Why people want to believe there is a god.

And what about the question why do people want to believe there is no God?

So what kind of evidence do you want? Historical evidence? Evidence for prophecies fulfilled after the predictions in the bible? Evidence for Jesus?

Unfortunately for you then, if you want historical corroboration, the bible has it. There have been found over 24 000 manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence, plus 15 000 versions written in Latin and Syriac. (Compare this to only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings still existing today, 10 copies of the writings of Caesar). With the earliest manuscripts corresponding to the bible we have now, we have evidence that the New Testament has not been tampered with.However, for the Mormon 'The Pearl of Great Price' (the book of Abraham) translation by Joseph Smith, there is substantial evidence it has been modified and tampered with, along with the fact that Joseph's translation of 'The Pearl of Great Price' was totally wrong, shown when the text Joseph Smith translated from, 'The Pearl of Great Price', was found and translated by recent Egyptologists using Smith's 'Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar', Joseph Smith's 'The Pearl of Great Price' was shown to be the Egyptian 'Book of Breathings'; which was even admitted by Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley. When the real manuscript of 'The Pearl of Great Price' was found, it was nothing like what Joseph Smith's translation.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-06-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-06-2002]

quote:

---

If it were over than the Admin would have officially closed it.

---

I think that Gene was referring to your argument with him is over. How about getting back to the topic?

quote:

---

All questions are innocent, it is the answers which show the guilt

---

Questions can be loaded, or have malice in them. Like asking whether a person has had a lobotomy.

quote:

---

The one's written by members of the church out of whole cloth? I know that many Christians at the time didn't want the Book of Revelation included because it contradicted what Christ had been teaching. BTW, the BoR is put together from the letters sent to the 7 Churches in Asia Minor by John of Patmost (sp) about his re-interpretation of the Book of Daniel and of the politics of the 1st AD (The beast is Nero).

​

Wasn't there a big conference around 1000 AD where they made major changes to the bible and other docterine as well?

---

I don't recall anything in Revelation which contradicts what he taught. Many might have disliked Revelation because it taught of Hell, which isn't a popular concept. As for talking about interpretations, they're interpretations and interpretations can be wrong, however that does not necessarily mean the text is wrong.And as for the conference around 1000 AD, please enlighten me.

quote:

---

How is this evidence of historical corroboration? After a religion is established and its text are widely translated this just establishes that the new testament was widely read. If a John Grisham novel is translated into 2,000 languages and we come back 10 years from now are the contents of his novel historically corroborated? By your standards yes. That the new testament was written down only corroborates that the new testament was written down...the contents are a myth.

---

Mmm? really? I'll give you a few examples.
Biblical Manuscripts |Date written|Earliest Copy|Time Span|Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)|1st century |50-60 AD |co-existant (?)|John Rylands (John) |90 AD |130 AD |40 years |Bodmer Papyrus II (John) |90 AD |150-200 AD |60-110 years |Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)|1st century| 200 AD | 150 years |Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)|1st century| 200 AD |150 years |Codex Vaticanus (Bible) |1st century |325-350 AD| 275-300 years |Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)| 1st century| 350 AD| 300 years |
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)| 1st century 400 AD| 350 years |And since the John Grisham novel hasn't been translated into that many languages, even with all the printing resources, consider the bible; without printing presses that many manuscripts were produced in many different languages. Please contrast this with the Qu'ran. More than 100 years after Muhammed's death, we still do not have any verifiable Muslim documents. The primary sources to which Islam uses are about 150-300 years after the events they describe. Even if the documents had desintegrated, there should be fragments to which we could refer to. However, there is none. Two of the primary documents that Muslims use are the Samarkand Manuscript and the Topkapi Manuscript. However, these two were written in Kufic, which according to experts did not appear until the late 8th century.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-08-2002]

quote:

---

As I had stated the early Christians didn't believe in a Hell as we now know the concept. To them it was either heaven or the grave.

---

So how does that contradict the bible? Jesus taught that hell was real, revelation says that hell is real.

quote:

---

This is contradictory.

---

No, it isn't. You see this in science all the time. People come up with different interpretations of the evidence, I remember that there was 5 versions of superstring theory.

quote:

---

Sorry, I was thinking of another event. What I had meant was about the conferences which were held to make major chances in the Christian doctrine and the bible itself through out the Churches history.

---

What event was it?

quote:

---

You make a lot of assumptions, but that is to be expected since that is all a religious belief system actually is, one big assumption. Nothing more.

---

Science incorporates one big assumption; that the universe is rational and can be comprehended.

And you assume that life came from random chance, and that the universe was not designed (as you say that there is no God), just is.--
The true test of a man's character is what he would do if he knew nobody would ever find out.

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by hell. Most Modern Christians get their idea of what hell is from Dante's Inferno.

---

Well, hell is a helluva lot worse than Dante's Inferno, let me tell you that.

quote:

---

Apples and oranges. Plus, you got it backwards. First they put forth the theories then they search for the evidence and the theory which matches is the one which is used, if none match than a new theory is put forth. With Creationists they ignore all of the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".

---

We could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists. They ignore all the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".--An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-09-2002]

quote:

---

Plus, what we call Greek Mythology is far older and more consistant despite having fewer so-called original texts and manuscripts than Christianity has had.

---

Please give me some inconsistencies in the manuscripts Christianity has. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? With only a few copies of Greek Mythology, its easy for it to be consistent. But with thousands of copies, translated into many languages, at different times....--Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-09-2002]

quote:

---

You've been here a while and you still don't know what evolution is?

---

Random mutations + natural selection then. However, abiogenesis could certainly be classified as random chance.--Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

quote:

---

What, you've been there?

---

Ever heard of NDEs?

quote:

---

Hardly. Like I had said, you still don't (Probably won't) know what evolution is. Maybe you should read what I posted to Matt in "Is It Science" about the difference between science and religion?

---

I took a look. Could you explain the difference to me in your own words?

quote:

---

All one has to do is compare these scrolls (That is if one can get full access to them) with the current bible and you will see that there are many inconsistencies.

---

I read the statistics on it. Less than 1 word in a thousand is different, but synonymous. Give me a specific inconsistency between the manuscripts. Most of the other differences could be accounted for by slight changes in names and places.

quote:

---

So, you are admitting that the bible isn't the literal and inerrant word of your god since it is so filled with inconsistencies?

---

No, I am not. I'm just saying that with all those copies and languages, it is still consistent.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-09-2002]

quote:

---

Glad to see your admission of the large number of inconsistencies in the bible

---

Where did I admit that?