The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

That's not the argument. The presence of counterfeit money raises the question of how you know when you are or are not looking at the real thing.Saying 'it's possible for money to be genuine' is no proof that the banknote in your hand is. The question is how you know.In an environment where monetary fraud is commonplace, it does little good to say 'I think this $100 bill is genuine because my granny told me it was when I was in second grade and I have always believed her.' This testifies only to your habit of mind and your love of granny. You have not begun to make a rational case that the bill in your hand is legal tender. For that one needs to make a sound case according to more objective criteria.Especially if the ink on the bill is smudging as you hold it. Missed the point again. It's not about whether a deity can be fooled, but about the fact that people can be.If you insist that you among thousands of devout religious people have beaten the odds and actually belong to the one true church out of thousands of false churches that exist, even as we see no evidence that your church has any advantage over the rest in apprehending reality, we may reasonably wonder how easily fooled you are.It would be wise to wonder such things about one's own conclusions before someone else raises the question. But regardless: it's dishonest sleight-of-hand to pass the buck onto your God. The issue is not the deity's gullibility, but yours.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : diversifying literary assets.Edited by Archer Opterix, : bucking trends.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Of course, if that was a true account of what atheists think, you wouldn't need to give it, you'd just have to wait for atheists to post on this thread and argue in the way you describe.The only reason it's necessary for you to recite this nonsense is because it's untrue.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

By "out of the Bible" he means "not in the Bible".I guess he should have written "outside" instead of "out".

I think you've misunderstood me.My example of how I might check up on whether John really wrote the Gospel of John was that if I was living in his time, I might just find him and ask him.If he said "yes", then would this be "fraudulent data"?Sheesh, just go outside and look at a tree. It is not in the Bible. Is it "fraudulent data"?---I'd like you to look at some of your posts: You start off with "200 people", and "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death" --- and you end up with one guy, Josephus, who was born several years after the Crucifiction.I don't wish to act all holier-than-thou, but I think your behaviour is wrong in two ways.First, by saying this stuff you might have fooled someone into thinking that these "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death" really existed, in which case you'd have been (unintentionally) spreading a lie.Secondly, you wish to spread the Gospel, do you not? Well, when you put up arguments this flimsy for Christianity, you're not making the Christian faith look good. When you defend the faith by talking about "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death", and it turns out that they don't actually exist, then that makes your whole position look foolish.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Not exactly.The Canon is the list of Books that are said to be Divinely Inspired and so worthy of being included in "The Bible".The problem is that there is not one Canon, but rather many. The Roman Catholics have a Canon, but then the Protestants have another. The Samaritan Christian Church (one of the oldest by the way) says that only the first five books, the Pentateuch, should be considered Divinely Inspired. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (another very old one) has two Canons, and the broad Canon contains 81 books. The Syrian Christian Church (yet another very old one) has only 22 books in their Canon and exclude 2&3 John, 2Peter, Jude and Revelation.All of the different Canons were created by committees, committees of men. Different committees made different decisions about what books are in the "Bible"Please do not misunderstand. I believe that the Bible as well as much other that has been written is Inspired, and Inspired by GOD. But things like the "Bible", like religion itself, are still just creations of man. They are Maps, attempts by man to help guide and instruct, they are not the Territory, they are not GOD.Elevating some imaginary concept such as "The Bible" to the status of "Godly Made" is to mistake the Treasure Map for the actual Treasure.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Juraikken wrote: and that’s completely wrong. The JW bible has much less changed compared to, say, the NIV - a couple words here and there, such as GoJ 1:1. There are volumes of changes between the bibles you are calling “sharing the same story”.Um, you seem to have missed my point, which wasn’t that the KJV is better (the KJV is well known to be the most corrupted of our translations, and is based only on a handful of manuscripts, the oldest from the 11th century ). My point was that you have a lot of learning to do before you can even have a cogent conversation about the Bible.This was not just because there are much larger differences between the Bibles you called “the same”, and almost no differences between the Bibles you called “very different”, but also due to many other statements you made that could only come from someone who lacks even the basics of a field. It’s like if I got onto a discussion with auto mechanics and didn’t know that cars ran on gasoline or got warm when running. I’d look like a fool and would waste everyone’s time, and it would be my fault.You continue to make statements like that. For instance:Juraikken wrote: Jar wasn’t talking about “intellectual tone” (again, what could you mean by that?). He was referring to the very different world described by the GoJ (Gospel of John).Whoever wrote the GoJ, it wasn’t any who was around Jesus and the disciples. In the GoJ, Jesus never casts out a single demon, talks incessantly about himself, never does anything special with the bread and wine at the last supper, is never transfigured (which is supposed to have happened in John’s presence), and never even tells a freakin’ parable! The opposite is seen in the other gospels. If the other gospels have any accurate information about a real Jesus, then it is clear that whoever wrote the GoJ can’t be anyone who was around Jesus. The author of the GoJ also speaks in Greek, and apparently doesn’t know Aramaic (see Greek word pun in John chap 3 - ask me if interested). How could John not know Aramaic??Similarly:Juraikken wrote: Um, no. They are word for word identical for stretches in many places. I teach at the university level, and this is widely know to be solid proof that one copied from the other.But don’t take my word for it. You can compare them yourself at places like this:
Page not found | University of Toronto
(pick a comparison, then scroll down to line up the same story for comparison.)Juraikken wrote: Let’s compare:Which of this pair is from the GoT, and which is from Matthew, Mark, or Luke? Or this pair? The GoT has many such similarities with the synoptics. It also has many apparently Gnostic features that are completely different, as you stated. However, the misogyny is not really worse than that in the pastorals. What do you think of the misogyny in the pastorals?Also, please don’t move the goalposts. You recently stated that you had accounts from Roman guards who had seen Jesus during his life (6 BCE to 30 CE). When asked for evidence, that turned into having Josephus mention Jesus in 93 CE. For your information, Josephus wasn’t even born until years after Jesus died, he wasn’t a Roman, he wasn’t a guard, and he clearly didn’t think Jesus was all that special, since he didn’t convert to Christianity. The easiest person to fool is ourself, when we want to believe something, we imagine evidence to support that belief. That’s what we all need to be on guard for.As with so many topics about the Bible, whenever there is a discussion nearly everyone (including the Christians) is largely ignorant. I think that’s because Christian churches seem to put the emphasis on learning their doctrine instead of learning the history and study of the Bible. In other words, “Bible Study” meetings are actually meetings about how to read the particular church’s doctrine into the Bible, instead of studying the Bible itself. So many Christians spend hundreds of hours in “Bible Study” meetings, and come out clueless about the actual Bible (or worse, with distorted ideas). It’s a good idea in our Christian dominated culture to be actually informed about the Bible. A good resource is this class on tape:The Great CoursesJuraikken, I’ve posted several resources with tons of reading to allow you to inform yourself and stop looking like a 6 year old. The above class on tape is yet another resource - one that you can listen to while driving or whatever. Other classes from the teaching company can also be found by going to The Great Courses, and running their search for any of these titles:
1. History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon
2. After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
3. New Testament
4. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity
5. Historical Jesus
6. Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication
7. Lost Christianities & Historical Jesus (Set)(it’s also good to do some reading from places you find yourself, especially sources with less bias, like wikipedia).Of all that, please take some time to learn, and take advantage of kind people like Jar who are knowledgeable and also willing to lend a hand. Most who are knowledgeable have zero interest in spending their time helping a novice with his homework. I’d at least get a good start on that before making more completely wrong statements in front of people who are much more knowledgeable than you are.Have a great day--Equinox

As you've already been told, he was a Jewish historian who was eye-witness to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE ("Common Era", a non-Christian date designation for practical purposes equivalent to "AD"). In college, I researched his original writings to see that alleged mention of Jesus for myself and how the original Greek had read. Yes, Greek. Koine, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire.That passage wasn't there. In a footnote where it was supposed to have been, the editor noted that it doesn't exist in any of the Greek manuscripts, but rather first appears on an Old Church Slavonic translation, which indicates that it was more likely added much later by an overzealous monk.

Manuscripts of the New Testament exist from ancient times. The text of those manuscripts differ from each other; the text has changed.Does Luke 2:14 say "and on earth peace, goodwill toward men" or "and on earth peace among men of goodwill" (which could also be translated as "among men receiving God's goodwill" -- that's part of the ambiguity of the genitive case). Depends on which manuscript you use, one which includes or omits a final sigma on eudoxia, goodwill. With the sigma, eudoxia is in the genitive, but without it it's nominative. Changes the meaning of the verse. Most of the verses differ in some way from one manuscript to another. Even the verses in Revelations, which contains the admonishment you quoted warning against changing any of the text (Rev 22:18-19).

Too bad this is a bunch of slander of people you don't know, do you have any evidence of your claims?
if so present it in a thread, if not please stop spreading BS this isn't even what he is remotely saying!
he's saying fakes mean that you can't take them at face value because they all claim to be true oh please, no way in hell does your writing style change as much as the bible texts does, people love to claim that the bible is one book one moment and the next say its more than one book, its impossible for it to be one book, theres too many voices i agree with this, it also means that should the text differ from what someone taught you that means you can't argue over it

I'm NOT saying anything about Fakes.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

sorry, i misunderstood then

None of the various Canon are fakes. They are all, every single one, the result of committees of men, inspired by GOD, creating what they think is the accurate list of books that should make up a Bible.The fact that all of these committees came up with different lists is one of the strongest proofs that the Bible is the product of just man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for clarifying, and i agreeread too much canon history to believe fundie revisionism

Well put, EQ. Funny how, when you attempt a debate with a Christian who says they have years of Bible study behind them, and the conversation moves to the fractured history of the Bible, you stand accused of trying to destroy same. IOW, doctrinal purity supercedes Biblical purity. Surely, basic honesty would compel believers to have some idea of what has been the provenance of their most trusted possession? Mebbe not.

okay, apparently this is all directed towards me! how nice, and how humble of you all to say how UNeducated i am and everything. instead of saying, "it's ok thats what we are here for" you say "try looking up your info before acting like you know everything" ....very nice....anyway, onto the subject, im going to try to answer everyone. so go down the list and read look for your name sorry for the long post but i gotta say what i gotta say right? and i probably will get another detention for some miniscule thing i might say, i had to change the way i type for this forum>>Dedication i guess... anyway onward to my paper~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ how is that possible? i mean but look, im sure Noah knew of the geographics of where he lived, he knew how high mountains were and stuff. there woudl have to be a LOT of water to cover any mountain nearby.3 inches of water wouldnt cover mountains can it? hmm...well the names are different thats for sure, the REASON for the floods are different. where it takes place is different. What causes the flood takes place... thats why i include the other religions stories and sedimentary lines, but thats beyond THIS subject well, hmm the point right now isnt that the Bible's flood is so much ACCURATE but that it really DID happen, we cant deny that becuase other religions also agree that it did happenaccuracy is the next step. there is no Test group to see if it IS accurate or not, to look back into history (modern history) we look through texts, videos, sounds, eywhitnesses. but for this all we have is texts, how can we see which story was more accurate than the other...besides faith most of the time they do yes. well that sort of can be used for anything previous to this second, becuase you cant experiment the past....thats just it. you cant even experiment on the constitution of the united states. i mean yeah its there but, who's to say it really was written by Thomas Jefferson? his signature doesnt count. there are no more eyewhitnesses. how can you prove he wrote it?i mean if you use THAT form of argument everything falls apart lol everyone can be in on it, and they can destroy evidence...i mean havent you heard the news or watch tv, it can be done, the judges CAN be tricked the jury can be decieved, and murederers and rapists are set free becuase they are innocent until PROVEN guilty. and they are unable to be proven guilty and are thus let go. i cant you are right, but then again you cant prove that the people who were at the signing of the declaration of independance were really there. or that Einstein really came up with E=mc^2? or if Newton really came up with the idea of Gravity, etc. you believe it becuase older people said it is so. you have faith in them....just like how i have faith in the Bible i accept your challenge lol. and i agree that it woudlnt be justice but i also think that, that COULD happen! people HAVE been wrongfully accused and sentenced and people have been wrongfully unaccused and let go.you can also create evidence to go against me, create the scenes to make it seem like I did it, make mangled bodies that NO ONE can detect what they are and find them in the burning house (you burst into flames) and then what? no fingerprints, no footprints, no nothing. case is unable to be solved but the fact that you are the only thing they can use, you are the eyewhitness. thats all they have. lol thanks. hahah i havent heard that one yet, buy me lol i hear that a lot, i understand that it would strengthen my faith, but in which way? the Bible is the central force of Christianity, if its proven false, then Christ is false, and it all falls apart. how would that strengthen hte persons faith? if its the ONE word of God then how can you find ANY sources to support it when its the ONE word of God?oh no it was written by MEN, that was my point but it was completely inspired by God. he wasnt, i was trying to find a source outside of the bible being born of a virgin is greater than being resurrected? how so?its a story to get pagans to convert to christianity? what?he cant be someones bastard because there is NO father at all. to be considered that you need to have that egg sperm thing going on, that never happened, there was no man to give the sperm, it was given to her by the holy spirit. in order to be a bastard dont you have to have HAD a father then he died or something? Jesus never did have a praternal father.it is not a myth, i dont see how its weakly written, connects with the bible clearly and connects with the prophecy and connect with how pure Jesus is suppose to be, where is the weakness?what? then why wouldnt Joseph just get rid of her? becuase they obviously werent rich ok well how would they verify this? thats the question you should be asking. unfortunately unlike these great people in here, i am merely a 20 year old College student ok what makes you think that they are NOT authentic? all of the books that are included/discluded in the canon are still authentic books. BUT that doesnt mean that they are ALL divinely inspired. its a possibility that the church had compiled it the wrong way. do you think it wasnt inspired or do you?yes i have come to that conclusion too, i thought a lot of the times that it meant only that book, and sometimes the entire bible.let me point out something; IF Revelation was inspired by God, then wouldnt God intend for the Entire bible to not be altered in any way? becuase why would God only want Revelation to be altered? im sure that if it was only that book then anyone can turn Jesus into a raging maniac and God wouldnt mind.At some points i tend to think that, if Revelation was inspired by God, then he would also mean it for the entire bible. i mean, if i was God i wouldnt want anyone changing my entire bible, not just a book.i am sorry but that is untrue, i will try to keep this on the thread topic, there were Asian countries that agreed with the biblical flood to prove the validity of the bible.to further be able to prove the validity of the bibles flood by using outside sources if i may, i will include other countries outside of the middle east who experienced the global flood?Matsya from India tells the story of a flood that "destroys all life" and he built a boat and when this flood receded he re-populated lifeMi'kmaq from the canadian regions had a similar story to genesis, but the god wept for the wickedness of the families on earth and wept causing rain to cover all of the earth and only one old man and one old woman survived the flood.Menominee from Native American cultures from the Michigan area have a story that Manabus one day shot two gods at play which caused a flood to happen that reached the highest mountain in Michigan only Manabus and some animals survived and repopulated the earth.you see that it wasnt merely in the middle east but in North America, India, and China, etc. difference outweighs the similarities because of the countries traditions didnt YOU ask me to bring you something outside of the bible for the validity of the bible, yet when i give it, its irrelevant?not true, not all the floods in history of all time was recorded as massive, i beleive more than one flood happened in all history, if what you say is true then all religions/cultures should have more than 20 flood stories for eachthis was a major flood because:1. they all wrote that it reached the mountains, i dont believe that early civilization was that stupid to write something that is 24 inches high is equal to the height of the mountains. can be easily falsified to agree with the criminal but what if that is all they have? no finger prints, no other whitnesses, even evidence to show that teh criminal was at another place during that time (which can be falsified too) Felonies are convicted by eywhitnesses of course i couldnt agree more that sounds like an excuse to say there are NO atheist converts. its like me saying the landing of the moon was faked by video editing. you cant disprove me but you KNOW its fact that they did.what is so scary of an atheist turning christian that makes it so impossible? show me this verse where he says thinking is wrong, i read all of Acts in one day nowhere did i see that it says thinking is wrong the OT is not kept due to its laws, the OT has TONS of great stuff to learn from and TONS of profecies for Jesus' second coming, so it is valid today.there are many points in the constitution that CAN be considered meaningless to our society today, but due to mass hysteria it wont be dared removed. well im sure that in the process of translation it doesnt go from:"Adam was created by God then put into the garden of Eden"to:"Eve created the world and the world became two and died"the translation is not COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY lost in this manner, this would be difficult to show my point in a simple sentence but in an entire chapter it would be much clearer.if the word at hand is the problem then READ the entire chapter, understand this words meaning, and value besides the meaning of the word by YOUR knowledge of what it means. look into the context and see what this chapter says about THAT word and then, without using the dictionary you can understand what that word is EVEN if the translation was super bad. it doesnt matter if the law was about rape or consentual sex, whats the bottom line of the law, DONT DO IT PERIOD! lol doesnt matter if your in love doesnt matter if its rape doesnt matter! the bottom line is DONT DO IT, its not like the translation was bad and it says DO IT. where does it say what in the bible?what? where are you living Reverend? the 10 commandments are for every single person living on this earth past and future. both laws are the same, and dont you forget who Jesus is? the son of GOD and didnt GOD give the 10 commandments? so does that mean JESUS is not affiliated with God that the 10 commandments dont apply anymore? nobeing good with your neighbor is part of the 10 commmandments as well.and another thing, if the 10 commandments arent part of what WE as other people than Jews have to do then does that mean i can HONOR another God as well? or i can lie? or ANYTHING besides being good to my neighbor? *buzzer sound* no once you are covered by the blood of Jesus those sins go away, if your not covered then you are liable for those sins!thats why its impossible to follow those laws, SO THAT YOU ACCEPT JESUS TO COVER YOUR SINS! otherwise you are going to suffer the penalty for going against the big ten no you are a sinner, its just that ONCE you take in the blood of the lamb then you are cleansed and after THAT you become a totally different person one who has the holy spirit in them and who constantly tries to get closer to God, when you sin, you ask God for forgiveness and you repent of that sin so you will not do it any longer. true, i never said we dont sin anymore now that Jesus died for usso God had a fear of Women? when in Genesis God said that the woman should listen to their husband and such.I would be able to respond to CD, but i guess im not allowed to...everyone else seems to be getting off the hook for responding him when an admin said to not do, if i did it, i would have another 2 hours recess....anyway onto my subjecti can agree that you cant find out what church is the real church but, all in all, THERE really is the real church out there somewhere. but..you know what? it really doesnt matter whcih one is the real one or not, because the most real church is you and your bible. thats it, you got all your truth right there in your hand thats all you need. the idea of the church is to find one that is able to teach you in the correct manner that applies to your nature and your ability to learn, if you see mistakes, move on to another church without a word just "dust off your sandals" and eventually you will find the one that suits you finewell...we cant lol so what CAN we do? you are whitnessing a person who is discovering everything at the moment, you and plenty of other people already discovered all of this a long time ago. i am merely more conversing than others when i think and discover things. no time do i think you are acting that way, but thanks.yes i dont mean to, like i said im barely discovering some of these things. but then, does that destroy the validity of Josephus even after he was born "several" years after Jesus' death? i mean thats closer that 2000 years well...not really considering how im saying that i just begun learning and am....again 19 years old and you guys are proffessors and such. interesting...well hmm...as i see it all of these sects have made THEIR own canon depending on what they believe to be truth. so it goes back to me saying, collect all the books that are ever discovered, read them, analyze them, understand them in full, discern what IS divinely inspired through rigorous research and debates, then combine them into one true canon and not the fakes. then again you can say that its MY true bible and could maybe not be the ACTUAL true bible, but when were all these old canons created? we are a smarter world now, i think we can discover the real one so u mean the compilation of the written books is man made but some ARE inspired by God, which do you think in your opinion is inspired? are you serious? theres so many crap in that bible that has NOTHING to do with any of the canons at all. and the inconsistancy of it all is too much to bare. they believe that Christ is not equal to God, Christ died on a Steak instead of a cross, and they also believe that earth will never be destroyed or populated again. and the most eye catching one, that the soul will no longer exist after death. what is that? and all that watchtower stuff i have just spent about an hour looking through and learning how KJV was changed about alot, but it was due to writing error and stuff like "thou shalt committ adultery" instead of "thou shalt NOT committ adultery" it DID have a lot of versions, and in the end it came to its good concluded bible. i also now know that the NIV and the NASB have earlier texts that the KJV did not, there is no difference in what they both have tho, except one explains things in a native tongue and more wordy (KJV) and the others explain the bible in the new tongue of today (NASB, NIV) John baptized Jesus, how could he have not been even near Jesus?i notice the change in writing style in the book, check it"32And << JOHN >> bare record, saying, << I >> saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.33And << I >> knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptize with the Holy Ghost"i noticed he goes from 3rd person to 1st person. but by this fulfilled prophecy for John, doesnt it have to be HIM as the writer to know this? and plus it says "I" in itand plus, right before Jesus was taken away, John has his prayer in there that Luke, Mark doesnt have. and in mark and matthew it doesnt even say Jesus heals that mans ear when Jesus was being taken away. i mean all 4 books have things missing, if you put them ALL together then it would have the entire message. but to say John wasnt even near Jesus at all is one thing not really becuase i just read the lat chapters in all of the 4 gospels and see major and minor differences. saying:"Jesus was encountered by Judas"
"Judas came up to Jesus"
"Judas walked up to Jesus"
"Judas went up to Jesus"those are minor differences that you might think are still "exact replicas" but then there are major differences that they did not copy off of eachotherMatthew and Mark do not mention Jesus healing ones ear. Luke mentions a naked man running away from the scence where Jesus was taken right before crucifixion. John writes Jesus' prayer right before Judas betrayes him. John doesnt write that Judas betrayes Jesus with a kiss, neither does Matthew or mark. in John it doesnt even mention that Judas kisses Jesus. i mean this is merely a part of a chapter, i wonder how it is throughout the entire!they all wrote their own accounts, some are similar becuase some lines were more powerful than others, and probably they all looked at eachothers and said "well yes that is good" i also noticed that every book had the same line of what Judas said probably becuase NONE of them really knew cuz Judas died later on and they heard what Judas said PROBABLY from ONE guard and they all wrote the same thing down. but to say "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." WHAT IS THAT?or:Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."while in the other books Jesus teaches "He who is last will become first and he who is first will become last" complete contradictory to GThin the GTh Jesus speaks a lot about a Repose that none of the other books talk about, its more on teh side of JW. and Jesus mostly speaks about how to become superior and powerful instead of finding everlasting life and obtian the true path to salvation. =/i notice that Matthew has 203 similarities with the rest, Mark:122, Luke:185, John:35, and Thomas:76, but the book of thomas is so short, and it doesnt even end with Jesus' crucifixion, doesnt even follow the same chronological order of things. its completely out of the 4 other gospels direction of things. i moved goal posts? i didnt know he wasnt roman, can i say MY BAD? without being pummeled for it? my mention of him wasnt for converting to christianity in the first place, would you read what i say? it was to have PROOF that Jesus was not fairy tale i NEVER think that way, it was a simple mistake, gosh im no expert in remember what ethnicity some person was when i read it ONCE in my entire life and this i read about a year ago. i dont remmeber it! greek, roman, almost the same for me, and i admitted that it was a mistake must you shove it even more down my throat? i appreciate your humble attitude ill write that one down. and there is nothing wrong with that! if we dont know what it is we are learning the history for then whats the point? its like me telling you to go to an uncharted island and im telling you to live there and i wont answer any questions about this island....dont u have to LEARN about what God is all about before you do your history search? i mean what are churches for? looking for historical evidence? not really ive been to different bible studies and they all teach the same exact thing well then, what makes your idea the un-distorted one over mine? who gave you the absolute power to discern what is distorted or not? you will be awarded the nicest person on EvC most of my searches are over there thanks for assuming again =) when did i say "im not listening to you jar BAH!"? never im still here and listening with OPEN EARS lol if that IS the truth then i dont want to be knowledgable cuz that sounds like a MEAN person....=/ yes i guess knowledge doesnt always give you the idea of how to talk to people as well, unfortunately.... thank you for that added note abour CE, but i think i only need one person to tell me i was wrong about Josephus thanks. gosh ah well...can't win em all eh? does that mean we go from"Jesus told Judas'you betray me with a kiss?'"
to
"Jesus started flying around people and everyone was amazed"thats what i mean by text change. simple word differences dont count, same meaning is still kept, because as early as 2nd century text fits into NIV, so thats pretty darn old and STILL similar to the KJV etc either translation would work, it doesnt matter, becuase in anotehr spot in the bible it would say goodwill among men, and in this part it would say among men recieve Gods goodwill. it says all those kinds of stuff all throughout the bible and BOTH are correct and BOTH work. what do you do when all you have is face value? well it also depends if your great in your writing style, im not i always change tenses and use different words that shouldnt be used while i write, you probably even notice the difference. yes it happens, if your not educated it happens even more often than that. of course the entire bible wasnt written by one person but many, but in a book in the bible thats a different story the compilation right? not the actual writing? if you mean me, then your sadly mistaken cuz i NEVER said i had years of bible study behind me nope Edited by Juraikken, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning