaiting your response.

I know this was for Randy so I do apologize, but, quite frankly I have seen no arguments from the other side that have made me question my belief either. So do we just agree to disagree and walk away friends or keep trying to persuade eachother on their own beliefs? Besides, we all know the following is the only Book that matters!!!!

Agreeing to disagree, shaking hands and walking away friends is the gentlemanly thing to do.

But I am a petulant child, so I'll happily flaunt my brain cell and (almost) wit.