Quote (sylvannos @ Mar 31 2013 09:50am)
I think you haven't seen anyone refute it because no refutations have been posted in size 798, bold, multicolored font.
vs
Quote (poulgaragr @ Mar 31 2013 08:49am)
I ask again: what drugs are you on?
Edit: And what does this have anything to do with the subject of this thread?
REMINDER:
Here's a quick summary of what christians think about the Bible:
"We believe that the Bible is the ultimate, perfect, unchanged word of God himself, revealed unto 40 writers, and, even though it has countless contradictions, and keeps on changing, we can STILL trust it, and follow it and its doctrines"
The problem with such a statement hardly needs exposing: if a text has been corrupt over time, and you no longer know what the original manuscripts say - due to the fact that you do not HAVE the originals - , then you can reasonably argue that your faith is based on other people's OPINIONS, and what their PERSONAL OPINIONS wrote by the passing of time!
A quick example of Bible corruption:
****************************
Another fabrication which was thrown out is the only verse that resembles the Trinity, from the 1st epistle of John, Chapter 5, verse 7, which says: “For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” / 1 John 5:7, Douay/Rheims Catholic Bible, King James Version.
But this is not in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible! Isn't the RSV the Word of God? In that Bible it's not there! Why is it not there? It's not there because the 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating church denominations, saw that this is another fabrication; another interpolation, so they also threw it out!
And we are not discussing just one word been thrown out! There are lots more! There are whole chunks and even chapters of this kind of discrepancies! And if you need to learn about something, you must go to the experts. So, if you want to know something about the Bible, you go to the Bible experts, and they are telling you that this is a fabrication!
The ascension from Mark 16:19, is not in my RSV Bible! I open up Mark Chapter 16, and I see that it ends at verse 8! 9-20 is missing! Did I take it out? Did any Muslim take it out? No!
32 scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating church denominations, they saw it fit, that this is another fabrication imposed upon Christendom, and they also threw it out! It's not in my RSV Bible; therefore it is not the word of God!
If the RSV is the Word of God, then the KJV is not the Word of God. But (!), I pick up another Bible (another RSV, printed in 1971), and I see it back again! It's inside! The ascension is only mentioned in 2 places in the Gospels (Mark 16:19, and Luke 24:51), however, ironically, when Jesus rode the donkey into Jerusalem, all 4 Gospel writers mention it! (Matthew 21:7; Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14). A lesser happening was not missed out by any of the 4 Gospel writers, but the ascension was only mentioned by 2! And again they are fabrications! What was thrown out was put back in again! Because when I look into the 1971 RSV Bible, which was printed by the same printers, in the same publishing house, I see that it is there again!
In the preface, we read the following:
“Two passages, the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) and the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), are restored to the text,” (RSV 1971 preface)
By who’s authority? Once again, the 1971 RSV preface gives us the answer:
“Many proposals for modification were submitted to the Committee by individuals and by two denominational committees.”
Furthermore, the 1946 RSV preface also says:
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.”
****************************
Source: "Comparative Religion: What you should really know about the Scriptures, Chapter 3, section 2, pages 55-56
I have YET to see anyone refute this argument. And believe me: no-one will ever, because it is the (sad) truth about the BibleHow about the fact that making fun of my font has nothing to do with the fact that you CAN'T EVER REFUTE ME???