A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:47 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Even if this were true, it does not show my statement to be false for preaching is a form of talking or communicating, which is what I said I was here doing.

No. You said "talking about atheism". You're not.

Time for you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:53 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Because man put together the various books of the bible choosing through their own free will which books to include or omit, which parts to edit and of course errors in copying, is it not possible that there are sins that your god knows about but we don't know about ?

If your god communicates through men who can use free will to change that communication, then your level of gullibility must be very high.

As god personally told me last night when I was dreaming. "Gullibility is a sin"

God using men who could use their volitional capacities to change said communication does not equate to them actually doing so. To conclude thus would be a non-sequitur.

To see whether or not these men "changed" God's revelation to them, we would look for indicators or evidence of such amendments beyond mere copyist mistakes of say, a missing punctuation mark or or a left out letter in a word. Is there evidence that the men moved by God to record His revealed will changed what He communicated to them in a way that would affect even one essential doctrine of Christianity?

What does the evidence show? Let us look:

All ancient books in existence have survived only as copies of copies, yet the number, quality and age of the New Testament manuscripts is far superior to that of any other ancient work. F.F. Bruce concluded that 'there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.'[16]

Even Homer's Iliad, one of the most famous works of ancient literature, has survived in just 643 manuscripts (ie. handwritten copies from before the advent of the printing press), the earliest of which dates from hundreds of years after its original composition. This situation is far better than for most ancient works, the basic integrity of which is not usually questioned. Yet the New Testament has survived in over 24,000 manuscripts, including lectionaries and early translations.

New Testament manuscripts have survived from at least the early second century onwards (eg. the John Rylands fragment of John 18:31, 33, 37, 38 in Manchester). This is a far smaller time gap from composition to first extant manuscript than any other ancient work.[17] Later New Testament manuscripts can be easily viewed, such as the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) in the British Library.

Turning to the Old Testament (Old Testament), the situation is not quite the same, largely due to the greater age of the books concerned. Still, there are hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts surviving, and these again compare extremely favourably with those surviving from other works of the same period. The Jewish scribes (Masoretes) responsible for faithfully transmitting the texts turned their job into an art form, devising complex, multi-layered checks for ensuring that no mistakes had crept in, such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet appears in each book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fascinating witness to the authenticity of the Old Testament text. Prior to their discovery in 1947, the oldest complete Old Testament texts dated from around AD 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around a century or so before the time of Christ and include many Old Testament manuscripts. The book of Isaiah was found amongst the scrolls and 'proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.'[18]

It is worth knowing something about the kinds of variant readings found in manuscripts of the Bible. Virtually all manuscripts contain variants, as happens whenever long passages are copied out by hand. This should not worry us. The biblical text that we have to defend is that of the original autograph, not later copies, as it was the authors that were inspired, not the copyists. Manuscripts are valuable in that they help to show us what the text of the original autographs was.

The vast majority of variants are variations in spelling and grammar that have no bearing on the meaning. Others are obvious slips of the pen, with one letter mistaken for another, or lines and phrases inadvertently missed out or repeated. Occasionally variants do change the meaning of the text and there are rare examples of a deliberate change, (such as harmonising the wording in two similar passages). Again, we should not be worried by the existence of these variants. There are a comparatively small number that change the meaning of the text and in virtually every case the original reading can be determined by comparing manuscripts together, a process known as textual criticism.[19] Bruce Metzger, one of the world's leading authorities on New Testament textual criticism, states that not one doctrine of the church is in jeopardy because of a variant reading in the New Testament. http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-r...-testament




What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-t...6WHJPldWjo

Oh, look -- the asshole is spamming copypasta again.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-06-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. You said "talking about atheism". You're not.

Time for you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

Dude is suffering form dementia. He fried his brain on either alcohol or drugs. He can't remember from one post to another what he claimed he was doing here. He said he was here to "talk to atheists". Preaching is not "talking" except in the delusional world of an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2014, 07:37 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

Dude is suffering form dementia. He fried his brain on either alcohol or drugs. He can't remember from one post to another what he claimed he was doing here. He said he was here to "talk to atheists". Preaching is not "talking" except in the delusional world of an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

"from" dementia.

Slander will not advance your cause of showing your views to be more tenable and mine to be untenable.

This is usually done through argumentation and presentation of evidence.

And yes you know and I know that I have been here talking to atheists about atheism and other things for some time now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 07:44 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. You said "talking about atheism". You're not.

Time for you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

I am not talking about atheism?


You are NOT talking about atheism. You are spamming apologetic bullshit.

Funny how you bastards never get around to fucking APOLOGIZING for your bullshit.


Quote:Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

One post mentioning atheism in a shitstorm of apologetic copypasta doesn't make you "talking about aatheism", you lying moron.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-06-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:37 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Dude is suffering form dementia. He fried his brain on either alcohol or drugs. He can't remember from one post to another what he claimed he was doing here. He said he was here to "talk to atheists". Preaching is not "talking" except in the delusional world of an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

"from" dementia.

Slander will not advance your cause of showing your views to be more tenable and mine to be untenable.

This is usually done through argumentation and presentation of evidence.

And yes you know and I know that I have been here talking to atheists about atheism and other things for some time now.

You wouldn't know either argumentation or evidence if they bent you over a barrel and fucked you with a 747.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-06-2014, 07:58 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 08:01 AM by Leo.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:53 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Because man put together the various books of the bible choosing through their own free will which books to include or omit, which parts to edit and of course errors in copying, is it not possible that there are sins that your god knows about but we don't know about ?

If your god communicates through men who can use free will to change that communication, then your level of gullibility must be very high.

As god personally told me last night when I was dreaming. "Gullibility is a sin"

God using men who could use their volitional capacities to change said communication does not equate to them actually doing so. To conclude thus would be a non-sequitur.

To see whether or not these men "changed" God's revelation to them, we would look for indicators or evidence of such amendments beyond mere copyist mistakes of say, a missing punctuation mark or or a left out letter in a word. Is there evidence that the men moved by God to record His revealed will changed what He communicated to them in a way that would affect even one essential doctrine of Christianity?

What does the evidence show? Let us look:

All ancient books in existence have survived only as copies of copies, yet the number, quality and age of the New Testament manuscripts is far superior to that of any other ancient work. F.F. Bruce concluded that 'there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.'[16]

Even Homer's Iliad, one of the most famous works of ancient literature, has survived in just 643 manuscripts (ie. handwritten copies from before the advent of the printing press), the earliest of which dates from hundreds of years after its original composition. This situation is far better than for most ancient works, the basic integrity of which is not usually questioned. Yet the New Testament has survived in over 24,000 manuscripts, including lectionaries and early translations.

New Testament manuscripts have survived from at least the early second century onwards (eg. the John Rylands fragment of John 18:31, 33, 37, 38 in Manchester). This is a far smaller time gap from composition to first extant manuscript than any other ancient work.[17] Later New Testament manuscripts can be easily viewed, such as the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) in the British Library.

Turning to the Old Testament (Old Testament), the situation is not quite the same, largely due to the greater age of the books concerned. Still, there are hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts surviving, and these again compare extremely favourably with those surviving from other works of the same period. The Jewish scribes (Masoretes) responsible for faithfully transmitting the texts turned their job into an art form, devising complex, multi-layered checks for ensuring that no mistakes had crept in, such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet appears in each book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fascinating witness to the authenticity of the Old Testament text. Prior to their discovery in 1947, the oldest complete Old Testament texts dated from around AD 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around a century or so before the time of Christ and include many Old Testament manuscripts. The book of Isaiah was found amongst the scrolls and 'proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.'[18]

It is worth knowing something about the kinds of variant readings found in manuscripts of the Bible. Virtually all manuscripts contain variants, as happens whenever long passages are copied out by hand. This should not worry us. The biblical text that we have to defend is that of the original autograph, not later copies, as it was the authors that were inspired, not the copyists. Manuscripts are valuable in that they help to show us what the text of the original autographs was.

The vast majority of variants are variations in spelling and grammar that have no bearing on the meaning. Others are obvious slips of the pen, with one letter mistaken for another, or lines and phrases inadvertently missed out or repeated. Occasionally variants do change the meaning of the text and there are rare examples of a deliberate change, (such as harmonising the wording in two similar passages). Again, we should not be worried by the existence of these variants. There are a comparatively small number that change the meaning of the text and in virtually every case the original reading can be determined by comparing manuscripts together, a process known as textual criticism.[19] Bruce Metzger, one of the world's leading authorities on New Testament textual criticism, states that not one doctrine of the church is in jeopardy because of a variant reading in the New Testament. http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-r...-testament




What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-t...6WHJPldWjo

Thanks for your horseshit ! I will print this post and clean my ass with it. This is toilet paper material.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. You said "talking about atheism". You're not.

Time for you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

And if you supply one which is not, your statement is shown to be a lie.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-06-2014, 09:48 AM
Re: RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. You said "talking about atheism". You're not.

Time for you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

A tiny percentage of posts speaking of sometbing does not entail what you are speaking about.

You're ignorance is shockingly unlimited or you're impressively disingenuous.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
21-06-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 08:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 07:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am not talking about atheism?

Are you sure about that?

Because if I supply at least one post in which I have talked about atheism, your statement is shown to be false.

And if you supply one which is not, your statement is shown to be a lie.

lol....

I said I was here talking with atheists about atheism which is a true statement. I never said I was talking only with atheists or only about atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: